Bharat Rakshak

At present the India Inc is not well equipped either with tech or resources(funds) to start parallel research or development comparative to MOD agencies.

They might be able to lure talent with good perks, but the infrastructure they need for R&D then they have to approach the very same MOD organizations.

MOD idea of provision of 80% of R&D for the two shortlisted vendors is a good idea to start with, but the red tapism and bureaucracy need to change.

going by what we have achieved and looking ahead in terms of confidence level of our GTRE men, GE 414 India version has secured billions of $$$ already.. I am pretty sure that Snecma-Kaveri will not happen this century.

If some bright idea flicks, and God opens eyes of few brilliant men, then Kaveri++ will get the funding, and we have to do it all by ourselves. that is where long term success lies.

many of us many not be alive when it arrives.

A engine with 60-65kN dry thrust will probably suffice for AMCA. It won't carry any more than 3000-4000 pounds of AG munitions in its internal bay, about 500-600 pounds in AA missiles and about 10000 pounds of fuel. It will pretty much be in the same weight class as the Rafale, with better engines and more stealth.

Primary purpose would be to be a stealthy bomb truck to replace all those 23/27/jags. Sure you could load it to its max capacity of 12-14K pounds of bombs, but that won't allow it to be stealthy. I also personally think that most missions require somewhere in the tune of 4 to 5K pounds of munition at max. If you look at pictures on any of the websites like Reuters during Iraq war 1/2 or another theater, you will see most planes taking off with lots of fuel, 2 LGB/jdam type and two wing tip aa missile. That's it, most missions are 2 hour long and each pilot gets one nice juicy target to hit and he has to do his homework on getting there safely and back and making sure he hits the correct target.

I think those missions which may require 15/16K pounds of munitions to be dumped on it are few and far between. If there are such requirements then it perhaps will be a whole flotilla that will hit the place with support platforms like awacs / dedicated jammers / AA dedicated escorts and in such cases will thrust to weight or how powerful a engine is really matter?

I do think we need to stop worrying about meeting all bells/whistle etc on the first iteration. If the Kaveri-Snecma deal produces a engine to the tune of 60-65kN dry and 90-95kN wet thrust, it would be super awesome. Target achieved. F117 had a 48kN engine and it worked quite well for that aerodynamically challenged piece of brick.

^^^

True.

If one looks at the internal bay in the CAD image of an AMCA, it is designed to carry the following in a typical mission load out:

• Air Defense -> 4 x LR-AAMs w/ 2 x SR-AAMs = 2,500lb (500lb x 4 + 250lb x 2) total weight
• Air Strike -> 2 x 1,000lb LGBs w/ 2 x SR-AAMs = 2,500lb (1,000lb x 2 + 250lb x 2) total weight

I think a blockwise approach should be chosen here at least with user input from the very beginning but alas they are already talking of delivering something with 6th gen technology, whatever that is.

Heck if they can just manage conformal carriage (not even internal bays) for 6-8 AAMs, it'll be a good start. Widely spaced engines allowing for 2-4 AAMs in the center with 2-4 along the intakes ala Typhoon would be excellent.

Proper shaping - edge alignment etc. along with an exceptional TWR, wingloading and flight characteristics would be a good start. What I'd like to see initially:

1) Conformal A2A weapons carriage
2) v.high internal fuel volume
3) decent TWR
4) Shaping, edge alignment etc
5) Plenty of space between intakes for future internal carriage.
6) AESA radar
7) Lex/levcons + large wing area
IRST
9) Internal EW suite
10) HMS
11) S-curved ducts or blocker etc.

In block 2 internal weapons carriage can be stressed upon, TVC, conformal arrays, higher thrust engines. Development of stealth munitions

http://www.scribd.com/rohitk_178/d/4883 ... ABLISHMENT

sounds like we have done some basic 70% of the facilities and we need to catch up with the rest 30%.. it would be a shame to ask for firang help, or drop the development like hot potato.

kaveri must go on to help amca

the AMCA form factor will have all the disadvantages of the JSF when smallish a/c go the vLO route with internal bays. its T:W will not be so great unless very powerful and compact engines are fitted, its internal bay as we can see will take 2 x 1000lb only, with a bare minimum 2xSRAM for self protection...this is half the typical strike load of the Jaguar-IS and 1/3 that of the Mirage2000.

and its sure to be quite costly given all the new techs, local manufacture...north of $100 mil for sure. certainly costlier than unit price of MRCA.

we need to be clear what we are trying to do here.
[a] we can never afford enough airframes as Khan will to try and solve the problem with more numbers vs less numbers of M2K/Jag
[b] we are unlikely to have the ultra sophisticated PGMs khan will roll out to make the JSF relevant with smaller munitions like SDB3 and so on....should we import these in bulk?
[c] given its boxy shape , it might not be as nimble as a conventional fighter....so in WVR whats the strategy - decline combat? in BVR can we arrange for a competitive long range AESA set based off whatever the Tejas will get ? where is the Tejas going to get aesa from - a derivative of RBE2AA ?

one role can be use VLO mode only in first few days in long range missions and then use 4 wing pylons with addl payload for less risk missions ..... but in a indo-china situation the risk will never really decline so steeply. plus it needs a very good range to have an impact inside Tibet.

I feel we ought to upsize the AMCA design to be effective vs china....arrange for more fuel, a bigger internal bay, a bigger radar...not J20 size but somewhere near the PAKFA size.
use the AL31FM2 engine if we cannot build one on our own.

else we will end up with a stealth jaguar in 2030. decisions about its intended warfighting role need to be clear and taken early as it drives the overall platform design and choice of engines and radar.

Won't this niche be filled by PAKFA ? Why have two different planes for the same niche ?

You are going to compromise payload for stealth that is given. Neither the JSF nor the F-22 remain stealthy with payloads hanging off them, but they are extremely effective tools to take out hardened sites, radars, sam sites early in the fight. That is what we will probably hope to achieve as well. Once the initial wave has done its task, stealth may not be a high priority.

Would a subsonic ( M 0.8 - 0.9 ) but bigger aircraft ( wider bay ) with much bigger internal payload would suffice for AMCA ?

I was thinking of subsonic since it would consume much less fuel and would have loitering capability with stealth.

Even F-117 and the much bigger B-2 are subsonic only ...which it affords better payload and range and stealth .......considering the distance in our neighbourhood even counting China in larger persistance will pay off .

+1 to that. we need a mini-B2 not a smallish JSF. PAKFA is fine for the SEAD/tactical stealth bomber role.

Austin, what you are describing is basically a stealth bomb truck. Not a multi-role fighter which the AMCA is supposed to be. I doubt the IAF would be interested in something like this.

No what i am looking at is dedicated ground attack aircraft with air superiority capability.

I could be way off the mark here but here is what i understand , correct me if i am wrong

From what i understand is most WVR combat takes place only at subsonic speed that probably applies to even ground attack role , supersonic speed is to dash from x to y location to engage or to disengage or run away after bombing mission.

Having a subsonic aircraft with larger internal payload and greater persistence with stealth means you could loiter over an area and afford discretion , thats what most new gen UCAV is all it suppose to do , AMCA will have a man in there with ability to make it unmanned in future.

Supersonic aircraft has its own impact on the use of materials at aircraft dashing at high supersonic speed tend to heat and needs better and heavier material infact most areas that generate highest temperature tend to use titanium alloys. Plus once you engage the burner you end up sipping up fuel no matter how effecient you engine is.

Supersonic basicly adds up to complications in many aspect of engineering , Having a Subsonic Aircraft with greater internal payload and wider internal bays with a top speed of M 0,9 and cruising speed of M 0,6 - 08 and 9G capability to engage in close combat with netcentricity and all bells whistles of PAK-FA with 3D TVC etc , it would be easier to get AMCA off the ground quickly and to induction

Would that be a good idea ? we have supersonic aircraft in LCA, FGFA ,MKI and Rafale ,How about subsonic AMCA with other qualities.

Austin, as per your argument a subsonic aircraft will require less fuel and hence have a greater loiter time. That is a wrong assumption. In order to reduce fuel consumption, your aircraft will need to have less powerful and more fuel efficient engines, which will also reduce it's T:W ratio. That is bad for WVR combat. And if you make such an aircraft larger to carry more weapons and fuel, it'll fly like a brick. Even a Jaguar would fly rings around it. Like I said, it'll be a bomb truck.

The basic question is what will you do to restrict the aircraft to subsonic speeds. Increase drag? Reduce thrust? Increase size and weight? All of them are bad for WVR combat.

Well the simple rule is higher the thrust higher the fuel consumption , if its after burner then fuel consumption goes up by 3x times.

Why is subsonic speed bad if most WVR takes place at subsonic speed , even Su-30MKI and all the 3D stuff in combat works at subsonic speed only , flankers rarely go supersonic and that too for short time.

All i am saying is a modern fuel efficient engine at subsonic speed will afford you greater persistance over an area and greater loiter time and that is what is being advertised for UCAV.

Most aircraft in their combat today fly only at subsonic speed most of times , it goes only supersonic speed for few minutes as it has to engage after burner.

What you need is an engine that can do between M 0.6 - 0.9 with internal payload keeping fuel consumption to the lowest , I understand at M 0.9 the aircraft might get draggy due to being close to supersonic speed but at 0.6 -.0,7 M cruise speed it wont be draggy

If the UCAV being advertised today and which will see combat for the next 2 decade are subsonic design , has greater persistance and if required can engage enemy aircraft and remain stealthy why is subsonic AMCA with same qualities with a man in cockpit is a bad idea ?

Fighters -> Formula F1
Fighter Bombers -> Pickup trucks
Bombers -> Trucks

Think of Su-34 aircraft , its a fighter bomber . due to flanker design legacy it can manouver well and can engage a fighter yet it is a dedicated tactical bomber ...for all its combat mission it will fly subsonic only and the external payload it carries will make sure its subsonic. It might go supersonic after its bombing mission provided it has the fuel and if that is required and its not even stealthy.

We can similarly design AMCA to be subsonic but fuel effecient with larger loiter time , with greater internal payload and internal bay which means closer to wing design or X-47 type since that the only design which can give you fuel effeciency with greater internal payload and Stealth.

No matter how great your aircraft is , be it F-22 or PAK-FA once you hang you payload outside you loose stealth and most modern radar today can see you from long ..... hence you should not compromise on internal payload thats the best bet to remain survivable over a given battle area.

Even new generation of US bombers being advertised have not gone supersonic and have remain subsonic with greater internal payload and persistance/range ......it shows what would remain more survivable in tomorrows battle field.

What about over wing weapon pylons(atleast AA). Like the Jags have.
They can be configured to have a minimum reflection for Ground based radars.
Over wing CFT's also sound good.

Any tried/failed work went in this direction or should I file for a Patent?

one has to assume awacs will see it from the top. overwing is not a soln.

^^^ nice posts by Austin...

If one wants a bomb truck-and one supposes a bomb truck with stand-off munitions of range sufficient for the aircraft to avoid layered ground defences,then a dedicated bomber is what is required,not something half-way in between.Current concepts are in two directions.A stealthy design based upon a tailless delta winged aircraft with a large internal weapons bay and an unmanned UCAV design ,smaller in scale,the route the USN is following for its future carrier aircraft.Instead of the AMCA the IAF should be looking for a large strategic bomber.The FGFA of 5th-gen class will suffice for the proposed AMCA role.When we are also buying the Rafale in large numbers,why do we need yet another very expensive aircraft that would fit in between the SU-30MKI/FGFA and the Rafale?

What is missing in the IAF's fighter inventory is an affordable and reliable non-nonsense fighter with limited strike capability in a secondary role and a reasonable radius of action.The MIG-21 replacement .It is what the LCA has promised,but its delivery has been excruciatingly slow.Unfortunately the project got too complicated and final When we cannot develop our own engine too,and must be dependent upon foreign sources,what will the chances be of the AMCA programme bearing fruit?

Phillip sir,

I agree with your assessment that we should confuse a bomber with a fighter plane. They have different requirements and hence follow different design principles.

That said, I feel that whatever plane we make in the future will definitely have to have stealth capability. While the utility of the limited capacity of internal bays is debatable, every plane in the future must be equally matched with its opponent. If that is not the case, the opponent will always have much better survival chances.

wouldn't stealth bomber be a heavier category by design? medium combat I assume is more a multirole a/c.

In my opinion, we are at a stage where we cannot create a Stealthy bomb truck to do our bidding.

A big bomb truck that can carry 16000 pounds of munitions 1000 miles out and be stealthy will be a huge endeavor. Pretty much what B1B or B2 are. From what we have seen, we end up paying the same amount of money that US does for its gold plated toys. So something like this would end up costing us around a billion or two. Which generally translates to a few platforms only even if we do manage to make something like this.

I still think a *first strike* payload like this will be more than enough even for china.
16 * 250 pounders (Sudarshan) + 2AA
8 * 500 pounder (Sudarshan) + 2AA
2 * 1000 pounder (bunker busters) + 4AA
or one 4500 pounder like brahmos mini + 4AA
and about 14-15K pounds of fuel would give it a healthy combat range of 600-700 nmi without refueling.
A fleet of 4-6 planes can quite easily tackle a large target area. Stealth will assure high survivability and higher hit rate on targets. I still think most stealth platforms would be used for SEAD roles.

I don’t think we will ever cross border areas deep into enemy territory leaving large static SAM sites intact esp in the path of ingress and egress. We will perhaps have to clear out these dedicated sites and creating multiple safe zones for ingress and egress (100 miles wide). There is always the headache of mobile SAM units showing up in these cleared zones, but at this point ground forces will be involved. Only then the non specialized units like JAGs/Mig23/27/LCA will be assured survivability in those zones.

If one needs a bomb truck, then you get a bomb truck. I know I repeat myself, but something like the MTA would be wonderful..
It can carry 45000 pounds of payload out to 4000kms.
In this Glonass/gagan/gps co-ordinated world, one does not need to worry about spotting/lasing targets before letting go.
If you have a way to program each Sudarshan to a target and release it, job is done. If you can release it from 20-30 kms from the site and stay above 25000 feet, you have higher margins of safety.

So 60 * 500 pounders is a lot of target.
Add 4000 pounds of radar jamming equipment (enough power from engines), HARM munitions hanging off the wings, and dedicated SEAD operators, you add still more safety margins and to take care of those mobile radar/sam units that may light up.
Add a lasing pod and mix of LGB/GPS munitions, you can pretty much also be CAS on call. Loiter in safe zone or home territory, arrive-and-hit-target-on-request-for-assistance.

AEW +Air defense escorts will always have to give it top cover.

A stealthy MTA would cost way too much money. You could probably buy like 10 vanilla MTAs for the price of one stealthy MTA given the US price structure. So stealthy MTA would probably be a an expensive idea, undoable.

AMCA seems good as currently proposed.

^ I like your MTA-B concept, I truly do.

we have paid for mil grade access to GLONASS already, so the road is clear, we dont have to wait until our own system is up.

the only issue is bride is missing from wedding - no MTA yet, let alone a bomber certified MTA with some internal bomb bay structure...

The stealth MTA means it should fly at least at 80k ft, right?

Yeah, MTA has to arrive, period. It will change warfare for us. Dedicated jammers, lite refuellers, AEW, MPA, transport everything comes off it. It has almost the right range and payload capability. Perhaps a MTA-ExtraRange designed with bigger internal fuel tanks would be nice maybe at a cost of slightly lesser payload.

we may just have to start working on the rotary launcher early on. it should not be that difficult. If we are planning on stacking 8 500 pounders in an internal bay of AMCA, then its pretty much the same thing except for it being rotary. Maybe there is an easier solution than having rotary system.

No Maaan.. read again, no stealth at all for MTA. Just pure vanilla MTA.

yes there is...if you look at the B52 or B1 dropping bombs, the usual dumb bombs are arranged vertically in a grid of metal racks and released....not much change from WW2 bombers. I think even the JDAMs they drop are in this way.
the rotary launcher thing seems to be needed only for stuff like big missiles.
B52 bomb rack they preload the bombs offline and then clip the rack inside like a magazine
http://dmn.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-c ... 00x450.jpg
http://www.barksdale.af.mil/shared/medi ... 8W-001.jpg

JDAMS inside the b1 http://air-attack.com/images/single/664 ... Check.html - essentially pylons inside the bay, drop them LCFS thats all.
some kind of rotary rack http://www.flickr.com/photos/sgtgary/2782098551/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikenoel/2778914142/
rotary is flexible enough for diff types of weapons http://dmn.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-c ... mb-bay.jpg

cool pics.. and the idea is good if the mission provides CAS on non-safe zone. here is where stealth would add the punch. RAM coating is a must at the very least.

but, shaped MTAs may not be that difficult to do... if we have mastered the shape aspects.

mission against pakis is not my concern.. against chippanda, such a vanilla mta could be very risky.. and 1:10 ratio is needed, and then adds up the cost.

Singha,

Thanks for posting those links. It looks pretty standard and densely packed to me.

Take a look at this. Its kinda not being talked about much:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... me-225111/

and this puppy:
http://www.armedforces-int.com/news/mal ... nched.html

are those jammers based on high powered AESA tech? we may also have to jump start on to GaN modules that has more power and efficiency.

Corley says the B-52 is potentially a platform that has "value and merit" because of its large size, high power supply, amount of space and cooling capabilities.

every one of those points supports the EB-MTA vs any fighter mounted soln for IAF. potentially the MTA could also pount additional prowler/growler type air driven turbines under the wings to provide additional power for jamming gear.

Russia has 8 decades of experience in designing bomb bays. now only if they would get their heads out of sand and realize they need something beyond the Bear for ALCM and standoff jammer work. it strange looking at state of art KH101 missiles mounted under the Bear.

another application would be a JSTARS not in a platinum bullet E8 size but a more manageable size and given to control of the theater commands to share data with both army and IAF.
would certainly have more power and space than the israeli Gulfstream G550 soln.

I saw a dream last night of a deep invader UCAV type thing with its internal bay capable of holding small guided munitions or reconfigured with a modular pair gattling guns that hang in a CFT type bulge.....to be used to nightly strafing missions on enemy convoys and other targets of opportunity with passive cues from JSTARs or UAVs.

as dusk falls, like a pack of sleeping bats these would come awake and take off in random directions, criss crossing the battle area using VLO airframe to keep undetected....with no set mission these would loiter until their sensors detect hostiles or a offboard cue directs them to a target set.

on fuel running low or some battle damage they would automatically fly back home.

^^ Singhaji, you need to elaborate a bit more on these dreams of yours - the scenario thread awaits your return. PM Arora and his lavish banquets are sorely missed.

GD agree with the space being more but I doubt MTA will have more power than the G550 those BR710s produce something like 65 to 70 kn should be quite a bit of power me thinks...not sure what MTA engines will be producing....Austin might be able to shed some light on this...IIRC they were looking at PD14s last time I checked.

Exactly having a home grown platform means a whole lot of things we can do. If manage to do 20 tons to 6000-7000 kms or remain 10 hours in air with 15-20K tons of payload we would have met so many of our requirements. I seriously hope they choose the nextgen CFM engines that have more power (which won't hurt at all) and are less fuel hungry. Will allow us to push our range by 10/15 odd percent from currently envisioned numbers. Russians can choose their engine and we should be allowed to choose our engines. I know 6 years back RR was pushing its engines for the MTA.

If we do want to add stealth then perhaps a spectra like system could be explored right from inception and leave it at active stealth rather than shaping. I think Russians/HAL should forgo the whole 214-il design and redo this to make it more extensible and competitive transport option in the market.

the PS90x engine is also possible. 38,000lb of thrust....
the embraer KC-390 has chosen the V2500 delivering 29,000lb of thrust.
looking at their wiki , see how beautifully they have managed to rope in the entire global component supply industry to get this done...points to how well integrated they are into the ecosystem now via the civilian side of embraer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_KC ... ufacturing

we still have to climb the hill in managing such global projects.

To validate many technology for AMCA, it is very important for ADA to take Mirage 4K route... Till LCA becomes MCA, we can't even think of AMCA.

btw, Dr Saraswat taking a ride on Gripen sounds interesting.

Leap X 1B can do upto 35000 lb of thrust and probably will give better fuel burn. http://www.cfm56.com/marketing/brochures/leap-brochure

If one could push the fuel carried from 30000 lbs to 60000 lbs in internal fuel tanks, this airframe will fulfill most of our reqs. This will change the overall MTOW to 180000 lbs for the airframe.

MTA will use the newer PD-14M engine that is under development , they have not advertised it with PS-90A or other western engine so far. PD-14M has characteristics similar to LEAP-X and PW 1400G GTF engine.

http://www.avid.ru/eng/advanced-develop ... ional_Jet/

Certifying it with other engines will take its own time and money if IAF demands that.

From UAC website http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/models/cargo/mts/mts_design/