AMCA News and Discussions

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jul 2015 18:26

Wiki

Empty weight: 14 tons (31000 lb)
Loaded weight: 24 tons (53000 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 29 tonnes. 2 tonnes of internal weapons and 4 tonnes of internal fuel. ()

Research and validating info is not very imp to many posters

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jul 2015 18:32

The current PAKFA prototypes have an empty weight of around 18.5 Tons..The YF-22 had an empty weight 14-15 metric Tons (depending upon the source, the program manager puts it at 31K Lb. or 14,000 Kg)..The production F-22A has an estimated empty weight of around 19.5 Tons..The F-35 has an empty weight (CTOL - A) of 13 metric Tons (13,199 kg)...Both the F-22 and F-35 have around a similar internal fuel load of between 8000-8100 Kg (18000-18250 pounds)..I am not sure about the max payload of the F-22A or the PAKFA, but the F-35A has a max payload (internal + external) of 8164 Kg/18,000 lb...

Thrust to weight ratios would be interesting once they finally decide to narrow down on engine specification but the empty weight seems to be a little conservative given the overall payload..It might change as the design matures. An 18.5 ton empty weight is going to challenge performance with the engine thrust numbers being thrown around..

^^^ That fuel figure also does not match with 02 hrs endurance.

Why?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Jul 2015 20:56

actually mitsu atd-x specs and requirements are way inferior for IAF.. otherwise, the japanese program actually can merge with AMCA

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 25 Jul 2015 20:59

brar_w wrote:The current PAKFA prototypes have an empty weight of around 18.5 Tons..The YF-22 had an empty weight 14-15 metric Tons (depending upon the source, the program manager puts it at 31K Lb. or 14,000 Kg)..The production F-22A has an estimated empty weight of around 19.5 Tons..The F-35 has an empty weight (CTOL - A) of 13 metric Tons (13,199 kg)...Both the F-22 and F-35 have around a similar internal fuel load of between 8000-8100 Kg (18000-18250 pounds)..I am not sure about the max payload of the F-22A or the PAKFA, but the F-35A has a max payload (internal + external) of 8164 Kg/18,000 lb...

Thrust to weight ratios would be interesting once they finally decide to narrow down on engine specification but the empty weight seems to be a little conservative given the overall payload..It might change as the design matures. An 18.5 ton empty weight is going to challenge performance with the engine thrust numbers being thrown around..

^^^ That fuel figure also does not match with 02 hrs endurance.
Why?

It says "endurance". Endurance setting consumption 9.5 T fuel in 02 hrs does not add up from what Jet Engines I have known (and they were Russian fuel guzzlers).

Essentially that 4.75 T fuel per engine for 02 hrs or 2.375T fuel per hour per engine for Endurance of 02 Hrs.

Based on a Specific Gravity of .85 and if my math is correct 9.5 T of ATF equals 11166 ltrs or that is 2791.50 Ltrs per hr per engine for Endurance. Way too high IMO even with all external stores.

But then I am posting from what I understand from endurance and could be wrong.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jul 2015 21:41

SaiK wrote:actually mitsu atd-x specs and requirements are way inferior for IAF.. otherwise, the japanese program actually can merge with AMCA

The ATD-X is a tech demonstrator that will be used to develop and de-risk technology that will eventually be used in a much larger aircraft. I haven't really seen any conclusive specification list for the eventual F-X that comes out of this. The Japanese government will decide on whether to launch he F-X based on technology developed under the ATD-X around 2018 after the tech demonstration phase concludes.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-fi ... 1604027972

The biggest cost, and ultimately the biggest determinant of performance and time-frame for the F-X (Japan) will be how and when they develop the engines required for high end performance. They seem to be looking at local engines. India is choosing to work with a partner for the engine supply, at least for AMCA Mk1..so its best to stay away from the Japanese efforts given the fact that they aren't even looking to take a decision on whether to go ahead on the F-X by 2018, and because India is already in the process of trying to select an engine supplier.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Jul 2015 21:43

deejay wrote: It says "endurance". Endurance setting consumption 9.5 T fuel in 02 hrs does not add up from what Jet Engines I have known (and they were Russian fuel guzzlers).

Essentially that 4.75 T fuel per engine for 02 hrs or 2.375T fuel per hour per engine for Endurance of 02 Hrs.

Based on a Specific Gravity of .85 and if my math is correct 9.5 T of ATF equals 11166 ltrs or that is 2791.50 Ltrs per hr per engine for Endurance. Way too high IMO even with all external stores.

But then I am posting from what I understand from endurance and could be wrong.

It could include a supercruise radius/dash as well, or simply be a mission specific load..The entire chart seems to be off in my opinion, the empty weight is too high for a fighter that is looking for a 25,000 pound engine (50,000 pounds of thrust)..

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Jul 2015 21:59

That slide is really old as far as I know. No use discussing from it. IMHO.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 25 Jul 2015 23:46

Both the figure of empty weight @18T and internal fuel @9.5T are wrong. This figures were for FGFA in another old slide.

My estimate is empty weight of 12T and internal fuel of 5.5T for 25T MTOW of AMCA.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Jul 2015 03:15

I say we don't procrastinate on the most important thing, ie Engine. we should straight forward ditch GE and focus on EJ200s- 120kN. I have been saying this now for at least 5 years. We could have been much better now.

GEs are fine as long as they have no deep hacking chips and hyde laws to strangle us exactly at a time, when we need more of their support. We have been there and done that.. and still we chased behind khan equipment. What we need is khan capability, maturity and knowledge. that is all!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Jul 2015 06:35

Click on This Link

That is a Google books MiG 21 manual. Page 9 has a table that lists the fuel guzzling MiG 21 as using about 2000 liters per hour in "endurance flying" with fuel specific gravity being mentioned as 0.775. - i.e 1.6 tons per hour or 3.2 tons in 2 hours. If there were two engines using the same amount of fuel (i.e 2 MiG 21s) then 6.4 tons would be used used

Googling around I find that the F-15 burns about 9 tons in 2 hours. But the F-15 has an empty weight of 14 tons or so

Looks like a cooked up brochure. I hope AMCA is also not cooked up

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Jul 2015 15:36

Reading he post about the Aura UCAV,it looks like the Aura will arrive by around 2020.If it does succeed as we hope,then Aura and Aura+ dev will be a far better bet to pursue than the AMCA.A naval variant can also be developed to operate both from existing CVs as well as the planned large NCV.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Jul 2015 16:43

AURA = Autonomous Unmanned Research Aircraft

And,

The ADA describes the AURA as a "self-defending high-speed reconnaissance UAV with weapon firing capability".
Role: Unmanned Stealth Bomber
And, why a naval variant of a "Stealth Bomber"?

So, what exactly in it will replace a AMCA? Am I missing something?

Besides that the two should be funded independent of each other - they are nowhere close to being the same type of efforts. What do they have in common other than they both fly?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 26 Jul 2015 16:44

SFC Data on the F-414 from TEG (as reliable as one can get online)..

F414-GE-400
(MIL) 14,700lbs @ 0.840 lb/HR/lb st
(MAX) 22,000lbs @ 1.850 lb/HR/lb st

Of course this is only a ballpark, since the higher thrust EPE will consume more fuel..I'll try to find data on the Euro Jet as well...

One thing one has to take into account with a 5th generation fighter (F-22, F-35 both demonstrate this and I am sure PAKFA and AMCA will as well) is that it carries the CFT's or EFT's into the design and similarly the weapons..You design for a large internal fuel volume compared to the class of non-stealthy fighters you are comparing it too...So your drag figures will be high compared to a modern legacy fighter without bags, or weapons but significantly lower compared to a it with relevant fuel and weapons..

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 26 Jul 2015 19:39

I say tie up with Germans - MTU and develop an ab initio 125-150kn engine. Budget USD 5 Billion for it.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 26 Jul 2015 20:10

Gyan wrote:I say tie up with Germans - MTU and develop an ab initio 125-150kn engine. Budget USD 5 Billion for it.

+1. Always maintained for gaining capability , beg, borrow or steal , don't care.
Earlier jet engine program has not been a success and China after pumping billions are still finding it tough. If any option available to get jet engine tech. just go for it.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 26 Jul 2015 20:22

My estimate of Budget required:-

AMCA USD 25 Billion

Engine USD 5 Billion

AESA Radar USD 1 Billion

Production line USD 1 Billion

Deep indigenisation to set up production for various components of airframe, avionics etc another USD 25 Billion

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Jul 2015 20:23

the brains at helm don't think engine is a big thing to focus on.. perhaps, they have been bought by middlemen clout system, that will ensure programs are done with their control wand in secure place.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Jul 2015 20:32

Tie ups are fine.

BUT, never expect crown jewels from anyone. At best India can expect older techs and newer ones in a black box until India figures them out.

Invest in parallel, but independent research and design + manufacturing. The prior should be supported by black accounts, while the latter with budgeted accounts + timelines.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Jul 2015 20:52

+1 NRao.. investment is one aspect, but chartering to finish is entirely different. we can't have GTRE as is doing this. we need much more visibility to their work done (not secrets, but status).. this can't be super hard thing to do by humans.. that means, only firangs are humans and indics are not views. we have to focus and get things done. there are certain niche areas we are hiring wrong brains.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 26 Jul 2015 21:28

Without investment we are not even in reckoning.

If we compare money spent or presently being spent on R&D of LCA various versions over 40 years vs our GDP at that time then on the same ratio of Budget/GDP, we can easily spent USD 40-60 Billion dollars on AMCA over ten years, say between 2016 to 2026.

For instance when we allocated Rs. 50 crores in 1979 and then Rs 560 crores in 1983, since then our GDP is Rupees has grown by 30 times, hence Rs 50 + 560 crores would be resource equivalent to Rs. 20,000 crores.

But we should give a good budget in one go rather than a drip feed.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Jul 2015 22:22

firstly let me correct there.. investments alone doesn't result in products. of course they are the core in terms of supporting a plan. that is all to it from funds. rest is all what to be done, and how?

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 26 Jul 2015 22:39

First develop capabilities with building blocks rather than start a product and then go for capabilities.
Differentiate between a research program and product development program. Validate new capabilities on existing products and then incorporate them on new products.
Till now we have always announced products and then started the research work and capability development.
Change DRDO to Defence Research Organization and some new organization to develop products leveraging all the available capabilities, in public or private space. Production finally goes to someone in public or private player based on certain criterias

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jul 2015 05:39

There is no way anyone can simply and quickly develop a jet engine de-novo without prior experience or models. Our only hope is to build on the expertise we have. German, Italy and Japan do not build jet engines although I am sure they have the industrial and human resources to do so if they had to develop an engine. The reason they do not is that as the powers opposed to the "Allies" of WW 2, Germany, Italy and Japan have been integrated into the economies of the US and Europe and can get engines from the usual suspects with no sanctions or other issues. For similar reasons no one actually buys combat aircraft from Germany, Italy or Japan.

The main engine makers remain Pratt and Whitney, GE, Snecma, Rolls Royce and a few others apart from Russian companies. If we go to them tomorrow and ask for an engine they will simply pull out a working core and build the required engine around it. they have already been through the pain of making that core work. Building a de-novo engine takes a minimum of 20 years of development even today.

We have some skills in India. We need to build on them and put in serious efforts not to waste what has already been done.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Jul 2015 06:29

Depends on what the goal/s are.

A simple "engine" is possible: GE Honda have one for a commuter jet. IF India wanted some such "partnership" I would imagine it could be worked out.

It is with the top of the line jets that the problem arises. And, I think - from what I have read so far - India has taken the right path.

India seems to be developing an engine that is perhaps best termed as an offshoot of the Kaveri. This is a long term project, Do not have a good idea of the funding for it, but suspect that it will be funded. Well funded? Do not know.

The other is an engine specifically for the AMCA - for which they are planning on funding a proven engine to meet the specific requirements for the AMCA. For this they seem to have funds to reach the goal. They know what they want, have isolated a couple that seem to have the least risks and teh funds are there.

Two separate/independent efforts, de-risk if you will.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 27 Jul 2015 06:58

The option to "fund" an existing foreign engine to meet AMCA specs does not add to GTRE capabilities. While the K9/K10 effort continues in GTRE, I feel it is time to do a JV with one of the foreign engine companies by a private Indian company to produce engines across a whole class of products for aircrafts/UAV's/cruise missiles of varied sizes and needs, marine engines for a variety of Indian products, from where hopefully there are some spin offs and cross pollinations to create an indigenous and self sufficient local industry as part of the Indian MIC.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 27 Jul 2015 08:53

Re Shiv

You are right that Germans do not have any complete engine but they have full technology base as JV partners in numerous engine programs. Hence, there is A higher chance they will not sabotage a JV to develop an engine. Like their help in ALH. But DRDO is likely to insist on GE or RR who will screw them after initial couple of years right in mid stream.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Jul 2015 09:29

he option to "fund" an existing foreign engine to meet AMCA specs does not add to GTRE capabilities

Well, the term is "codevelop". So, they tried it with GE, but the SD declined to part with key tech. They are making an attempt, but like I have mentioned, no one will part with crown jewels.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Jul 2015 10:12

But DRDO is likely to insist on GE or RR who will screw them after initial couple of years right in mid stream.

Until india gets her own engine that fear will always remain.

Having said that the chances. In the next few decades, are at their lowest. If India is serious India could retaliate.

But that fear will be there.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 29 Jul 2015 11:42

I was trying to make the point that we need to take on a technology partner who is less likely to screw us. That seems to be Germans rather than RR, PW or GE.

srai · Post by **srai** » 12 Aug 2015 10:32

The IAF’s ‘Generation’ Dream

Four years ago, in February 2009, the world got its first glimpse of India’s secretive next-generation fighter aircraft effort. Typically christened with the anodyne ‘Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft’ (AMCA) working title, crowds at Aero India 2009 puzzled at the shiny wind-tunnel model. Four years later, the programme has shaped up in more ways than one. For starters, its design has been refined considerably – a new model representing the aircraft’s refined shape is on display at this year’s show – and the project itself is quietly gathering steam. After all, models and artwork mean little for a fighter programme that is undoubtedly India’s most ambitious. In 2009, when the AMCA model – then just called the MCA – the then Defence Resaech and Development Organisation (DRDO) chief M. Natarajan had said the aircraft would be an advanced fourthgeneration platform, and not a fifth-generation one. Since then, the Aeronautical Development Establishment’s (ADE) sights have been set considerably higher, and the AMCA, as we know it today, is definitely intended to be a fifth-generation platform. Some would say they’re aiming at the stars, as DRDO agencies are typically wont to do. But there is a special recognition this time that the Indian Air Force (IAF) will accept nothing less than a cutting-edge stealth fighter.

But there remain several questions: Why is India spending valuable resources on the AMCA when it is already spending billions on the Perspective Multi-role Fighter (PMF) the modified Indian variant of the Russian Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA fifth-generation fighter aircraft that is already in flight test mode? Isn’t there an unnecessary duplication of effort? Why is there still a question over whether India is interested in the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning-II? With budget cuts and austerity measures, can India afford to fund two expensive fifth- generation fighter programmes? Are India’s next-generation requirements clearly defined? Will the PMF/FGFA and AMCA occupy similar spaces? How will their roles be separately defined? Is the FGFA truly a “joint” effort, or is it more on the lines of the Su- 30MKI programme? These and many other questions remain without satisfactory answers at this stage. But one thing remains perfectly clear: while the T-50/FGFA is already in flight test (though it won’t be in service before the end of the decade or thereafter), the AMCA is still very much on the drawing board, which perhaps means the aircraft is unlikely to be a reality until well into the next decade. Incidentally, visitors to Aero India 2013 will be treated to models of both the refined AMCA as well as the “modified” HAL version of the PMF/FGFA.

While the PMF/FGFA programme is projected as a joint effort, there should be no real illusions about just how “joint” it is. The Indian PMF will be a Russian platform with a handful of important Indian or Indian-selected/customised systems – much like the Su-30MKI. Therefore, the benefits that accrue to the Indian aerospace establishment in terms of fighter development are not quite solid.

And there is, perhaps, where the AMCA comes in. Built from the ground up by Indian scientists in Indian laboratories, the AMCA will be a fully Indian effort. And like the LCA, will be representative of India building its own platform as a result of circumstances. No country in the world will share stealth technologies. That’s the reality. As it stands, AMCA is a stealthy fifth-generation manned fighter concept intended to produce a potent multi-role platform (with a focus on strike profiles) that will, in time, augment and replace the Indian Air Force’s Jaguars and MiG-27s. The government used to prefer that the AMCA project, headed by scientist Dr A.K. Ghosh, remain below the proverbial radar, but no longer. The government is finally prepared to talk about the project and openly fund it. The secrecy with which the effort progresses have led many to wonder if the AMCA could actually be India’s final indigenous manned fighter aircraft programme. (The question assumes huge importance considering that full scale engineering development (FSED) of the platform could begin within a year.) That notion is supported by two facts: one, the aeronautical establishment will be investing majorly in unmanned combat aerial vehicles (specifically the Predator-like Rustom-H and stealthy flying wing IUSAV) going with doctrine, and two, the fighter types that will be inducted in the next decade – both Indian and foreign – will be templates for improved variants that could be in use for at least the next half-century.

For now, however, the AMCA is a well-defined programme that looks to deliver tangible results in terms of a credible, potent combat aircraft platform on the lines of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning-II. It makes sense, therefore, for the Indian military-industrial complex to develop evolutionary technologies that will find place both on manned and unmanned platforms. On the AMCA, Indian scientists are looking to push the envelope further than they have ever tried to before. Every little bit makes a difference when a legacy leap is at play, which is why, from engine performance parameters to control surfaces to control laws to cockpit ergonomics, everything is up for change.

The obvious evolutions are clear: low-observable shape and airframe materials, extensive use of carbon composites, internal weapons bays, low bypass low-emission engines, modular internals, etc. The deeper you go, the more complicated and revolutionary the plans actually become.

If AMCA Project Director Dr Ghosh meets his objectives, then one of the most compelling aspects of the AMCA will be its cockpit and man-machine interface. To begin with, unlike the decidedly crowded, fourthgeneration cockpit of the LCA Tejas, the AMCA cockpit is being developed with a panoramic active-matrix display, of the kind available on American fifth-generation aircraft. Switches, bezels and keypads stand to be replaced with touch screen interfaces and voice commands. What Dr Ghosh’s team wants is for the future IAF pilot to have a helmet-mounted display system that allows the dispensing of a head-up display (HUD) from the cockpit altogether, a revolutionary concept. The Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADA), which oversees the AMCA programme, has asked private industry in the country to explore the feasibility of creating primary panoramic displays and other avionics displays that would befit a fifth-generation cockpit environment. The cockpit, however, is simply one of what is a hugely ambitious technology wishlist that Dr Ghosh and his team are pinning their hopes on for the aircraft they ultimately produce.

The proposed evolutions begin at the lowest level – system architecture – and will attempt to build a triplex fly-by-light electro-optic architecture with fibre-optic links for signal and data communications, unlike the electrical links on the Tejas platform. Significantly, unlike centralised architecture on the Tejas, the AMCA proposes to sport a distributed architecture with smart sub-systems. Likewise, unlike the LCA’s centralised digital flight control computer (DFCC), the AMCA is likely to have a distributed system with smart remote units for data communication with sensors and actuators, a system that will almost definitely require much faster on-board processors.

Sensors will be a proving ground for just how advanced the AMCA programme is, and will be in reality a test case for future applications on unmanned vehicles. Scientists will be working towards getting the mechanical gyros and accelerometers, standard on the Tejas, to evolve on the AMCA into fibre-optic gyros, ring laser gyros and MEMS gyros. The pressure probes and vanes that make up the air-data sensors will become an optical and flush air data system, and position sensors will be linear/rotary optical encoders. Importantly, actuators – currently electro-hydraulic/direct drive – could be electro-hydrostatic to accrue substantive weight savings on the AMCA. Sensor fusion for an overarching situation picture is something the ADA is already attempting to achieve on the Tejas suite, so one the AMCA it should be a standard requirement.

One of the key areas that India has lagged behind on is control laws. The AMCA should feature highly evolved integrated control laws for flight, propulsion, braking, nose wheel steer and fuel management and adaptive neural networks for fault detection, identification and control law reconfiguration. All of this will cost the country much, but will find valuable applications in the unmanned programmes, particularly AURA. Unlike the Tejas, which features an avionics systems architecture based on functionality-based individual computer systems connected on MIL-STD-1553B buses and RS 422 links, the AMCA’s avionics systems architecture, it is hoped, will feature a “central computational system connected internally and externally on an optic fibre channel by means of multiport connectivity switching modules”. In such a system, functionality will be mapped on resources optimally and reallocated when faults occur. Data communications on the AMCA’s processing modules will be through a high-speed fibre channel bus, IEEE-1394BSTD. The connectivities will be switched by means of a multiport switching matrix, with data speeds of 400 MB/second. In literature made available on the programme, these facets reveal the stunning leap scientists are looking to make with this one manned aircraft programme.

The AMCA is almost certain to have integrated radio naviation systems, where all burdens earlier borne by analogue circuits will be carried out by digital processors. Communication systems will be based on software radio ranging from UHF to K band, with data links for digital data/voice data and video. One of the most exciting new area being exploited for the AMCA is algorithms. While the LCA suite no major decision aid to the pilot, the AMCA commander will have the ability to plan attack strategies, avoidance tactics, retreat strategies and evasive strategies for himself and his partners in the air. Each of these technologies, planned in a manned environment are being evolved and developed for extension to an autonomous unmanned environment as well. Critics would argue that the establishment needs to focus on finishing what it has started before dreaming big. Others would say, it’s better to think big now, than face repeated obsolescence even before your bird flies.

But these are early days, months and years yet. There is a mountain of work to be done, with little time and even less money. The only way, hopefully, is up.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Aug 2015 12:39

A good collation, but cannot find anything new. Looks like the author went through a bunch of old articles and picked the best. Could not find a date. Nice effort, but ......

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Aug 2015 13:32

imo unless absolutely necessary there is not much point in throwing away all the proven work of the tejas platform in control systems and electricals and going with whatever is perceived as more leading edge. more the SW intensivity more the headaches of testing.

AMCA wont be great or hopeless based on its fiber optic driven distributed control system or a plain old electrical centralized system.

50% will depend on the engine
25% on sensors
25% on weapons

without a great engine, we will get another FBC-1 owlet dragon - overweight and sluggish...in 2030.

its cool to push the edges and create work for 10 yrs but the model has to be a shipped product on time lines.....not a science project. companies are increasingly deciding to leverage open src for this reason.

program manager has to wield a strict filter and cut out any new development not needed...all labs will be excited to get work but we need a shipping product as fast as possible. high risk projects should be started in parallel but slated for post-FOC releases.

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 12 Aug 2015 22:01

I hope IAF/ADA/DRDO build extra margin of error this time nd 25% additional capacity, whether it is wing, fuselage, air intake, nose for radar etc, so that it does not require redesign immediately when it flies and there is no clammer to shut it down or redesign it.

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 12 Aug 2015 22:13

I am no expert, but from the look of the model it looks very tight on margin and if there is any small error, detractor of the project will get handle to beat it.
Also based on past experience with LCA and AJT it would be better to err on side of caution and extra capacity.

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 Aug 2015 04:54

NRao wrote:A good collation, but cannot find anything new. Looks like the author went through a bunch of old articles and picked the best. Could not find a date. Nice effort, but ......

The date can be figured out based on the first sentence

... "four years ago, Feb 2009, ..." which means the article was written sometime in 2013.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Aug 2015 07:14

srai wrote:
NRao wrote:A good collation, but cannot find anything new. Looks like the author went through a bunch of old articles and picked the best. Could not find a date. Nice effort, but ......
The date can be figured out based on the first sentence ... "four years ago, Feb 2009, ..." which means the article was written sometime in 2013.

Proof enough that I need to retire.

ragupta wrote:I am no expert, but from the look of the model it looks very tight on margin and if there is any small error, detractor of the project will get handle to beat it.
Also based on past experience with LCA and AJT it would be better to err on side of caution and extra capacity.

The AMCA has gone through some 3-4 major changes before arriving at this design. Including the amount of time they have had to think about it, I think it is a lower risk product than the LCA. The LCA has four versions I, IA, II and the N.

Singha wrote:imo unless absolutely necessary there is not much point in throwing away all the proven work of the tejas platform in control systems and electricals and going with whatever is perceived as more leading edge. more the SW intensivity more the headaches of testing.

AMCA wont be great or hopeless based on its fiber optic driven distributed control system or a plain old electrical centralized system.

50% will depend on the engine
25% on sensors
25% on weapons

without a great engine, we will get another FBC-1 owlet dragon - overweight and sluggish...in 2030.

its cool to push the edges and create work for 10 yrs but the model has to be a shipped product on time lines.....not a science project. companies are increasingly deciding to leverage open src for this reason.

program manager has to wield a strict filter and cut out any new development not needed...all labs will be excited to get work but we need a shipping product as fast as possible. high risk projects should be started in parallel but slated for post-FOC releases.

Dr. Ghosh is no slouch. The under-the-radar lead I think has gamed it very well. No one even knows him.

He has had, what?, some 15 years or so to plan it out?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Sep 2015 08:19

back to the engine battles

http://idrw.org/eurojet-promises-better ... more-72990

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Sep 2015 13:41

The AMCA – Look before you leap! - Prodyut Das

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Sep 2015 18:17

not seen this before:

Engines who powers Future Indian Combat Jets

But the ADA now hunts for even more powerful engines with good super cruise and more powerful Engines for the Home made 5th Generation fighters, the ADA and HAL plans to power the AMCA with affordable 220kN Engines, where the AMCA comes with twin engines each of them should show 110kN in full afterburner mode, but ADA didn't reveal the information about the required dry thrust power values,

So India and US agreed to further develop the F 414 Engines to increase the power output by 110kN, both the US Navy and Indian AMCA team suggested the GE to re-mod the engine to deliver more power, the same also discussed with the US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, he confirms that he will discuss with the US officials for the Joint research in the engine development, but since months the project didn't wakeup from the discussion Tables, the US and India signed a agreement called DTTI which involves co-developments in core technology.

The Americans may opt for their own Pratt & Whitney engines for their Higher output needs, that's the suspected reason of the negligence of co developing the F 414 to deliver more power. the American Fifth Gen fighters like F 22 and F 35 and the F 15 uses the advanced Pratt and Whitney F 119 engines who delivers 156 kN to power the F 22, the twin engines give awesome power output of more than 300 kN to the world's finest fighter Aircraft, also the F 35 uses the Pratt&Whitney F135 who delivers 191 kN in full after burner mode, and the F 15 uses the PW F 100 who delivers 129 kN power, the twin engines gives the F 15 nearly 250 kN of power,

(English could be better) Interesting angle, but I do not see it. But, who knows.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 09 Sep 2015 18:28

English aside the article make no sense at all. How can a Pratt and Whitney engine come in and replace the F414? What engine and for what purpose? The F414 family supports the F-18E/F, EA-18G, SAAB Gripen NG and the N-LCA (and LCA-Mk2) fleet and could possibly support 1-2 next generation developmental programs. The USN operates a ton of Super Hornets and Growlers and they will all be required to be upgraded towards the mid point of their service life (starting middle of next decade but truly in the 2027-2030 time-frame). There is no P&W engine that can do that and since these engines do not require replacement but upgrades there is only one company that can do this. The GE F414 EPE/EDE will come even if GE does not secure a single export customer for it, its just a matter of when.