AMCA News and Discussions

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 948
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby KrishnaK » 15 Jun 2013 01:26

He said the Tejas would attain initial operational clearance (IOC) at the end of this year and would be through final operational clearance in 2015, with the rider that the air force does not expect this airplane to fully meet specification until the advent of the Tejas Mk.2, with its entry-into-service planned for 2024.

2024 for the Tejas Mk 2. to enter service ? :cry:

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8216
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Pratyush » 15 Jun 2013 10:16

^^^

Just to create FUD. Nothing more. IMO by the latest it ought have the FOC by 2018. The ADA is thinking that it will have FOC by 2016. Me thinks that by using the experience gained with the Mk1 and the Mk2 being an iterative development of the Mk1. The testing time will cut short.

So that the aircraft even if delayed massively it ought to be in sq service by 2018.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 302
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby agupta » 16 Jun 2013 01:05

Actually, Pratyush ... test time would be the one thing that would be one of the hardest to cut down. Its the development time that will be accelerated from the maturity of the baseline and hence faster iterations.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 16 Jun 2013 09:30

test program mistakes made in mk1 could be eliminated though. sometimes the ordering of things are sub optimal or more money can permit parallel testing now that risk factors are known. early tests of known problematic areas from mk1 could be done like the fuel pump leakage, electromagnetic dome issue, wake penetration, allah hu akbar angle of attack tests

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 16 Jul 2013 00:16

UP.

And repost from an article on 6/13/2013:


Austin wrote:Indian ‘Home-Grown’ AMCA, An Alternative To FGFA
Despite being involved in the fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) joint program with Russia, India is developing a next-generation fighter of its own–the advanced multirole combat aircraft (AMCA).

...................................

The AMCA is likely to be an “electronically” actuated airplane rather than hydraulically operated. Instead of the digital flight-control computer, as used on the Tejas, the AMCA is to have a distributed processing system employing fast processors and smart subsystems that can pass over and combine the processing power available in them. This requires the employment of the IEEE-1394B-STD rather than MIL-STD-1553B databus standard. The new airplane is also planned to have a “central computational system connected internally and externally on an optic-fiber channel by means of a multiport connectivity switching modules.” Also mentioned are fly-by-light, electro-optic architecture with fiberoptic links for signal and data communications.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4697
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby srai » 16 Jul 2013 04:53

KrishnaK wrote:
He said the Tejas would attain initial operational clearance (IOC) at the end of this year and would be through final operational clearance in 2015, with the rider that the air force does not expect this airplane to fully meet specification until the advent of the Tejas Mk.2, with its entry-into-service planned for 2024.

2024 for the Tejas Mk 2. to enter service ? :cry:


It should not take that long for Mk.2 to enter service. It will probably enter service around 2020 given that most of the radar & avionics, ECCM, weapon integrations, and LRUs would have already been validated on the Mk.1 airframe. Testing on the Mk.2 airframe would be more focused on FBW, aerodynamics, and flight regimes. IMO, most likely production will complete around 2024 for the 4 sqdn Mk.2 order.
Last edited by srai on 16 Jul 2013 04:55, edited 1 time in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 16 Jul 2013 04:54

thanks for reposting and UPping the thread.

the FBL doesn't make sense if they are using FIRE WIRE standards. Something really wrong in the article. 1394B is for fire wire stds.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 16 Jul 2013 07:27

isnt the mk2 supposed to have the LRDE aesa radar and discard the EL2032 derivative being used on mk1? by 2020 all competitive fighters need to have a agile aesa set and some degree of conformal radars (side coverage), plus spherical defensive aids suite, plus IRST. none of these are planned or in testing for mk1. astra mk1 and mk2 need to come through. the desi ARM needs to come through. sudarshan needs to hit production.

they might run up against limits on internal space and power in mk2 - something the smallest/lightest guys should have thought of from day1 - they had ample examples incl the M2K and F16 to see the process of growth and size accordingly but did not. now to save time Mk2 is also not going for the upsizing option.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 18 Jul 2013 22:32

Here is a report which could have a bearing upon the future fate of the AMCAAM Bharat Kumar (retd) PVSM,AVSM in a piece about the Chinese armed forces in the July IMR,focusses upon speculation about the Chinese manned stealth bomber.China currently has 120 Xian H-6 bombers (India has none!)and for some time was pursuing acquiring a large number of Soviet era Backfires or even Blackjacks.However,western speculation ,Janes' etc.,has it that China is developing a new stealth bomber (to emulate the US's B-2) instead.in 2009,it revealed over 25 unmanned designs at the China Air Show,including a supersonic UCAV.The aircraft model seen in a Janes' publication,is supposed to be smaller than US bombers but larger than it stealth fighter designs.If China is able to develop both stealth fighter designs,plus the bomber,it would have a very formidable air force,but this requires much progress in aero-engine R&D,as it is currently dependent upon Russian engine tech.

The same rule applies to our own desi adventuristic aims regarding the AMCA,LCA,etc.Until we have a thriving aero-engine capability,we will always be at the mercy of foreign manufacturers.However,the Chinese bomber gambit beggars the oft. asked Q,why we have neglected the need for a long range strategic bomber.It is a glaring deficiency in the order of battle of the IAF.Even with respect to warfare in the High Himalayas,the huge expanse of territory stretching from POK in the west to Ar.Pradesh in the east ,plus the distance to Beijing or Shanghai,well beyond the range of our Flankers,while China has its own bomber fleet with which to attack us,brings up the Q.

One suggests that the AMCA requirement "grows up" into that of a larger manned stealth bomber instead of a medium sized stealth aircraft.We already have the FGFA programme in the pipeline and the MMRCA and LCA filing in the medium and light roles.While our classified UCAV programme is under wraps,it cannot replace the need for a manned stealth bomber,whose reach would give the IAF and armed forces a much greater reach and strike capability across the IOR,Indo-China Sea and beyond.It is why I've stressed the need to keep our TU-142 bears flying for as long as possible due to their stupendous reach,where they can even fly to S.Africa and back without refuelling.Stretching the AMCA into a stealth bomber would make huge sense ,avoid replicating the FGFA role and filling a vital gap in our armoury.Armed with Nirbhay cruise missiles,or even B'Mos in internal weapons bays,the bomber could be used to devastating effect,a true force multiplier.IAF/MOD,are you guys listening?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 18 Jul 2013 23:21

Well is strategic reach of a bomber is a serious ask, then it should be filled up as soon as possible. And the fastest way now is to join the PAK-DA program.

I will let AMCA be as it is. If we don't develop the AMCA, there will be a gap in the fighter development after LCA Mk2/Mk3. This will be the same story as LCA after Marut. I think we shouldn't repeat such costly mistakes over and over again.

AMCA is critical, not only for the AF but also for the Navy.

Sancho
BRFite
Posts: 152
Joined: 18 Nov 2010 21:03
Location: Germany

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Sancho » 19 Jul 2013 08:45

indranilroy wrote:I will let AMCA be as it is. If we don't develop the AMCA, there will be a gap in the fighter development after LCA Mk2/Mk3. This will be the same story as LCA after Marut. I think we shouldn't repeat such costly mistakes over and over again.


That's not correct, because there wasn't an alternative fighter or tech development going on back then. Today, even IF AMCA wouldn't be developed we would keep developing radar, avionics, engine or materials for LCA upgrades. Not to mention that we will benefit from FGFA and AURA wrt stealth design, so there won't be any gap at all, neither technologically, nor operationally.

indranilroy wrote:AMCA is critical, not only for the AF but also for the Navy.

The fact is, IAF doesn't need AMCA, which is why they don't bother too much about it. They will have 4 different fighter types + 2 drones (AURA and armed Rustom H), which will cover all possibly needed roles, capabilities, weight classes for the next 30 years.

Sadly ADA/DRDO simply looked on developing an own stealth fighter (in competition to Sukhoi/HAL), but not to the real requirements of our forces. If they would have done it and by the experience of the problems in N-LCA development, they would have understood that it's actually a 5th gen carrier fighter that they need to develop and not another fighter for IAF!
This gets even more importance, when we keep in mind that IN want catapults for their next carriers, which means neither the Mig 29K, N-LCA, not even a naval FGFA could be used and they would be dependent on foreign fighters again, "unless" we would develop a new CATOBAR carrier fighter => a naval AMCA!
So 2 stealth fighter developments, with different aims and requirements, exactly what the Chinese are doing with J20 and J31. The latter makes a naval AMCA even more important, since PLAN soon will not only have superior 4.5th gen fighters with J15, but also 5th gen fighters, which gives them a complete edge to our fighters and carriers.

Lack or credible project management is a big issue for sure in India, but our industry and forces are also not really working together, but just look at their own interests. As if the beef between the forces itself is not enough, we now see developments that nobody needs and that's the way bigger problem!

nash
BRFite
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby nash » 19 Jul 2013 11:09

I would say AMCA is more important to IN than IAF, it doesn't mean that IAF is not bothered about AMCA, it is like they have luxury that they can wait for it, say 10-20 years. But IN can't, IN has Mig-29K, which would be the only credible carrier borne fighter of IN for atleast next 10 years, unless IN go for their own procurement of MMRCA. And if that happen then again F-35 come into the picture with Rafale.Rafale v/s F-35 for IN is totally different discussion, both have their pros and cons. It might happen when IAC1 deployed fully and IAC2 get launched, by end of the Decade.

Now as per AMCA development is concern, DRDR/ADA/HAL should go with it , if not with IAF then IN. Even Rafale, not sure about F-35, developed in such a way that they can be used as a carrier borne fighter from the beginning. If we look at the IN plan of 3-5 CBG in coming decades, then there would be the requirement of atleast 100 AMCA, and this is quite feasible to breakeven the AMCA program.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 19 Jul 2013 11:33

Nash,Indra,the idea put forward earlier,that the LCA is developed into a single-engined stealth fighter should be examined carefully.Just think of it as a single-engined ALCA ,instead of it being an AMCA. It will be much faster to develop and fill a gap that Nash speaks of for the IN,a naval variant small enough which can land on our two 45,000t carriers,until IAC-2 arrives which will be able to accommodate larger aircraft of size like the SU-33.The key component which is needed will be the engine and even here we have a solution,using just one of the engines on the FGFA,which will bring about commonality. If in the development time we manage to succeed with a version of the Kaveri,we can use it.

The original concept of the AMCA can be then enlarged to fill the role of a twin-engined strategic bomber .We will then have filled in all the gaps required for both the IAF and IN.Two stealth fighters ,heavy and light for the future to complement the existing fleet of Sukhois,Rafales (to come) and LCAs,plus a manned stealth strategic bomber,along with a stealth UCAV.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 19 Jul 2013 17:24

Philipji,

If developing a 5th gen plane from a 4th gen plane was so easy, you would have seen AF-16, AJ-10, AJ-17, AMig-29, AF-15 etc. etc. You can reduce the signatures, augment the avionics, but that can take you only so far. That's why all fifth generation planes are new builds.

Sancho,
There is more to a 5th gen plane than just avionics, radar, etc. We need to continue to refine are RCS studies. And I don't think PAKFA will help us learn about building 5th generation planes. Has the MKI taught us how to build a heavy fighter? And to be brutally honest, I don't expect anything from the Rafale deal either. In terms of defense hardware technology, my view is simple. Russia helped us in the past, because it helped them. Going forward, we will get nothing from anybody else, we have do it ourselves.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 20 Jul 2013 15:18

I'm simply advocating a single-engined stealth fighter instead of another twin-engined one,which will be superfluous when we already have a heavier 5th-gen FGFA in service.By then the MMRCA will also be in service. Will we be reinventing the wheel at great expense? Progressing from the experience of the LCA one could develop a smaller stealth fighter.Look how some 5th-gen technology is being used in the SU-35 is perfected until the PAK-FA arrives.Some of the tech envisaged for the AMCA could be used on the MK-2 series.As I said,look at it as an ALCA.There could,will be many differences from the basic LCA design no doubt.

The glaring missing gap in the IAF's inventory if we truly are to possess all the elements of the triad ,is that of a strategic bomber with internal weapons bays that can carry LR stand-off cruise and hypersonic missiles; perhaps the size of the Flanker/FGFA.This is where the AMCA concept should be enlarged upon into a small/med. strategic bomber,instead of another medium sized stealth fighter.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 20 Jul 2013 15:23

Good, then kill the FGFA and perhaps the MARCA too. The AMCA cannot die.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4548
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Manish_Sharma » 20 Jul 2013 17:03

Why is IAF insisting on a 25 ton AMCA only? They can demand certain RC of the plane for the radar. Buy why insist of weight and size of the plane?

If they want AMCA to be more strike oriented and FGFA to be more dogfight oriented, than let AMCA to be atleast the size of FGFA, so it can carry decent amount of bombs and strike missiles internally.

Also let the engine compartment be the size of FGFA, so until our own engines are ready the FGFA engines can be used.

chinese being tiny people and having the complex of being small compensate by making super duper big things.

While we Bharatvasis being the biggest people (our forfathers before arrival of genocidal britishers and their orchestrated famines) in the world are obsessed by making things of mico size like Light Combat Aircraft.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 20 Jul 2013 21:48

Philip ji,

Your mix: LCA MK2+ALCA, Rafale, FGFA, Indian 5th gen bomber aircraft (FGBA).
My mix: LCA MK2+ALCA, AMCA+Rafale, FGFA, PAKDA

Here are my reasons.
1. Lower risks: India has much more knowledge and capability about developing fighter aircrafts than bomber aircraft.
2. The AMCA cannot be developed into bomber. You will have to throw away everything they have done till now except for the material tech.
3. Your analogy about Su-35 being a feeder to the PAKFA is suits my scenario much more. LCA Mk2 can be a feeder to ALCA, AMCA (engines, avionics, radar, manufacturing base, manufacturing technology, airframe and landing gear optimizations). But, LCA Mk2 cannot be a feeder to FGBA except for materials.

Manish ji,

Most probably it is to get the same engine on LCA Mk2/AMCA. But when it comes to strike, it is very difficult to call what is going to happen in 10 years time.
1. When these aircrafts come onboard, avionics will allow them to be truely swing-role aircrafts.
2. Would we require huge bombers in the future? With cheaper and cheaper PGMs, why would you do carpet bombing, unless you want to raise cities?
3. But if you really need a bomber, no fighter-sized aircraft will have enough payload (forget internal volume) to substitute a bomber. If it was possible, bombers would have continued into the 21st century. So there is no point to build something which can do none of the jobs well. F-35 had much more modest design goals and is still struggling.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 20 Jul 2013 22:00

my mix:

lca-1:40
lca-2: 200+
mca (lca-3): 40
amca: 250+

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4548
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Manish_Sharma » 20 Jul 2013 23:30

indranilroy wrote:Manish ji,

Most probably it is to get the same engine on LCA Mk2/AMCA. But when it comes to strike, it is very difficult to call what is going to happen in 10 years time.
That's why its good to plan now, start designing new engines sized same as FGFA's, so in case there is a delay we don't waste time in multi-tenders etc. but slip in FGFA engines until Kaveri 20s are ready 8)

1. When these aircrafts come onboard, avionics will allow them to be truely swing-role aircrafts.
Yes true, but as the report says IAF wants FGFA primary role dogfighter and AMCA's as strike aircraft. I was taking that as basis.

2. Would we require huge bombers in the future? With cheaper and cheaper PGMs, why would you do carpet bombing, unless you want to raise cities?
PGMs cheaper? Cheaper they may be for khan but not for us with our piddly stocks unless Singha ji or Shri Septimus become our Defence ministers.
Also I am not saying increase the size of AMCA to Tu 160 etc. but just upto FGFA. As shiv ji used to point out that F 35 can carry merely two 1000 pound bombs. It will be too expensive for IAF sending our medium :roll: strike a/c again and again to drop piddly drops.


3. But if you really need a bomber, no fighter-sized aircraft will have enough payload (forget internal volume) to substitute a bomber. If it was possible, bombers would have continued into the 21st century. So there is no point to build something which can do none of the jobs well. F-35 had much more modest design goals and is still struggling.
As you see US' B-2s, B1bs, russki blackjacks, bears and future PAK DAs, the bombers are not so out of fashion. Plus Philip sir goes on scaring me with china's fleet of H6 bombers firing CJ 10s at us. So yes separately I'd love to have bombers. But just afraid that AMCA is setup for a failure with 25 ton and medium tag. As you point out F 35s struggles with US' vast experience, I think IAF should allow designers to go 30+ tons if they have to.

No bombers are not just to raze the cities, but having a blackjack loaded with Nirbhays and Bramhoses, appearing suddenly and firing on yellow reds would benefit us greatly. And we shouldn't worry about the world trends and see how things work for us.

:mrgreen: In pokhran fizzle and sizzle thread the argument was being given repeatedly that world trend is reducing the size of warheads in all the nuke nations. If you look in detail then US and russians were reducing the warhead size from Megatons to 375kts. And the argument was we should also forget about megatons but be happy with whatever we have. 45kts, 60 kts, 150kts :rotfl:



Nope when 2 front war occurs or even 1 front we are going to need much much more........

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 21 Jul 2013 07:20

Look at how the US still keeps on using its large fleet of B-52s.By conventional logic,they should've been retired aeons ago.Similarly,the Russians also have a large number of Backfires and some Blackjacks available,not to mention the multi-engined Bear bombers,of which the IN acquired 8 in the maritime patrol role.

The enormous range of these aircraft ,which like the Bear can fly from India to S.Africa and return without refuelling,plus large internal weapons bays which today house LR nuclear tipped stand-off missiles,or mega sized bunker-busters like MOAB,etc.,used in Afghanistan,underscore their continued critical role.With the B-2 stealth bomber,the US can penetrate almost any airspace as well.Thus the airborne leg of the nuclear triad remains credible.Leaving apart the strategic role of a bomber fleet,the multiple high value targets which today are mostly buried in hardened underground shelters,and proliferation of tactical missile sites,air defences,radar networks,etc.,demand huge amounts of PGMs,which are very expensive.I posted earlier the account of the Kargil air war in which only 7 or 8 PGMs were used ,other expensive missiles not used because they were kept as war reserves in case the conflict broke out into a full scale war.

In the Indo-Sino scenario,we are hopelessly at a disadvantage as China has 8 air bases in Tibet from which its bomber fleet,if deployed can strike any part of the country,while we can only hit back at Tibet! Unless we also have aircraft that can fly to Beijing and Shanghai and back,hit the ports on China's eastern seaboard,as well as Hainan island in the Indo-China Sea,the Chines ewill not take a counter threat from India seriously.Our raising a 50,000 strong force of two new strike corps in the Himalayan region does not bother them much.They can put into place 10 divisions without batting an eyelid,plus,this very heavy expenditure-but very neccessary,will have its effect upon other critical areas of the defence budget,namely that of the IN.

It is the IN that China is really worried about,because it is a far more professional force with combat experience,is well equipped but for the dwindling sub fleet,is being modernised and is conducting joint exercises with the US bloc of nations inimical to China especially Japan.
Remember that China can also use its huge bomber fleet against IN surface assets in the IOR if equipped with air-launched anti-ship missiles.This why a need for at least 8-12 Backfires (let alone the need for more for the IAF) for the IN's maritime strike role is required in the interim,until we build our own bombers.

I am afraid that the AMCA will be a mere "reinventing the wheel" exercise,as the FGFA is in the pipeline,especially as we will yet again have to depend upon a firang engine,the key to the success of the aircraft,which is why China is having such great difficulty in its own stealth programmes. The US is not going to sell us their engines being used on the raptor or JSF by any means and the only advanced engine which will be available will be that on the FGFA. The MMRCA is too close to the size and role that will be played by any AMCA,which will also not be a cheaply available product.If there is any technology developed by us superior to that on the FGFA,we can use it in our FGFA versions in later versions. With the dwindling value of the rupee,we will simply find it unaffordable to carry on developing two new stealth fighters,acquire the MMRCA (and maybe extra MIGs/Mirages to replace retiring MIG-21s) and finish the job on the much delayed LCA.It appears that the DPSUs,especially HAL want to hog the entire combat aviation requirement without beigng able to deliver the goods on time.Had the LCA already been developed and in service proving itself,I'm sure that the MOD/IAF would have given the nod for the AMCA regardless of the FGFA's status.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2385
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby John » 21 Jul 2013 07:29

You keep bringing back the Backfires', Flankers are more than capable of doing any AShW role and you think handful Tu-22m's can fly around south china sea without getting intercepted. They would require IAF protection to operate otherwise they would get easily picked off by PLAAF Flankers. Also Tu-22m is not stealthy aircraft either most modern air defenses' can easily shoot it down as Georgia demonstrated.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 21 Jul 2013 07:54

You cannot do too much when the mind stopped in the 90s or so.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, the AMCA is INDIAN, while the FGFA - great as it is - is Russian. Russia is NOT going to part with key technologies - they cannot, and we cannot expect them to either. What goes into the AMCA will be technologies that India controls and can build on. The AMCA is invention, not re-invention (of course the meaning of the word takes on a different flavor). The AMCA was conceived while the PAK-FA was being designed/developed, in parallel. India cannot build on the MKI or the FGFA. But she can on the AMCA. The AMCA is hers - to keep.

One needs to look at it from the design/manufacturing PoV, not from the user IAF. And then it becomes clear. Why this is so difficult is beyond me.

And I would not be surprised to see Mother Russia scuttle the AMCA. That is how the game is played. I bet the Indian decision to reduce the number of FGFAs did not sit very well in Russia - they lost a ton of billions right there.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 21 Jul 2013 12:25

Please,the Backfires were considered earlier by the IN,they undoubtedly willl have to be upgraded,but what else is available in large number as an interim bomber? Secondly,the IN do not operate Flankers and when equipped with LR stand-off missiles like Nirbhay and Brahmos can launch them well out of range of any opposition.The subsonic Bears will be more vulnerable.Ask why the US then operate B-52s still! There is no "90s" mindset here,but looking at a hole in our inventory. The lack of a long range bomber will be sorely felt by the IAF in the future.Neither the FGFA or Super-Flanker will be able to fully fit the bill,despite their formidable capabilities.It is why I suggested an indigenous stealth bomber to replace the AMCA.

As for the FGFA,the basic design may have been designed in Russia,but the agreement is for TOT.In any case the matter is now academic as until the LCA arrives,work on the AMCA has been suspended. Cutting down on the number of aircraft has more to do with the the IAF (wisely) abandoning the requirement for a two-seater,which would be less stealthy with a larger cockpit and cost an arm and a leg as it would've involved a lot of redesigning,as well as time.

We appear to be on parallel tracks here.The ultimate aim is the same-indigenisation.I am advocating an indigenous larger stealth bomber,instead of the AMCA for the very same reasons.It will be indigenous and under control for components ,support,etc. Since we already have a medium sized strike aircraft arriving in the form of the very capable Rafale,another expensive AMCA would to my mind be superfluous.Instead I've advocated a single-engined stealth fighter,drawing from the LCA experience and input from the parallel FGFA programme.The FGFA programme should be trawled for whatever relevant tech. is useful for both a stealth bomber and an ALCA.Replicating an alternative aircraft to the FGFA is simply a waste of time and money.This way we will have a cheaper and smaller stealth strike fighter,and a stealth bomber.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 21 Jul 2013 12:53

imo the manned AMCA and a stealth bomb truck UCAV must be developed on common lines and semi-parallel using similar components, weight category, landing gear, FCS, engines etc.
the area & weight saved by deletion of the conventional cockpit and radar in the nose would use by relocating the avionics all fwd, more fuel, satcom gear on top to create a deeper and bigger internal bay. the air intakes could also be shielded with redesign.

there is no point of 2 separate projects for this.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4548
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Manish_Sharma » 21 Jul 2013 14:08

Philip wrote:It is the IN that China is really worried about,because it is a far more professional force with combat experience,is well equipped but for the dwindling sub fleet...........


It is not clear to me; the meaning of above sentence, does it means that 'IN is far more professional force than IA'

or

'IN is far more professional force than chini navy.'

:-?

I am afraid that the AMCA will be a mere "reinventing the wheel" exercise,as the FGFA is in the pipeline,especially as we will yet again have to depend upon a firang engine,the key to the success of the aircraft,which is why China is having such great difficulty in its own stealth programmes.


Can understand now what kind of mentality in that generation was prevailing which conspired to fail 'Marut', was responsible for the development experience gap between 'Marut' and 'Tejas'.

That wanted us to improve russian 'mig 21' instead of developing our own Tejas. That now wants to dump AMCA and just gratfully take whatever russians (bloody cheats who can't keep a promise, can't calculate the cost properly and escalate on the drop.) give in whatever condition at whatever escalated cost.

Americans though I have always hated them are coming out much cleaner and honest in delivering c-130s, P8-Is & C-17s. No cost escalations, no delays. Compare that to cheating britishers in hawk deal & russkies ummm well in all the deals.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4548
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Manish_Sharma » 21 Jul 2013 14:33

Philip wrote:It is why I suggested an indigenous stealth bomber to replace the AMCA.


By then great russians would have started PAK DA, so our bomber 'Medium Micro Light Bomber Aircraft' will be reinventing the wheel. :rotfl:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 21 Jul 2013 18:42

Got some time to kill:

As for the FGFA,the basic design may have been designed in Russia,but the agreement is for TOT.


* We, clearly, have not learned from our past. Russian promise - signed contracts - for ToT means nothing
* Russia can never part with deep technologies - which is what the AMCA should be about. enough said
* AMCA is Indian. Nothing, nothing can and should replace this pup
* IF India wants to be a player - on the world playground - she cannot depend on any nation for basic technologies (yes, that includes a great engine too)
* AMCA is a standalone machine and needs to be that

Ask why the US then operate B-52s still!


I am assuming you mean for the conventional role (they are also used for the strategic role).

The simple answer given is: PGM. (There are others when one brings Russia into the picture and then we have to bring in START, etc, but for a conventional, non-Russian threat that simple answer should suffice.) (And, just BTW, B-52s are not allowed to venture into high threat areas. Even in medium threat areas they need some sort of support. Only in low threat regions can they operate alone. So, even there I do not see a parallel to the Indian experience.)

Which of course relies on an accurate international GPS systems.

but looking at a hole in our inventory. The lack of a long range bomber will be sorely felt by the IAF in the future


Says who? Do you have a URL, that you can post (or is it the typical I said so or posted it long back)?

Or if you can provide your thoughts (NOT because I said so), that could be start too. And, no China has a ton of antiquated bombers too.

I just do not see a need for a "long range" bomber.

I am advocating an indigenous larger stealth bomber,instead of the AMCA for the very same reasons.


OK, you want a bomber, so be it. Let India start another thread for bombers. But, no, I am opposed to kill ("instead") the AMCA. It makes no sense at all - especially if India is relying on a Putin nation. Sorry.

To me Russia is rapidly going out of the strategic picture - nothing to do with Indo-Russo events, but, the two should wind up on different sides soon. That is how it is. other events will force some issues.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2385
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby John » 21 Jul 2013 20:42

Philip wrote:Please,the Backfires were considered earlier by the IN,they undoubtedly willl have to be upgraded,but what else is available in large number as an interim bomber? Secondly,the IN do not operate Flankers and when equipped with LR stand-off missiles like Nirbhay and Brahmos can launch them well out of range of any opposition.The subsonic Bears will be more vulnerable.Ask why the US then operate B-52s still! There is no "90s" mindset here,but looking at a hole in our inventory. The lack of a long range bomber will be sorely felt by the IAF in the future.Neither the FGFA or Super-Flanker will be able to fully fit the bill,despite their formidable capabilities.It is why I suggested an indigenous stealth bomber to replace the AMCA.


Tu-22m3 were never considered they were offered to sweeten an arms package. Are you suggesting stand off attacks against land based targets or Ashw? It is not IN's role to be launching stand off attacks with airborne platforms and If you want cheap platform for standoff missiles' as you mentioned you can simply buy more Bears or procure Flankers and even Migs/MRCA should be capable of carrying Nirbhay.

USAF operates B-52 because they are cheap dump trucks compared to B-1s and not to mention B-52 countermeasure suite is far superior. Even then B-52 would easily be shot down in any bombing run. If you go back and read my earlier posts I was all for procuring Backfire a decade ago in these forums, but the battlefield has changed these cold war relics. There is no point IMO buying an outdated platform when the shift is towards to low visibility and unmanned aircraft's.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 21 Jul 2013 21:24

OT as OT can get to be. Sorry.

However, with some time to kill on this stupid topic, I think, I have found the perfect candidate for an Indian bomber fleet:

Jan 2013 :: Air Force Wants A Bomber That Balances Cost With Capability

With that in mind, the Obama Administration has budgeted over $6 billion through fiscal 2017 to commence development of a new ”Long-Range Strike Bomber” that will be ready for operations circa 2025. The Air Force has been reluctant to disclose any details about the program beyond the fact that it wants 80-100 planes at an average cost per plane of $550 million. That’s about twice what the latest widebody commercial transports sell for, which isn’t much when you consider all the sensors and other on-board equipment the planes would require to operate successfully in hostile airspace. It’s a foregone conclusion that the new bomber will be as stealthy as possible, but it looks like the options to operate in unmanned mode or with nuclear weapons will be deferred to save money.


C-130Js, P-8Is, Apaches, Chinooks, 777 ...................................... oh, why not. At $550 mil a pop, it is just worth it. Find the end of that train and hook on to it. Worth the ride. After all Indo-US procurements are the talk of the town. Have at it and have a little fun too.


........................

Regardless of who wins, the nation’s next bomber will likely be assembled at a secret facility in California’s Mojave Desert called Air Force Plant 42 — the same place where the super-secret B-2 was integrated. Air Force leaders believe strongly that secrecy enhances the value of whatever aircraft eventually emerges from the plant, because potential enemies will lack information needed to defend against it.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 22 Jul 2013 02:17

going by the time we are having troubles with chippanda club, i would not be surprised a squadron tu-160 mki possibility, and more an advanced version of it, rather pakfa. leave the medium and light combat variety to domestic r&d consumption.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 22 Jul 2013 08:43

Manish,et al,the stealthy bomber would be quite dissimilar in design to a strike fighter like the FGFA,etc. The "flying wing" in various avatars is universally being found as the ideal form to develop.It isn't going to be used for air-combat,air dominance,etc., but will be equipped with a self defence suite which would comprise active (advanced AAMs) and passive (EW,etc.) defcnes.Its main task would be to carry LR cruise and super/hypersonic missiles,penetrate enemy territory,or if over sea,launch its missiles from stand-off range against designated targets.This is a world of difference from "reinventing the wheel" like the AMCA which would almost mirror the role of the FGFA in a smaller airframe.

As for Russia not giving us "deep" tech,what about Brahmos? We are now going to develop with the JV a hypersonic version which no nation possesses.I don't know if that does not qualify as "deep" or what! Take the LCA for example,what is Indian about the radar,engine and weaponry? What is going to be Indian on the AMCA (especially the engine,where is it going to come from) and within what timeframe are we going to develop the same,another 3 decades+?! be realistic.There is a lot that we will gain from the FGFA JV,it's been signed and sealed with the delivery expected within the next 5-7 years. If we aren't gaining in tech from it then the entire def. min,establishment ,and IAF are a bunch of wimps and losers!

As I said and repeat,had we developed the LCA by now,in series production of the final version (MK-2),it would be worth working on an AMCA,but before we can even deliver the LCA of which the major components are firang,expecting an AMCA (entirely of Indian tech) to arrive before 2030 at the earliest-with our experience of the LCA would be sidesplitting.After all,if APJAK,who headed the scientific establishment of the nation and right hand of the PM,fully in the know of our scientific and technological capabilities, said in 2003 that "200 LCAs would be produced by 2010" -proven spectacularly wrong,as not a single LCA has been delivered to the IAF a decade since he made that statement,imagine the monumental task ahead to develop and deliver a 5th-gen stealth fighter ,wholly indigenous in the future.

NR.No one is suggesting that we replicate the US's needs,but develop own own stealth bomber based upon our needs.Whether the bomber will be manned or unmanned is a different Q,esp. since we have little knowledge about our own classified UCAV,which may or my not be able to fit the bill in part.It's why I've suggested scaling up the AMCA requirement into a stealth bomber,so that it is large enough to carry both Nirbhay and Brahmos in internal weapons bays.
Last edited by Philip on 22 Jul 2013 09:13, edited 1 time in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 22 Jul 2013 09:02

Philip, I think the controls is what we are enabled when the capability is realized by being an indian venture. LCA for example, it does not matter how long we take to get 100%, the crux is we have controls over it.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 22 Jul 2013 09:25

Understood Saik,that is a diff. aspect altogether.I agree that we entered the FGFA project late and its contours may not be exactly what we had in mind but now have to live with it or lump it. In fact A Russian diplomat was quoted at least a year long before we signed on,I think in Vayu,asking the Q "what aspect of the project does India want to develop?"
I think our uncertainty was because we have such inexperience in developing technology for the most advanced aircraft-the LCA being our first venture,that we were unsure as to what we would be able to deliver in a programme where deadlines do matter and there is accountability in Russia under Putin,unlike in India where projects can drift on to eventual success long after they are relevant!

This is the crux of the entire issue.The ability to deliver on time and within cost.Reasonable cost escalation and slippage of deadlines should be expected and inbuilt at the start.Intensive on-site monitoring until success is achieved essential.If this system characterises our DPSUs ,then one will have the confidence that given a task,they will be able to deliver on time to the end-user.After all,a reliable, working product in the hands of the end-user is what is the ultimate goal.
Last edited by Philip on 22 Jul 2013 16:13, edited 1 time in total.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4548
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Manish_Sharma » 22 Jul 2013 13:39

Philip sir, I believe the AMCA and LCA will go well into 2070. Just as people had written off gun on fighter in 60s, US had even created a new fighter minus gun, which they had to change during their vietnam misery. The gun is very much there on raptor, f 35 and FGFA too.

So personally I feel that manned fighters will go well into 2070s. If we have our own AMCA getting FOC by 2035, then it is completely our own thing, we can go on replacing foreign radars, engines, avionics etc. whenever we can, plus a huge databank experience on our own a/c-s.

I think even Tejas will go upto Mk-15 version in next 50 years.

There was even an article sometimes back, that how TATA spent more money developing 'Indica', than money spent on developing Tejas.

It may look like OT but you see until we have Italian passport holder sonia gandhi who wants to control and bleed this nation for her mother country in VIP helicopter deals, foreign arms funded media men castigating homegrown projects. That stupid vinod dua did a program on NDTV when Tejas completed the IOC 1 by the same title as your "reinventing the wheel'' for Tejas.

These Migs, FGFAs no matter how good will always be foreign. We can't do a silent eagle to f 15 kind of upgrade for Mig 29s, but we can always do that to Tejas sometime in future as its our own.

Sadly the fight always ends up here on brf like :
russian vs indigenous
IAF's brochritis vs DRDO's slothness

But to create MIL its the govt's call to take a decision, ok let the IAF have whatever jets they want, as they have to go fight and kill enemies, not like me picking up my bajaj chetak and going to buy vegetables in market.

Its the govt. which has to create 20 squadrons separately - other than IAF's sanctioned 44 of rambhas and rafales.

Now first 10 squadrons can be Tejas Mk1 with completely our own radar even if it can only detect and antonov 225 at 15 kms. range. We persist with it, we work on it we improve it. Who knows by 2035 the same radar's next avatar may detect an f 35 at 300 kilometers. :D

The second 10 squadrons can be Tejas Mk 2 again with whatever radar, IRST etc we have.

After few years the first 10 squadrons' Tejas can have Kaveris and we persist with them even if the a/c can only pull 2gs(no pun intended) with it instead of 9gs, that can always come later.

Since mid 80s our coins are being made in italy instead of desh itself, and all these VIP helicopter scams... so much money looted. But you'll see if anyone proposes 20 extra squadrons for IAF of purely desi stuff, all this media dalaals will go :(( over wastage of money.

Now as jaguars, 29s and m2ks retire in 30s, these 20 indigenous Tejas squadrons can replace them.

While we repeat the same 20 squadrons formula for AMCA.

So yes we as a Rashtra can survive fighting 3 front war Pakistan - China - Britain without FGFA, but can't survive without indigenous Tejas, AMCA, Destroyers, arihants!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 22 Jul 2013 16:36

It's wrong to say that only Russian wares are always bought.If that was the case,why did we plump for the Rafale in the MMRCA deal? During the Cold War,it was only Russia willing to sell us contemp. weapon systems while the US enjoyed arming Pak.Read Shyam Saran,NSAB chief in an article/talk on the credibility of our nuclear deterrent,where he skillfully traces the entire route of our N-weapons,always being shafted by the west/US,who deliberately saw to it that a blind eye was turned to Pak's acquisition of Chinese N-weapons and its proliferation.Secondly,no other nation is willing to provide us with cutting edge tech like B'Mos,Akulas,N-sub tech,FGFA,etc. The US was even unwilling to sell us AESA radar TOT for the MMRCA!
The UPA has been characterised by buying a lot of US hardware at comparative lightning speed,C-17s in particular,while neglecting critical decisions where non-US weaponry alone is available like the artillery and sub acquisition needs.

Manned fighters will be with us for another half-century at least because we are buying them new now.But one cans ee all across the board,unmanned systems being introduced.In maritime warfare,UUVs are already in the pipeline for defence as well as penetrating enemy bases from mother subs, Israeli unmanned craft for harbour defence are in service and anti-sub UUVS with massive endurance are being developed.Robotic soldiers are even being developed by the DRDO,mine-clearing robots are in action,and UCAVs are here to stay,drones being the weapons of choice.Once the cost of UCAVs comes down,their number will rapidly increase in inventories perhaps guided by manned mother aircraft or even AWACS like airborne systems or SATS.

As I highlighted earlier,look at the meagre % of weapon systems and eqpt. produced indigenously 60 yrs. after Independence.Who is to blame? It is not for lack of money,billions have been spent-look at CAG reports.DPSU want heir annual budgets and increases so that they can carry on as usual.Until accountability is ensured,results will always be patchy.

Right now there are two critical programmes online for our aviation industry,the LCA and FGFA.One has little news of our desi UCAV,it is as important.All have to succeed.With the experience from these two manned projects in particular,we should be able to take the next step.We are told that within two years the first FGFA prototypes will be ready for us to test in India.Let's hope that the LCA MK-2 prototypes will also arrive by then.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 22 Jul 2013 17:22

Let me repeat myself: The Russians can never part with the latest/greatest. Even Brahmos, I have not followed it closely, yes they did part with some great techs, BUT, I very much doubt it is the latest/greatest. And, if it was then India would not be struggling ( and supposedly doing well with the hypersonic missile - India would be handed that tech on a platter too.) Naval nuclear tech - I bet that is not the latest, it must be generations old. Akula - is that the latest? I do not know, but I very much doubt it and will stand corrected (with apologies). if it is.

The Soviets helped - yes, but ONLY because it helped them. Same with Russia or the US or the UK, ............... Nations have ........

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 22 Jul 2013 17:23

BUT, I am very, very glad not to see that "Bomber" is your last rambling post. So, I consider that to be a huge step forward.

Anyways, I think I have made my point.


Paris Air Show, 2013 :: Indian ‘Home-Grown’ AMCA, An Alternative To FGFA

Addressing the next-generation fighter issue, Air Marshall Norman Anil Kumar Browne, the Indian air force chief of staff, declined to compare the AMCA and FGFA, but insisted that “homegrown” projects shall be continued, especially in the area of mission equipment and fighter engines, since “nobody will give us these technologies.”

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 22 Jul 2013 21:10

high end Ghawk type drone tech is another area of tech denial. Israel has been pressured to keep the Eitan off the export list and Ghawk in a watered down version is available as the MQ4C BAMS to selected rich munnas only , the land surveillance ghawk with all sorts of anti-jihadi and comint sensors is not at all on the table.

thats why the tardy progress on even the MALE uav rustom2 alarms me. we have not even started a HALE prototype yet. hope its not a project funded and done in "saras mode" if you know what I mean...

Devendra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 35
Joined: 13 Mar 2007 21:06

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Devendra » 22 Jul 2013 21:24

Philip wrote:Right now there are two critical programmes online for our aviation industry,the LCA and FGFA..

Philip Sir, What is our contribution or control on FGFA except the money. FGFA is a Russian project which will be MKI-zed as Su-30 and will be produced locally (possibility with critical components coming from Russia e.g engine, radar..). The process of MKI-zation has been renamed as joint venture. Therefore FGFA is important for Russian aviation industry and AMCA is important for Indian aviation industry


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest