Is the AMCA a pipe dream that will become a dead Albatross?

[srin]

I can sympathize with the twin seat requirement. If the pilots are on a strike mission of a 6-7 hours and flying at low level and in formation most of the time, I guess it can get really fatiguing for the pilots. Tired pilots make mistakes. So it would be nice - perhaps necessary - if someone in the backseat can take over for a while.
We didn't have this problem when the only deep strike aircraft we had were Jaguars. After we understood the capabilities of the Sukhois, the IAF has been enamoured of this option.

Though why it is a requirement for AMCA and why they aren't buying only twinseat Rafales (which are of same class and perhaps same uses) isn't something I understand.

srin, looking at the geopolitical scenario around India, under what circumstances do you think the IAF would be required to do 6-8 hour combat sorties?

The US did them regularly in various conflicts. The UK did them with Vulcans for the Falklands. The need for such long missions for IAF could be to hit parts of China or over the Indian ocean - but that is a niche role that can be played by one or two dedicated squadrons. An extra pilot carries a huge weight and range penalty for any combat aircraft.

If that role is so important it is better for us to invest in a long range bomber rather than a half hearted two seat multirole fighter.

Absolutely - no question about that. It was just thinking on why they wanted two-seater FGFA and despite all avionics improvements, pilot load may not reduced drastically.

And I wanted us to have bombers - I'm especially in love with the concept of a 747 having the 72 cruise missiles.

And I don't get why they want all this for AMCA, when obviously they didn't don't have pure two-seater Raffy.

[ramana]

Shiv and Srin, India wants to be in top 3 countries. If it means AMCA/VMCA so be it.
Problem is this vision is not with some of the forces.

IN gets it. IAF and IA need to get on board.

Of 25 critical technologies as deemed by US, other countries work on 2-5 of them.
India is only country working on ~ 20 of them.*
Yes its lonely and hard road.


* AIAA book circa 1990 decade gives the breakdown every decade.
India a Middle Power Sandy Gordon

[shiv]

Shiv and Srin, India wants to be in top 3 countries. If it means AMCA/VMCA so be it.
Problem is this vision is not with some of the forces.

ramana I am going to quibble with this.

As I see it the road to becoming top dog is by developing capabilities that we need in order to defeat those who oppose our goals.

The worry I have about AMCA is that this entire business of stealth and supercruise - especially all aspect stealth has been led by American requirements based on their experiences in their wars. Stealth and supercruise are interlinked. Supercruise is at high altitude where the aircraft are most susceptible to radar detection. Hence stealth become essential. Both are needed for long range missions. The only long range missions over dangerous territory (not sea) for India would be over China

Of what use is a stealthy AMCA that carries a mere 2.5 tons internally and a range of 1000 km in attacking China?

What is the exact reason for planning an AMCA other than as a technology development endeavour? ("science project"). The problem is for actual punishment of an enemy we will still require a regular 4 gen arsenal and maybe UCAVs. What are we doing to develop a Rafale/F/A 18 type capability perhaps with stealth features and great avionics?

The AMCA looks like a dangerous if engaging scientific experiment. It can never be a deadly kill-all fighter, given its specs. And if they cannot meet timelines we are in for more agony.

[shiv]

And I don't get why they want all this for AMCA, when obviously they didn't don't have pure two-seater Raffy.

OT here. In the old days pilot workload meant navigation with pencil and map and watch, while watching fuel gauge and airspeed and altitude and engine parameters while keeping a lookout for pals and foes, sometimes in the dark while flying at 50 feet altitude.

I think the LCA itself has reduced pilot workload on most of these issues allowing the pilot to concentrate on his job of attacking - so yes while 2 pilots are useful I would also look at the comments of LCA test pilots who say it is a dream to fly. Even with the MKI, both are not pilots. One is a weapons system operator.

In his MiG 21 article my late cousin Suresh had written that one of the problems in a MiG 21 is that while manoeuvring - say in air combat, it is possible to get the plane into a situation where it is about to stall, but the plane does not give any warning, like shaking or judder to alert the pilot of impending falling out of sky. So a newbie pilot can simply crash if he does not have the altitude to recover. So simply staying in the air safely is one more job for the pilot, let alone dogfighting. This kind of situation can be more or less prevented by Fly-by-Wire and FADEC - leading to "carefree handling" so the pilot meed not worry about such things and just do his job, knowing that the plane will stay on course and stay in the air while he does his job.

[Austin]

Shiv , Most of the words from Air Chief on AMCA has always been like its good but lets get with LCA first. So the success and support of AMCA rest on the shoulder of Tejas and more like Tejas Mk2.

Right now IAF is keen to get Tejas working as per its requirement and is not really focusing on AMCA telling ADA to deliver on Tejas first.

It boils down to how ADA manages IAF expectation on Tejas Mk2 program and MOD keeping a watch , if Mk2 meets IAF expectation and delivers on Time Line ADA promises ie 2023 then you will see IAF giving thumbs up to AMCA . Which is also a fair expectation from the IAF.

ADA as R&D agency will carry on some work on AMCA as you can see from the models presented in various AI but the money for FSED etc still have to come from MOD and likely it will co-incide with IAF expectation met on Tejas Mk2.

[Austin]

Stealth and supercruise are interlinked. Supercruise is at high altitude where the aircraft are most susceptible to radar detection. Hence stealth become essential. Both are needed for long range missions. The only long range missions over dangerous territory (not sea) for India would be over China

Thats not exactly true , while F-22 and PAK-FA are deisgned for Stealth and Supercruise , The JSF is stealthy but supercruise is not its requirement. Same goes for F-117 or B-2.

The Chinese requirement is unknown but atleast both types J-21 and J-20 are stealthy but do they have supercruise we dont know yet. Similarly the AMCA requirement is to be stealth and supercruise.

In any case aircraft like Eurofighter could supercruise but were not stealthy.

[shiv]

Stealth and supercruise are interlinked. Supercruise is at high altitude where the aircraft are most susceptible to radar detection. Hence stealth become essential. Both are needed for long range missions. The only long range missions over dangerous territory (not sea) for India would be over China

Thats not exactly true , while F-22 and PAK-FA are deisgned for Stealth and Supercruise , The JSF is stealthy but supercruise is not its requirement. Same goes for F-117 or B-2.

The Chinese requirement is unknown but atleast both types J-21 and J-20 are stealthy but do they have supercruise we dont know yet. Similarly the AMCA requirement is to be stealth and supercruise.

In any case aircraft like Eurofighter could supercruise but were not stealthy.

Fine. Then why is supercruise a requirement for AMCA?

[srin]

Shiv and Srin, India wants to be in top 3 countries. If it means AMCA/VMCA so be it.
Problem is this vision is not with some of the forces.

IN gets it. IAF and IA need to get on board.

Of 25 critical technologies as deemed by US, other countries work on 2-5 of them.
India is only country working on ~ 20 of them.*
Yes its lonely and hard road.


* AIAA book circa 1990 decade gives the breakdown every decade.
India a Middle Power Sandy Gordon

No sir, I respectfully disagree.

Project Management basics: "good, cheap, fast - pick any two". But no, we want to have an F-22++ stealthy airplane (I've also seen fly-by-light as a requirement) on a shoestring budget (where we have to windtunnel testing abroad) and in the next 10 years. Impossible. For IAF to ask for unobtainium is irresponsible. For ADA to accept IAF requirements of unobtainium is irresponsible.

More to the point: we don't understand R&D. We don't understand basic science research. We don't have patience to wait. We don't deal with failures constructively - the customer (IAF) will crib/whine about the failures, while the developers will sweep it under the rug while giving another optimistic timeline.

Everybody is happy if AMCA fails - IAF can purchase a new toy (F-35 maybe) while ADA gets their science projects without deadlines. We all lose.

[Austin]

Fine. Then why is supercruise a requirement for AMCA?

Well All Good Question Sir but only ADA and IAF can answer.

Could be just the IAF ASR giri or just that ADA is proposing it to be that way or a combination of both.

The AMCA can still be supersonic ~ M 1.8 as it top speed but can afford to be subsonic in its cruise.

Developing a supercruise say that cruises supersonicly at Mach 1,6 without AB would have cascading effect on developing indiginous engine as it would mean the engine would end up having higher thrust without AB and be fuel effecient , not to mention the structural impact on flying sustained supersonically would mean extensive use of titanium alloys at critical points which would have its effect on weight.

The top speed of PAK-FA was reduced for the same reason to ~ M 2.1 from original specs of M 2.5+ plus for the same reason that it would mean use of metal alloys that would add it its weight.

Even most of the UCAV under development today are subsonic.

In the end the designer has to juggle between ASR what can be developed with available technologies that can meet the ASR some give and take.

[srin]

And I don't get why they want all this for AMCA, when obviously they didn't don't have pure two-seater Raffy.

OT here. In the old days pilot workload meant navigation with pencil and map and watch, while watching fuel gauge and airspeed and altitude and engine parameters while keeping a lookout for pals and foes, sometimes in the dark while flying at 50 feet altitude.

Due to the proliferation of VHF radars, it is possible to detect even a super-stealthy AMCA flying at altitude. So, low-level strike missions are going to happen. A strike at 1500 km radius (deep into Uttar Arunachal Pradesh) would require lo-lo-lo the entire way (to hide between plateau features) and that's easily a 4 hour mission (lower with supercruise).

I think the LCA itself has reduced pilot workload on most of these issues allowing the pilot to concentrate on his job of attacking - so yes while 2 pilots are useful I would also look at the comments of LCA test pilots who say it is a dream to fly. Even with the MKI, both are not pilots. One is a weapons system operator.

I remember watching one of the Sukhoi videos (was it Rocky & Mayur ? I forget) where it said that even the WSO in Sukhoi is a pilot and the backseat has full flight controls to fly the Sukhoi.

In his MiG 21 article my late cousin Suresh had written that one of the problems in a MiG 21 is that while manoeuvring - say in air combat, it is possible to get the plane into a situation where it is about to stall, but the plane does not give any warning, like shaking or judder to alert the pilot of impending falling out of sky. So a newbie pilot can simply crash if he does not have the altitude to recover. So simply staying in the air safely is one more job for the pilot, let alone dogfighting. This kind of situation can be more or less prevented by Fly-by-Wire and FADEC - leading to "carefree handling" so the pilot meed not worry about such things and just do his job, knowing that the plane will stay on course and stay in the air while he does his job.

The objective is to ensure that a pilot is fresh and capable of handling emerging situations than focus on the routine. And a 4-hour mission at low altitude deep into enemy territory can be really fatiguing. It is more of need of autopilot than FBW and a terrain-following autopilot is really a must.

[shiv]

Due to the proliferation of VHF radars, it is possible to detect even a super-stealthy AMCA flying at altitude. So, low-level strike missions are going to happen. A strike at 1500 km radius (deep into Uttar Arunachal Pradesh) would require lo-lo-lo the entire way (to hide between plateau features) and that's easily a 4 hour mission (lower with supercruise).

<snip>

The objective is to ensure that a pilot is fresh and capable of handling emerging situations than focus on the routine. And a 4-hour mission at low altitude deep into enemy territory can be really fatiguing. It is more of need of autopilot than FBW and a terrain-following autopilot is really a must.

I would be happy to be pointed to one single reference that says that sustained supercruise is possible for long distances at less than 20.000 feet (7000 meters). The lower an aircraft flies the higher the air resistance and sustaining supercruise even if it is possible would be difficult. At mountaintop level, hugging valleys there will be no supercruise let alone at sea level

Supercruise is just that super-cruise. Long high and straight. Every half decent fighter can do low level supersonic flight for short periods with afterburner (till they run out of fuel)

The AMCA does not need supercruise. Why is it being demanded or planned?

[Austin]

Supercruise is just that super-cruise. Long high and straight. Every half decent fighter can do low level supersonic flight for short periods with afterburner (till they run out of fuel)

The AMCA does not need supercruise. Why is it being demanded or planned?

Shiv , Supercruise has its own advantage when it comes to engagement of targets , check the first para in the link , it explains that part

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Supercruise.html

The second advantage beyond target engagement is you can reach the target area much faster and egress too if you can supercruise ( ~ M 1.4-1.6 ) say compared to a fighter aircraft that would cruise at M 07-0.8

[srin]

Due to the proliferation of VHF radars, it is possible to detect even a super-stealthy AMCA flying at altitude. So, low-level strike missions are going to happen. A strike at 1500 km radius (deep into Uttar Arunachal Pradesh) would require lo-lo-lo the entire way (to hide between plateau features) and that's easily a 4 hour mission (lower with supercruise).

<snip>

The objective is to ensure that a pilot is fresh and capable of handling emerging situations than focus on the routine. And a 4-hour mission at low altitude deep into enemy territory can be really fatiguing. It is more of need of autopilot than FBW and a terrain-following autopilot is really a must.

I would be happy to be pointed to one single reference that says that sustained supercruise is possible for long distances at less than 20.000 feet (7000 meters). The lower an aircraft flies the higher the air resistance and sustaining supercruise even if it is possible would be difficult. At mountaintop level, hugging valleys there will be no supercruise let alone at sea level

Supercruise is just that super-cruise. Long high and straight. Every half decent fighter can do low level supersonic flight for short periods with afterburner (till they run out of fuel)

The AMCA does not need supercruise. Why is it being demanded or planned?

That's a non-sequitor. The discussion was about the two-seater planes and you haven't provided any datapoint regarding that.

[ShauryaT]

Due to the proliferation of VHF radars, it is possible to detect even a super-stealthy AMCA flying at altitude. So, low-level strike missions are going to happen. A strike at 1500 km radius (deep into Uttar Arunachal Pradesh) would require lo-lo-lo the entire way (to hide between plateau features) and that's easily a 4 hour mission (lower with supercruise).

Why would you undertake such a mission? What would a 2 ton load accomplish, even multiplied by 4 or 8 such aircrafts on a mission? Is it not less risky to hurl a few Agni's at that range? Presume Agni can be used for non-strategic use, for the 2nd Arty Corps of PLA will not make such distinctions.

The IAF justifies higher ranges in some ways. To be able to strike from deep and return on its own fuel. To be able to cover two fronts on a CAP mission. There are many advantages due to enhanced loitering time, higher payloads, higher speeds. But most SEAD missions would be within 500 KM range from border - probably stretching here. I do not think we have the heft or the capabilities to subdue China to be able to undertake deep CAS missions, unless PRC is imploding or exploding due to other causes. Missions for 1500 KM ranges from the border would mean striking at the Chengdu MR HQ. That is a political message not a military one. Rather we hurl a few vehicles reserved for delivery of roses to Beijing to send such a message. But, be ready for the consequences also in Pune and Bengaluru! If you really want to strike deep and hard, the IAF should acquire a handful of Blackjacks. The fact that they do not want to do so, belies any intentions to strike deep and strike hard.

[Philip]

We now have new timeframes for the LCA MK-2.Given those,and there is a huge amt. of work needed to ensure that Mk-2 arrives in toto as a fully developed aircraft ,meeting IAF specs,and ready for series production of a arte of at least 16/yr.it is going to be impossible for the limited human resource assets of the various DPSUs,labs,agencies,etc.,to develop in parallel an AMCA which will also require substantial costs.Prof.PD in Vayu has given a ball park figure that is serious money.5 years from now we will have had at least 2 years of MK-2 testing,giving us an indication of where the Mk-2 programme is heading. By that time,2020+,the FGFA dev/acquisition should also be arriving.

These 5 years should be spent in identifying/acquiring as many of the various tech/eqpt. which will feature on the AMCA,whose design and performance should be achievable,within one's grasp,not as far off as Jupiter when we've barely reached Mars! Leveraging the FGFA programme,LCA MK-2,etc., using results from them into the AMCA is essential,otherwise we will be repeating previous mistakes and have only to look at the JSF prog.,where $650B has already been spent to realize what we are taking on. Finally,and most importantly,as Shiv has pointed out,what is its role going to be? What weaponry will it carry? It is a weapon system of war and what bang will it deliver for the billions of bucks spent on developing it?

The issue here is primarily delivery of ordnance onto the enemy's bases and key mil. infrastructure,as well as his assets in the air and to a lesser extent on the sea. Other nations are realising that some of a strike fighter's tasks will be carried out using tactical SSMs,PGMs delivered by UCAVs,etc. The argument that a "bomb truck" can suffice in part instead of a "sports car",is being seriously debated by the militaries in the advanced mil nations.

Why would you undertake such a mission? What would a 2 ton load accomplish, even multiplied by 4 or 8 such aircrafts on a mission? Is it not less risky to hurl a few Agni's at that range? Presume Agni can be used for non-strategic use, for the 2nd Arty Corps of PLA will not make such distinctions.

The Chinese have a saying ,"hasten cautiously".It is a good mantra for the AMCA. They also have a saying,that "a Journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step".The "first step" of the AMCA is succeeding with the LCA Mk-2!

[shiv]

That's a non-sequitor. The discussion was about the two-seater planes and you haven't provided any datapoint regarding that.

Oh we are trying to score points are we? Sorry I didn't get that.

You think two pilots are needed for long flights so one can rest and a Foodie TV show told you that there are dual controls in the Su 30 MKI.

What long (4 plus hours) flights will be done for operational reasons by the AMCA? Could you speculate on how that might be achieved flying low and weaving around mountains? Would I be rude if I echoed your tone and said "You haven't provide any data point about that?"

[Viv S]

Fine. Then why is supercruise a requirement for AMCA?

Most likely to minimize the aircraft's IR signature when the tactical situation requires it to go supersonic.

[shiv]

Fine. Then why is supercruise a requirement for AMCA?

Most likely to minimize the aircraft's IR signature when the tactical situation requires it to go supersonic.

How would the IR signature be reduced when the plane has to suddenly accelerate to supersonic? There is no way that can happen. It can only increase during acceleration unless djinn power can be produced to accelerate the aircraft.

[shiv]

What is the proposed radius of action of the AMCA? 1000 km? Aircraft can fly furthest when they fly high. If they fly low the range comes down. Now let us suppose that the AMCA is going to be a super-plane that will be able to go go 1000 km at low level to attack a target with its two and a half bombs. The flying speed of military aircraft - even in the 1971 war was usually 500 knots or higher. 500 knots is 800 kmph. The AMCA is more likely to be doing 1000 kmph. So it is 1 hour to target, 15 minutes over target and 1 hour back. 2 and a half hours max.

How do you squeeze a 4 hour mission from such an aircraft? It must get refuelled midway.

So it flies at mountaintop level for 1 hour and then over Chinese territory it has to climb to 30,000 feet where an Indian refueller will be hanging about untouched by the Chinese and it gets a top up of fuel. Then it flies for a further 1 hour to go 2000 km deep into China and drops its two and a half bombs and turns around. Maybe it flies high and fast on the way back, but it will still need another top up unless it is a soosai mission. So another tanker will have to be circling over Chinese territory and the plane - doing a fast getaway now has to slow down and fly for 10 minutes with the tanker over Chinese territory and then zoom off to get back home.

Voila! We now have a 4 plus hour AMCA mission. This scenario will have at least one tanker and one AMCA shot down over China

Seriously?

[SaiK]

I'd draft requirement that will not focus on IR reduction when I can get to mach 2, but will focus on IR jammers like in the ef2k retractable jammer pods. I'd focus on TVC, required thrusts than IR emissions. This would be my ops requirement. but that does not mean a farting low performing engine.. pakfa still got long way to go on the emission and efficiency metrics.

the heat seekers have certain limits.. know that, we can work around threats.

[shiv]

I'd draft requirement that will not focus on IR reduction when I can get to mach 2, but will focus on IR jammers like in the ef2k retractable jammer pods. I'd focus on TVC, required thrusts than IR emissions. This would be my ops requirement.

The tail fins of the AMCA model do not appear to shade/veil the exhaust nozzles from the side which is the way IR is reduced by the J-31.

[Philip]

The answer is akin to why some backsides of simians are bright red in colour,to attract horny males. Thus the AMCa's non-supercruise req. appears to be similar,"sc*ew me if you can"!

Forget the AMCA for such above "soosai" missions as Shiv has pointed out.Simply acquire SU-34s,twin-seat tactical strike aircraft.I've been ranting like a prophet in the wilderness for aeons about the IAF's lack of LR bombing capability and "short-ranged,short-sightedness" to coin a phrase.The aircraft is supposed to even has a loo for pit stops. We already manufacture the basic Flanker,MKI versions,so what's the great difficulty in acquiring the SU-34s? They will be quite deadly against non-stealthy competition,esp. against the Chinese,whose own stealth birds have a lot of maturing to do and when they arrive will be used in the Asia-Pacific region against the US and its allies.The SU-34 is available right now,while the AMCA is 15 years into the future.

[SaiK]

some of the challenges to consider are:
- AIM 120 version to reach a-a target at near 100 nmi at mach 4 (active radar) / stealth skins, permeable skins with internal absorption - super stealth [with passive scan/track/ and lpi aesa [sporadic packet data]]
- python-5 electro-optical with infra homing - 25 km mach 3 - / a maws system can be engaged in a dog-fight, with a retractable jammer

[Austin]

There is hardly any Stealth Aircraft that can ever get around from being detected by Infrared seeker as the seeker is very sensitive and is cooled below the ambient temperature , there are enough heat source on the aircraft to escape detection. with IIR seeker its all the more difficult as it looks much beyond just the heat spot but images the entire target.

The disadvantage of IR/IIR seeker is in long range detection and it still needs radar to cue for the seeker to search in narrow band for its target for short range detection that might not be needed.

This is a good write up on IR guidance
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-IR-Guidance.html

[SaiK]

yes.. and the reason I am saying IR seekers are on ops only during WVR.

and when you are that close.. it does not matter, you lost it long ago.

now, the only option is how much you can speed up for that infra-homing range. and my chaffe/flares/jammers are all that comes for my rescue.

[srin]

That's a non-sequitor. The discussion was about the two-seater planes and you haven't provided any datapoint regarding that.

Oh we are trying to score points are we? Sorry I didn't get that

No scoring points. Correcting comprehension issues. You've found it fit to attribute a statement as coming from me despite having refuted it.

You think two pilots are needed for long flights so one can rest and a Foodie TV show told you that there are dual controls in the Su 30 MKI.

Descending to ad hominem, are we ? http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/info-su30mki.html

What long (4 plus hours) flights will be done for operational reasons by the AMCA? Could you speculate on how that might be achieved flying low and weaving around mountains?

Ahh - the comprehension problem ...
This is what I said ...

Though why it is a requirement for AMCA and why they aren't buying only twinseat Rafales (which are of same class and perhaps same uses) isn't something I understand.

and said again ...

And I don't get why they want all this for AMCA, when obviously they didn't don't have pure two-seater Raffy.

Yet you conclude with

Would I be rude if I echoed your tone and said "You haven't provide any data point about that?"

Yes. You need to show where I said I support this requirement for AMCA and also refute the info I've provided above that Sukhoi can't be flow from rear-seat (or that IAF has never actually done that outside of training mission).

[srin]

Due to the proliferation of VHF radars, it is possible to detect even a super-stealthy AMCA flying at altitude. So, low-level strike missions are going to happen. A strike at 1500 km radius (deep into Uttar Arunachal Pradesh) would require lo-lo-lo the entire way (to hide between plateau features) and that's easily a 4 hour mission (lower with supercruise).

Why would you undertake such a mission? What would a 2 ton load accomplish, even multiplied by 4 or 8 such aircrafts on a mission? Is it not less risky to hurl a few Agni's at that range? Presume Agni can be used for non-strategic use, for the 2nd Arty Corps of PLA will not make such distinctions.

The IAF justifies higher ranges in some ways. To be able to strike from deep and return on its own fuel. To be able to cover two fronts on a CAP mission. There are many advantages due to enhanced loitering time, higher payloads, higher speeds. But most SEAD missions would be within 500 KM range from border - probably stretching here. I do not think we have the heft or the capabilities to subdue China to be able to undertake deep CAS missions, unless PRC is imploding or exploding due to other causes. Missions for 1500 KM ranges from the border would mean striking at the Chengdu MR HQ. That is a political message not a military one. Rather we hurl a few vehicles reserved for delivery of roses to Beijing to send such a message. But, be ready for the consequences also in Pune and Bengaluru! If you really want to strike deep and hard, the IAF should acquire a handful of Blackjacks. The fact that they do not want to do so, belies any intentions to strike deep and strike hard.

Or you want to attack Gwadar from aircraft flying off south of Jamnagar and staying away from the coast and flying very low. Rough estimate that Google Earth provides is 1400km radius. Sukhois can do that today.

But I agree - better to use bombers. Not Blackjacks which are potential hangar queens, but a civilian-converted one that can carry 50 cruise missiles each and launch them from standoff range

[shiv]

Ahh - the comprehension problem ...
This is what I said ...

Though why it is a requirement for AMCA and why they aren't buying only twinseat Rafales (which are of same class and perhaps same uses) isn't something I understand.

and said again ...

And I don't get why they want all this for AMCA, when obviously they didn't don't have pure two-seater Raffy.

Yet you conclude with

Would I be rude if I echoed your tone and said "You haven't provide any data point about that?"

Yes. You need to show where I said I support this requirement for AMCA and also refute the info I've provided above that Sukhoi can't be flow from rear-seat (or that IAF has never actually done that outside of training mission).

My sincere apologies, but please allow me to point out that a comprehension problem works two ways and you have not comprehended what I have been saying any more that I did yours. I was distracted by your idea that two pilots are needed so that one can rest during long missions. That is a digression from the topic of the AMCA apart from involving several comprehension issues on your part

1. I know of no demand to make AMCA a two seater
2. Two seat aircraft normally have dual controls but the reason is not for "rest for one pilot in long missions"
3. Long missions are a niche role for IAF and 4 hour plus mission over Tibet will be impossible for an AMCA class aircraft because of refuelling requirements
4. The role of the second pilot in a two seater is not to keep one pilot fresh at one time in long missions

Here is what you said - a completely mythical unsupportable and unexplained scenario which you have conjured up.

So, low-level strike missions are going to happen. A strike at 1500 km radius (deep into Uttar Arunachal Pradesh) would require lo-lo-lo the entire way (to hide between plateau features) and that's easily a 4 hour mission (lower with supercruise).

How is this "easily a four hour mission" on an AMCA? You have conjured up a fantasy mission to suit your views. If you are talking about Su-30 what was that little bit about "lower with supercruise". What supercruise? And please tell me which aircraft is capable of supercruise in a lo lo lo mission. Would you be able to point me to ANY information that suggests that the Su 30 MKIs 1500 km strike range and ability to fly for 4 hours can be done in a lo-lo-lo mission without refuelling?

Here is something else that you said as a digression which I did not argue about because it would have been a needless digression, but will point out here since comprehension is becoming a contentious issue: You said, in response to my post about FBW, FADEC and carefree handling

The objective is to ensure that a pilot is fresh and capable of handling emerging situations than focus on the routine. And a 4-hour mission at low altitude deep into enemy territory can be really fatiguing.

Sorry. This is nonsense. The objective of reduced pilot load with FBW, carefree handling and FADEC is NOT to keep a pilot fresh but to reduce his workload that so he is not overwhelmed by multiple tasks which can force errors even when a pilot is fresh out of bed and after breakfast. Freshness is not the objective. And once again you have repeated this magical 4 hour mission at low altitude deep into enemy territory? Please explain that. How would that be achieved without refuelling by an AMCA? What aircraft would do it? What has that got to do with the AMCA ?

[shiv]

There seem to be some myths crawling out of the woodwork here. I will restrict myself to what is relevant to AMCA here and not bring up other stuff unless the issue is forced on me
Myth 1. Supercruise is possible in low level terrain hugging missions
Myth 2. Supercruise is needed for "escape" from tricky combat situations

Supercruise means supersonic (more than speed of sound) flight without the continuous use of gas wasting afterburners.

Supercruise is a high altitude affair. The US, isolated as it is from its traditional enemies and burdened by the logistics of faraway bases has deemed fit to design planes that can fly high and fast over ocean and friendly countries to conduct attack missions against its enemies. India has no equivalent requirement.

Supercruise is not an emergency getaway mechanism. The acceleration for an emergency getaway was always and still is full power - which means gas guzzling afterburner where available. If the high speed is to be maintained for a long time then supercruise can be an option at high altitude. Supercruise is not an emergency combat manoeuvre.

Coming back to AMCA - why does AMCA need supercruise? What sort of effective long range mission could be done with a plane that carries just 2.5 of munitions internally?

[shiv]

Or you want to attack Gwadar from aircraft flying off south of Jamnagar and staying away from the coast and flying very low. Rough estimate that Google Earth provides is 1400km radius. Sukhois can do that today.

I ask again.

Do you have any information that the Su-30s 1500 km strike range is achievable with a full load of bombs in a lo-lo-lo mission without refuelling? Or even a lo-lo-hi mission? Source please?

[shiv]

The second advantage beyond target engagement is you can reach the target area much faster and egress too if you can supercruise ( ~ M 1.4-1.6 ) say compared to a fighter aircraft that would cruise at M 07-0.8

Austin, unfortunately the words ingress and egress are imprecisely defined. Carlo Kopp is not talking about a specific Indian requirement.

Supercruise is not about dogfighting, but flying in, releasing munitions and flying out. It is American combat scenarios that are best suited for supercruise. The US conducts long range missions over sea or over territory that is either already protected by top cover or over non hostile terrain so supercruise is fine for some attack aircraft in the American war requirement scenario.

What sort of supercruising mission would be useful and feasible for India? Other than over water - a niche role for IAF there is no long distance high altitude flying in and out that is necessary for Pakistan, or feasible against China.

[member_28442]

Or you want to attack Gwadar from aircraft flying off south of Jamnagar and staying away from the coast and flying very low. Rough estimate that Google Earth provides is 1400km radius. Sukhois can do that today.

i am not an expert by any stretch of imagination, but i always thought that the idea of flying low was to use the terrain to hide from radar

besides, id much rather IN take care of coastal cities like gwadar, karachi etc.
personally i think we shouldnt try to reinvent the wheel here, just follow the basics that merica does - use navy for coastal targets and missiles for interior targets

ps: by navy i also include ship and sub lauched missiles along with naval planes

[shiv]

i am not an expert by any stretch of imagination, but i always thought that the idea of flying low was to use the terrain to hide from radar

Absolutely right. That advantage is somewhat negated over the sea because of lack of terrain features. But it could be argued that the curvature of the earth itself is useful to hide low flying objects. But over the sea an AWACS would spot a low flyer easily because of lack of clutter due to land features. The other problem about low level flight is high fuel consumption. The longest ranges come at high altitude and the need to go in low reduces range.

If one has to fly low over the sea and refuel it is totally pointless because one has to climb to over 20,000 feet for refuelling.

The American idea of coming in over the sea very high and very fast and undetected/very stealthy (supercruising 5th gen) is a good one - but it suits America's wars more than India.

[Viv S]

Most likely to minimize the aircraft's IR signature when the tactical situation requires it to go supersonic.

How would the IR signature be reduced when the plane has to suddenly accelerate to supersonic? There is no way that can happen. It can only increase during acceleration unless djinn power can be produced to accelerate the aircraft.

The aircraft will be able to both clear the sonic hump and sustain supersonic speeds on military thrust. Thus, giving it a substantially lower IR signature.

[Austin]

Austin, unfortunately the words ingress and egress are imprecisely defined. Carlo Kopp is not talking about a specific Indian requirement.

Supercruise is not about dogfighting, but flying in, releasing munitions and flying out. It is American combat scenarios that are best suited for supercruise. The US conducts long range missions over sea or over territory that is either already protected by top cover or over non hostile terrain so supercruise is fine for some attack aircraft in the American war requirement scenario.

CK is talking about general advantage of SC capability , like the geometry of engagement favours who has more energy if used rightly .. after all even missile uses the same sort of requirement i.e energy to put itself into optimum position called NEZ this is just kinetemics part , not really the sensor capability etc and Aircraft uses the same kind of capability to get over kinemetic of the missile to increase it own chance of survival

What sort of supercruising mission would be useful and feasible for India? Other than over water - a niche role for IAF there is no long distance high altitude flying in and out that is necessary for Pakistan, or feasible against China.

This is a more valid question , Do we need supercruise ..... The disadvantage of SC is high stress on structure of aircraft as they would fly supersonically ( A subsonic aircraft structurally last much longer then a supersonic one due to less wear and tear ) , the other is build a design that optimal of SC perhaps compromising on its Subsonic capability , not to mention the heart which is engine that eventually we may want to build to have those capability that would be a tall ask for us who have never built any successful engine that flies on operational aircraft.

Alternatives to SC

1 ) More stress on LO so compensate for subsonic speed to delay detection
2 ) Higher stress on subsonic Loitering capability over high sustained supersonic dash , which means you need an engine which consumes much less fuel when its subsonic
3 ) longer structural life for the aircraft

[shiv]

The aircraft will be able to both clear the sonic hump and sustain supersonic speeds on military thrust. Thus, giving it a substantially lower IR signature.

Right now what you refer to as "the aircraft" is a mythical aircraft and I am worried that the AMCA too is heading in that direction given the degree of casualness with which people speak of non existing technologies and capabilities. Reminds me of the recently cancelled djinn gun tender that he army asked for which no one can make.

[shiv]

1 ) More stress on LO so compensate for subsonic speed to delay detection
2 ) Higher stress on subsonic Loitering capability over high sustained supersonic dash , which means you need an engine which consumes much less fuel when its subsonic
3 ) longer structural life for the aircraft

Absolutely.

Given that we are currently close to zero on engines, what you say is definitely more likely to be achieved than the addition of supercruise and thrust vectoring to the requirements.

There are additional issues regarding supercruise which will not be known, realized or come up for remedy until after a plane is built and mated with a suitable engine. that is making the body finish as fine as possible to offer the least possible areas of resistance all over the skin surface. These issues are not insurmountable but they can lead to program delays just like the LCA was delayed and the IJT is delayed by niggling issues. This could mean the difference between a 15 year AMCA project and a 30 year science project

[saumitra_j]

Shiv Sir,

I am surprised that one of the fundamental issue which you had pointed out right at the start is not being debated at all in all this talk of super cruise/thrust vectoring and what not - i.e. complete lack of resources and that includes trained manpower.

Folks seem to forget how the LCA program was messed with when HAL decided to move resources to IJT with the result that IJT is unusable and LCA got delayed and was almost on the brink. Unless LCA (Mk1, 1.5, 2 what ever) is inducted in LARGE numbers, is in service and a happy IAF to support it, AMCA is a sure shot way of doing another IJT on the program! We have meagre resources, despite the funds - we need to get our act together on the engine before we venture into our next program - already the meagre resources are being pulled into FGFA, AMCA, even while the LCA is not complete to user satisfaction! The second important point: Where is the alternative manufacturing company to support parallel production of modern aircrafts? We have only HAL at the moment.....who will produce the AMCA? and the FGFA, LCA mk2 and support existing MKI? and the various helicopters...and the MTA....

I still feel that AMCA is an absolute waste of resources unless we finish LCA to user satisfaction and develop our own aero engine .... otherwise it is either a pipe dream or tax payer's money about to be wasted on a high profile science project!

[srin]

My sincere apologies, but please allow me to point out that a comprehension problem works two ways and you have not comprehended what I have been saying any more that I did yours. I was distracted by your idea that two pilots are needed so that one can rest during long missions.

That's funny - incidentally, that guess was the thrust of my argument.

That is a digression from the topic of the AMCA apart from involving several comprehension issues on your part

1. I know of no demand to make AMCA a two seater
2. Two seat aircraft normally have dual controls but the reason is not for "rest for one pilot in long missions"
3. Long missions are a niche role for IAF and 4 hour plus mission over Tibet will be impossible for an AMCA class aircraft because of refuelling requirements
4. The role of the second pilot in a two seater is not to keep one pilot fresh at one time in long missions

Given that I haven't supported the case for a two-seater AMCA, then we're in agreement. As to why IAF *might* want a two-seater aircraft - I offered a guess, which to me looks better than any other argument so far. If you disagree, then so be it.

Here is what you said - a completely mythical unsupportable and unexplained scenario which you have conjured up.

So, low-level strike missions are going to happen. A strike at 1500 km radius (deep into Uttar Arunachal Pradesh) would require lo-lo-lo the entire way (to hide between plateau features) and that's easily a 4 hour mission (lower with supercruise).

How is this "easily a four hour mission" on an AMCA?

That's where your comprehension problems come forth. Show me where I said it is for AMCA ?

You have conjured up a fantasy mission to suit your views. If you are talking about Su-30 what was that little bit about "lower with supercruise". What supercruise? And please tell me which aircraft is capable of supercruise in a lo lo lo mission.

And are you saying that IAF shouldn't even attempt such a mission, because it is "fantasy" in your views ?
Again - did I say it was for Su-30 ? My calculation was on time & distance and I meant the time of flight would be shorter if it had supercruise. Again - you put words in my mouth and went off on a tangent.That is the digression.

Would you be able to point me to ANY information that suggests that the Su 30 MKIs 1500 km strike range and ability to fly for 4 hours can be done in a lo-lo-lo mission without refuelling?

I don't know if Sukhoi can or cannot do it. Given no info to the contrary, I think it *might* be able to. Nor do I know if a future FGFA can or cannot do it.

Here is something else that you said as a digression which I did not argue about because it would have been a needless digression, but will point out here since comprehension is becoming a contentious issue: You said, in response to my post about FBW, FADEC and carefree handling

The objective is to ensure that a pilot is fresh and capable of handling emerging situations than focus on the routine. And a 4-hour mission at low altitude deep into enemy territory can be really fatiguing.

Sorry. This is nonsense. The objective of reduced pilot load with FBW, carefree handling and FADEC is NOT to keep a pilot fresh but to reduce his workload that so he is not overwhelmed by multiple tasks which can force errors even when a pilot is fresh out of bed and after breakfast. Freshness is not the objective. And once again you have repeated this magical 4 hour mission at low altitude deep into enemy territory? Please explain that. How would that be achieved without refuelling by an AMCA? What aircraft would do it? What has that got to do with the AMCA ?

If you have the datapoint that the pilots don't have fatigue or that it isn't a concern to IAF, then please provide it. Else let's agree to disagree. Your opinion vs mine.

[Vivek K]

My two cents - the IAF demands that Indian products be ready in all respects before induction. I think the Eurofighter or the Rafale came into service without one of the modes A2A or A2G being fully operational. No way is the IAF that visionary or it seems (from their actions) competent to understand the potential of a domestic weapon system. Based on that I would agree with Hakim ji's thread that AMCA is intellectual masturbation - a fancy term for a fantasy. Like it or not, LCA is the next gen Marut and this will be the end of line for domestic aerospace.

India may go in for pvt screwdriver turners from HAL/DRDO screwdriver turners. This will deflect attention from the lack of innovation or domestic development. And India will remain an impotent power, incapable of any real threat or power projections. The powers that be have strong allies in the armed forces that have proven themselves to be very capable of nipping local MIC in the bud very effectively.