AMCA News and Discussions

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 828
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby sankum » 22 Oct 2014 06:59

AMCA earlier requirement of 2t internal weapon carriage has been reduced to 1.5 t and internal fuel has gone up from 4t (for MTOW of 20t) to 6.5t (for MTOW of 25t).

For normal take of weight of 18.5t i.e, stealthy A2A mode 6.5 t internal fuel comes to fuel fraction of 35 % i.e comparable to that of F35A or PAKFA. Thus AMCA will have comparable range to that of frontline 5th gen fighters.

In A2G mode internal weapon carriage in stealthy mode TOW comes to 19T and we can expect external payload of 6T for MTOW of 25T in 4 wing stations of 2*1800kg+2*1200kg=6000kg.

Two inward weapon stations should be able to carry mini brahmos of 1500kg.

Rarely MTOW missions will be flown as light PGMs proliferate and heavy weapon load is not a absolute must and even MTOW of 23T will be ok.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2834
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby abhik » 22 Oct 2014 14:30

^^^
I think the F-35 does carry proportionally more fuel that the AMCA(assuming the above figures). Fuel fraction without any weapons would be 6.5t/(6.5+12t) = ~35.2% compared to 8.4t/(8.4t+13.2t) = ~38.9% for the F-35.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 828
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby sankum » 22 Oct 2014 14:57

AMCA Empty weight 11t+6.5t internal fuel +1t weapon load for A2A mission=18.5t.

1t air to air missiles consists of 5*160kg BVRAAM+ 2*100kg SRAAM=1000kg.

F35A 13.2T empty weight+ 8.4t internal fuel+ 1.2t weapon load for A2A mission=22.8t.

1.2t air to air missiles consists of 6*160kg BVRAAM+ 2*100kg SRAAM=1160 kg

Fuel fraction comes at 36.84% for F35A and 35.14 % for AMCA.

Roughly ball park figures.

Pilot weight 100kg+ 150kg cannon ammo& chaff/ flare + 350-400kg launcher weights is assumed under the empty weight which can very well be additional to the above figures.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2834
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby abhik » 22 Oct 2014 16:16

Thanks for correcting, I thought the empty weight was 12t instead of 11t.

member_28756
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby member_28756 » 22 Oct 2014 18:34

indranilroy wrote:
MANNY K wrote:Here is a picture of J-31 it looks rather small probably with limited range and load. I hope DRDO will not make the same mistake.

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/841x589q90/673/mSCWMI.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/426x319q90/910/mALdFf.jpg


How do you judge from so far and without any other object as reference?

OK lets look at a closer pic.. look at the internal weapons bay, the square under the belly, it takes a lot of space and very unlikely it will use out side fuels tanks since it will defeat the stealth design. This is not a big plane most likely the size of a Mig - 29 so carrying both weapons and fuel will be a challenge.

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/883x589q90/633/6bAGJu.jpg

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 22 Oct 2014 22:16

@Marten sahab, agreed and sorry.

@Manny sahab, AMCA is extremely similar to the Mig-29K in dimensions, weight ad payload capacity. Let's move on.

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 577
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby nrshah » 22 Oct 2014 23:11

Marten sir,
I see 4 reasons for the same
1. Limited numbers of refuelling aircrafts with IAF to carry large scale combat level air to air refueling operations.
2. China factor - AMCA has greater relevance on eastern border compared to western one where range will matter equally.
3. Presence of large number of Sukhoi 30 mki which has huge payload capacity for mud moving.
4. Array of pgm under development within country.

K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 959
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby K Mehta » 24 Oct 2014 22:58

Are we making navalized AMCA first?
If not why not?
IIRC it was discussed during the last aero India, that it is easier to start with a naval version then make an air force version of it. That it was the lesson learnt from LCA.
If we are making the same mistake with AMCA, exactly what have learned from LCA?

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 24 Oct 2014 23:08

No plans on a navalized AMCA, yet.

A naval plane is a lot more challenging, so designing one first makes more sense (it is not easier).

My feel is that they have no clue what they want for the next carrier to be like. They need to decide on the carrier first, followed by the rest of what goes on it.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 24 Oct 2014 23:31

Not a valid point Rao sahab. Even out present carriers can handle the Mig-29K. AMCA will not be a problem. And AMCA is the optimum size of fighters from a flight deck. IN has clearly stated that it would love to have the Rafale or a compatriot.

Why not design a navalized AMCA first is a very valid question. Should be asked at AI'15 :-)

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1954
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby srin » 25 Oct 2014 00:21

My understanding was that for LCA, they had a single central beam that could withstand the load and they had mounted the engine etc on it. But for naval LCA, the load was on the main landing gear - so they should have gone for a two beam approach. So, they found that converting an Airforce LCA to Naval LCA wasn't as simple as they thought.

With AMCA, because of two engines, they will anyway have two beams to mount the engines. And so reinforcing them to handle the landing stress won't require structural changes.

Anyway - my interpretation of what I read...

K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 959
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby K Mehta » 25 Oct 2014 02:23

The shock of a carrier landing and stress from tailhook is the biggest challenge, apart from that fuel dumping and better visibility for carrier landing are things I remember.
But the question I am asking is that on one hand we have navy/ada Ppl saying that its easier to make air force version from naval one. they claim it is one of the biggest lesson learnt and then go ahead repeat the same mistake. How is that a lesson learnt?
Shouldn't they be saying wait we will first develop naval version or at least do it in parallel? Given that Navy gives better support to indigenous projects should they not take Navy in confidence right from the beginning?

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 25 Oct 2014 02:32

Why not design a navalized AMCA first is a very valid question.


A very valid question when it is related to design. Much easier to design a naval version first followed by a non-naval one, than the other way around.

However, in reality it assumes a few things: a) That a Navy wants that particular plane and b) that the entire dynamics (AF plans, funds, etc) are *all* aligned.

On a):

* The AMCA has no engine, so how is the IN going to decide on this plane? Just as a reminder, there is a MK-I and a II, only because the IN wanted a more powerful engine. Else the IAF by now would be happy ordering 2-300 LCAs (NOT LCA MK-I and MK-II)
* So, the appropriate question at AI-15 would be: "Are you thinking of a naval version, for the AMCA, when you look for an engine for the AMCA?". And we can take the discussion further based on the answer to that


* From the things we know: EMALS, E-2D (2007), propulsion and perhaps a few other riff-raffs
* IN had requested and was given a briefing on the JSF
* IN has been offered help on design/build of the next AC. I am expecting this to be huge. But let us see. (No URLs yet)
* Any naval plane has to be figured with all this in mind

* I thought the naval Rafale was out

On b):

* Much water has already flown under the AMCA bridge. I am sure they had plenty of time to think of a which-first
* My suspicion is that they have given a naval version a thought, but I am fairly confident that they do not want to invest too much into the "naval" thought unless there is decent amount of interest in it. To be sure, it would be a more expensive a path, so, unless it is pretty close to being a done deal it is not worth considering a naval version at the design stage
* And, finally, the IAF has provided ASR for the AMCA, so there is a decent amount of direction there
* Some funds have already been used for this effort

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 25 Oct 2014 02:37

K Mehta wrote:The shock of a carrier landing and stress from tailhook is the biggest challenge, apart from that fuel dumping and better visibility for carrier landing are things I remember.
But the question I am asking is that on one hand we have navy/ada Ppl saying that its easier to make air force version from naval one. they claim it is one of the biggest lesson learnt and then go ahead repeat the same mistake. How is that a lesson learnt?
Shouldn't they be saying wait we will first develop naval version or at least do it in parallel? Given that Navy gives better support to indigenous projects should they not take Navy in confidence right from the beginning?


Do you *know* (for sure) that the IN is interested in a naval AMCA? (I have not checked, so I am not sure.)

Added later:

I did find a ref that IN has contributed some funds. This requries more study.

In fact a marine version is also confirmed as the Indian Navy contributed to its funding too.


So they must be studying it. Just not publicizing the fact.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4460
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby putnanja » 25 Oct 2014 03:01

I remember the ADA chairman making a statement quite a few years back that it was a mistake designing the naval variant after the air force one, and that for AMCA, they will try to go in for N version first. Not sure if that is still the case.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Victor » 25 Oct 2014 03:40

indranilroy wrote:Span: 10.5 m (This will change, but 10.5 is a very interesting number)

Why so? It seems pretty close to the layouts published so far, like this one.

K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 959
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby K Mehta » 25 Oct 2014 04:02

NRao wrote:The AMCA has no engine, so how is the IN going to decide on this plane?
* So, the appropriate question at AI-15 would be: "Are you thinking of a naval version, for the AMCA, when you look for an engine for the AMCA?". And we can take the discussion further based on the answer to that


* From the things we know: EMALS, E-2D (2007), propulsion and perhaps a few other riff-raffs
* IN had requested and was given a briefing on the JSF
* IN has been offered help on design/build of the next AC. I am expecting this to be huge. But let us see. (No URLs yet)
* Any naval plane has to be figured with all this in mind

* I thought the naval Rafale was out

On b):

* Much water has already flown under the AMCA bridge. I am sure they had plenty of time to think of a which-first
* My suspicion is that they have given a naval version a thought, but I am fairly confident that they do not want to invest too much into the "naval" thought unless there is decent amount of interest in it. To be sure, it would be a more expensive a path, so, unless it is pretty close to being a done deal it is not worth considering a naval version at the design stage
* And, finally, the IAF has provided ASR for the AMCA, so there is a decent amount of direction there
* Some funds have already been used for this effort

Engine has not been selected for AF version also so how is AF deciding on their plane.

Either they haven't learnt anything from the LCA AF /N saga and are going to repeat it with MCA or they have learnt from their mistakes and are going to do it differently.
No fun in saying 10 years later same thing.
There maybe funding and direction issues, but the plane is still on drawing board and direction can be given now. The Navy would support it I am sure of that.
If anything has to be done it is now.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Sancho » 25 Oct 2014 04:51

putnanja wrote:I remember the ADA chairman making a statement quite a few years back that it was a mistake designing the naval variant after the air force one, and that for AMCA, they will try to go in for N version first. Not sure if that is still the case.


That's the funny part on the AMCA development, they (ADA / DRDO) are doing the same mistake again, although they realized now with N-LCA how difficult it is to navalize a fighter. What's even sillier is, that they don't even consider the fact that IN is pushing hard for CATOBAR carriers and navalising a fighter that was not designed and developed for catapult operations is basically developing a fighter from the scratch again. We ar heading to the next disaster as if they haven't learned anything from the LCA problems.
And on the other side they want to develop it for the IAF, which doesn't even want it, because they will have enough types of fighter types to fill all roles, until MKI will need replacements. They are much more interested in drones, which ADA and DRDO have to deliver as promised too, but it shows once again how messed up the relation between ADA / DRDO and the forces are.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 828
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby sankum » 25 Oct 2014 05:33

AMCA is a fifth gen fighter with a fifth gen engine which allows it to super cruise (i.e., going super sonic without the use of afterburners). The next gen Kaveri will have higher turbine inlet temp of 1900 degree kelvin and higher bypass ratio and thrust to weight ratio of 11+ all leading to higher efficiency in supersonic regime.

F22 can super cruise to 1.6mach plus as compared to legacy 4th gen fighter were speed without the use of afterburners is limited to 1.1 Mach so that most of the mission requirement is fulfilled without the use of fuel guzzling afterburners and effective combat radius is doubled.

The AMCA wing aerodynamics allows optimal super sonic cruise of 1.3 Mach according to given numbers as compared to optimum subsonic cruise in the case of F35 as it designed for air combat as primary role as compared to ground strike role for F35.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 25 Oct 2014 08:31

Victor wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Span: 10.5 m (This will change, but 10.5 is a very interesting number)

Why so? It seems pretty close to the layouts published so far, like this one.

After you pointed out, I went ahead and checked and you are right. This is very interesting. It will be interesting to see the area and aerofoil of the wing.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1954
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby srin » 25 Oct 2014 11:46

To jog your memories ...

https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6475&start=400#p1408766
Kartik wrote:Attended my first Aero India this Saturday. I won’t describe the difficulties in getting into the show, but once I did, it was quite alright. The highlight for me was the conversations I had with Cmde Jaydeep Maolankar, Test Pilot of the Tejas program and Cmdr Sukesh Nagaraj (Deputy Project Director, NLCA). I was lucky to spot Mao sir alone and walked up to him, introduced myself and spoke of my association with BRF and then we had a conversation on the Tejas program for half an hour..he was incredibly frank, friendly, didn’t hold back any facts and only left when he got a call from someone..here are the salient points of our conversation, some of which we already know but am listing it anyway.
[...]
- I brought up the point he made at AI-2011 about how the Tejas should’ve started as a carrier variant and then gone on to the IAF variant. He seemed genuinely happy that someone had remembered that point of his and described the main issue with the NLCA NP1. The issue as he described it was that the LCA didn’t have a central keel to pass the structural loads to, something he said that the AMCA won’t face since it’s a twin engine fighter. This meant that they had to put new attachment points which aren’t the ideal solution and result in the bulky appearance of the current landing gear.
- I was going to ask him about the AMCA naval variant and he said that currently there is no plan for it.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 27 Oct 2014 02:11

I was going to ask him about the AMCA naval variant and he said that currently there is no plan for it.


Does not mean "No interest".

Since th Navy has provided some funds - not sure if we know for what - there *was* interest.

That's the funny part on the AMCA development, they (ADA / DRDO) are doing the same mistake again, although they realized now with N-LCA how difficult it is to navalize a fighter


What makes you make that statement? Wondering.

As far as I can tell they have not received any direction from the Navy to start any work. Even on the LCA the Navy was "late" in showing interest. IF the Navy had indicated they need a naval LCA in 1980s the LCA people would have accommodated them for sure. ADA/DRDO/HAL are not going to start serious work on a project that may not see the light of day.

The IAF has issued a ASR, has the Navy done anything similar?

Engine has not been selected for AF version also so how is AF deciding on their plane


They have not *decided* on the plane. They are searching for an engine, after which they will design the plane around it.

They have conducted some research, based on which they think they have some concepts nailed down. But, they are all subject to change.

(Even in the case of the LCA they had an engine - the Kaveri. Just did not go according to plans. But the thinking they-did-not-start-with-an-engine for the LCA was wrong.)

________________________________________

My feel is that the AMCA will surprise a lot of people. And, since not much info about it is out there it will also attract a disproportional amount of criticism. Naturally.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Cosmo_R » 27 Oct 2014 04:33

^^^ "They are searching for an engine, after which they will design the plane around it. "

Exactly. And this is the entry for the F-135 or the F-414EPE/EDE. Build the plane around the engine.

LM is pushing P&W to get a leg into the IAF door via the engine.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8758
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 27 Oct 2014 06:20

Been far to busy over the last couple of months to keep a track on all the news and developments, but could someone point to something that suggests that Lockheed Martin have been pushing P&W to move into the Indian market with the F-135? It seems as a totally wrong engine choice given so many things. If someone should be pushing them (P&W) it should really be common sense and the financial incentive to penetrate the Indian market, and the answer to that aint the F-135 (its 86,000+ pounds of thrust from 2 engines, I wouldn't even begin to imagine how much fuel would be required get a competitive range with that much thrust) but other products, or rather developing a new category of propulsion either by further developing the F100-229 (EEP) or by developing the PW7000. The competition for them to go after is naturally the F414-GE-400 which looks very good to win a lot of orders from international customers in the next decade or so. GE probably also has more engineers and more incentive to commit resources on this program whereas P&W is going to be gearing up its ramp rate on the F135. The GEWIII is perhaps 5 years or so away from commencing as well so it would be interesting to see which company puts its own money.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20710
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 27 Oct 2014 06:34

What would be a better option for development right now for the IN is a naval variant of the stealth UCAV under development.This programme is well under way and a naval variant like the X-47B and other UCLASS concepts could be brought out much earlier than a naval variant of the AMCA.we could leapfrog a decade of development and could be not too far behind the US and pack leaders in this RMA

The AMCA has to be officially launched next year if we want it to emerge by 2030,given that it takes around 15 years for any new aircraft to be developed and put into series production.By then,the medium multi-role aircraft in the IAF's inventory,the entire fleet of Jaguars will need replacing,plus the upgraded M-2000s,MIG-29UGs will have to be replaced sometime in the '30s.The engine decision must be taken first,chosen for the tasks and parameters required and the aircraft built around its performance.We've already had two bad experiences with the HF-24 (no high-performance engine at all) and the LCA (Kaveri).

Given the difficulties of developing naval variants of land based strike aircraft,plus the fact that the IN intends to operate only 3 carriers (unlike the US with its dozen super-carriers) with an inventory of naval carrier strike aircraft of not more than 100+,is the cost going to be worth it? The MIG-29Ks will serve us for at least 2-3 decades and equip two of the three carriers with even the third (IAC-2) probably arriving by 2025,before the AMCA is in production and will most probably use upgraded MIG-29Ks.So the AMCA numbers for naval duties will be required only when we need to replace the 29Ks . The naval Rafale is already available if the IN wants it,but at twice to thrice the cost of a 29K ($32M)! Landbased naval aircraft,which I've suggested as complementary to carrier aircraft,and relieve the IAF of some of its maritime duties especially in the island territories are better tasked to the IN where there would be a seamless operation between naval air assets and the fleet, could use the std. IAF AMCA version. Don't forget that the NLCA hopefully should also be in the IN's kitty,so where will there be space for the N-AMCA?

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Sancho » 27 Oct 2014 19:05

NRao wrote:
That's the funny part on the AMCA development, they (ADA / DRDO) are doing the same mistake again, although they realized now with N-LCA how difficult it is to navalize a fighter


What makes you make that statement? Wondering.


Their own statements:

I will not hesitate to say today that deriving a naval variant from an air force variant of the Tejas is a sub-optimal solution. But, having learnt this, the Mark II will be an optimal solution. We will not do any derivative from the air force version.
P.S. Subramanyam director ADA

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 807_1.html

In the paper design it looked feasible, similar to what Eurofighter proposed for a navalised Typhoon; or what Gripen proposed for the Sea Gripen. But when we started the detailed design and the actual build… we realised the benefits of what Dassault had done with the Rafale. They designed and built the naval variant first, the Rafale Marine. The air force Rafale is just a subset of Rafale Marine. That is the easiest path,” says Balaji ruefully.
Commodore CD Balaji N-LCA programme director

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 025_1.html


So although they learned that there is a better way, they continue to do the same mistakes again and want to develop a naval AMCA version from the IAF version:

Though the AMCAs were primarily being designed to meet the requirements of the Indian Air Force, we are contemplating rolling out a new variant for the Indian Navy as well
P.S. Subramanyam director ADA

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 021_1.html


NRao wrote:As far as I can tell they have not received any direction from the Navy to start any work.

They didn't even got any of IAF! AMCA is a „concept study“ (not a fighter project) of ADA / DRDO and THEY decided that it should be an IAF fighter and asked the force what requirements it would need to fulfill, IAF responded with the ASR.
IAF is not backing the concept studies of the fighter, but support the general indigenous developments of key systems:

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.


http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... ative-fgfa

That's basically the same reason why IN is supporting N-LCA, just for the sake of indigenous development (for them in the naval sector), not because the fighter would make an operational difference. But they don't have any 5th gen projects yet, so logically they need an AMCA more than IAF would and therefor would back the project far more simply out of necessity. Developing AMCA as a NG Rafale project for the Indian Navy then makes far more logical sense, but ADA / DRDO are only following their own goals.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Sancho » 27 Oct 2014 19:27

Philip wrote:By then,the medium multi-role aircraft in the IAF's inventory,the entire fleet of Jaguars will need replacing,plus the upgraded M-2000s,MIG-29UGs will have to be replaced sometime in the '30s.


All those were meant to be replaced by FGFA in numbers, while MMRCA and LCA will take over their operational workshare. Moreover, the Jags are single role strike fighters and in a time where IAF is suppose to have / get armed Rustom H and AURA UCAVs, there is no strike fighter replacement needed anymore. Be it CAS, SEAD or Deepstrikes, all that will be covered by the unmanned options, let alone 3 to 4 manned fighter types that IAF will have anyway. So in operational terms IAF has no need of an AMCA in that time. In fact, the next fighter that currently has no planned replacement is the MKI, which needs replacements from 2035 onwards only, when they have reached 30 years of operational service.

Philip wrote:The MIG-29Ks will serve us for at least 2-3 decades and equip two of the three carriers with even the third (IAC-2) probably arriving by 2025,before the AMCA is in production and will most probably use upgraded MIG-29Ks.So the AMCA numbers for naval duties will be required only when we need to replace the 29Ks .


That's not correct, we have ordered only 45 x Migs, which hardly covers the need of the first 2 carriers + some additions of N-LCA to keep the numbers. IAC-2 will need not only more fighters due to the larger size, but if we get catapults also totally different types of fighters, so the available Migs are no option. Both, IAC2 and AMCA are aimed around 2025 (Indian estimates, so add some delays), which would make it logical to aim AMCA design to the layout of the carrier too, be it CATOBAR or STOBAR.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 27 Oct 2014 20:40

Sancho wrote:Their own statements:


No idea what you are trying to state there.

No matter what it is not "they (ADA / DRDO) are doing the same mistake again".

member_28722
BRFite
Posts: 333
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby member_28722 » 27 Oct 2014 22:29

^^^^
Developing Naval jet first and then making an airforce variant from the naval base jet seems to be a better way for development. But our guys are still going from Airforce to Navy.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby member_20317 » 28 Oct 2014 00:04

Probably they have some confidence that regardless of the troubled route of making the IAF version before IN version, the AMCA would have enough room for the extra strong undercarriage and probably even become a twin-seat fighter. But this is the right time to change things. There is no harm in sounding out the IN simultaneously. At least it sounds like a safer route.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 28 Oct 2014 00:06

But our guys are still going from Airforce to Navy

Worth a revisit on the topic:


Code: Select all


Event               Approx YR for LCA           Approx YR for AMCA

Concept             1980                        2000
IAF Version         1990                        ASR + funds around 2010
IN Version          2000                        Funds around 2010, no idea what they were for


So, what exactly is the "still" for? As far as I can see, the IN joined the LCA program much later, so there is no question of the naval version being designed prior to the one for the AF. ?????? Right?

Same thing on the AMCA, where is the direction + funds?

Am I missing something/anything?

What Sancho posted about the LCA is after the fact.

Even now, if there is direction they would design the naval version first. But, is there? May be it is there and I have not seen it.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 28 Oct 2014 00:14

There is no harm in sounding out the IN simultaneously


IN is fully aware of events taking place. They have provided some funds, just that we are not aware of what they were for and what happened, but for sure the IN has investigated the AMCA.

Meanwhile, IN has also acquired a number of MiG-29Ks, asked and were granted informational briefing on the JSF/F-35. Among the three services IN is the most focused and decisive, not to mention the most pro-Make-in-India.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby member_20317 » 28 Oct 2014 00:39

That is great. And if briefings about AMCA have been given to IN then I guess things can be taken to the next level. It has been discussed earlier on BRF, I think, for LCAs. Hope the big guys are thinking along these lines too. Also we have been told in the thread earlier, that Mig29K, JSF and AMCA are in the same weight category. So if this route is further invested in, then perhaps we can hope for a near-completely indigenous naval fighter. Mig 29K would then become the last import by Indian Navy. Going to the next level would also help in finding the suitable engine for AMCA in a timely manner (no fun in having different engines for the two variants).

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20710
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 28 Oct 2014 06:48

Since the UCAV project is on stream,a navalised version of it would be a faster probability rather than the N-AMCA which would appear only 15 years from now.A naval version of the UCAV could be rolled out in as little as 5 years if the right push is given to the programme by the GOI. If by 2020 the N-UCAV arrives,it would significantly enhance the IN's carrier capabilities.IAC-2 will certainly arrive by 2025,a decade from now,much earlier than any AMCA will.Therefore the fighters on the IAC-2 will have to be something else until N-AMCAs are available. I predict that upgraded MIG-29Ks/35s,with AESA radars and other improvements may be more likely than inducting a few sqds,just 2+ of a third naval carrier type,when MIg-29Ks,NLCAs will already be in service.It would add hugely to the In's maintenance difficulties and may also be extremely costly.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Kartik » 28 Oct 2014 13:06

K Mehta wrote:Are we making navalized AMCA first?
If not why not?
IIRC it was discussed during the last aero India, that it is easier to start with a naval version then make an air force version of it. That it was the lesson learnt from LCA.
If we are making the same mistake with AMCA, exactly what have learned from LCA?


K Mehta, it appears that the IN hasn't yet bought into the AMCA as a naval fighter. Which is probably why the Air Force version is the first on the drawing board.

But, to counter the point made by Cmde Mao at AI-'13, the lessons learnt on the design transition from the Tejas to the LCA Navy have hopefully been institutionalised. The lessons learnt on the LCA Navy landing gear design, the arrestor hook and the strengthening it requires, the crucial load paths, the attachment points, all should have been absorbed and will hopefully be accounted for in the IAF specific AMCA itself. If so, beginning with the Air Force variant and then developing a naval variant from it won't be as difficult as it was for the LCA.

That is the whole point behind continuity in aerospace programs..if there is no AMCA then this knowledge will eventually disappear as those people migrate to other work, even if its within the ADA or HAL.

There is the interesting case of the Hornet..the naval version came first (derived of course from the YF-17, that was being designed for the USAF) and a landlubber variant was to be developed later, but never came about thanks to cost and the need for the Super Hornet..and so we have had nations whose air forces have been using the Hornet (and now the Super Hornet with the RAAF) with all the additional naval specific over-design built in.

Another point being- there are conflicting naval and air force requirements in certain areas..which on the Hornet program meant a fighter with good, slow landing speeds required for carrier approaches but not so great transonic performance thanks to the low sweep wing. So, instead of first designing a naval airplane, perhaps going the other way around- like the Rafale, which was designed for BOTH the Air Force and Navy's requirements, may mean a better aerodynamic solution. Just look at the Typhoon- it clearly wasn't designed keeping a naval requirement in mind, the Sea Typhoon concept notwithstanding. And that was one of the reasons the French left that program.

These are still very early days in the AMCA program..the IN can and should bargain for a design that can cater to its needs without being a compromise design.

K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 959
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby K Mehta » 28 Oct 2014 22:42

Kartik wrote:K Mehta, it appears that the IN hasn't yet bought into the AMCA as a naval fighter. Which is probably why the Air Force version is the first on the drawing board.
the lessons learnt on the design transition from the Tejas to the LCA Navy have hopefully been institutionalized.
the IN can and should bargain for a design that can cater to its needs without being a compromise design.

I understand the first part and hope for the second, what I am saying is to go for the 3rd part.
It is actually unlike navy to not seize initiative to go for a future indigenous solution. Hell they have been thinking of N-AMCA right when they joined LCA program, so why are we not seeing any movement on this front. That is what is curious.
I only remember that they said NLCA IOC only after LCA FOC and and N-AMCA to start after NLCA FOC. But I feel it would be too late by then.

member_28722
BRFite
Posts: 333
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby member_28722 » 30 Oct 2014 05:40

NRao wrote:
But our guys are still going from Airforce to Navy

Worth a revisit on the topic:


Code: Select all


Event               Approx YR for LCA           Approx YR for AMCA

Concept             1980                        2000
IAF Version         1990                        ASR + funds around 2010
IN Version          2000                        Funds around 2010, no idea what they were for


So, what exactly is the "still" for? As far as I can see, the IN joined the LCA program much later, so there is no question of the naval version being designed prior to the one for the AF. ?????? Right?

Same thing on the AMCA, where is the direction + funds?

Am I missing something/anything?

What Sancho posted about the LCA is after the fact.

Even now, if there is direction they would design the naval version first. But, is there? May be it is there and I have not seen it.

It will be better to let the navy take lead on AMCA by going for navalized variant, kind of how Frenchies went for Rafale. The Rafale was design envisioned it to be a carrier capable fighter with airforce and naval jets developed from the base variant. It is a better and more versatile jet compared to Eurofighter or Gripen
Super Hornet is another bird which is designed to be a naval fighter but would make an excellent airforce jet.
W.r.t AMCA and India, we need to plan AMCA the way US has planned JSF i.e platform and weapons commonality.
IMHO, involving the Navy now has added advantage as they are far superior to IAF when it comes to dabbling in new technology and project management.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 30 Oct 2014 06:02

I'm more concerned at keeping Kaveri in the conceptual phase rather than anything else.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4695
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby srai » 30 Oct 2014 06:32

saurabh.mhapsekar wrote:
But our guys are still going from Airforce to Navy
...
It will be better to let the navy take lead on AMCA by going for navalized variant, kind of how Frenchies went for Rafale. The Rafale was design envisioned it to be a carrier capable fighter with airforce and naval jets developed from the base variant. It is a better and more versatile jet compared to Eurofighter or Gripen
Super Hornet is another bird which is designed to be a naval fighter but would make an excellent airforce jet.
W.r.t AMCA and India, we need to plan AMCA the way US has planned JSF i.e platform and weapons commonality.
IMHO, involving the Navy now has added advantage as they are far superior to IAF when it comes to dabbling in new technology and project management.


The IN has to decide on STOBAR or CATOBAR for its future carrier fleet first. Without that, the IN cannot take a lead on the AMCA.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20710
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 30 Oct 2014 11:56

Some titbits I was reading about the USMC and the use of its STOVL Harriers.V.useful aboard their amphibs and could transfer from amphib to land as well once the assault forces have made headway.The UK used its Harriers in Germany in small clearings,heavily camouflaged,which weren't even spotted after coordinates were even given in exercises.They were to support ground forces in the FEBA. One isn't suggesting going the JSF route (!),but if we are going to operate large amphibs,a STOVL fighter aboard would be immensely useful.The Japanese plan to do the same on their light carriers,using JSFs in the future. Given our long experience of using the Sea Harrier,LCA development,etc.,it would be worthwhile starting a programme for a dedciated STOVL fighter which could be a future IN/IMC asset. Pvt. industry could be roped in so that there are definite timeframes and budgets to meet.

One sees that in the future given the intense rivalry that is going to take place in the Indo-Asia -Pacific region esp. in the maritime sphere,with all the major players boosting their amphib and sub capabiulities,that we will perhaps need a dedicated Marine Corps,with at least 3 divisions and the required assets to support them.From the East African coastline where we have strong ties to African nations,,Mauritius,the Seychelles,Oman,the Maldives,Sri Lanka,Lakshadweep,the A&N islands,upto Vietnam, and even into the near Pacific,the In will be involved in intense blue-water activities.freindly nations may cal upon us for help in a crisis.As our ties develop bewteen some of them,we must be prepared for operations farther from our shores.Operation Cactus in the Maldives was an eye-opener and brilliantly handled by Rajiv G. and the armed forces.An amphib force of around 5 vessels would be needed for the same.These would require integral supporting aircraft/attack helos esp. if carriers were unavailable as well. One earlier mentioned the poss. of the NLCA being operated from such amphibs.Every option must be examined.

PS:Just for experimentation,once the NLCA is flying and has been put through its paces at the ski-jump carrier testing facility at Goa,it should be tested flying off the deck of the Viraat (which was used also in an amphib role in the Falklands),which would be around the size of the IN's future amphibs,perhaps a little smaller,to see how well it operates from the ship.Being around the same size as a Sea Harrier,deck lifts,hangar integration,etc. Mock-ups could also be used to save time for internal ergonomics assisting in the amphib design.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests