AMCA News and Discussions

Locked
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by vishvak »

[quote="Ankar"=>>]@Saurav Jha:
Today the avionics ecosystem for AMCA is already in place. Even work on weapon release from an internal bay has progressed well.
Basic airframe is also set. It is mostly in thrust vectoring and RAM that much work remains to be done.
Put your money where your mouth is, get good talent from wherever on board for specific programs and optimize expectations.
AND over the years because of the nature of funding more than one lab has achieved systems level capability Ina domain.
E.g today RCI which was essentially a missile avionics lab is also a lead lab for all up missile systems in tandem with DRDL and ASL.
[/<<=quote]
Great!
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5353
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Cain Marko »

Sagar G wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Yes of course, and elephants can fly ,.especially pink ones
Heh, I guess you are from the same august company which wrote a "crash and burn" letter to Mr. George Fernandez unfortunately for them the only thing that "crashed and burned" was their bloated ego :lol:
Err keep guessing , such pedantic attempts at personal invective are just as off the mark as those you try to cover for when it comes to meeting their timebound goals.
member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by member_28108 »

Image

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 9h9 hours ago
Anyway, here's the AMCA late iteration (3B-08) from the NAL Director's report. pic.twitter.com/hO2kjDYlRp
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12265
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Pratyush »

The renderings make it look good.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10395
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Yagnasri »

I wonder if Private sector can be involved more in this project. True that they lack expertise in this. But at least ADA can take the talent of private sector in some areas and get faster result than HAL. Production can be done by a Private Sector special purpose vehicle and funding by Venture Capital. May be Venture Capital of huge amount needed and the risk involved is quite difficult. Yet worth exploring.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10395
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Yagnasri »

I wonder if Private sector can be involved more in this project. True that they lack expertise in this. But at least ADA can take the talent of private sector in some areas and get faster result than HAL. Production can be done by a Private Sector special purpose vehicle and funding by Venture Capital. May be Venture Capital of huge amount needed and the risk involved is quite difficult. Yet worth exploring.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

Fighter lines, and programs in general have been extremely unpopular for VC activity. Heck even internal company funded R&D is going to be tough for fighter development as it has traditionally been a sluggish area with investments taking decades to pay off. This is a global problem and as long as development cycles are in the years or in some cases decades, and the DOT&E phases that push beyond 5 years the private investor is not going to touch this. For them transporters, UAV's and other programs that have the volume, lower technical risk and a wider market are far more attractive.
Will
BRFite
Posts: 637
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Will »

Yagnasri wrote:I wonder if Private sector can be involved more in this project. True that they lack expertise in this. But at least ADA can take the talent of private sector in some areas and get faster result than HAL. Production can be done by a Private Sector special purpose vehicle and funding by Venture Capital. May be Venture Capital of huge amount needed and the risk involved is quite difficult. Yet worth exploring.

Private sector has to be involved in this program. It is the MOD that will have to fund their modules of research.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Indranil »

indranilroy wrote:It is a pity that we are fighting with each other. AVM Matheswaran has immense knowledge in the evaluation of twin-engined birds and IAF's expectations from the same. If he can't serve in IAF's team evaluating AMCA's design, he should have been hired into MoD's, HAL's or ADA's team for consultancy.
Guess what! AVM (retd.) Matheswaran is an Advisor to HAL now. 8)
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by deejay »

^^^ What is this - 'Nindak Niyare Raakhiye'?
member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by member_26622 »

brar_w wrote:Fighter lines, and programs in general have been extremely unpopular for VC activity. Heck even internal company funded R&D is going to be tough for fighter development as it has traditionally been a sluggish area with investments taking decades to pay off. This is a global problem and as long as development cycles are in the years or in some cases decades, and the DOT&E phases that push beyond 5 years the private investor is not going to touch this. For them transporters, UAV's and other programs that have the volume, lower technical risk and a wider market are far more attractive.
Actually the Origin of VC can be traced to US Defense R&D investments in to private and public labs - specifically through funding research programs which developed human capital, leading to 'silicon' revolution and emergence of Venture Capital.

Check this lecture from none other than Steve Blank - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo

The biggest loss from our mindless defense imports is not the $ outflow or lack of infrastructure development but in reality zero seeding of 'Indian' human capital. Products and companies are built by innovative people after all. 'Mindless' is an apt way to describe our defense acquisition policy until recent changes
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20782
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

indranilroy wrote:
indranilroy wrote:It is a pity that we are fighting with each other. AVM Matheswaran has immense knowledge in the evaluation of twin-engined birds and IAF's expectations from the same. If he can't serve in IAF's team evaluating AMCA's design, he should have been hired into MoD's, HAL's or ADA's team for consultancy.
Guess what! AVM (retd.) Matheswaran is an Advisor to HAL now. 8)
And best part is he is already cribbing about even the thought of LCA MK2 going to the private sector.
Truly a man for all seasons.
Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3801
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Paul »

IAF Think-Tank for Separate R and D Cadre; Not a Good Idea: DRDO
By Anantha Krishnan M - BANGALORE Published: 19th February 2014 09:49 AM Last Updated: 19th February 2014 09:49 AM

A top Indian Air Force (IAF) think-tank on Monday mooted a thought-provoking idea of setting up an independent cadre to undertake research and development (R&D) in critical technology areas. Air Marshal M Matheswaran, Deputy Chief of the Integrated Defence Staff (Policy, Planning and Development), batted for a combined R&D cadre of IAF, Army and Navy to tide over the delays, especially in electronic warfare (EW). His remarks come in the backdrop of an earlier IAF view of taking up the aircraft manufacturing at its own base repair depots. However, the DRDO has expressed its reservations.

Known for his firm views on contemporary military matters, Mathewswaran told Express that the Indian government should create a Scientific Advisory Board consisting of scientists, technocrats and armed forces personnel. "The DRDO has done its bit and its time for Indian private sector to call the shots. We cannot just depend on DRDO alone any more. We need new ideas to improve the eco system in India," he said.

Taking a cue from the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) in the United States, Matheswaran said that India could put the development of gen-next EW projects under this new cadre. "In the US, all major concepts emulate from the AFRL and they have dedicated senior officers working on multiple programmes. In India, we focus only on operational preparedness and very little thought is going on the technology upgradation and product support. The user must question the strengths of the industry. The MoU and JV path has taken long time to materialise and the Services need EW systems as of yesterday," Matheswaran said.

He said the private industry needs to be integrated with the defence sector, bailing them out of the barriers surrounding them. "These barriers are created by our gown agencies and the private industries should look beyond India and its armed forces. The idea is to join the global supply chain and compete with the market might," the IAF top official said. He said it's high time India took advantage of the IT sector and brought them to the defence sector.

Reacting to Matheswaran's thoughts, former IAF boss Air Chief Marshal (Retd) Fali Homi Major said that it's time that all high-end critical technologies are developed adopting the embedded philosophy. "The IAF has a huge bank of serving and retired officers with hands-on experience in dealing with EW systems. Creation of a separate corps for dedicated research is a great idea and I strongly feel that IAF brains should be part of some of the R&D labs running sensitive projects. The user should be the captain while developing all critical systems and our men should be embedded with the DRDO projects," Major said. He said Indian defence need to adopt out-of-the-box-ideas to outsmart the tech denials looming over many critical areas.

Speaking to Express from Delhi, K Tamil Mani, Director General Aeronautical Systems, DRDO, opposed the idea of having independent agencies taking up research in critical areas. "The thought process should be to synergise our strengths and not to channel them in different directions. Independent R&D might not take India forward. Instead, the DRDO labs, users and the industries should come together. EW systems cannot be outsourced and we need to develop them within the country itself," he said. When asked whether he was rejecting the idea of a new R&D carde in India, as suggested by Matheswaran, the DRDO DG said: "I don't deny the requirements of the IAF. But joining hands is always a better idea, than going alone."
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

nik wrote:
brar_w wrote:Fighter lines, and programs in general have been extremely unpopular for VC activity. Heck even internal company funded R&D is going to be tough for fighter development as it has traditionally been a sluggish area with investments taking decades to pay off. This is a global problem and as long as development cycles are in the years or in some cases decades, and the DOT&E phases that push beyond 5 years the private investor is not going to touch this. For them transporters, UAV's and other programs that have the volume, lower technical risk and a wider market are far more attractive.
Actually the Origin of VC can be traced to US Defense R&D investments in to private and public labs - specifically through funding research programs which developed human capital, leading to 'silicon' revolution and emergence of Venture Capital.

Check this lecture from none other than Steve Blank - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo

The biggest loss from our mindless defense imports is not the $ outflow or lack of infrastructure development but in reality zero seeding of 'Indian' human capital. Products and companies are built by innovative people after all. 'Mindless' is an apt way to describe our defense acquisition policy until recent changes

VC does have a role, but i was referring specifically to "fighter" projects compared to other aerospace projects. Fighter projects have way too much risk, variables and deliver return too far out compared to a lot of the other projects that are far more attractive to VC activity or even to internal corporate funding.

In the US for example the ATF would have broken the backs of corporations had they pursued it independently. Packard (from HP) wanted all systems and sub-systems to be tested before a down-select for all DOD matters and that meant that the ATF Demval phase would require each down-selected winner to spend anywhere from 1 Billion to 1.5 Billion to complete that phase and they couldn't expect more than 500-700 million from the US government to do so. Even before demval teams agreed to form long term partnerships because they couldn't afford a potential 500-600 million investment over 50 months around 1988. Even though Boeing, General Dynamics, McDonnell Douglass, lockheed, Northrop submitted separate designs for the 1st phase, they had agreed that they would form teams (GD, Lockheed and Boeing one team and McD and Northrop the other) with the winner taking the prime position. Thats why we see very little from internally funded corporate investments in the fighter business. No one develops a full fledged fighter on their own .
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by member_20317 »

Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) would be an outfit directing from afar the research for the purposes of an interventionist agenda. Replicating the same in India on one-on-one basis would be like Jahangir signing off the charter of trade thinking Mughals would benefit out of it. IAF has enough people in it keen on imported maal esp. US maal. What is to say this will not end up like the case of Dr. B.K. Subba Rao.

Before IAF or anybody outside the authorised agencies turn up at the door holding a US made tamga for research, they should first ring fence their people and institutions. Put in place systems where we have NIL possibility of them getting liaised with by wining dining international intellectual types.

Tamil Mani ji, is right this also dissipates the efforts. IAF should instead depute for long terms their select people who are capable of picking up technical issues and not just exist to look good in Board meetings.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2929
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Cybaru »

This engine will probably meet AMCAs requirements

http://www.geaviation.com/engines/docs/ ... hanced.pdf
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

^^ The enhanced engine may get backing from the USN in a matter of a year or two.

USN study revives GE's hopes for major F414 upgrade

GE is pitching this engine to South Korea and possibly Turkey for advanced projects and it would obviously be a natural thing for SAAB to consider out into the future for future variants of either the Gripen or the stealth fighter they have been toying around with. Given that it is the only modern engine of its class in the Pentagon's pipeline (outside of the ADVENT) it would most likely secure the funding from the USN that would ensure its competitiveness for the above mentioned projects.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2929
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Cybaru »

brar_w wrote:^^ The enhanced engine may get backing from the USN in a matter of a year or two.

USN study revives GE's hopes for major F414 upgrade

GE is pitching this engine to South Korea and possibly Turkey for advanced projects and it would obviously be a natural thing for SAAB to consider out into the future for future variants of either the Gripen or the stealth fighter they have been toying around with. Given that it is the only modern engine of its class in the Pentagon's pipeline (outside of the ADVENT) it would most likely secure the funding from the USN that would ensure its competitiveness for the above mentioned projects.
post the relevant parts of the article?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

Here's all of it :)
A major engine upgrade for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fleet is being seriously considered by the US Navy for a programme launch in Fiscal Year 2016.

GE Aviation and the navy jointly funded a one-year study – which kicked off last October – to examine the details of implementing a nearly 15-year-old proposal to upgrade the F414-GE-400 with the “enhanced durability engine” (EDE) kit.

Following a decade of component and rig testing and several false starts on the export market, the study may be GE Aviation’s best hope of salvaging a programme that could improve the thrust of the Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler fleet by one-fifth.

Meanwhile, a US Navy-funded F414 upgrade programme could also boost the competitive position of the F414 over the rival Eurojet EJ2X0 – an upgraded variant of the Eurofighter Typhoon’s EJ200 – as new medium-sized, twin-engined fighters are proposed in Japan, South Korea and Turkey.

“If what we expect comes out of [the study], the need is there and the budgets line up, the next step is going to be to go ahead and start working on the detailed design of the engine,” says Jim Caplan, director of F404/F414 programmes for GE Aviation.“I believe they are looking at it as a potential [FY2016] programme.”

The engine upgrade decision comes at a pivotal time in the 22-year history of the Super Hornet and Growler programmes.Once-promising export leads for the F/A-18E/F in Brazil and India have dried up, and a foreign launch order for an advanced version of the aircraft – featuring the F414 EDE upgrade – does not appear likely in the near-term.

Meanwhile, the programme of record for the navy is also running out. The official programme of record concludes in FY2014, but the service does not appear willing to allow the 32-year-old assembly line in St Louis, Missouri, to close just yet.

Last October, the navy issued a pre-solicitation notice for the possible purchase of up to 36 more F/A-18E/Fs in FY2015. However, the notice was later cancelled after a Flightglobal news report disclosed the potential deal. Naval Air Systems Command officials said the document was released prematurely.

The Obama administration subsequently unveiled the FY2015 budget request in February, but no funding for more EA-18Gs or F/A-18E/Fs was included.

The navy has since added a request for 22 more EA-18Gs to the top of its unfunded priorities list. Congress could add funding to buy the additional aircraft, but this is far from guaranteed.

As the budget debate unfolds, the navy is also considering how it should maintain its current fleet of F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs.

The engine upgrade is one of a package of modifications Boeing has offered to international customers for several years.Besides the engine, the most significant update proposed for the F/A-18E/F is a signature reduction package.

The Super Hornet in combat configuration carries weapons and external fuel tanks under its wings, but that payload makes it easier for radar to detect the fighter.

Boeing proposed reducing the fighter’s radar signature by replacing the wing-mounted fuel pods with conformal tanks installed on top of the fuselage. In addition, the airframer designed a conformal weapons bay in a container that greatly reduces the fighter’s profile on radar.

The Advanced Super Hornet includes more updates, including large-format, touchscreen displays in the cockpit.

However, the upgrade requiring the most internal changes – and offering the biggest advancement in performance – are modifications to the fighter’s pair of 22,000lb-thrust (99kN) F414-GE-400s.

GE
The F414 EDE is billed as an upgrade – not a new centreline engine – but it promises significant performance improvement. The configuration changes are exclusively hardware, but how the performance improvement is realised depends entirely on the software.

The navy can programme the full authority digital engine control system to upgrade the power output of the F414 EDE engine to around 26,400lb-thrust. The same changes can dramatically improve the engine’s durability if thrust output is maintained at the 22,000lb-thrust baseline.


The latter option also offers a 3% improvement in fuel efficiency, and up to $5 billion cost savings over an engine’s lifecycle – including reduced fuel and maintenance costs, GE’s Caplan says.

But the navy could also be tempted – if the F414 EDE programme is launched – to seek a thrust upgrade, which includes a doubling of acceleration power.“That gives you options in terms of future threats and aircraft capability,” Caplan says.he trade-off with upgrading the engine to produce 26,400lb-thrust is a considerable hike in maintenance costs. Running the F414 EDE at the higher thrust setting reduces turbine life to 2,000h, Caplan says. This is just one-third of the current 6,000h interval.

The upgrade itself mainly targets three of the six modules inside the engine – the fan, the high-pressure compressor and the high-pressure turbine.However, the dramatic thrust improvement is made possible by Boeing’s original design of the air inlet.

The inlet is sized to ingest up to 84.8kg/s (187lb/s) of air into the engine fan. However, the fan can only absorb 77.1kg/s of airflow, which artificially reduces the aircraft’s maximum thrust capability.
The F414 EDE addresses this gap in capability by making subtle but important changes to the inlet fan, to increase air flow to the maximum level of 84.8kg/s.


The three-stage fan is currently comprised of a traditional hub-and-blade configuration for the first stage, and integrated blades and discs – or blisks – in the second and third stages.
The proposed upgrade replaces the first stage with a blisk, Caplan says. A blisk reduces the diameter of the hub, thereby creating space for ingesting more air. Finally, GE is “re-tuning” the second- and third-stage fan blades to accommodate the additional mass of air, Caplan adds.

Aft of the fan module, the configuration changes are more dramatic. The F414 EDE proposes to reduce one stage of compression from the high-pressure compressor, leaving six stages to achieve the desired overall pressure ratio of airflow entering the combustion chamber.

To replace the foregone compression stage, the compressor blades will be redesigned with modern 3D aerodynamic techniques, which are often characterised by wider-chord and thicker blades, with more elaborate twisting or bowing.

The F414-GE-400 was launched in 1992 – a decade before 3D aerospace technology was advanced with the GE90-115B engine for the Boeing 777-300ER.“We had some [3D aerospace tools], but nothing like we have today,” Caplan says.

A perhaps overlooked benefit of 3D shaping is the improved tolerance of the blades to damage from foreign object debris (FOD) ingested upstream, he adds.
“Because of 3D aero the leading edge of the blade is a little more rounded than the current blade, so that results in it being more FOD-tolerant,” Caplan says.

The high-pressure turbine has also been updated with 3D technology – but the increased airflow presents another problem aft of the combustor.As the volume of air increases, the turbine inlet temperature also grows significantly – beyond the melting point of the metallic blades of the high-pressure turbine module.

As a result, the F414 EDE configuration features new cooling techniques. The turbine blades are already moulded with internal passages that channel cooling air siphoned from cooler parts of the engine, upstream of the combustor. However, the new design incorporates “different techniques” that Caplan is not authorised to describe in detail.

“It has to do more with the internal design of the blade,” he says. “Heat is evenly distributed and very consistently removed from the blades, with no thermal gradients. There are improvements in coatings as well.”

GE also has the option of switching to a more heat-resistant material to make the blades. The company is considering designing the first-stage turbine blades of the GE9X with silicon carbide-based ceramic matrix composites (CMC), which are lighter and more heat-resistant than metal. Indeed, the company tested CMCs in the low-pressure turbine of the F414-GE-400 for a 2011 demonstration.

However, GE decided not to switch to non-metallic materials in the hot section of the F414 EDE.“Part of this programme is really focused on how to introduce this kit without making significant changes to the engine,” Caplan says.
For example, introducing lighter, non-metallic blades encourages an engine designer to reduce the size and weight of the hub, he says – and such changes are complex and expensive.

In the end, the new passive cooling system integrated into the turbine blades was sufficient to meet the requirements of the engine. GE confirms that the F414 EDE turbine is equipped to survive despite a 66˚C (150˚F) increase in turbine inlet temperature.

That increase in temperature margin is the key metric in achieving either increased durability of the overall engine at the baseline thrust level, or the higher-power, less-durable performance at higher thrust setting.

Caplan notes that minor adjustments are made in the combustor and low-pressure turbine, but the significant changes are limited to the fan, compressor and high-pressure turbine. The afterburner module is essentially unchanged.

There has been no shortage of time to study and develop the F414 EDE. The origins of GE’s proposal date back nearly 15 years, when Pratt & Whitney briefly proposed a rival engine upgrade for the F/A-18E/F fleet known as the PW7000.

Over the last 10 years, the navy and GE have invested about $100 million in developing the F414 EDE configuration, Caplan says.Ground testing began in 2004 on a six-stage compressor and turbine. That was followed by a full compressor rig test in 2005. Two years later, GE tested the core with higher airflow from the three-blisk fan module. Finally, in 2011, GE ran more tests on the core.

The challenge now remains for GE to sell the navy on making an investment in the Super Hornet and Growler fleet, despite heavy budgetary pressure.
GE officials have offered to subsidise the cost of development, but Caplan was unwilling to discuss cost estimates or specific cost-sharing proposals.

“I think what’s happened now is there’s more interest – unfortunately, it comes at a time when the budgets are extremely tight,” Caplan says. “There’s more interest as people are starting to look at the longevity of the platform, recognising the fact that the Super Hornet is going to be in service for the next 25-30 years. For the Growler, there’s no publicly announced replacement.”

For GE Aviation, upgrading the F414-GE-400 is more than an opportunity for a near-term contract to upgrade the US Navy’s fleet of Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers.

The higher-thrust F414 enhanced durability engine (EDE) is also GE’s attempt to remain at the forefront of the market for powering single- and twin-engined, medium-sized fighters.

The F414 has proven remarkably adaptable in the global market. In addition to the F/A-18E/F family, the engine is also offered on the Saab Gripen, Gripen NG and the Hindustan Aeronautics Tejas light combat aircraft.

But the competition in the 20,000-26,000lb-thrust (89-117kN) market is growing. In addition to the proposed Eurojet EJ2X0 engine upgrade, Pratt & Whitney has hinted at plans to break into the market with the PW9000, which combines the high-pressure section of the PW1000G and the low-pressure section of the PW135 engines.

“There’s a number of different opportunities” for the F414 EDE, Jim Caplan, director of F404/F414 programmes for GE Aviation, says. “There’s applications worldwide that this engine could play a role in.”
Asked about ongoing fighter development programmes in Japan, South Korea and Turkey, Caplan agreed those could be projects of interest to the F414 EDE.

“Those are all people who are interested in developing an aircraft and developing a [medium twin-engined fighter], so those are all potential opportunities,” Caplan says.

However, the opportunities are not entirely on the foreign market.Caplan notes that the energy produced by the F414 core is limited to 26,400lb-thrust in the EDE configuration only by the size of the air inlet on the Super Hornet.

“If we can get more air in the engine, can we get some more thrust out of it,” Caplan asks. “The answer is yes. We could actually drive this fan to go up a bit in airflow, and if we had some opportunity to redesign the engine bay and physically make the engine bigger, we can drive an even bigger fan and take on more air flow.”
From purely an economic perspective the 414 family has the best odds of making solid money on the back of enhancements. The Eurojet customers are non-committal and the state of their defense budgets does not inspire much confidence in terms of having a program requirement set and fully funded through. Furthermore, the 414 family is already integrated into 3 (eventually with the MK2 and the Gripen NG) so there is more insulation form losses if one of the customer decides to back away from making upgrade investments. Outside of political calculations, quite a few analysts predict GE to be a winner for the upgrade and newer aviation projects that do require an engine in that thrust class.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by vishvak »

We have probably more time to test best fit engine for AMCA. Plus AMCA will have more room for engine weight as far as performance parameters are considered.
member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by member_26622 »

brar_w wrote: VC does have a role, but i was referring specifically to "fighter" projects compared to other aerospace projects. Fighter projects have way too much risk, variables and deliver return too far out compared to a lot of the other projects that are far more attractive to VC activity or even to internal corporate funding.
Agree and here is the rationale - VC investments typically have a life cycle of 5 years, worst case 7~8 years. This is driven by the 10 year fund life - invest in year 1,2,3 and sell off in year 7,8,9 to get 20% yearly return. Naturally, they can only consider companies which can be sold off or IPO'd in 5 years, which typically means 3 years development time for products to get to 100 million run rate by year 5.

Fighter projects have taken 10 plus years for 'proving' design parameters based on my limited readings. Only 'rich' individuals or aerospace companies or Govt's can fund this type of development. Exception is for the recent low cost jets which cobble together existing components to re-use proven designs.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

Not only that Nik, traditionally in the US (not sure about Europe since a lot of the stuff is single nation/ single supplier kind of a deal) fighter projects were low cost to bid on. You submitted a design, and got a few million to make prototypes. The ATF and the influence of Packard's recommendations (From HP) meant that you had to fully design internally a system and sub-system architecture, develop prototypes of each and every component either integrated into an airframe or flying on a testbed. This takes a heck of a lot of time and money. As mentioned earlier in the late 80's the ATF competition cost the two finalists 1.2 billion dollars aprox (600 mill per vendor) in internal funding over a short duration of time (50 months). That was quite a lot of money spent and for Northrop/MD their investment was never recovered. The days of division head going to the board of directors, getting a few million sanctioned, turning out rapid prototypes based on cannibalized parts are long gone. Now days avionics and propulsion are expected to contribute around 45-50% of a fighters development cost and therefore OEM's have to carefully study, deliberate and come up with a strategy and game-plan on what systems to compete and where not to compete.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2929
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Cybaru »

VC money is the worst kind. They want to invest millions and want billions for it. No way they are investing in anything defence.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Singha »

well if its a cheap laser/iir guided bush war kind of munition that USAF can launch in 1000s around the world, they might like it.
think of a game changing product like a Hellfire that is 10 times cheaper.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

Its unmanned systems that takes a lot of their fancy as one can see that most of the defense coverage in business and financial magazines revolves around that. Short development cycles and short testing cycles have seen many such systems rushed to war before having completed testing, something that would be extremely difficult with a manned system. Fighters are not a very safe bet as development cycles are very very long (10-20 years), testing is extremely risky from a technical and financial stand point, and production runs go on for decades (uncertainty).
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by deejay »

Kailash ji posting the article in full:
NEW DELHI: India plans to kick-off its own fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) development project this year to build on the expertise gained in the long developmental saga of the indigenous Tejas light combat aircraft.

Top defence sources on Wednesday said the preliminary design stage of the futuristic fighter called the advanced medium combat aircraft (AMCA), with collaboration among IAF, DRDO and Aeronautical Development Agency, is now "virtually" over.

"Once the project definition and feasibility is completed in the next few months, the defence ministry will go to the cabinet committee on security for approval. It will require Rs 4,000-5,000 crore for the initial design and development phase," said a source.

The aim is to fly the first twin-engine AMCA prototype by 2023-2024, which will be around the time deliveries of Tejas Mark-II fighters will be underway. IAF is slated to get its first Tejas Mark-I in March this year, over 30 years after the LCA project was first approved in August 1983. But the Tejas Mark-II jets, with more powerful engines, will start to come only by 2021-2022, as was first reported by TOI.


"After Tejas-II, we have to move ahead to a fifth-generation-plus AMCA. Basic design work of AMCA as well as presentations by five to six global aero-engine manufacturers is over. Simulation modelling is also in the works," said the source.

India, of course, is also trying to sort out its differences with Russia over their proposed joint development of the Indian "perspective multi-role fighter" based on the latter's under-development FGFA called Sukhoi T-50 or PAK-FA.

India, in fact, had told Russia it cannot wait till 2024-2025 to begin inducting 127 of these single-seat fighters [Single Seat fighters?], which will entail an overall expenditure of around $25 billion. But India also wants its own home-grown AMCA project in the long-run for strategic and economic reasons.

A swing-role FGFA basically combines advanced stealth, supercruise (capability to achieve supersonic cruise speeds without use of afterburners), super-maneuverability, data fusion and multi-sensor integration on a single fighter.

But the 20-year long development of the American F/A-22 "Raptor", the only fully-operational FGFA in the world today, has shown that such a project is an extremely complex and costly affair.

The US shut down the production of Raptors in 2012 after inducting 188 of them at an overall cost of $67 billion due to huge costs, technical glitches and time overruns. The US is now finally moving towards operationalizing a more advanced FGFA, the F-35 "Lightning-II" joint strike fighter. With the project yet to overcome all technical and software glitches, the overall cost for the planned induction of almost 2,500 such fighters stands at around $400 billion.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by vishvak »

If I am not mistaken, the only engine that has some stealth capability is the one that powers PAK-FA/FGFA prototypes. Which is (from wiki page on FGFA/PAK-FA): NPO Saturn Izdeliye 117 (AL-41F1) for initial production, Izdeliye 30 for later production.

Since AMCA is Gen 5 stealth plane, we should definitely see if it is available for later use since we may need AMCA as a workhorse in the long term.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

I would wait for a better article.
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Cosmo_R »

brar_w wrote:Not only that Nik, traditionally in the US (not sure about Europe since a lot of the stuff is single nation/ single supplier kind of a deal) fighter projects were low cost to bid on. You submitted a design, and got a few million to make prototypes. ...
The days of division head going to the board of directors, getting a few million sanctioned, turning out rapid prototypes based on cannibalized parts are long gone. ...
The 1950s were the golden days. It seemed almost like people built fighter jets in their garages and machine shops and got contracts from the Pentagon. And the diversity of design: I remember the Chance Vought Cutlass, the F-101 Voodoo etc. Companies like Grumman started small on Long Island NY. I built all these models from Revell (and got buzzed by the glue).

Ou sont les neiges d'antan?
Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Gyan »

deejay wrote:Kailash ji posting the article in full:
NEW DELHI: India plans to kick-off its own fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) development project this year to build on the expertise gained in the long developmental saga of the indigenous Tejas light combat aircraft.

Top defence sources on Wednesday said the preliminary design stage of the futuristic fighter called the advanced medium combat aircraft (AMCA), with collaboration among IAF, DRDO and Aeronautical Development Agency, is now "virtually" over.

"Once the project definition and feasibility is completed in the next few months, the defence ministry will go to the cabinet committee on security for approval. It will require Rs 4,000-5,000 crore for the initial design and development phase," said a source. (MY comment:-But for Russian FGFA we are commiting Rs 35,000 crore for 13% share of R&D, Bahut Nainsafi hai)

The aim is to fly the first twin-engine AMCA prototype by 2023-2024, which will be around the time deliveries of Tejas Mark-II fighters will be underway. IAF is slated to get its first Tejas Mark-I in March this year, over 30 years after the LCA project was first approved in August 1983. But the Tejas Mark-II jets, with more powerful engines, will start to come only by 2021-2022, as was first reported by TOI.


"After Tejas-II, we have to move ahead to a fifth-generation-plus AMCA. Basic design work of AMCA as well as presentations by five to six global aero-engine manufacturers is over. Simulation modelling is also in the works," said the source.

India, of course, is also trying to sort out its differences with Russia over their proposed joint development of the Indian "perspective multi-role fighter" based on the latter's under-development FGFA called Sukhoi T-50 or PAK-FA.

India, in fact, had told Russia it cannot wait till 2024-2025 to begin inducting 127 of these single-seat fighters [Single Seat fighters?], which will entail an overall expenditure of around $25 billion. But India also wants its own home-grown AMCA project in the long-run for strategic and economic reasons.
Last edited by Gyan on 08 Jan 2015 18:09, edited 1 time in total.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

Cosmo_R wrote:
brar_w wrote:Not only that Nik, traditionally in the US (not sure about Europe since a lot of the stuff is single nation/ single supplier kind of a deal) fighter projects were low cost to bid on. You submitted a design, and got a few million to make prototypes. ...
The days of division head going to the board of directors, getting a few million sanctioned, turning out rapid prototypes based on cannibalized parts are long gone. ...
The 1950s were the golden days. It seemed almost like people built fighter jets in their garages and machine shops and got contracts from the Pentagon. And the diversity of design: I remember the Chance Vought Cutlass, the F-101 Voodoo etc. Companies like Grumman started small on Long Island NY. I built all these models from Revell (and got buzzed by the glue).

Ou sont les neiges d'antan?

Different era, different requirements. In order to design an advanced fighter or any manned or even unmanned aircraft (though to a lesser extent) the OEM's nowadays need a broad field of expertise that highlights their abilities in the "integrated" systems domain. Most of the M&A's have focused on that. Northrop, acquired Grumman, Westinghouse and other smaller companies precisely to be well positioned as an airframe maker that does a lot more integrated systems from the airframe to the avionics architecture, to the sensors etc. Same thing with Boeing and Lockheed. Design submissions now days run into hundreds of pages and the buyer wants to know what the plans are from a system and sub-system point of view and wants detailed prototypes at every level. This boosts the actual cost to bid and finish with the demonstration and evaluation program. The crazy days of trying out everything and securing money from the pentagon to do so are long gone. Those were indeed the golden years in aviation, but now the emphasis is on absorbing the rapidly advancing technology in electronics, particularly computing and being solid at proposing an integrated solution rather than a stand alone airframe.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by deejay »

Okay, here we go. There is some differences from an earlier link posted today but this time I am quoting some parts of the article here instead of the full piece:
The main purpose of the AMCA is to replace the aging SEPECAT Jaguar & Dassault Mirage 2000.
Features of fifth generation fighter aircraft AMCA
• Single seat, twin engine with a diamond-shaped planform and an internal weapons bay
• High maneuverability which tends to include short-field capabilities
• Advanced avionics
• Networked data fusion from sensors and avionics
• Multirole capabilities
• Complement HAL Tejas, the Sukhoi/HAL FGFA, the Sukhoi Su-30MKI and the Dassault Rafale
• AMCA would be powered by K 9 or K 10 Engine with Super cruise capability without after burner.
The amount required for the initial design and development phase is 4000 crore rupees and the initial design of AMCA is expected to be ready by 2018. The first flight of the AMCA though will only be possible by 2025.
Difference between Sukhoi-T50 and AMCA
It will be unlike the joint HAL –Sukhoi initiative between India and Russia to produce FGFA. This multi-role fighter aircraft is expected to be two-seater derivative of the in-development Russian Sukhoi T-50.
Fifth Generation Fighter Aircrafts (FGFA)
It is a fighter aircraft classification encompassing the most advanced jet fighter generation. FGFAs are designed to incorporate numerous technological advances over the fourth generation jet fighter.
Main features of FGFA
• Low Probability of Intercept Radar (LPIR)
• High-performance air frames
• Advanced avionics features
• Highly integrated computer systems capable of networking with other elements within the theatre of war for situational awareness
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Prasad »

So a few newb questions re AMCA : Who drafted the requirements for this plane? Is the IN a co-leader/consumer for this product? If so, is it being developed ground-up as one, instead of how the LCA was done? Have we had any indications from either AF or IN as to how they plan on fitting it in their fighting force?
Last edited by Prasad on 09 Jan 2015 16:49, edited 1 time in total.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by rohitvats »

Sagar G wrote: Given you ignorance about AMCA about the things which are already being done to achieve success for the same I pardon you for "hyperventilating" and pray that the "bucket load of salt" that you will take each time "dates" are given is iodised.
Make-in-India: Plan to develop 5th-generation fighter aircraft
Top defence sources on Wednesday said the preliminary design stage of the futuristic fighter called the advanced medium combat aircraft (AMCA), with collaboration among IAF, DRDO and Aeronautical Development Agency, is now "virtually" over.

"Once the project definition and feasibility is completed in the next few months, the defence ministry will go to the cabinet committee on security for approval. It will require Rs 4,000-5,000 crore for the initial design and development phase," said a source.

The aim is to fly the first twin-engine AMCA prototype by 2023-2024, which will be around the time deliveries of Tejas Mark-II fighters will be underway. <SNIP>
Damn! Guess what caused the timeline for first prototype to slip from 2020-2021 to 2023-24 given that 'so much work' has already been done on the project??? :mrgreen:

Or maybe, they realized that when you've only spent INR 100 crore of the projected INR 4,000-5,000 crore planned, there is only so much which could have been achieved in the project.
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by deejay »

RV in the link provided by NRao, the time line slips further to 2025 for the first flight. Both articles appeared on the same day on different sites. Yet both have different dates. I do not think anything concrete has been committed but a general idea has been given and folks are manufacturing their own datelines.

Somehow, after the CG coverage, I will take every news piece with a lot of filtering. Better to look for exact quotes or dismiss it as speculation.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

There are a 3-4 article, that have come out in the past few days, on the AMCA, FGFA, this and that, that confuse acronyms, dates, everything else. Bad authorship, terrible editorials.

Having said that given that the GoI has stated that the FGFA arrival around 2024+ is not acceptable, I am assuming that the AMCA coming that late is OK with them. My feeling is that they would like the FGFA to be inducted around 2020 and the AMCA around 2025.
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by deejay »

^^^ That makes sense. Get the FGFA in by 2020 and keep working on the AMCA.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

Are there any credible or detailed (or both :) ) plans for the production ramp up of the T-50 and subsequently the FGFA? All I have read is that the Russians expect around 55 deliveries by 2020. There hasn't been much about delivering the product to the IAF or about the delivery time-lines.
Locked