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

[shiv]

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

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

You have a comprehension problem with the topic of this thread.

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

Sir that was a laughable nonsense mission you conjured up. No matter how much you wriggle and squirm you committed yourself to a fantasy meaningless mission that no Indian aircraft can fulfil. Perhaps your comprehension problem crops up every time you read your own post, but not for me. Or maybe you did not even read it after you typed it. Not my problem.

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

The comprehension problem is yours. Pilot fatigue can be a problem even after 45 minute flights but two pilots and dual controls are not to reduce pilot fatigue, but to reduce pilot workload. It is not as if one pilot sleeps while the other stays awake. Maybe you do not know the difference between pilot fatigue and pilot workload but I will stop allowing your ignorance to be my problem. That was my mistake and I do comprehend now. I welcome the idea that you stick to your views and thank you for your permission to let me stick to my views.

[shiv]

Shiv Sir,

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

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

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

You have put many of my concerns into words perfectly.

Other than as a program to develop technologies that we do not have now I cannot see what role the AMCA will have for the IAF other than a niche role and that too if it is delivered on time. And the parallel purchase of PAK-FA is a serious cop out that will aloow us bragging rights that "We also have 5 gen" while we extend timelines forever

Perhaps Austin is right. The coming of the AMCA may well depend on other factors - including HAL's ability to deliver on LCA Mk 2

[Viv S]

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

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

Well you asked what the purpose of super-cruise was. Its utility in modern combat isn't conditional on the existence or non-existence of the AMCA.

[shiv]

Well you asked what the purpose of super-cruise was. Its utility in modern combat isn't conditional on the existence or non-existence of the AMCA.

I was asking what the purpose of supercruise would be for the AMCA. I know what the US claims to use it for with the F-22.

But I do not believe that simple "military power" without afterburner would be sufficient to generate the acceleration required in every situation. That is what I am disputing. With the F-22 being the only supercruising aircraft in service today the idea that there is some aircraft out there that will simply get away stealthily on military power alone without using afterburner and without increasing its IR signature as you suggested is, in my view, not correct and not acceptable without more information from those who have actually tried it in a real or simulated combat scenarios.

[Viv S]

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

What resources? FGFA, MTA etc I can understand as a waste of developmental capital. But the Tejas and Dhruv programs are clear and present evidence of the kind of cost-effectiveness that domestic programs deliver.

The AMCA needs to be seen in the same light as the Tejas. A cost effective fifth generation aircraft to help the IAF make up the numbers. And contrary to what's been said on the thread, stealth fighters aren't just something that the USAF dreamt up to meet USAF requirements. Here's a list of countries that will be inducting VLO fighters over the coming decade -

1. US
2. China
3. Russia
4. UK
5. Norway
6. Netherlands
7. Italy
8. Turkey
9. Israel
10. Canada
11. Japan
12. South Korea
13. Australia
14. Singapore
___________
Highly Likely

15. Finland
16. Denmark
17. Belgium
18. Poland

(There'll be many more over the longer term including Vietnam and Pakistan. Only notable exception is France... and maybe Germany.)


There is indeed a question mark over the AMCA but it is not one of cost, nor one of capability for that matter. Its purely a question of time-lines. And this is one place where the ADA would be well advised to ignore/overcome its institutional instincts vis a vis the level of domestic content. Buy components off-the-shelf (COTS) wherever possible. Get an engine with excess power margins (allowing for a larger weight growth cushion). Go the whole hog on foreign consultancy, preferably Boeing (experienced non-competitor). Focus on getting it out to the user and manufacture at scale. Everything else is a secondary as far as the project's success is concerned.

[Viv S]

I was asking what the purpose of supercruise would be for the AMCA. I know what the US claims to use it for with the F-22.

What does the US employs it primarily to conserve fuel (range is a pressing concern for them). On the other hand, for us, minimizing the IR signature will be the primary consideration.

But I do not believe that simple "military power" without afterburner would be sufficient to generate the acceleration required in every situation. That is what I am disputing. With the F-22 being the only supercruising aircraft in service today the idea that there is some aircraft out there that will simply get away stealthily on military power alone without using afterburner and without increasing its IR signature as you suggested is, in my view, not correct and not acceptable without more information from those who have actually tried it in a real or simulated combat scenarios.

Yes, it doesn't ameliorate the need for an afterburner in 'every situation'. But it'll be useful in enough of them that the IAF probably finds it a necessity. There are other metallurgical and design solutions towards reducing IR signatures (employed on the F-35 for example) but investing in them may not have a timely payout.

The difference between the IR signature in military and wet thrust is akin to that between a barbecue and a bonfire. With long wave IRST systems steadily pushing into BVR regimes andpassive ranging functions becoming ever more sophisticated, requiring a next gen fighter to have as low an IR signature as is possible within reason, is a fair demand.

Also, with the capability featured on the Eurofighter and Gripen E, its not like super-cruise is an exotic requirement. Its primarily a matter of maximizing thrust and optimizing the drag profile for supersonic conditions. Very doable as long as they factor it in early.

A more worrying requirement is the six missile configuration. It'll be a tight fit for an aircraft that's substantially lighter than the F-35 (which for moment packs only four). Perhaps they can get around it, by designing shallower bays.

[shiv]

A more worrying requirement is the six missile configuration. It'll be a tight fit for an aircraft that's substantially lighter than the F-35 (which for moment packs only four). Perhaps they can get around it, by designing shallower bays.

I would not like to convert this into a discussion of what the US does - but what the US does should be instructive for India. The US is hardly going to use the F-22 or F-35 in isolation. The F-22 and F-35 come with a robust backing of all the other air power that the US can field along with the necessary "sensor fusion". So yes while the 6 missile problem may be a concern, the US has enough resources to play with various combinations of munitions and aircraft.

India does not have that luxury. In fact we don't have
1. Engine making capability
2. The wherewithal to test thrust vectoring on an engine
3. No flying engine test bed
4. Know known radar anechoic facilities to test stealth
5. No supersonic wind tunnel to test supercruise performance
6. No vertical wind tunnel to test spin characteristics

In the absence of all this and more India wants to design a fifth generation fighter which needs all of the above to be successful as a fifth generation fighter and even after that it will carry only a limited amount internally - not even as much as Jaguar, Mirage 2000 or MiG 27.

I wonder why very few people are asking these questions. Is the AMCA idea so attractive and romantic that we are willing to forget everything that helped delay the LCA interminably? We are going to be sending people abroad every time data has to be collected on the points I have mentioned. That should tell us just how far we can talk about a nuclear arsenal - given the way the LCA program was butt-kicked back by a decade because of Pokhran 1998. Have our people no brains? No strategic vision for the country? wtf!

[ShauryaT]

given the way the LCA program was butt-kicked back by a decade because of Pokhran 1998. Have our people no brains? No strategic vision for the country? wtf!

Also should be an instructive lesson to tell us how dependent we were on the west for the LCA program itself. The AMCA, the IAF imagines would require a similar level of dependency on the west if not more. Maybe that is what many want?

Shiv ji: A long time back you had indicated a cleanup on the lines of augean stables for our defense establishment, I am still looking for the Hercules who will do it.

[shiv]

given the way the LCA program was butt-kicked back by a decade because of Pokhran 1998. Have our people no brains? No strategic vision for the country? wtf!

Also should be an instructive lesson to tell us how dependent we were on the west for the LCA program itself. The AMCA, the IAF imagines would require a similar level of dependency on the west if not more. Maybe that is what many want?

Shiv ji: A long time back you had indicated a cleanup on the lines of augean stables for our defense establishment, I am still looking for the Hercules who will do it.

I'm sorry Shaurya about more things than this sordid saga. I am tempted to start exploring the kind of mindset that we as Indians must have to behave in this way. We curse and rant about Nehru and his errors but he too was trusting of the west and the world order. He expected that wars would be no more and countries would cooperate against evil. The AMCA program is showing all the signs that DRDO, like Nehru, wants to place full trust in a huge number of external entities. And everyone seems to love it an endorse it!

I am sadly reminded of a paragraph written by VS Naipaul in one of his early India books. He is being shown around a city (perhaps Mumbai) and is asked to look at all the tall buildings and flyovers. But Naipaul is busy - to use his own words gingerly avoiding stepping or "twists, butts and squirts of human excrement" on the pavement. We look skywards and point to a great AMCA in the sky and ignore the fact that we do not have the basic infrastructure that we need to encourage and foster aircraft development in India

[srin]

Sir that was a laughable nonsense mission you conjured up. No matter how much you wriggle and squirm you committed yourself to a fantasy meaningless mission that no Indian aircraft can fulfil. Perhaps your comprehension problem crops up every time you read your own post, but not for me. Or maybe you did not even read it after you typed it. Not my problem.

Essentially, two things come out:
a) No Indian aircraft today can *apparently* fulfil and therefore, IAF shouldn't project it as a mission requirement for the next-gen aircraft
b) A mission seems laughable to you and therefore, isn't a valid mission that IAF should think about. IAF therefore shouldn't look for missions that seem infeasible for PAF.

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

The comprehension problem is yours. Pilot fatigue can be a problem even after 45 minute flights but two pilots and dual controls are not to reduce pilot fatigue, but to reduce pilot workload. It is not as if one pilot sleeps while the other stays awake. Maybe you do not know the difference between pilot fatigue and pilot workload but I will stop allowing your ignorance to be my problem.
[/quote]
I never said anything about one pilot sleeping. And given that you haven't given any sources to support your contention, we just should agree to disagree.

That was my mistake and I do comprehend now. I welcome the idea that you stick to your views and thank you for your permission to let me stick to my views.

Thank you, sir - for letting us know your opinions.

[deejay]

A link that NRao ji posted on the AMCA thread is interesting as it lays out to some degree what IAF wants from it and it also lays out how many it is hoped IAF will buy and what will it replace and add on to. It also shows how the IAF has varied its thought on AMCA with time - F H Major, P V Naik, etc. It is Shiv Aroor and it is from 2010 so one may take it for what its worth:

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2010/01/ ... craft.html

In August 2008, right about the time the Indian Air Force had decided to officially kickstart procedures to get the Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) off the realm of theory, then Chief of Air Staff Fali Major happened to bump into DRDO chief M Natarajan and then HAL chairman Ashok Baweja at an industry suppliers function in Bangalore. The Chief was mildly irritated that both Baweja and Natarajan had provided media sound-bytes and interviews suggesting that the MCA would have "fifth generation technologies". He impressed upon both gentlemen, over tea, that if the MCA went the LCA way, it would be not just unacceptable to the air force, but an act of criminal disregard for the country's security. "Give the air force a bloody first-rate fourth generation aeroplane. That is the job before you," he said.

Two months later, in October 2008, the name of the MCA programme was changed (on recommendation to the Secretary, Defence Production) to "Next Generation Fighter Aircraft", though MCA continues to be used alternatively without any particular distinction.

As per official documentation by the IAF, it wants the MCA to be a twin-pilot configured multirole stealth aircraft capable of "close air support, all weather interception, air defence suppression, long-range strike, electronic attack, limited command & control and reconnaisance" -- that's the profile from an official IAF wishlist to the ADA last year. That might roll right off the air force's tongue, like off a brochure, but they're deadly serious. Putting all speculation to rest when it officially began dialogue about the MCA in 2008, the IAF said it was not willing to look at a strike aircraft with other capabilities. It wants a fully multirole (preferably, swingrole) aircraft for the job.

As we speak, a joint committee of several bodies involved with the NGFA is finetuning the configuration of the final jet, before work begins on building a tech demonstrator, three prototype vehicles and two production series trial jets -- the wind tunnel model unveiled at Yelahanka in February 2009 is largely what the aircraft will look like, though there are three other variants that have not been displayed yet. A twin-engine delta planfrom version, which was a direct derivative from the LCA, has since been shelved -- low observable requirements demanded a fully new airframe approach, which finally ended in the design that people got to see at Aero India 2009. While the wind-tunnel model, fabricated by a Bangalore-based engineering firm, is the product of an ADA/HAL study, there will be dramatic changes yet to the aircraft's intakes (utterly radar friendly, according to the IAF), vertical stabilisers and dorsal section, say sources.

Air Chief Marshal PV Naik, in his first interaction with the ADA last year, seemed to nitpick on indigenous radar capability, more than anything else when it came to the topic of the MCA. Sources say he was deeply incensed when given a brief on the Multi-mode Radar (MMR), pioneered by the Electronics Research & Development Establishment (LRDE) for the LCA Tejas programme. In a chat with the director of the ADA, he said the next aircraft that the agency designed and built, needed to be centred around an Indian active array combat radar. In fact, the LRDE has already proposed a second radar (deriving from the MMR) for the MCA, with technological spin-offs currently being gleaned from its partnership with Israel's Elta. But Naik didn't buy that. He said it didn't matter what the DRDO was learning from who at this stage. When it came down to putting the nails in, he said he wanted a fully Indian radar on the MCA. (hain - what, what!)

While configuration fructifies, the following work has begun on the MCA in full earnest: DARE, Bangalore has appointed a special team to begin identifying avionics and cockpit packages for the first prototype vehicle, and will supply this in published form to the ADA by July 2010. This will include cockpit electronics, cockpit configuration, man-machine interface, mission console systems and computers/software with a focus on data fusion and modular architecture. The LRDE will, in about the same time frame, provide a separate project proposal for an all new radar, to be re-designated for the MCA, as a derivative of the MMR currently being completed with technology from Israel's ELTA. LRDE will independently look in the market for a partner for active array technology, though it communicated to ADA in June 2009 that it had sufficient R&D available to build a reliable AESA prototype with assistance from Bharat Electronics Ltd and two private firms based in Hyderabad.

There is a collossal amount of work going on as far as materials is concerned for the MCA/NGFA. With the IAF unmoving in its demand for an aircraft that has stealth characteristics built into it from the drawing board forward, the DRDO has powered teams within its materials laboratories in Pune and Hyderabad to come up with new composities, low observable materials fabrication techniques, and of course, radar-absorbent control surface aggregates, airframe materials and paints. This is, of course, completely separate from design characteristics, including internal weapons, fresh leading edge innovations and a sustainable stealth maintenance footprint.

The most crucial part of the programme is of course the engine. The Kaveri-Snecma turbofan is being counted upon vigorously to be ready to power prototypes of the MCA by the middle of this decade. There is no Plan-B just yet as far as engines go. However, technologies such as single crystal and nickel-based superalloys in turbofans are still some way off as far as Indian development is concerned -- the IAF wants the use of both to be a given in the engines that power the MCA.

According to the ADA, the government will look to purchase upto 250 MCAs when its done and ready -- not just as a replacement to the MiG-27s and Jaguars, but to complement the MMRCA fleet that will hopefully be half-inducted by then. A proposal in 2008 suggested that the MCA be used as a technology feeder platform to the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA), but after hectic representations by DRDO and HAL, with support from the IAF, it was finally decided that the MCA would continue as a fully separate aircraft programme.

[srai]

If you look at that image carefully it is totally fanciful. 200-300 km will cover Pakistan completely. 1000 km will not really touch much in China. So the picture looks like a schoolboy dream or a sales brochure.

That is if the IAF bases are right along the IB Most of the airbases are pretty deep within India.

[shiv]

If you look at that image carefully it is totally fanciful. 200-300 km will cover Pakistan completely. 1000 km will not really touch much in China. So the picture looks like a schoolboy dream or a sales brochure.

That is if the IAF bases are right along the IB Most of the airbases are pretty deep within In dia.

Wrong. I am amazed at the amount of misinformation that some discussions throw up. A whole lot of IAF bases are close to the border. Pathankot, Amritsar, Ambala, Udhampur, Halwara, Jamnagar, Bikaner, Bhuj. And these are only the "listed/marked" ones. Besides, aircraft can take off deep inside with full load and half fuel, get a top up within India and then cross the border. Most of Pakistan's assets are within 150 km of the border

[shiv]

A link that NRao ji posted on the AMCA thread is interesting as it lays out to some degree what IAF wants from it and it also lays out how many it is hoped IAF will buy and what will it replace and add on to. It also shows how the IAF has varied its thought on AMCA with time - F H Major, P V Naik, etc. It is Shiv Aroor and it is from 2010 so one may take it for what its worth:

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2010/01/ ... craft.html

In August 2008, right about the time the Indian Air Force had decided to officially kickstart procedures to get the Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) off the realm of theory, then Chief of Air Staff Fali Major happened to bump into DRDO chief M Natarajan and then HAL chairman Ashok Baweja at an industry suppliers function in Bangalore. The Chief was mildly irritated that both Baweja and Natarajan had provided media sound-bytes and interviews suggesting that the MCA would have "fifth generation technologies". He impressed upon both gentlemen, over tea, that if the MCA went the LCA way, it would be not just unacceptable to the air force, but an act of criminal disregard for the country's security. "Give the air force a bloody first-rate fourth generation aeroplane. That is the job before you," he said.]

"Give the air force a bloody first-rate fourth generation aeroplane

Precisely! That is what the air force needs. This 5th gen crap is another idiotic DRDO idea that will delay the project forever apart from delivering a plane that can't carry a half decent load

These buggers cannot build an F/A 18 class fighter in India and they are talking V gen. I am truly sorry to see things heading the way they are

[srai]

...
Wrong. I am amazed at the amount of misinformation that some discussions throw up. A whole lot of IAF bases are close to the border. Pathankot, Amritsar, Ambala, Udhampur, Halwara, Jamnagar, Bikaner, Bhuj. And these are only the "listed/marked" ones. Besides, aircraft can take off deep inside with full load and half fuel, get a top up within India and then cross the border. Most of Pakistan's assets are within 150 km of the border

That's only eight permanent bases. How many AAR resources does the IAF have?

[srai]

...

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2010/01/ ... craft.html
...

"Give the air force a bloody first-rate fourth generation aeroplane

Precisely! That is what the air force needs. This 5th gen crap is another idiotic DRDO idea that will delay the project forever apart from delivering a plane that can't carry a half decent load

These buggers cannot build an F/A 18 class fighter in India and they are talking V gen. I am truly sorry to see things heading the way they are

How long does it take to R&D a new combat aircraft? By the time you design, build, test, produce and induct, the world would have moved on to next generation technologies if you are trying to use current gen (or older tech). Would the IAF accept a plane in 2030 that is a 4th gen?

[Viv S]

I would not like to convert this into a discussion of what the US does - but what the US does should be instructive for India. The US is hardly going to use the F-22 or F-35 in isolation. The F-22 and F-35 come with a robust backing of all the other air power that the US can field along with the necessary "sensor fusion". So yes while the 6 missile problem may be a concern, the US has enough resources to play with various combinations of munitions and aircraft.

I brought up 'six missiles' thing because of potential space constraints while creating the aircraft, irrespective of how they intend to employ it. The huge PAK FA for example also has a max capacity of just six missiles (including two CCMs that are an extremely tight fit).

India does not have that luxury. In fact we don't have
1. Engine making capability
2. The wherewithal to test thrust vectoring on an engine
3. No flying engine test bed
4. Know known radar anechoic facilities to test stealth
5. No supersonic wind tunnel to test supercruise performance
6. No vertical wind tunnel to test spin characteristics

1. We'll obviously adopt a foreign engine and manufacture it locally.
2. Thrust-vectoring is not a necessity. However, the engine OEM can still integrate TVC capability, if requested.
3. Not required.
4. We'll have to build one or use an existing one abroad.
5. Supercruise capability cannot be tested in a wind-tunnel per se. At best it can only determine a baseline for the 'installed thrust' required.
6. We'll have to build one or use an existing one abroad.

In the absence of all this and more India wants to design a fifth generation fighter which needs all of the above to be successful as a fifth generation fighter and even after that it will carry only a limited amount internally - not even as much as Jaguar, Mirage 2000 or MiG 27.

For the majority of their service lives, the Jaguar, Mirage 2000 and MiG-27 were equipped with just dumb bombs with their delivery cued visually. Its a whole different game when precision weapons come into play.

If the AMCA can carry 6 AAMs internally, it has the capability of carrying 10-12 SDB class weapons internally. Which means a flight of four AMCAs can potentially take out an entire regiment of tanks on the ground. And that's without factoring in the payload carried externally.

I wonder why very few people are asking these questions. Is the AMCA idea so attractive and romantic that we are willing to forget everything that helped delay the LCA interminably? We are going to be sending people abroad every time data has to be collected on the points I have mentioned. That should tell us just how far we can talk about a nuclear arsenal - given the way the LCA program was butt-kicked back by a decade because of Pokhran 1998. Have our people no brains? No strategic vision for the country? wtf!

Unfortunately, while railing against the program, you have thus far failed to suggest any alternatives to the AMCA effort -

1. Should we abandon it to rely entirely on foreign fighter aircraft (post-Tejas)?
2. Should we instead invest in an (equally complex) UCAV program?
3. Should we invest in a DARPA-type effort to identify and develop a currently unknown (and thus exotic) solution to meeting the IAF's air power needs?

[Philip]

Why 5th-gen? When the US is already developing "6th-gen" tech! Since the FGFA programme seems to be a done deal in some measure,even limited acquisitions,why reinvent the wheel? As a poster said,there are so may air farces on his list rooting for 5th-gen birds that we must leapfrog them and advance to the 6th-gen orbit. there is no point in building a smaller version of the PAk-FA/FGFA which will have inferior combat capabilities/payload/range,etc. Now all that is needed is for the IAF to identify those 6th-gen performance criteria, if they don't have it,no problemo,steal the same from the USAF's wishlist and then get indigenous tech courtesy PC Sorcar and co. to wave a magic wand over our DPSUs,HAL et al, and "zee-boom-baa!", in 3 decades time we will get our 6th-gen tech demonstrator aka the LCA!

[Viv S]

Why 5th-gen? When the US is already developing "6th-gen" tech! Since the FGFA programme seems to be a done deal in some measure,even limited acquisitions,why reinvent the wheel? As a poster said,there are so may air farces on his list rooting for 5th-gen birds that we must leapfrog them and advance to the 6th-gen orbit. there is no point in building a smaller version of the PAk-FA/FGFA which will have inferior combat capabilities/payload/range,etc. Now all that is needed is for the IAF to identify those 6th-gen performance criteria, if they don't have it,no problemo,steal the same from the USAF's wishlist and then get indigenous tech courtesy PC Sorcar and co. to wave a magic wand over our DPSUs,HAL et al, and "zee-boom-baa!", in 3 decades time we will get our 6th-gen tech demonstrator aka the LCA!

Its true the AMCA will eat into the PAK FA's orders. Given our capabilities, better to aim for a sixth generation design.

[srai]

^^^


Philip sees it black-and-white but fails to see all the shades of grey in-between. It's about finding the right balance of technologies and capability to meet the demands of the user in 10-20 years time. Both the user and the developer need to sit down and work on it together.

As far as the U.S. goes, they are the world leaders on defining and developing new technologies. That's one of the reasons why they are a superpower and can beat down any country in warfare. All other countries are playing catchup and are at least a decade behind (if not more). The only way to catchup is to leapfrog technologies and reach parity in 30-40 years time. But at the same time doing it with a right balance to meet user and technological needs.

[Philip]

In another td where a comparison is being made with the auto industry,at least our pvt. sector auto cos.,in competition with firang manufacturers,are getting their more modest products like Safaris,Boleros,Nanos,Indiacs,etc.,happily rolling off the production lines unlike the LCAs,IJTs,BTTs! The priviliged ,mollycoddled,sole manufacturer and agencies (ADA) entrusted with the design.dev. and production of mil-aircraft in the country has failed to deliver...for decades. All the stakeholders have their share of the blame apportioned,but the buck stops with the primary stakeholder the GOI as decision-maker and the designer/manufacturer.When it comes to doing battle in the sky,there are no shades of grey,simply black or white.Do you have the aircraft combat ready to do the business or not?

[srai]

^^^

So what "modest" combat aircrafts do the private Indian companies have?

[deejay]

In August 2008, right about the time the Indian Air Force had decided to officially kickstart procedures to get the Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) off the realm of theory, then Chief of Air Staff Fali Major happened to bump into DRDO chief M Natarajan and then HAL chairman Ashok Baweja at an industry suppliers function in Bangalore. The Chief was mildly irritated that both Baweja and Natarajan had provided media sound-bytes and interviews suggesting that the MCA would have "fifth generation technologies". He impressed upon both gentlemen, over tea, that if the MCA went the LCA way, it would be not just unacceptable to the air force, but an act of criminal disregard for the country's security. "Give the air force a bloody first-rate fourth generation aeroplane. That is the job before you," he said.]

"Give the air force a bloody first-rate fourth generation aeroplane

Precisely! That is what the air force needs. This 5th gen crap is another idiotic DRDO idea that will delay the project forever apart from delivering a plane that can't carry a half decent load

These buggers cannot build an F/A 18 class fighter in India and they are talking V gen. I am truly sorry to see things heading the way they are

Shiv Sir, this a 2008 conversation. The 4th Gen aircraft is here - Tejas. How many more 4th Gen aircraft do we make and how many 5th Gen aircraft will we import? I mean 274 imported Su 30 MKI, 144 FGFAs, 36 4++ Gen Rafales (at least). We must get to the point where we start walking with the latest and in some domains start setting the bench marks.

When I heard of the moon shot first - I thought - why? When I heard of the Mars Mission - I had the same sinking feeling. But our folks did it. We must back ourselves and move on to the more challenging domain.

If Tejas Mk 1 is not that first rate bloody 4th Gen aircraft then Tejas Mk 2 is. It is time we move to acquiring 5th Gen technologies.

[shiv]

Shiv Sir, this a 2008 conversation. The 4th Gen aircraft is here - Tejas. How many more 4th Gen aircraft do we make and how many 5th Gen aircraft will we import? I mean 274 imported Su 30 MKI, 144 FGFAs, 36 4++ Gen Rafales (at least). We must get to the point where we start walking with the latest and in some domains start setting the bench marks.

When I heard of the moon shot first - I thought - why? When I heard of the Mars Mission - I had the same sinking feeling. But our folks did it. We must back ourselves and move on to the more challenging domain.

If Tejas Mk 1 is not that first rate bloody 4th Gen aircraft then Tejas Mk 2 is. It is time we move to acquiring 5th Gen technologies.

Fair enough. I can see that I am one of a few crazies heading hammer and tongs at the AMCA. I see it as a role that must be played. No entity in India, entrusted with the task of delivering something so important on a national scale must get away without scrutiny and my purpose is to closely examine everything that is claimed.

Our nation does make mistakes. Throwing away the gains of the HF 24 was one mistake. Innumerable other minor errors may have occurred - like the time DRDO developed a better missile aiming system for the AA-2 Atoll rather than poorly performing audible Russian one. It was not followed up. The Atolls never hit anything useful in the 1971 war IIRC

The LCA, which is now being hailed as a success grew parallel with the Kaveri. But the Kaveri appears now to have been ditched. What is particularly galling to me is that I almost got live reports from joyful insiders when the Kaveri went for its last flight test in Russia. I got call (from a senior retired Air Marshal who was involved with LCA) who said with some pride and joy that the Kaveri more or less met its specs in Russia. his words to me were "They should now put the damn thing in an aircraft and test fly it". We do have a working engine.

That has gone now.

Now we have the GTRE asking for tenders to build a 110 kN engine and great big announcements of how AMCA is going to have this and that. These conflicts within the establishment worry me and I see it as my duty to be harsh and critical. the way these things work - it takes so long that no one recalls the past and if the program gets delayed there are the inevitable two camps where one says "kill the program" and the other says "No we have come so far, let is push on"

My attitude is that we are starting the AMCA with all these some shortcomings.

About 3-4 years ago a BRFite who has a great YouTube channel by name "Luptonga" had uploaded an Aero India seminar video that spoke of very sensible decision making in the DRDO (or was it IGMDP?) It was about the Astra. they would look at technological challenges for every component and see if they could get past them within a reasonable time period or not. If not the idea would have to be rejected. The same decision making process must be applied to AMCA.

This time around there must be no making of promises that cannot be met within a strict time frame. In other words there must be none of the following
1. Air Force did not support us
2. Air Force changed the specs
3. We have been placed under sanctions
4. Spare part stuck in ship in Korea because of war

If you go back to the 80s we did not have any experience in writing code for aircraft control laws. We did not and probably still do not make the control surface actuators. We did not have the expertise to make composites. We got all that for the LCA at the expense of terrible delays. And as long as we depend on others we are always at risk of delays

Nations have a way of making things difficult for us. If they can even grab one pubic hair they will pull on it. The USA will say "Human rights" and Germans will say "too many rapes". UK will say "Kashmir". We need to make sure that we can stick a finger up the backsides of people who do these things by breaking free.

I am going to be a scathing critic of AMCA and will demand to see real progress. I don't want to go to Aero India 2017 and see one more mock up and hear the same stuff that we already know. things need to move.

[Karan M]

>>>I am going to be a scathing critic of AMCA and will demand to see real progress. I don't want to go to Aero India 2017 and see one more mock up and hear the same stuff that we already know. things need to move.

I don't know what that scathing criticism based on media reports etc will do apart from adding to the general mix of speculation that surrounds our programs. If you do go to Aero India please spend some time discussing the issue with the IAF & ADA and that will be far more productive than everyone on this forum engaging in a circular debate parsing out the details from a mostly disinterested media which thinks everything Indian is either commoooonal or cr@p or one or the same.

Once you get the details, then by all means go hammer and tongs at stupid decisions like importing some sanction prone widget even if there is the possibility to make it local etc. We'll all join in!! Or inform us why something is being imported to meet schedules.

[Karan M]

Wrong. I am amazed at the amount of misinformation that some discussions throw up. A whole lot of IAF bases are close to the border. Pathankot, Amritsar, Ambala, Udhampur, Halwara, Jamnagar, Bikaner, Bhuj. And these are only the "listed/marked" ones. Besides, aircraft can take off deep inside with full load and half fuel, get a top up within India and then cross the border. Most of Pakistan's assets are within 150 km of the border

One of the things a senior bigwig of the IAF noted a few years back at a seminar (right at the time where one's mind only thought of when lunch would be called) was that our "MiG era" meant all these AFB were the primary focus since the aircraft range was limited. However, with increasing proliferation of long range guided weapons & lower reaction time available to defenders, plus long eyes of opponent AEW&C tracking movements on our AF, IAF was moving "inwards" to deeper AFB & aircraft like the Su-30 MKI & IFR on rest of fleet was essential to make these aircrafts swing role. Eg strike packages would deploy from one AF base, strike, land on nearest AFB to refuel, rearm and then redeploy. So the close AFB would no longer be the sole deployment areas.

[member_23694]

I don't want to go to Aero India 2017 and see one more mock up and hear the same stuff that we already know.

Sir ji, feel yourself lucky if you see improved Tejas Mk.1 or Mk.2 proto in 2017 [how frustrating ] . For AMCA, PD phase is going to start sometime in near future so don't expect a proto roll out > 2020 at best

[shiv]

Karan I think the AMCA's specs are not good enough and to my mind that is an injury to the cause of combat aircraft development in India. If the project gets interminably delayed that would be adding insult to injury. Every two years we all emerge starry eyed from aero India and nothing much happens for a long long time.

I don't want to digress too much, but I took the images of the Nag missile in 1996 that are displayed in the BR gallery. In 2015 the Nag appears to be getting ready for induction. As a sign of hope Helina actually has been tested but no induction yet. Other interminable projects are IJT, LUH, FINSAS, LTA. Dead or comatose projects include the unmanned helo based on Chetak with Israeli collaboration and Saras.

Our folks have a way of making tall promises that are not fulfilled within a reasonable time period. Sometimes those promises are simply sound bytes for an Aero India audience - like LCA with 50 cm stretch fuselage.

I am happy to see progress in the LCH, LCA, Astra and Nag but there is no word about a whole lot of other things that are promised. Contrast that with the talk one has with Cdre Balaji who gives solid info about what is causing delays and he once even expressed some apprehension that the Vikrant was progressing faster than NLCA. But the NLCA has come and appears to be on time. But more specific to this thread is the possibility that at least some of the information being released about AMCA could be smoke and mirrors - promises made that are forgotten after 2 years. That must not be allowed to happen. If AMCA is to be test flown in 2021. It must be test flown in 2021. Not 2023 or 2025

I am not going to allow anyone to forget that date. Nor do I intend allowing anyone to forget that AMCA induction is supposed to be 2025

[shiv]

Wrong. I am amazed at the amount of misinformation that some discussions throw up. A whole lot of IAF bases are close to the border. Pathankot, Amritsar, Ambala, Udhampur, Halwara, Jamnagar, Bikaner, Bhuj. And these are only the "listed/marked" ones. Besides, aircraft can take off deep inside with full load and half fuel, get a top up within India and then cross the border. Most of Pakistan's assets are within 150 km of the border

One of the things a senior bigwig of the IAF noted a few years back at a seminar (right at the time where one's mind only thought of when lunch would be called) was that our "MiG era" meant all these AFB were the primary focus since the aircraft range was limited. However, with increasing proliferation of long range guided weapons & lower reaction time available to defenders, plus long eyes of opponent AEW&C tracking movements on our AF, IAF was moving "inwards" to deeper AFB & aircraft like the Su-30 MKI & IFR on rest of fleet was essential to make these aircrafts swing role. Eg strike packages would deploy from one AF base, strike, land on nearest AFB to refuel, rearm and then redeploy. So the close AFB would no longer be the sole deployment areas.

These are Gnat era bases. Shows that nothing much changed with MiG 21. But there is an enchanting war story of how a forward air base commander in 1971 hoodwinked Pakis into bombing an old disused airstrip thinking it was the main airbase and then launched retaliatory attacks from the real air base. I will try and dig that up for people to read.

[shiv]

But there is an enchanting war story of how a forward air base commander in 1971 hoodwinked Pakis into bombing an old disused airstrip thinking it was the main airbase and then launched retaliatory attacks from the real air base. I will try and dig that up for people to read.

Enjoy..
Pete Wilson's war

[Karan M]

Karan I think the AMCA's specs are not good enough and to my mind that is an injury to the cause of combat aircraft development in India. If the project gets interminably delayed that would be adding insult to injury. Every two years we all emerge starry eyed from aero India and nothing much happens for a long long time.

I don't want to digress too much, but I took the images of the Nag missile in 1996 that are displayed in the BR gallery. In 2015 the Nag appears to be getting ready for induction. As a sign of hope Helina actually has been tested but no induction yet. Other interminable projects are IJT, LUH, FINSAS, LTA. Dead or comatose projects include the unmanned helo based on Chetak with Israeli collaboration and Saras.

Our folks have a way of making tall promises that are not fulfilled within a reasonable time period. Sometimes those promises are simply sound bytes for an Aero India audience - like LCA with 50 cm stretch fuselage.

I am happy to see progress in the LCH, LCA, Astra and Nag but there is no word about a whole lot of other things that are promised. Contrast that with the talk one has with Cdre Balaji who gives solid info about what is causing delays and he once even expressed some apprehension that the Vikrant was progressing faster than NLCA. But the NLCA has come and appears to be on time. But more specific to this thread is the possibility that at least some of the information being released about AMCA could be smoke and mirrors - promises made that are forgotten after 2 years. That must not be allowed to happen. If AMCA is to be test flown in 2021. It must be test flown in 2021. Not 2023 or 2025

I am not going to allow anyone to forget that date. Nor do I intend allowing anyone to forget that AMCA induction is supposed to be 2025

Shiv ji, TBH i didn't follow the ebbs and tides of this thread, which of the AMCA specs are you unhappy with? Is it too less or too much? Pardon me for the repetition but was trying to get a sense of where the issues are (from your perspective).
IM(H)O, only if Tejas Mk1 &2 get delivered will we see solid progress on AMCA. IAF/GOI wont sign off on a rapid progress plan (ie funding, infra, people) unless Mk1 progresses well, and Mk2 is seen to be well on track.
I might be wrong since reports note the program sanction is with MOD for a decision this year, but I expect a delay in clearance till Tejas comes good.
Regarding the other projects, we have had hits and misses but its all program and project dependent. Nag f.e. is the most sophisticated system we have in trials (before the Astra) and its seeker issues are now legendary.

[shiv]

TBH i didn't follow the ebbs and tides of this thread, which of the AMCA specs are you unhappy with? Is it too less or too much?

In brief:

2.5 ton internal carriage is too small. (Just because JSF is also similar means nothing. We are not USA.) This plane can only have a niche role. Jaguars, Mirages and MiG 29s can carry 4-6 tons and/or 6 or more AAMs

On top of this there are a whole host of issues that bother me.
1. Imported engine
2. I see no chance of any thrust vectoring being developed for this engine. I hope they dismiss the idea openly and officially rather than making wishy washy comments saying 'It will be difficult and will extend timelines"
3. We have no supersonic wind tunnel in India. Every time we need to do a supersonic wind tunnel test or a vertical wind tunnel test a model will have to go abroad after making the necessary time slot bookings and payments. If minor fixes are requires they will have to be done in India and the model shipped back abroad. Since tests can't be done in house at the drop of a hat delays are inevitable. CAD can go only so far as IJT showed us.
4. To my knowledge we have no radar anechoic testing facilities to test for stealth. This will be needed time and again and any structural modifications can have a blowback effect on aerodynamics and then the same wind tunnel issues crop up for testing with the new modified configuration
5. They are talking about supercruise. I personally think it is unnecessary but if they chase after this mirage we are adding a whole host of skin and other structural issues apart from more supersonic wind tunnel testing

If the plane comes without supercruise and thrust vectoring I don't care (personally) but timelines need to be met. This fighter may help us develop in house skills but it will hardly serve as a replace-all fighter role that Rafale plays for Armee de l'air and MiG 21 played for us. But if the plane is merely to develop in house capability then it is a science project as much as a fighter program, like the LCA was at one stage. There's no telling which way a science project will go.

[srai]

^^^

AMCA will also be able to carry weapons externally when stealth is not required. That's a standard feature of F-22, JSF and PAF-FA, and AMCA is no different.

[shiv]

^^^

AMCA will also be able to carry weapons externally when stealth is not required. That's a standard feature of F-22, JSF and PAF-FA, and AMCA is no different.

Exactly. That is part of the problem. The AMCA then fulfils only a niche role. If stealth is not required then the AMCA becomes redundant, or it is no better than a regular Rafale/FA 18 class aircraft optimised for stealth.

Only the Chinese have gone for a huge J-20 which presumably will carry a large bomb load.

To my mind the issue is as follows. For a country like India the technological challenges of building a stealthy airframe with internal weapons bays, a large engine to power that airframe and totally new weapons to be housed internally can delay the project in many unpredictable ways. If we stick to what we are already good at, optimizing stealth wherever possible creating a great 4.5 or 4.75 gen aircraft the chances of delays are smaller.

But it is too late for such wishful thinking now. We have already committed to the AMCA. Having done that I am expecting that the DRDO/ADA/HAL wil prove me wrong and BRFites in 2021 will be able to say "That bloody shiv was talking bullshit when he was going on and on about difficulties. He should have kept his gob shut. The AMCA has flown on schedule."

Note that the first flight of AMCA is supposed to be 2021. I would carve that in stone and put it up somewhere. I would be pleased to be proved wrong. My being wrong is not a big deal for the nation. The problem is if I am proven right. We would have lost 6 years by then. Let me say one more thing. In 6 years no one will remember any dates or the names of supporters and detractors. But if the project gets delayed - the time is lost forever.

[shiv]

In 2015 - the year 2021 is just 6 years away. If in 2020. DRDO say "the first flight will be in late 2021 or early 2022 we will curse but wait and say "Hey - just a few months delay"

By June 2022 if the plane has not flown we know there is a delay. Promise no 1 would have already been broken and so on

This is what I do not want to see happening with AMCA. This is exactly what happened with LCA - but LCA had the excuse that we were developing new technology which is always risk and delay prone. Why are we taking yet another risk and delay prone route trying to make a system as critical and complex as a combat aircraft with technology that we do not have today? I will soon put up a video of the long and tortuous route taken by various countries to develop VTOL aircraft. But every one of these was a research project, not a dedicated aircraft project. When the research was done the final aircraft arrived. No timeline promises were made about productionalizing what was a research subject

Why does DRDO club research with a dedicated combat aircraft project?

[srai]

^^^

AMCA will also be able to carry weapons externally when stealth is not required. That's a standard feature of F-22, JSF and PAF-FA, and AMCA is no different.

Exactly. That is part of the problem. The AMCA then fulfils only a niche role. If stealth is not required then the AMCA becomes redundant, or it is no better than a regular Rafale/FA 18 class aircraft optimised for stealth.

Only the Chinese have gone for a huge J-20 which presumably will carry a large bomb load.

...

Why do you think AMCA with internal load capacity of 2500kg fulfills only a niche role? The internal weapon bay can accommodate 2 x 1,000lb LGBs (IAF standard) plus 2x CCMs. Which current IAF aircraft have you seen carrying more LGB payload for a strike mission? In the Kargil conflict, Mirage-2000s carried a single 1,000lb LGB plus 2 x CCMs. Two additional pylons were for external fuel tanks. Jaguars are similarly armed. I've yet to see a Mirage-2000, Jaguar or a MiG-29 armed with more than 2 x LGBs. For larger stand-off A-2-G weapons, AMCA can carry them externally.

In air-to-air config, AMCA's internal bays can accommodate 4 x BVR and 2 x CCMs. Again, I'ven't seen any IAF's Mirage-2000 or MiG-29s carry more AAM load. AMCA in air-to-air mode will enjoy stealth advantage over the current 4th gen variety.

As far as the use of stealth goes, current wisdom is to use stealth mode mostly in the initial phase of the campaign where the enemy will have intact air-defenses and fighter force. This is where stealth will give you an edge. Once the enemy's defenses have been compromised and air superiority has been gained, the aircrafts can operate with impunity and external carriage can be used more freely.

The comparison with J-20 should be done for PAK-FA/FGFA and not with AMCA. More appropriate comparison from the Chinese stable would be J-31.

[Philip]

Just 10 years to get a brand new AMCA stealth fighter into production (2025?).Guys,like the good "Adm." Koshy and his promise of tons of mithai if an Akula arrived,this "AM" (Armchair Marshal) promises a right royal "slap-up" party in BLR if it does,that is if one is still in the land of the living by then! But then,as the good doc Shiv has said,like Shylock,not a day more! As Shiv said,we old-oldies have been waiting from the last century for the LCA to be inducted.I keep repeating APJAKs infamous statement in 2003,"200 LCAs in service by 2010",as a constant reminder as to the tall stories from the indigenous defence stablishment.

I would be more than content to see a fully developed LCA MK-2 meeting all the IAF's performance specs and in serious series production by then. In fact if a MK-3 with some stealth features is developed by then ,all the better.

In retrospect,I wonder why enough attention has not been paid to those worthies who were responsible for 3 outstanding results in our aircraft development.The Darin prog. for the Jags,upgrading the SU-30s into the world-beater MKI and the Bison upgrade. Where any of those responsible for these successes taken aboard onto the LCA programme? It would be interesting to know. Their expertise,experience,would be v.useful in seeing that the AMCA also does not end up as an albatross.

[srai]

^^^

So you mean India should restrict itself to only one project at a time?

[shiv]

Which current IAF aircraft have you seen carrying more LGB payload for a strike mission?

If what I have seen is the clincher, then all IAF aircraft that can carry LGBs can carry more LGBs than AMCA because AMCA does not exist. How much it can carry is a potential and that potential is a mere 2500 kg (planned). That is not enough in my opinion even if you think it is one heck of a lot.

[srai]

^^^

so what's your point of this thread exactly?