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

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 07 Jul 2015 16:20

I see folks here are all quoting (from brochures) max wet thrust figures when "supercruise" itself is a mandatory requirement - pls note both are completely contradictory.
Supercruise capability is best exploited if we have a high Dry-Thrust value but, at the same time, with a reasonably low dry-SFC values for those higher max dry-thrust levels. So having or not having super-duper wet thrust values are of little consequence, really.

You may want to refer to my series of posts in the AMCA thread (wrt Kaveri and AMCA) on this - suffice to say, achieving low SFC values for higher max-dry thrust values will be all about being able to develop and employ absolute cutting edge of turbofan tech (360deg).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jul 2015 16:28

French engine Snecma is the best bet for AMCA and with Rafale Purchase we can get lic prod for M88 variant.

Sorry to butt in, but the M88 is at 75Kn. While the EJ2000 is at 90Kn. EJ seems to have assured India that it can be uprated to 110.

The F414 is already at 116, beyond the 110 they are looking for. (Not to mention the size and weight, etc)

What the US has declined is ToT of certain manufacturing processes, they are fine with offering the engine (reportedly GE is thrilled at around 1400 engines just for the AMCA).

What we do not know is if EJ will allow the ToT of what India is looking for.

Not sure, but I very much doubt the M88 is even in play. Too much to climb.

Finally, if the arg is that there would be commonality between the Rafale and the AMCA (which there will not be - not even close), that arg should hold even more true for the the F414. The LCA would need around 850 engines + the 1400 for the AMCA.

Sorry. Please continue.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jul 2015 16:34

NRao wrote:
French engine Snecma is the best bet for AMCA and with Rafale Purchase we can get lic prod for M88 variant.
Sorry to butt in, but the M88 is at 75Kn. While the EJ2000 is at 90Kn. EJ seems to have assured India that it can be uprated to 110.

The F414 is already at 116, beyond the 110 they are looking for. (Not to mention the size and weight, etc)

What the US has declined is ToT of certain manufacturing processes, they are fine with offering the engine (reportedly GE is thrilled at around 1400 engines just for the AMCA).

What we do not know is if EJ will allow the ToT of what India is looking for.

Not sure, but I very much doubt the M88 is even in play. Too much to climb.

Finally, if the art is that there would be commonality between the Rafale and the AMCA (which there will not be - not even close), that art should hold even more true for the the F414. The LCA would need around 850 engines + the 1400 for the AMCA.

Sorry. Please continue.

Right now it does not matter , As its international Tender , so what India Asks and what each vendor can offer or not will decide the fate plus the cost.

TOT is very critical part for this and it would depend what the tender states on TOT , What ever they offered for GE as ToT did not make them happy so the tender

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jul 2015 17:29

X-Posting as a FYI and perhaps more pertinent to this thread:

NRao wrote:Moving along .............

From Tejas to AMCA

This fortnight the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which is responsible for the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) project, will brief its new boss on a project that will shape the future of the Indian Air Force (IAF) --- the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), an indigenous “fifth-generation” (Gen-5) fighter more advanced than anything on the IAF’s inventory. After briefing Dr S Christopher, the new Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) chief who is also ex-officio director-general of ADA, the AMCA proposal will be taken to Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, who has specifically asked for a briefing. After Mr Parrikar’s green light, the DRDO will seek $4 billion (currently Rs 25,000 crore, but this would fluctuate with the rupee) to design and develop the AMCA, build and test-fly prototypes, and give the IAF a Gen-5 fighter within 15 years.

Knowledgeable insiders say the AMCA will be a single-pilot, twin-engine, medium (20-25 tonnes) fighter with a highly stealthy design. This would be invaluable in the first days of a major war for targeting enemy war-waging infrastructure -- roads, railways, airfields, radars, headquarters and depots --- when conventional, non-stealthy fighters would be detected by the enemy’s air defence radars and shot down by fighters, missiles and guns. In such a “dense air defence environment”, stealth fighters would be able to degrade the enemy’s air defences, opening the window for our non-stealthy fighters, like the Sukhoi-30MKI, to strike with large loads of externally mounted ordnance and fuel. Stealth is central for a Gen-5 fighter, and is achieved by shaping aircraft surfaces to scatter radar waves, using radar absorbent materials and paints, and using internal fuel tanks, sensors, antennae and weapons carriage and ordnance.

Alongside stealth, a Gen-5 fighter incorporates super-cruise (flying supersonic without an afterburner); super-manoeuvrability (with thrust vectoring engines and an unstable design); advanced avionics architecture and sensors that enhance the pilot-vehicle interface (allowing a single pilot to fly and fight the aircraft); and extended target detection and engagement ranges. In an ideal combat engagement, a Gen-5 fighter would detect an enemy fighter and fire his long-range missile well before the adversary’s radar detects the stealth aircraft.

“Ho-hum! ADA can never do this”, the import lobbyists will say --- self-appointed patriots who see no irony in their advocacy of expensive foreign weaponry at the expense of Indian R&D and defence industry. Their critique of the Tejas is well worn. Arguing (fallaciously) that the DRDO has taken 33 years to deliver the Tejas, they will (incorrectly) extrapolate that the more complex AMCA will take even longer! Their persistent allegations about the Tejas’ performance shortfalls are now being exposed. As flight-testing expanded the Tejas’ flight envelope, it became evident the LCA far outperforms the MiG-21BISON, the most advanced of the fighters it was built to replace, as well as any Pakistani fighter except the latest F-16 Block 50/52. The upcoming Tejas Mark II --- with a more powerful engine, upgraded avionics and better air-to-air missile --- could be built cheaply, overwhelming even more sophisticated opponents with numbers. This would requires Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) to galvanise its production line, but that is a management issue, not a delay-inducing technology challenge.

With the Tejas’ performance now demonstrated, critics have shifted their fire to delays in the project, a more credible complaint. Even so, it is false to date the start of the LCA project to 1983, as is commonly done; the project really began a decade later. In 1983, the LCA was allocated Rs 560 crore for “feasibility studies and project definition”, and for creating developmental infrastructure. Only in 1993 was development funding allocated (Rs 2,188 crore, including the Rs 560 crore allocated in 1983). This was for building two “technology demonstrators”, the first of which flew in 2001. Taking 1993 as the base year, the Tejas took just eight years to fly, and will have taken 23 years for “final operational certification” (FOC) which is anticipated by March 2016. This is comparable with international time lines for fighter aircraft development, including the Rafale and the F-35 Lightening II.

Encouragingly, the AMCA will enjoy an impetus the LCA never got, now that the IAF has thrown its weight and support behind the AMCA programme. While the IAF stood aloof from the LCA, participating only as a critic, it has joined hands with ADA in formulating the AMCA’s configuration, and is deputing pilots and engineers to work alongside ADA as it designs the fighter. It is unclear what is driving this dramatic change in the IAF’s approach to indigenization. It could be the realisation --- stemming from the Rafale fiasco --- that India simply cannot afford to import sizeable numbers of modern fighters. It could be the positive example of the navy, which has wisely steered the process of designing and building warships in India. Or, in an organisation that is shaped by the personality of the top man, it could just be that the current IAF chief favours indigenisation.

While the IAF will be praised if the AMCA meets its objectives, credit should really go to the unfairly vilified DRDO-HAL-ADA combine for leapfrogging three generations of technology in developing the fourth-generation Tejas fighter. In this process, the LCA project has catalysed an aerospace eco-structure, and a design experience that will be the essential springboard to the AMCA.

A range of fighter aircraft technologies is already mastered. These include: a sophisticated “unstable configuration” for extra agility; quadruplex digital flight control system; light composite materials for the aero-structures; glass cockpit with digital instrumentation; an environment control system with an on-board oxygen generating system (OBOGS); and advanced avionics that allow the pilot to switch quickly between air-to-air and air-to-ground roles. With much of these Gen-4 technologies currently being refined for the Tejas Mark II, the AMCA team can focus on the Gen-5 challenges.

In sum, the LCA project has created Indian design expertise, design tools and test facilities. It has allowed ADA to gain expertise in the processes of flight-testing and certification, and in prototype development. In designing, building and certifying the Tejas, ADA and the defence ministry have painstakingly woven together a countrywide network of technical and engineering institutions, laboratories and facilities. ADA calculates that 149 work centres in 28 cities have directly contributed to the LCA programme. These are now networked and available for the AMCA project. True, there are shortfalls, such as the fact that India has just one wind tunnel, essential for simulation studies in designing airframes and structures. Before the AMCA gets under way, ADA should holistically identify and make up such deficiencies as part of a national eco-system for future aerospace projects.

The IAF’s future lies in its own hands. At the recent Paris Air Show, the Pakistan Air Force displayed its new Sino-Pakistani fighter, the JF-17 Thunder. Countries like Myanmar and Sri Lanka were reportedly making purchase enquiries. While significantly inferior to the Tejas in technologies and performance, the JF-17 was better in one crucial respect --- it was steadfastly supported by its home air force. Perhaps the IAF could draw a lesson from that.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Jul 2015 17:44

maitya wrote:I see folks here are all quoting (from brochures) max wet thrust figures when "supercruise" itself is a mandatory requirement - pls note both are completely contradictory.
Supercruise capability is best exploited if we have a high Dry-Thrust value but, at the same time, with a reasonably low dry-SFC values for those higher max dry-thrust levels. So having or not having super-duper wet thrust values are of little consequence, really.

You may want to refer to my series of posts in the AMCA thread (wrt Kaveri and AMCA) on this - suffice to say, achieving low SFC values for higher max-dry thrust values will be all about being able to develop and employ absolute cutting edge of turbofan tech (360deg).

I think the play around wet thrust is there because that was something publicly stated as a requirement and was reported by the media. To the best of my knowledge no dry thrust threshold has been publicly reported but you are of course correct, for supercruise, dry thrust and sfc at that is important. Wet thrust is obviously important for the full envelope from speed to maneuverability requirements.

The AMCA if indeed a medium sized stealth fighter is going to be around the 28-32,000 pounds empty weight. The JSF weighs nearly 30,000 pounds with something like 50% composites by weight and the AMCA is claimed to have a slightly higher internal payload requirement. The AMCA will also carry more fuel internally than a comparable legacy medium sized fighter because of the low-observability requirement. All in all this would mean a considerable thrust margin for air combat performance compared to a previous gen (4th or 4.5) medium sized fighter built around a similar range/payload. Simply put if a Typhoon or Rafale needs 2 x 17K or 2 x 20K thrust engines the AMCA if similar class will need higher thrust. This alligns perfectly with what has been reported by the media on the top thrust requirements. While not completely usefull for supercruise the designers also need to factor in the other envelope outside of supersonic cruise and for that T2W and T2W-drag are incredibly important.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Jul 2015 20:06

Supercruise aka supersonic without afterburner is something that a lot of aircraft have managed under various circumstances, including IIRC the Hawker Hunter and HF 24 apart from Gripen. The problem is sustained thrust with drag minimized to increase range.

We don't know how many problems can occur when we try to achieve this goal. For example differential expansion of body/wing composites versus metal due to flying at high speed may cause distortions that increase drag and reduce supercruising range considerably. Until a plane is built and is flying we won't even start seeing such issues.

If a model could be built and tested at will in a supersonic wind tunnel in Bannerghatta National Aerospace and Elephant Park that testing could begin now and be done at will. But what we have is a situation where ADA scientists will apply for US visa and travel to Chennai for visa interview and when they get it they will fly Air India to Seattle while the AMCA model will arrive by Korean Airlines cargo for one set of supersonic wind tunnel tests while the scientist next in line will wait for his turn to go to USA for next set of tests.

What a pathetic scenario.

What was the date of AMCA induction again?

Incidentally there is conflicting information here. IAF wants supercruise. ADA is saying "That will be difficult". So what gives?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Jul 2015 20:16

Reading the report cross-posted by NR,gives one good vibes,but one heard all this ad nauseum over the last two decades about the LCA.What our new DM MP is going to receive,is a similar briefing that Rajiv G also did in the '80s,"we can do it",the decision to go ahead with the LCA widely touted as the magic wand for the IAF for the future.3 decades on,and it is 3 decades,not two as is being said in the report,we still haven't got even one sqd. operational! While we've been prevaricating and poncing with the LCA,the Pakis are producing 24+ JF-17s a year according to a report,peddling them for export ,while even our much vaunted LCA MK-1 annual production rate is yet to rise to around just 8.

I went through the last Vayu again.I missed this v.important article about some of our programmes,particularly the acquisition of the DPSA (Jaguar). It is a revelation (from official reports) as to the utter mismanagement of even building an aircraft under licence in India. How installation of a new navigation system dithered and dallied. The amazing production rate of Jags was never higher than 5/6 per yr. In some years it was just 4. Production was faster with aircraft acquired from abroad.I guess things haven't improved very much either with LCA production today!

Even the great reassuring news that the IAF "is aboard",all hands to the wheel,an eager beaver,blah,blah,where are we going to get the various key components as Shiv has listed from? eagerness doesn't make up for the hard fact of a solid industrial aerospace foundation that can deliver the goods at home.Most of these don't exist in India! As for the great "leapfrog" of tech by the LCA ,the MK-1 is still below the IAF's performance reqs. .Until it is in serv ie,we won't know how much better it is than a Bison. MK-2 has yet to fly,expected to do so only in 3 years time.However, we are we expected to believe that the AMCA will even leapfrog the yet to fly MK-2 as well as if it were easier to dsign,develop and produce!

Let us not "bite off what we cannot chew". Both the HF-24 and LCA programmes have given us hard,valuable and expensive lessons. Let the AMCA jingoism not add another notch to the number of "tech-demos" that we've produced thanks to the DRDO,etc. over the last few decades. What is sorely needed by the IAF is a reliable aircraft to replace legacy 4th-gen birds,easy to operate and support,that performs reasonably well ( to required specs),at reasonable cost and arrives on time. There is a major corollary though. At what cost per aircraft? Can we afford a $100"M aircraft replacement for every Jaguar,M2K,MIG-29,4th-gen aircraft? We are facing that very problem with the replacements for the MIG-21s,since the LCA hasn't arrived as yet. We can barely afford the 36 Rafales when the requirement was for 126 aircraft. I wonder how many FGFAs we can similarly afford when Russia hands us the bill! If the AMCA is going to be built by another LCA style committee,then the dear Lord help us!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Jul 2015 20:24

Austin are you arguing for argument sake? Brar_w, VivS and NRao all have refuted your core point that M88 won't make the grade for AMCA as its thrust rating is low by 40-50%.
This low price bidder winning is nonsense. Anyone can bid low and jack up the price when it comes to delivery.
And I don't like RR for they have repeatedly let down India.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Jul 2015 20:29

Philip, The core point is IAF is now a willing participant in AMCA. That is half the battle won.
As to rest of your arguments those are based on the past.
I don't want to go into politics of corruption underlying aircraft acquisition during Congress regimes here.

Eagerness does make up for lack of experience for you know what you don't know and are willing to acquire it.

When a naysayer like Ajai Shukla has turned positive it doesn't help for senior members on BRF to still stick to naysaying.
AMCA is a collaborative venture of IAF and DRDO.

Share the optimism with due caution.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Jul 2015 20:44

Constructively thinking, we have to stage the AMCA technology as LRU packages in LCA Mk2.5 or 3 variants. That way, we graduate from both ends.. upgrade LCA Mk2 to 2.5, and Create the version 3 for AMCA baseline. That is exactly what Rafale did with M4K.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Jul 2015 20:52

Well, guess what?

There are at least 15 supersonic and hypersonic wind tunnel testing facilities in India
http://atfi.dlis.du.ac.in/search_src.ph ... d%20Tunnel

Then why was the AMCA model testing done in the US? What do these facilities lack, other than a chance to go to Amrika?

Maybe size?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Jul 2015 20:58

shiv, Ever since Arunachalam chose US for LCA development, the modus operandi is to disclose to US what India is developing as CBM to build trust and not invoke technology denial.

This has not forestalled the US sanctions and general slowdown at crucial times.

I think the AMCA wind tunnel tests are to provide US data to calm the reptilian brain of their top honchos.
But wont help as we saw with LCA.

I met someone who was with AC when they met Carlucci who offered the RLG used on F-16.
It was declined as DRDO was sure of developing their own.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jul 2015 21:14

Maybe size?

Yes. And also consultancy. Calspan is pretty much the highest one can go (I think France and Russia have fairly similar entities. Not sure.)

Ever since Arunachalam chose US for LCA development, the modus operandi is to disclose to US what India is developing as CBM to build trust and not invoke technology denial

While that may have been true 10-20 years ago, I am sure if that is the case now and certainly with this AMCA model at Calspan. There was a news item where an Indian scientist very clearly stated that by taking this model to the US they (Indians) had to part with some knowledge (which the scientists would have preferred not to divulge - I suspect it is about "stealth" {No brownie points for that}).

Q for thsi thread members: Why is it that Indians did not pack up on the AWACS effort after crash? Plenty was lost - lives of top notch scientists included. They had to regen things, find new funds, start all over again. Yet it was supported. And as a result today there is so much optimism. Challenges are there to overcome. What would you do if there were no challenges or failures. Dull.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jul 2015 21:18

ramana wrote:Austin are you arguing for argument sake? Brar_w, VivS and NRao all have refuted your core point that M88 won't make the grade for AMCA as its thrust rating is low by 40-50%.
This low price bidder winning is nonsense. Anyone can bid low and jack up the price when it comes to delivery.
And I don't like RR for they have repeatedly let down India.

Ramana no one proved or disproved any thing as we dont know what the final outcome of AMCA would be including supercruise. It would depend on what final shape the AMCA takes place and IAF ASR is. M88 may or may not make it time will tell.

Bidding is the norm now and L1 is the process followed provided the selected parties meet the criteria.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jul 2015 21:33

Austin wrote:
Ramana no one proved or disproved any thing as we dont know what the final outcome of AMCA would be including supercruise. It would depend on what final shape the AMCA takes place and IAF ASR is. M88 may or may not make it time will tell.

Bidding is the norm now and L1 is the process followed provided the selected parties meet the criteria.

Curious.

You suggested the M88 as an option for the AMCA. A reason was provided. So, proof in what form were you expecting?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Jul 2015 21:40

It is in India's best interest to have most of the top engine suppliers bid for their requirements once they are fully developed (if they have not). We know that if the original thrust requirmeents are concerned, the F414 EPE is going to be the cheapest development path, and may in fact be completely funded by the USN in the next 5 years. As far as technology adoption goes, GE also has some of the highest levels of technology that they have demo'd on the familiy including CMC blades and record temperatures on the bench.

Performance and cost are not the only criteria..Sometimes it may be better to go for the highest cost option if it promises something extra such as security from sanction and TOT. If I were to venture out the cheapest development cost would be for the F414, then the 200 and only then the M88. However let the bids come, competition can only be good from a choice perspective.

Having said all that, the cost to go from a 16900 pound engine to a 25000+ pound engine is no easy or cheap task. Be prepared for a development cycle and a huge developmental cost-share given the fact that at the moment the M88 market is the smallest and many times smaller than that of the F414 that currently flies (or is going to soon fly) on 3 fighter types in the relative short-medium term and looks strong in S. Korea.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 07 Jul 2015 21:43

^^^ I think the process is Technical followed by Financial bidding if indeed it is bidding. So the Engine must come within Technically specified criteria before the L1 is decided.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Jul 2015 22:00

Yeah so there must be criteria for the technical process and that due to the very nature of the situation has to be flexible for the sake of competition. If the requirements (technical) are show us bench results on an engine that can reach the desired thrust (around 25K) then only the F414 survives the cut since GE has run bench tests with the changes being marketed in the EDE/EPE..However in this case they would be looking largely at developmental plans, time-lines and cost otherwise anyone can come in and pitch in a $10 Billion clean sheet engine and it makes the cut if it meets the technical criteria. Not sure how you are going to evaluate a paper proposal from Snecma to boost the thrust by 8100 pounds vs a GE F414 that has bench tested ALL of the EPE/EDE changes proposed to the USN. At some point you have to judge it based on a combination of technical, and time-cost-risk based on the proposal bid for by the different OEM's. I am all for such a hybrid setup since otherwise you will end up with just one vendor and that is a bad situation to be in from a cost and technology transfer perspective.

Not sure whether Snecma has tested a TV Nozzle on the M88 but both GE and the EuroJet team have a working 3D TV nozzle that they have created, and have offered for their respective engine families (EJ team to the Typhoon and GE for the Gripen long time back).

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jul 2015 22:12

NRao wrote:
Austin wrote:
Ramana no one proved or disproved any thing as we dont know what the final outcome of AMCA would be including supercruise. It would depend on what final shape the AMCA takes place and IAF ASR is. M88 may or may not make it time will tell.

Bidding is the norm now and L1 is the process followed provided the selected parties meet the criteria.
Curious.

You suggested the M88 as an option for the AMCA. A reason was provided. So, proof in what form were you expecting?

As of now all engines are on option till we hear from ADA on bidding , once the tender is floated and bidding consolidated we will know , too early to rule out any engine

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 07 Jul 2015 22:24

Austin wrote:As of now all engines are on option till we hear from ADA on bidding , once the tender is floated and bidding consolidated we will know , too early to rule out any engine

The ADA has stated very clearly that the AMCA is to be a 20-25 ton aircraft. A typically loaded Rafale in contrast is about 16-18 tons. As a result, even the (as yet undeveloped) 9 ton M88-3 doesn't make the cut.

Just because its an open tender doesn't mean that all engines are viable. Otherwise we'd also have to consider the AL-55I & F125 as well as the F100/110, AL-41/117, F119 and the massive F135. As far as the conversation/debates on the forum go, we can and should discard ideas that are quite simply illogical.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jul 2015 22:31

^^ AMCA is still evolving and IAF ASR is not know , its possible EJ and F series might be the strongest contender but we need to see what Snecma and other offer too , the idea of a global tender is to exactly find out what others offer and bargain hard to get the best deal.

Even during MMRCA rafale was not a strong contender till it emerged one , So Snecma might have its own way to get into the game ......we will find out.

There are talks of roping in Klimov for TVC so it would be many vendors in the same

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Jul 2015 22:45

Brar_w, and Maitya, Can we develop a QFD for the AMCA engine based on open source information?

What are the musts that any engine has to meet? Thrust, weight, maintainability, reliability, min time between overhauls,,,,,,
What are the desirables or goals?
We can follow up this in the AMCA thread....

And add intangibles like TOT. level of technology, past supplier country history.

Cost and Schedule to support FSED and production phase.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jul 2015 22:51

too early to rule out any engine

Which is what I asked, why?

Why would one even consider the M88? Again, I am looking for a reason - sincerely.

AMCA is still evolving and IAF ASR is not know

IF the ASR is not known, how do we know that it is "evolving"?

BTW:

What is the status and specifications of the Indian home grown AMCA project for the air force?

With the delays in the Rafale deal, MoD has asked DRDO and HAL to start the prototyping of this fifth gen fighter.

At Aero India 2015, DRDO Director Dr.Tamilmani Confirmed that nine prototypes are confirmed and will go head with construction of the first prototype when funds are allocated in the later part of 2015.He also confirmed that the work on three major Technological issues which includes Thrust Vectoring and Super Cruising engine, AESA radar and Stealth technology is going on full swing and availability of the technology on the aircraft will occur on schedule In 2015, 700 ADA employees were working on the project with 2,000 employees of DRDO and 1,000 employees of HAL supported by over 500 employees of subcontractors of both Indian and foreign firmes. AMCA design team led by D.r A.K Ghosh had completed Low-speed Wind tunnel test, High-speef Wind tunnel test and Radar Cross-Section(RCS) test from 2008-2014.

Hardly an indicator of an evolving ASR.

Ajai Shukla wrote: This fortnight the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which is responsible for the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) project, will brief its new boss on a project that will shape the future of the Indian Air Force (IAF) --- the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), an indigenous “fifth-generation” (Gen-5) fighter more advanced than anything on the IAF’s inventory. After briefing Dr S Christopher, the new Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) chief who is also ex-officio director-general of ADA, the AMCA proposal will be taken to Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, who has specifically asked for a briefing. After Mr Parrikar’s green light, the DRDO will seek $4 billion (currently Rs 25,000 crore, but this would fluctuate with the rupee) to design and develop the AMCA, build and test-fly prototypes, and give the IAF a Gen-5 fighter within 15 years.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jul 2015 22:55

AMCA Engine wrote:
AMCA will be a twin-engined design using an K 9 or K 10 engine which are successor to the cancelled Kaveri engine. While K 10 Program is a Joint Venture (JV) partnership with a foreign engine manufacturer. K 10 program engine will be final production standard Kaveri engine and shall have less weight and more reheat thrust along with certain other changes to meet the original design intent. Both the engines are being designed by ADA and developed by GTRE. On 19 February 2015 at the Aero India 2015, Director of DRDO Dr. Tamilmani told reports that a tender of joint venture on development of the engine is issued with General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls Royce, Snecma, Eurojet, NPO Saturn, Klimov and IHI to use current engine technology by combining Kaveri engine technology with JV engine to produce an engine capable of producing thrust of 110-125 kN. Full development of the K 9 and K 10 engine would be completed by 2019. While AMCA Test Demonstrator would be powered by an existing 90 kN thrust engine.

Dr Tamilmani confirmed the possibility of combining Kabini Core-engine with joint venture parntner core engine I.e. with EJ 200, Snecma M88, NPO Saturn AL-31-117 or General Electric F414 to produce 110-125 KN of thrust . France made an unsolicited Call to help in Development of AMCA's engine with full access to the Snecma M88 engine and other key technology, while United States has offered full collaboration in the engine development with full access to the F-414 and F-135. During the visit of the U.S president Barack Obama's on 25-27 January pointed out to the joint-development of Hot-Engine I.e. an advanced variable cycle engine performing in hot weather conditions like those of India.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 07 Jul 2015 23:01

Austin wrote:^^ AMCA is still evolving and IAF ASR is not know , its possible EJ and F series might be the strongest contender but we need to see what Snecma and other offer too , the idea of a global tender is to exactly find out what others offer and bargain hard to get the best deal.

“The AMCA configuration has been frozen. Now, we have to have one last dialogue with the Air Force to decide how we go about the engine choice.... We will have a strategy for building the AMCA by the middle of this year,”

- P.S. Subramanyam, Jan 2015.

We're not changing the general profile of the aircraft. And no amount of bargaining will get the M88 to produce adequate thrust for an aircraft in the AMCA's class.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Jul 2015 04:08

NRAO's report basically suggests that they sent out request to all the major engine OEM's out there. That obviously does not directly mean that all engine OEM's around the world have an engine suitable for the AMCA, far from it in fact. P&W have nothing in this category and the only thing on paper they have would cost many times more to develop than the EPE/EDE proposal so is hardly a realistic choice in the thrust class.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Jul 2015 09:47

Viv S wrote:
We're not changing the general profile of the aircraft. And no amount of bargaining will get the M88 to produce adequate thrust for an aircraft in the AMCA's class.

Thats what you say , If there no need to look into alternate engine why was the need for International Tender for engine.

ADA is looking for all options on the table and once we get all vendors has to offer , ADA can use it to bargain and get the best deal , It works in ADA favour !

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Jul 2015 09:51

An 'engine' for India's growth - Saurav Jha

http://www.ibnlive.com/blogs/india/saur ... 48324.html

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Jul 2015 10:01

With due respect to the good boffin Mr.Subs,"the configuration is frozen",without finalizing on the engine,it is akin to "putting the cart before the horse"! Any bespoke tailor needs to measure the gentleman in Q before cutting his cloth.He doesn't stitch the suit first. If this is the attitude,then we seemed doomed to repeat the HF-24 and LCA experience. If as Brar says there is no engine out there that fits our specs perfectly,then why the indecent haste in finalizing the configuration? Secondly,if the config is "frozen",what are the futuristic weapons that this bird is going to carry and how many of them?

Going back to the last Vayu and the good Prof.PD.he has a lengthy piece on the AMCA,examining 5th-gen fighters from the US to date. V.interesting to see how long the US took to induct the Raptor,20+ yrs need it as these (US) fighters were designed with UIS reqs. in mind,flying mainly over hostile territory in expeditionary wars. He goes back to the 4th-gen fighter characteristics,of which the early MIG-29 version had very few of,but was still the "bully on the block" in air combat.He lists the key elements of a 5th-gen fighter today are whether we need all of them.There is a comparison of the current 5th-gen beasts being developed by the major nations. It's too long and tiring for me to condense,,but those who can get hold of it and read it,it raises many Qs.Apart from where the tech for the components is going to come from,time schedule,etc.,he asks what is the amt. of weaponry that a 5th-gen bird can carry internally and whether it will survive against superior numbers.Some cases from historic air battles are given. In the Indian context he advocates designing/acquiring a fighter whose key strlke weapon will be BMos.One key comment in His final conclusion bears out what I've said earlier,what is the cost going to be? The crucial factor.His estimate is 150,000 cr.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jul 2015 16:39

With due respect to the good boffin Mr.Subs,"the configuration is frozen",without finalizing on the engine,it is akin to "putting the cart before the horse"!

Good Ser,

They are still looking - per the plan - for both the horse and the cart.

They have frozen the configuration (based on the ASR, etc), not the design. They plan is to select an engine, get funding for the next phase (including design), in late 2015.

For all the ronna-dhonna, they are not in this very high risk game for the first time.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Jul 2015 19:43

all air-frame designs resolves around the core engine specs.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 08 Jul 2015 21:01

@NRao, as others noted, appreciate your efforts in collecting & listing info on AMCA.

I think, Austin is right in saying ASR not completely finalized. Aspects like ITR/STR are not finalized, to my knowledge. Rightly so as without engine choice and known thrust these cannot be finalized.
What is available is more-in-general preliminary ASR. Even this underwent changes few years back.

Finalizing configuration and finalizing performance metrics are two different thing, I suppose.

Reg. Snecma M-88, they already started helping/hand-holding in our Kaveri ( or whatever the name is) engine development from MMRCA days. You can bet lot of inspirations are going to be from Snecma in our K9/k10 engine.

As @srai pointed in another thread, there will be more than two pronged approach in the case of engine for AMCA. It is not going to be simple JV or outright purchase of uprated GE-F414 engine. One can expect a jugaad of some parts of M-88 core mated with Kaveri etc.

On the plane front, if Mirage-2000 / F-16 could be considered as inspiration for LCA specs, AMCA is carefully crafted taking the lessons from Rafale, FGFA and JSF.

I can say, AMCA as the one having the thrust of Rafale in dry thrust mode [& more that of JSF thrust in dry mode]; maneuverability as that of FGFA and avionics & radar specs as that of JSF, FGFA and Rafale.

It is positioned as Air-dominance fighter and not merely as a side kick to FGFA.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Jul 2015 21:24

I can say, AMCA as the one having the thrust of Rafale in dry thrust mode [& more that of JSF thrust in dry mode]; maneuverability as that of FGFA and avionics & radar specs as that of JSF, FGFA and Rafale.

F-35 Mil Thrust - 28,000 lb

Rafale Mil Thrust - <11,500 lb

A Twin M88 setup like the one you said in the bold portion will fall short of the F-35's thrust by around 20%. Also keep in mind that the AMCA is going to be a 5th generation aircraft with 5th generation dsign features such as internal bays, large internal fuel carriage which the rafale lacks. You will be lucky to keep the empty weight under 30,000 pounds especially with the internal carriage requirements that are even more aggressive (in terms of pure weight) than the F-35 that sports the largest weapons bay of current 5th generation fighters.

Now lets say they are within 10-15% of the JSFs weight...Lets put the range around 30-32,000 pounds (we can pick a different number as well)..Add around 14,000 pounds of fuel (The JSF carries 18,250 on the CTOL) and lets say that the AMCA is designed around a multi-role mission requirement instead of a pure air superiority, and add 3000 pounds of mixed payload which is around 60% of the max internal carriage..This brings the T2W with the current M88's using full after burner at around .71 - .68 (32,000 empty weight) using full afterburner and full fuel and .84 - .80 (32,000 empty) with half fuel..On dry thrust the range is - .47 - .45 & .56 - .53

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 08 Jul 2015 21:38

^ 16,900 lbf (75 KN) is the maximum wet thrust of M-88. AMCA engine will sport a equivalent dry thrust of ~75 KN.

2 x 16,900 lbf = ~33,000 lbf greater than 28,000 lbf dry thurst of JSF.

Point i'm trying to say is , AMCA team has taken note of all short-comings of programs such as JSF.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Jul 2015 21:43

Ahh..The point though to remember is that you have to nail down the weight and then drag..The more flexibility you want in your bay the more you will affect these changes. Similarly the more missions you add to your aircraft the grater the trades you will have to make. So far weight has been a challenge for 5th generation fighters as designers have tried to optimize internal capacity. Another challenge has been embedding the sensors and provided adequate cooling, ducting for the fuel based cooling of avionics etc..All that has a weight margin that is not easily modeled unless you have developed these things. Expect there to be a considerable margin for the AMCA"s designers as history has shown these estimates to be a hit or miss on the most if not all of the 5th generation aircraft. All in all what the AMCA is likely going to have is a thrust requirement between 45,000 and 50,000 (so around 24-25,000 per engine is a good starting/asking point) and the higher limits in that range 48,000-50,000 should be what they are looking at since you can aim for the 30,000 pounds figure for a medium sized fighter but you ideally want to build in margins given its the first time doing this.

Dry thrust is not an issue with the JSF..It never had super cruise as a requirement because range was the absolute driver for the design along with the requirement for a single engined fighter. The bypass ratio of the F135 and the thrust class is designed around the engine. If they wanted a super cruising air to air fighter they could have made one. Use an engine with a similar bypass ratio to the F-119, reduce the 2000 pound bomb carriage and lift the CAS range and loiter requirements and you would have had a different looking aircraft with a different mission profile. It would have made a lousy F-16 or F-18 replacement but you would have gotten that performance from it without needing to get more dry thrust (or wet for that matter). All in all thrust is important and thrust to weight is an indicator, but the real indicator is and always is thrust to weight minus drag and as your design changes and evolves as they do when multi role mission sets are demanded you have to make trades..Its no longer the "NOT A POUND FOR AIR TO GROUND mentality that survives in multi-role fighters...

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Jul 2015 22:35

B_W, just some advice. Try to stick to SI units if you can. The lb/oz type measures tend to be harder to process.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Jul 2015 00:11

I think, Austin is right in saying ASR not completely finalized. Aspects like ITR/STR are not finalized, to my knowledge. Rightly so as without engine choice and known thrust these cannot be finalized.

Here are some stats that I gathered along the way:

* ASR was out in 2010
* Engine recs are nailed down - they are parting it out right now

* The MCA/AMCA/NGFA has been in some form of dev since, I would say, 2000
* Outside of FBL, from what I have seen, things have been very, very consistent

Finally:
* Check out the funds being requested. Not a request for a play solution - it is the real deal. They actually feel they can build a proto by 2020

This fortnight the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which is responsible for the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) project, will brief its new boss on a project that will shape the future of the Indian Air Force (IAF) --- the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), an indigenous “fifth-generation” (Gen-5) fighter more advanced than anything on the IAF’s inventory. After briefing Dr S Christopher, the new Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) chief who is also ex-officio director-general of ADA, the AMCA proposal will be taken to Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, who has specifically asked for a briefing. After Mr Parrikar’s green light, the DRDO will seek $4 billion (currently Rs 25,000 crore, but this would fluctuate with the rupee) to design and develop the AMCA, build and test-fly prototypes, and give the IAF a Gen-5 fighter within 15 years.

That, to me, is a very aggressive schedule. But, one - I believe - is based on solid footing.

It is my belief that the ASR (and the like) are near complete. Can they change, most certainly. Likely? Chances are minimal.

BTW, MP has told these guys that he wants most of the plane to be Indian made. THAT to me is the biggest challenge.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 09 Jul 2015 00:12

NRao wrote:
French engine Snecma is the best bet for AMCA and with Rafale Purchase we can get lic prod for M88 variant.
Sorry to butt in, but the M88 is at 75Kn. While the EJ2000 is at 90Kn. EJ seems to have assured India that it can be uprated to 110.

The F414 is already at 116, beyond the 110 they are looking for. (Not to mention the size and weight, etc)

What the US has declined is ToT of certain manufacturing processes, they are fine with offering the engine (reportedly GE is thrilled at around 1400 engines just for the AMCA).

What we do not know is if EJ will allow the ToT of what India is looking for.

Not sure, but I very much doubt the M88 is even in play. Too much to climb.

Finally, if the arg is that there would be commonality between the Rafale and the AMCA (which there will not be - not even close), that arg should hold even more true for the the F414. The LCA would need around 850 engines + the 1400 for the AMCA.

Sorry. Please continue.

Don't be surprised if the saga with GE, DOS and DOD continues for a while as Carter is known to push things through if he really wants to..Anyways, look out for FY17 budget being worked on at the moment, we should hear something later in the year but apparently GE and USN have been working for some months now on finding a middle ground on cost-sharing where GE foots the bulk of the certification cost and then gets reimbursed when its time to procure upgrade kits to get to EDE/EPE. I don't see future customers having to pay a lot of development for the engine but of course TOT concerns are always going to be an issue just as they were for the Rafale (and eventually led to the sidelining and possible (quite likely) scrapping of the MMRCA.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 09 Jul 2015 03:35

NRao wrote:That, to me, is a very aggressive schedule. But, one - I believe - is based on solid footing.

It is my belief that the ASR (and the like) are near complete. Can they change, most certainly. Likely? Chances are minimal.

BTW, MP has told these guys that he wants most of the plane to be Indian made. THAT to me is the biggest challenge.

Uncertainties in FGFA, Rafale fiasco and the dwindling numbers in coming decade made MP and his team IAF commit to the project not seen in case of LCA.

It is becoming more clearer that even downgraded AMCA such as 5- could be more worthy than extra 4+ Su-30 that we may add to the existing numbers. We may expect AMCA 0.5MK, 1.0Mk, 1.5MK etc, with capabilities gradually added. Depending on progress we make in engine area, such parameters will be fine tuned. Rather than straightjacketed metrics, there will be flexible approach in case of AMCA - I believe.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 09 Jul 2015 03:42

brar_w wrote: Dry thrust is not an issue with the JSF..It never had super cruise as a requirement because range was the absolute driver for the design along with the requirement for a single engined fighter. The bypass ratio of the F135 and the thrust class is designed around the engine. If they wanted a super cruising air to air fighter they could have made one. Use an engine with a similar bypass ratio to the F-119, reduce the 2000 pound bomb carriage and lift the CAS range and loiter requirements and you would have had a different looking aircraft with a different mission profile. It would have made a lousy F-16 or F-18 replacement but you would have gotten that performance from it without needing to get more dry thrust (or wet for that matter). All in all thrust is important and thrust to weight is an indicator, but the real indicator is and always is thrust to weight minus drag and as your design changes and evolves as they do when multi role mission sets are demanded you have to make trades..Its no longer the "NOT A POUND FOR AIR TO GROUND mentality that survives in multi-role fighters...

Problem is not to US, it is for whom who buy F-35 but cannot get F-22. And to tackle Su varieties and the coming PAK-FA , J-20 etc, it is an eternal dilemma whether F-35 alone is sufficient.