AMCA News and Discussions

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Jun 2012 12:28

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

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jun 2012 12:35

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

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

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

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

koti · Post by **koti** » 07 Jun 2012 13:47

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

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

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

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jun 2012 14:33

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

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 07 Jun 2012 16:02

^^^ nice posts by Austin...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Jun 2012 16:30

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

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

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Jun 2012 21:00

Phillip sir,

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

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

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Jun 2012 21:30

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

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 07 Jun 2012 21:30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMCA seems good as currently proposed.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jun 2012 21:37

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

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

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

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Jun 2012 21:41

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

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 07 Jun 2012 21:57

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

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

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

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

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

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 07 Jun 2012 22:02

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

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

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jun 2012 22:14

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

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

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Jun 2012 22:31

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

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

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

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 07 Jun 2012 22:45

Singha,

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

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

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

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Jun 2012 00:58

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

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jun 2012 06:52

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

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

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

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

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jun 2012 08:21

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

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

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

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 08 Jun 2012 08:51

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

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 08 Jun 2012 09:36

Singha wrote:would certainly have more power and space than the israeli Gulfstream G550 soln.

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

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 08 Jun 2012 09:54

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

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

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

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

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

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

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jun 2012 13:12

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

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

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Jun 2012 17:53

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

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

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 08 Jun 2012 18:33

Singha wrote:the PS90x engine is also possible. 38,000lb of thrust....
the embraer KC-390 has chosen the V2500 delivering 29,000lb of thrust.

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

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

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Jun 2012 21:54

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

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

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

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

The aircraft is to be equipped with two PD-14M bypass two-shaft turbojet engines. The engine develops maximum take-off thrust of 15,600 kgf. The auxiliary power plant, ТА18-200, will be placed in the left landing gear fairing.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 08 Jun 2012 21:58

I think CFM engines have far higher uptimes. I hope we ditch the PD-14 stuff and go with CFM. I don't see why we have to certify it with PD-14 at all. All money towards engine certification needs to be used towards another engine. We are paying all the 600 million dollars for it.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Jun 2012 22:03

If IAF demands for another Western engine then they would certify with the type IAF wants ....right now UAC says they will use PD-14M ....things may change for IAF though.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Jun 2012 22:57

Lets move this discussion to the right thread

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Jun 2012 06:51

let us for once not get conned AL55 style into a new ac and new engine combo. we need a pre-certified western engine on our lot atleast.
we need to learn from past mistakes.

vic · Post by **vic** » 09 Jun 2012 12:43

I think that if MRTA is going to use PD-14 engine then we must get involved in the engine development programme itself. Otherwise spending US$ 771 million for a bit of involvment in MRTA is not worthwhile

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Jun 2012 17:48

I have not heard yet on the LCA.Mk2 tech transfer screw driver assembly starting for F414-GE-INS6 version. This one puppy can be assimilated if we have the capability, and reproduced to satisfy both LCA and AMCA. Rest of the engines would take longer route to establish.

By having a local SDK production setup, we have some level expertise gained., at least in assembly line. not sure on the many technology it comes with...

blisks
mftrg process - friction welding, etc..
noise reduction - less pollution, and higher efficiency - also low signature..which is required for AMCA.

The engine itself is something that needs to be developed in stages.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 10 Jun 2012 00:02

I agree with singha, we stay from any involvement of a new engine from ruskies. Let em certify it, work it and we evaluate it once it ready. For now we should work on getting an engine we maintain and overhaul for civilian fleets. It will make life for IAF engineers whole lot more easier and if we ever have shortage of staff, we can always reach out the civilian techs.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Jun 2012 04:07

Cybaru wrote:I agree with singha, we stay from any involvement of a new engine from ruskies. Let em certify it, work it and we evaluate it once it ready. For now we should work on getting an engine we maintain and overhaul for civilian fleets. It will make life for IAF engineers whole lot more easier and if we ever have shortage of staff, we can always reach out the civilian techs.

Russians have smartly used Indian Armed Forces' orders to build their own indigenous capabilities. Here are some examples:

Su-30MKI -> Now RuAF is ordering them after all the investments from IAF to specify, pay-for R&D (open architecture, etc), production, operation, tactics, etc.
INS Vikramaditya -> Russians used this project to re-gain "lost" skills in aircraft carriers and now have build enough trained manpower to launch their own carrier projects.
MiG-29K -> RuN have ordered these after IN paid for them to be R&D and productionized.
AL-55I -> With HAL investment, Russian built/customized a new engine for small-sized aircraft.
PAK-FA -> With multibillion dollar investment in R&D money, the Russians are getting to complete the 5th-Gen fighter project and in the process acquire expertise in latest airplane technologies.
Talwar FFG -> Now the RuN is ordering them after the investments made by IN in making the platform "stealthy".
MiG-29UPG -> With the IAF upgrade order of these, it is again keeping the MiG-series and their suppliers alive.
T-90S -> With huge order for these MBT, Russians have been able to keep their factories churning and R&Ding new improved versions along with Future MBTs.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Jun 2012 05:58

see.. the middlemen always are the winners (legal!?) in any firang purchase.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 10 Jun 2012 06:36

srai wrote: Russians have smartly used Indian Armed Forces' orders to build their own indigenous capabilities. Here are some examples:

Su-30MKI -> Now RuAF is ordering them after all the investments from IAF to specify, pay-for R&D (open architecture, etc), production, operation, tactics, etc.

INS Vikramaditya -> Russians used this project to re-gain "lost" skills in aircraft carriers and now have build enough trained manpower to launch their own carrier projects.

MiG-29K -> RuN have ordered these after IN paid for them to be R&D and productionized.

AL-55I -> With HAL investment, Russian built/customized a new engine for small-sized aircraft.

PAK-FA -> With multibillion dollar investment in R&D money, the Russians are getting to complete the 5th-Gen fighter project and in the process acquire expertise in latest airplane technologies.

Talwar FFG -> Now the RuN is ordering them after the investments made by IN in making the platform "stealthy".

MiG-29UPG -> With the IAF upgrade order of these, it is again keeping the MiG-series and their suppliers alive.

T-90S -> With huge order for these MBT, Russians have been able to keep their factories churning and R&Ding new improved versions along with Future MBTs.

Obviously our looters have no vision beyond their bank accounts, but it's not that this has no benefit whatsoever ... this is what is giving Putin the confidence to growl again at Uncle Sam. Multipolar world is always useful.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Jun 2012 08:53

One can probably argue that for any nation that is in the business of arms export , with US , French and Israel benefitting from Indian Money that goes back into and improves their own industry and MIC.

Arms Export is a good way to subsidise ones own local arms industry and MIC ...that is why it remains one of the most profitable business in the world.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Jun 2012 17:20

I think the focus should be on the situation and problem scenario rather the outcome, that could be entirely focused on negative aspects - la arms and twisting, and middlemen making huge sums, and finally the seller not abiding by the rules.

If we focus on the problems, we can discuss what alternatives we have, and what could be done better. Who knows, we might come up with ideas that would throw away the existing problems once and for all!

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 11 Jun 2012 02:36

SaiK wrote:I have not heard yet on the LCA.Mk2 tech transfer screw driver assembly starting for F414-GE-INS6 version. This one puppy can be assimilated if we have the capability, and reproduced to satisfy both LCA and AMCA. Rest of the engines would take longer route to establish.

By having a local SDK production setup, we have some level expertise gained., at least in assembly line. not sure on the many technology it comes with...

blisks
mftrg process - friction welding, etc..
noise reduction - less pollution, and higher efficiency - also low signature..which is required for AMCA.

The engine itself is something that needs to be developed in stages.

As I keep saying--go for the canceled GE/RR F-136 program, fund the balance and get the ToT and even JV with GE/RR to build it in India. It's further along than any AL-117F or AL-41 derivatives. They get a foothold on the F-414 (which we've given them any way) and have a future with the F-136.

Use the F-136IN to power the next gen of all Indian fighter a/c including the FGFA/AMCA whatever.

Design/build the a/c around the engine if we can get the agreement. You won't believe how easy it would be politically. GE is talking privately about how they would have to exit the military jet engine business if they don't get the next big order.

JMT. For once: Avoid the Kurt Tank/HF-24/ Helwan engine, the LCA/Kaveri, the IJT/AL-55 nonsense. Easy to build airframe. Difficult to build engine. Just ask AMG

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Jun 2012 03:26

Impossible to avoid Kaveri after billions gone into it.. there is no stepping out without success. sorry, change the management, reorg, do something, revamp the team structure, do whatever, get the puppy out.

While GE etc can happen for production engineering know how, home grown Kaveri is mandatory for the future.. just think, we had marut story to tell for LCA. We need a Kaveri story for the future Ganga!