AMCA News and Discussions

[SaiK]

tvc at low alt permits higher AoA landing as well... plus it improves the overall maneuverability. now, getting the core readied up should take precedence over tvc., if it comes by way of the design is fine. bottom, our engineering effort is what not being up-thrusted... all these marketing and politician sabre-rattling up-thrust is of no use.

failure of one big project will have a ripple effect even to the levels of our nuke doctrine. k-failure means, DDM will go up the ante on our maal failure keeping k as a standing example. all it take is one of domino to shake up. i hope drdo understand the seriousness of turbine tech.

if failures keep coming in, our forces will get only a wysiwyg product. self-reliance will go down south pole.

[member_20317]

IMO, TVC would be very important in a AMCA sized bird. LCA can avoid it because its a different philosophy. But more massive AMCA takes you to the field dominated by all big boys. And if in next 10 years that cannot be done then that would be a real sad state of affairs. Only other option would be the half TVC of X-31 or the radical design like Berkut but then a canard is a no go zone for a serious stealth capability which cannot be avoided with the bigger AMCA.

In any case the amount of money needed to make the craft have its own 3D bubble of sensors would be intimidating by itself. Probably AMCA may never aim for the full spectrum EW & Sensor capability. In such a situation a TVC is not just cheap to make the craft more aware (esp. in wvr) it is also the more do able option. In BVR you would perhaps not even need a Spherical awareness to increase the field of regard. Think of TVC on AMCA as the uropains think of the radar of the Typhoon. Quicker less challenging way forward. They move the TR chapati around we can likewise move both the chapati and the craft around.

Various forms of vectoring has been in existence almost since the birth of the jet itself and not attempting it or even compromising on it would be just plain wrong. All the coding skills developed till date can give a greatly improved capability and even if some troublesome points are encountered you can still rope in consultants like the Russians who will have mush less objections on the TVC front then on the sensors front.

Then has not the guru of aerodynamics on here said that the maneuverability of AMCA may be affected due to the design route adopted. TVC in such a case can be expected to help. More over the overwhelming advantage TVC brings in the high altitudes where all of the IAF is likely to meet almost all its adversaries is a big consideration by itself.

Besides the so called EM crafts don't sport it. That itself lends a big asymmetricity in favour of the craft that can bring TVC to the high stakes table.

AMCA has the ability to take IAF to the next level of relatively affordable and customized stealth force projection. Why soften it even at the wish list level.

[NRao]

I have been spending some time trying to figure out, outside of what is widely known on the internet, what actually is a "5th generation" plane.

Find that there is a connection between its engine and the plane - what it is I have no idea.

But, came across this 2011 article from Father Russia.

A couple of observations:

* IAF's concerns (from the now famous Shukla article) seem to be valid, and
* I am fairly confident that an "existing engine" will not do any good for the AMCA. OR the AMCA will not be a proper 5th gen plane

In addition, the thinking that Russia is falling behind on engines is getting louder. IF Russia does not come up with a proper engine for the PAK-FA, I feel, that it just may spell the start of the end. Though a little dated, this article is rather explosive and IF true, could cast a shadow.

Sept 2011 :: The Military's Achilles Heel

The Military's Achilles Heel
01 September 2011 | Issue 4714
By Ruslan Pukhov

Russia’s aircraft industry suffered two significant setbacks at the MAKS air show held outside Moscow from Aug. 16-21. First, the MiG-29 0VT had to abort its flight plan, and second, an engine surge prompted the pilot of the fifth-generation T-50 stealth fighter to abort at takeoff. The incidents could have led to disaster, and both drew attention to problems with the construction of the aircrafts’ engines. Indeed, while Russia is achieving steady progress in aircraft construction and experiencing its first successes in modern avionics manufacturing, its engine-building industry is trailing behind.

Perhaps the greatest concern is that Russia does not currently produce a competitive commercial aircraft engine (with the exception of the French-Russian PowerJet SaM146 engine). Questions remain regarding the technical specifications and production time frame of the PD-14 next-generation family of turbofan engines. The new MS-21 aircraft is forced to rely on U.S.-built Pratt & Whitney engines, a practice that obviously carries with it certain commercial and political risks.

The new and promising Russian-Indian military transport aircraft project faces similar problems. Plans call for eventually installing a version of the PD-14 engine produced in Perm, but at present the only realistic option is a 12-ton thrust motor manufactured in the West.

After a long period of inactivity, the project to reach full-scale production of the VK-2500 Russian helicopter engine seems to have gotten under way. At any rate, the Russian Helicopters company is slated to receive 400 of the engines from the St. Petersburg-based Klimov corporation by 2014 in a bid to reduce its precarious dependence on Ukraine, an unpredictable supplier that takes advantage of its monopoly position.

Some progress had been achieved in developing the TV7-117 engine for the Mil Mi-38 helicopter, but production has yet to achieve any momentum. But with the Russian Helicopters family of Ka-60/62 helicopters relying entirely on the French Ardiden motors, it essentially finances their development and guarantees their mass production. Yet Russia has made no attempt to acquire the rights to manufacture the engines domestically — and this is for a project financed and purchased wholly by Russia.

At the same time, funding was cut for development of the VK-1500, a Russian version of that engine. Russian Helicopters has adopted exactly the same strategy concerning the Arrius engine for its Ka-226T light helicopters. The government has allocated at least 150 million euros ($216.5 million) to buy 300 French aircraft motors, but could not find 40 million euros to start mass production of the VK-800, a Russian engine with the same power output.

Finally, major questions remain regarding Russia’s production of military aircraft engines. Although the first stage of research and development has been successfully completed for the 117 family of engines for the Su-35S and T-50 aircraft, it is unclear whether it will prove possible to create a full-fledged fifth-generation engine for the PAK FA second stage. The obstacle is not a lack of funding or innovative capacity at the Saturn plant, but the need for basic technologies — especially in materials science — that could require a great deal of time and money to develop.

The situation with the RD-33 engine is much worse. Development for that line of motors has practically halted. Despite sustained effort, the Chernyshev plant failed to produce a smokeless combustion chamber. And, in a major setback, Russian aircraft were excluded from consideration in a tender by the Indian government to purchase 126 medium multirole combat aircraft because the engines on the MiG-35 ostensibly did not conform to Indian standards. Those problems notwithstanding, it is crucial that the RD-33 engine undergo modernization. That motor is mounted on the carrier-based MiG-29K, the MiG aircraft with the best prospects for the medium term.

[Philip]

The engine on the 29Ks are smokeless.That problem was solved long ago.If 2020-2025 is the time frame for the AMCA to fly and then start production,there is ample time to develop or co-develop an engine with a foreign manufacturer provided that there are enough engines to be cost-effective.Ideally an engine for the LCA Mk-2/3 with TVC should be the one for the twin-engined AMCA saving much development time.No harm in also trying out the EJ for the job.

[maitya]

Kaveri for the UCAV keeps getting mentioned but is it really that simple.

I have heard at various times Kaveri 9 (which is what we have in hand) as having been described as a turbofan as well as a leaky turbojet. But is a leaky turbojet the same as a low bypass turbofan. IOW would a higher bypass of a turbojet bring it closer in terms of design to a lower bypass of a turbofan. The stationary components - inside of the nacelles and exterior of the core has only the fan as the moving part (there may be other things perhaps) but will it not also make it difficult to manage the entrails of the core with a bigger fan. Will everything get stabilized as easily. I remember perhaps on this forum itself it was mentioned how the Viggen engine ended up as a compromise as it made a reverse journey from being a civilian engine to being a military engine, ending up as a compromise.

I am not doubting the ability of our engineers who will most likely produce the product as required esp. since the afterburning was the problematic part and the requirements in a UCAV are expected to be significantly relaxed. However this required product and the work involved itself may be a good reason to treat it as a new product and not necessarily a Kaveri K-9 lite (K-11!? perhaps, hence more committed and structured funding ).

Not sure what the disconnect is wrt "slotting" Kaveri into a Turbojet/Turbofan.

It's a low-bypass Turbofan just like F404 ... where-in a portion (a smaller volume compared to a slightly-higher-bypass turbofan like F414, but not a whole lot higher like that can be seen in civilian turbofans) of the mass-flow is diverted outside the core.
These military turbofans shouldn't be confused with the Civilian turbofans - completely different (actually opposing) requirements and thus naturally, different solutions to those requirements.

Will not bring those differences in any greater technical detail here and would request folks to pls refer to the Kaveri saga thread where some of these points had been/will be addressed.

In pure layman terms, for a military turbofan, thrust is the be-all and end-all requirement ... SFC and other efficiency improvements are purely secondary considerations (and no, they are not unimportant requirements - they actually are very very important requirement, as evolution of various military turbofan through 80s-90s would exhibit - just that they are not important enough compared to that of meeting the thrust, both dry and wet, requirement).
And thrust building is best done by ensuring using up as much as of the available air-mass volume towards compressing, combusting and work extracting from it ... aka pure turbojets of 70s and 80s.
Yes they were fuel-guzzlers, made a lot of noise, smoky (as the old RD-33), heavy etc etc but they achieved the required thrust levels - and did so by making sure that all the air-mass available to the LPC front end, is compressed, fuel-mixed and then expanded by adding heat to it.
And in the process, the flow-velocity thru the core was quite high - this ensured that the thermal efficiency (and propulsive efficiency) to be piss-poor, resulting in high SFC etc.

All of these relationships can be better appreciated by referring (and playing around) the Kaveri Saga thread (or in the Kaveri thread) where-in I'd posted a high-level excel-based turbojet simulator long back.

A turbofan concept tries to address this "efficiency" problem by allowing a small amount of air to be only compressed (so increase in velocity and KE) by the Fan-stage and allowing it to be not extracting any work from it (via fuel-mixing, burning and expanding it) etc.
This immediately meant an air-mass velocity drop within core, resulting in core-thrust drop but better heat addition and work extraction in the core i.e. increased SFC and other efficiency parameters. And then, of course, the whole game is about improving the turbojet efficiency influencing parameters (read OPR and TeT both), so that this resulting thrust loss is somewhat recouped via a more efficient core.
Plus since the work extracted at the Turbine drives both the upstream Fan and LP/HP Compressor stages, some more amount of Thrust is recovered by the Fan-stage compression of the bypassed mass.

Long story short, Kaveri is a nothing but a low-bypass turbofan where-in blindly increasing the bypass ratio will result in Thrust shortfall - and that, had it been for a Civilian application, this Thrust drop tradeoff with efficiency-gain would have been acceptable.
But being designed for a military application, Thrust drop can't be compromised. So, the bpr is kept at such a level that there is small amount of Thrust drop and somewhat Thermal (and Propulsive) efficiency gain - and then that this Thrust shortfall is being minimised by a more efficient core by carefully balacing the growth to a higher OPR (of say 27-30) and higher TeT (of say 1650-1700deg C).
For which, the whole cart of next-gen tech in CFD, Material, Manufacturing Tech is needed to be developed. Pls refer to the first couple of posts of the Kaveri Saga Thread to have some understanding of what those Technologies are (and what lineage is Kaveri based on).

================

And wrt Wet-Thrust shortfall due to afterburner efficiency issues and the supposed solution that for applications without any Wet-Thrust requirements, this will be a non-issue - well do note, that afterburner Thrust drop is a clear indication of Core not being upto the mark. For example, there can be a scenario where-in if the velocity of the hot air-mass-flow post LPT is too high (indication that the Turbine efficiency is below par), heat addition would suffer (thermal efficiency, again) resulting in sub-optimal afterburner thrust.
And there can be so many such causes for this shortfall, all linked to the core.

So, improving the core should resolve the afterburner type issues as well (pls note, we just don't know enough to categorize where the exact issue is - but GTRE folks would obviously know).

[maitya]

Oh betw, the topic on hand was Thrust-vectoring, and we seem to be veering to an impression that Thrust-vectoring is some very complicated engine (or shall I say injiin (c) Grand Mullah Enquoobudding-Gas-Turbini, PissBUH ) technology that, for getting/mastering it, we need to kneel-down to some foreign engine house with the palm folded (or holding up a huge shack of $, if that happens of be a Russian engine house ).

Well, in the grand scheme of technological challenges that a turbofan developing establsihment faces, Thrust vectoring is probably one of the more easier one for that Engine house to resolve - as, not because it's anymore less-complicated to master or anything, but because it is not so much of an core turbofan technology issue, and is more of an overall platform Flight-Control and Flight-Dynamics mgmt issue.
So, it's a complicated technology to master no doubt, but most of the problems would be, in Indian context, that of ADE's (and not GTRE's) - more so, when you have a FADEC system already implemented.

As GTRE would need to find out a way of moving (by say +/- 7-10deg) a large portion of the core, first only in z-axis and then later maybe in combined y-z axis.
Russians incidentally gave up trying the combined y-z axis movement stuff, by cleverly offsetting the twin AL-31FPs in the y-axis slightly and retaining only z-axis engine deflections, not becasue they didn't know how to achieve that from turbofan fitment etc perspective, but because the FBW changes would be just too complicated to implement and test and re-flight qualify.
And that Russians, even then, had a very tough time in implementing these one-axis flight-control controlled deflections, and finally found an round-about way of resolving it by linking the deflection control mgmt to the Fuel System.
But that's a different story altogether ...

So if any kneeling-down-with-folded-hands needs to happen, it's better to do so for the Core Engine Design/Manufacturing/Material Technology ... IMHO, of course.

[member_20317]

Thanks Maitya ji for two enlightening posts. I did not want to squat on your threads so stayed clear of them. In any case mine is an accountant's perspective limited to usage of what we already have or can easily do. I tend not to lean heavily on the new metallurgy kind of rarefied concepts which is evident from my posts.

The great thing for me is that you too maintain that we will be able to nail the TVC issues (esp. paddle type) without any/much help from outside.

The thing I wanted to understand was whether it is actually so easy to change the bypass ratio without adjusting some other things inside the engine and software in a substantial manner. Which is what would be required if we have to jam a K-9 into a UCAV/UAV. My own mention of turbofan/turbojet was only from this limited perspective of UCAV/UAV applications where SFC etc. would be important. And reading your post esp. the following makes me think that it is easy. So thanks again.

In pure layman terms, for a military turbofan, thrust is the be-all and end-all requirement ... SFC and other efficiency improvements are purely secondary considerations (and no, they are not unimportant requirements

<snip>

Long story short, Kaveri is a nothing but a low-bypass turbofan where-in blindly increasing the bypass ratio will result in Thrust shortfall - and that, had it been for a Civilian application, this Thrust drop tradeoff with efficiency-gain would have been acceptable.

Though even at 50 Kn dry why would that be put into a UAV/UCAV. wow! I take it back. Life is getting crazier.

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stor ... 47b-drone/

[member_28482]

When, we can expect to have an engine which can fly our LCA. After so many years of RnD of so called Best Scientists of the India (world as well) why we are not able to met the performance parameters.

[Manish_Sharma]

When, we can expect to have an engine which can fly our LCA. After so many years of RnD of so called Best Scientists of the India (world as well) why we are not able to met the performance parameters.

Welcome to BRF.

Here:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... f=3&t=3351

And equally important:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1597985

[member_25400]

engines were supposed to be stealthy ones. for e.g. ( f 119, yf 120)

There is no such concept as a stealthy engine. Radar reflection can be reduced by position of engine wrt inlet (S-shape doesn't allow for direct view of engine), or by installing radar blockers. This is therefore more a function of aeroplane design and of integration than of engine design.
At a secondary or even tertiary level, the US has fuel additives (typically secret but may include cesium compounds) to somewhat reduce infrared signature. High bypass engines also help a little bit in that the cooler air via bypass surrounds and mixes with the combusted exhaust, reducing heat signature a bit . And an engine that is less sensitive to airflow disruptions at the inlet is better. But this is valid for any aircraft/engine. (The famous cobra maneouver can be worse than useless in combat, but is a good demonstration of robustness to engine/inlet AoA, a somewhat related concept)

Lockheed claims that the ability to supercruise is an attribute of a 5th generation plane. Definitions vary; lockheed's definition includes ability to exceed mach 1 substantially (>1.1/1.2), without using afterburners, in level flight, with stores (fuel/ammo). This is a function of both having powerful and light engines (thrust and thrust-weight ratio) and of a suitable airframe (lower drag, light). Again it is not necessarily unique to stealth/5th generation. Being able to supercruise without (thirsty) afterburners improves the effective combat range; going fast/high can provide additional energy to your missiles, improving probability of kill and reducing your enemies chances in some/few situations..

Having high thrust, low weight, robust, reliable, highly fuel efficient engines always provides benefits, as does cost/complexity/control capability and maintainability. Nothing new there.

Thrust vectoring has nothing to do with 5th generation or stealth. The concept is something that can be applied to an engine design (not part of core engine technology) as well as to aeroplane design/control, and has some potential benefits in edge cases; this is not a huge factor and a plane/engine without thrust vectoring can easily have other benefits or be otherwise superior.

http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013 ... vectoring/

TVC is a little complex to develop and integrate and can also have disadvantages such as cost and weight. It had some significant benefits in allowing for quicker nose pointing of the aircraft; this is not as important nowadays. (High off bore-sight missiles can be fired at larger angles from the direction the aircraft's nose is pointing.) It allows for you to also use the engine rather than traditional control surfaces (ailerons etc) in a few situations at the edges of the flight 'envelope' - When the aircraft is very high & when it is low and slow, these control surfaces can't "bite the air" effectively and hence TVC has some benefit. TVC can also help reduce drag a bit by reducing how much these control surfaces have to be used, or how big they have to be.
But TVC is typically not a primary factor; you can try different design trade-offs like bigger control surfaces, smaller flight envelopes etc instead.

[member_28482]

When, we can expect to have an engine which can fly our LCA. After so many years of RnD of so called Best Scientists of the India (world as well) why we are not able to met the performance parameters.

Welcome to BRF.

Here:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... f=3&t=3351

And equally important:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1597985

Thanks you for suggestion Dhananjayji

[putnanja]

Cross-post from R&D thread.

Chat with Shri Tamilmani of CEMILAC on Tarmak FB page. Excerpts related to AMCA:

AMCA -
We are in the initial stages of project definition of AMCA. Any program of this nature requires 10 years.
We are going to see the AMCA around 2020.
Concept study on AMCA is nearing completion. The project definition phase will be started shortly.
[use of kaveri in AMCa]may not be possible. Use of kaveri for AMCA as the thrust requiremnts are different. But kaveri has potential for other programs in India
AMCA being the higher weight category will have more weapon load carrying than Tejas. Details will be worked out along with the user.
We are in the process of identifying the suitable engine

[Philip]

A cautious assessment.It is good that from TM's statement the engine appears to be the crucial decision to be taken before other factors kick in. It also spells the death-knell for Kaveri as far as its use in any current or future fighter programme .

[P Chitkara]

It also spells the death-knell for Kaveri as far as its use in any current or future fighter programme .

Sigh! Where does this lack of any optimism go for all things russian

[Philip]

Where is anything "Russian" spelt out in the above post? The references to Kaveri come from the "horses mouth" not mine! The search for a new engine for the AMCA is on.The truth is that Kaveri has been dumped for the AMCA.Tough for supporters of Kaveri,which has failed to deliver despite decades of development and at huge cost. I gave stats of costs of desi programmes,delays,etc., some time ago.Why,even the touted marine version for naval warships has not hit the stands as yet!

Coming back to engines,I still feel that a version of the LCA with the EJ engine for MK-2 should be built as an alternative/insurance in case we face future sanctions from the US if there is a "P-3".This cannot be ruled out when the new dispensation takes office,as a review of the security threats to the nation is on the cards.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... olicy-modi
India elections: subtle foreign policy could take tougher line under Modi
Election victory for BJP frontrunner could bring about readjustment in country's relations with China, US and south Asian neighbours

XCpts:

Jason Burke in Delhi
theguardian.com, Friday 11 April 2014

Writing in the local Indian Express newspaper last week, Amitabh Mattoo, a respected Indian foreign affairs specialist and academic, said those efforts were failing.

"India's military and economic prowess is greater than ever before, yet India's ability to shape and influence the principal countries in South Asia is less than it was … 30 years ago," Mattoo wrote.

Senior officials in India's ministry of external affairs say such criticism is misplaced and argue that the nation's foreign policy has followed sophisticated, coherent and realistic principles that brought considerable success.

"We understand that in a globalised world, there are just too many linkages between states to try to coerce people, even if you are the biggest in a region. Much better to be friends with everybody and watch them all then come to you," said one.

Such views explain why India, as its own diplomats readily admit, punches below its weight globally. A series of abstentions on key votes at the United Nations has frustrated western diplomats who complain of India's apparent lack of any guiding vision.

This too is rebutted by Indian officials. "The criticism is [that] we are not muscular enough. But when you are at our stage of development, economic and otherwise, you don't have the big visionary thing, you stay below the radar, and you focus on your own backyard," one said.

But India's backyard is a thicket of thorny problems, even if huge opportunities for commerce and other exchanges do exist. Growing trade between India and its neighbours – even hostile Pakistan – has not been matched by closer relations between the two states. Nepal, Bangladesh and the Maldives lurch from one political crisis to another. India cultivated the ruling military regime in Burma where, with a haphazard reform process now under way, it has found itself wrong-footed. Leader and Nobel prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi delivered a stern reprimand to her hosts when visiting Delhi in 2012. Relations with Pakistan, despite hopes of a reboot following the election of commercially-minded Nawaz Sharif, remain poor. There are fears for Afghanistan after most US troops leave at the end of the year.

Wholesale change now looks likely. Singh and the left-leaning Congress face defeat in the ongoing elections by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party, led by the controversial and polarising Narendra Modi. Though Rajnath Singh, the party president, told the Guardian last month that the BJP wanted to be "friends with all nations in the world", the BJP manifesto also talks of stopping unnamed countries running "roughshod" over Indian interests and hints at a revision of India's doctrine of "no first use" of its nuclear weapons. A reference in the Congress manifesto to encouraging friendly relations with "socialist" countries was dismissed by analysts as a throwback to the 1970s.

While campaigning, Modi has already signalled a tougher line on ongoing border disputes with China and has said that he wants to see a "strong" India that cannot be "stared down" by other powers.

In reality this may clash with a desire to build commercial partnerships regionally, said Michael Kugelman, an analyst at the Woodrow Wilson Centre in Washington.

"His pro-business and pro-trade qualities will lead him to cultivate strong relations across the board … Yet at the same time, he will certainly react more strongly to provocations from neighbours than did the Congress-led government," Kugelman said.

One conflict Modi may have to fight is with his own diplomats, most of whom see the subtle, pragmatic complexity of policy over the last decade as in tune with "Indian", and their own, sensibilities.

"It is about being mature and readjusting to the new reality. It is about growing up," said the Indian official.

Additional reporting by Ishwar Rauniyar in Kathmandu

[NRao]

I really do not know what is wrong with the Kaveri. What do people actually expect? Did they take a look at the Russian supplied engine for the Sitara or even check out the drawn out development cycle - of 10 years or so - for the engine for the PAK-FA? Leading edge stuff takes time - because it takes a lot of hits. That is the nature of this business.

Even on the AMCA engine they are seeking they will face huge problems. After all the AMCA is a "5th Gen" plane, right? It needs a "5th gen" engine. Who actually has one to spare? Last time I checked there was only one nation that had it.

Russia will hopefully have one by 2020. China? Who knows. Who else is left? France? Britain? Do they have any? Fit for a 5th gen plane? Or can we use a 4+ gen engine for our 5th Gen plane and claim that is OK, we do not need a 5th Gen engine, there is nothing called a 5th gen engine?

[Cosmo_R]

@NRao ^^^
" Last time I checked there was only one nation that had it." (5G engine that is)

GE/RR F-136 would welcome funding and usage. Hey give, the F-35 volume issues (death spiral), bet you India could negotiate license mfg to make it work for the AMCA.

Look at it closeup, compare to Kaveri/404/GE414 spot changes, start rolling your own.

[NRao]

Very interesting take.

The dev on that engine ceased in 2011. But, on the other hand it was pretty fully developed (per Wiki). "The F136 produces 18,000 lbf (80.1 kN) of lift thrust in STOVL configuration.". So, two of them would be a cool 36K lbf, more than nuf for the AMCA.

But, two items: overcome the sanctions lobby (a fair expectation) and funding for life (I am sure they would love it, but .....). Funding cannot stop at this juncture.

Nice topic to discuss on a slow day I guess.

[Cosmo_R]

Very interesting take.

The dev on that engine ceased in 2011. But, on the other hand it was pretty fully developed (per Wiki). "The F136 produces 18,000 lbf (80.1 kN) of lift thrust in STOVL configuration.". So, two of them would be a cool 36K lbf, more than nuf for the AMCA.

But, two items: overcome the sanctions lobby (a fair expectation) and funding for life (I am sure they would love it, but .....). Funding cannot stop at this juncture.

Nice topic to discuss on a slow day I guess.

If LCA MK2 is going with GE-414 then what is the concern of the sanctions lobby? The point is get it, take it apart, learn. In the meantime, use GE to play linebacker. . They also distribute the work among 50 states.

Heck, played right, you could even get P&W to put their dog in the fight to kill GE

It's all about imagination as Immelt would say.

JMT

[Philip]

"Nothing called a 5th-gen engine".Well put. Ultimately what matters is the delivery of ordnance where required on the enemy,the defence of airspace and prevention of enemy strikes at home and where our forces are dispersed over land and water. A mix of legacy and advanced weaponry will have to do the business. We will have to find innovative ways of using legacy systems with advanced PGMs along with whatever 5th/6th gen entities we possess in the future.Even the Russians are incrementally developing their 5h-gen bird with a 4th-gen engine. This is why we need to develop more prototypes of future LCA variants using the EJ,SNECMA,Russian whatever,so that we have alternatives to sanctions and gain knowledge and determine what powerplant is best for the AMCA.

[NRao]

"Nothing called a 5th-gen engine".Well put.

Errr............Who "put"?

That memo has not reached the Russians. They are very busy catching up with the Khans and expending energy!!!

The expert putters have clearly stated that there is a "5th Gen" engine.

Even the Russians are incrementally developing their 5h-gen bird with a 4th-gen engine.

Are we sure?

IF they are then that is one engine I would not use. Even in the FGFA.

Per Wiki, it is not very clear, but seems like it is not a derivative. I would be unpleasantly surprised if it were to be a derivative of an older model. That certainly does not bode well.

[NRao]

If LCA MK2 is going with GE-414 then what is the concern of the sanctions lobby?

I understand, and personally, I agree. In fact, I think India (under Modi) can even test and get away (provided India plays her cards right)(and Crimea has certainly helped India in such matters).

But then there is always that lingering thought.

Linebacker, eh? Frankly I think India is in the driver's seat. Work hard, play hard.

[Cosmo_R]

If LCA MK2 is going with GE-414 then what is the concern of the sanctions lobby?

I understand, and personally, I agree. In fact, I think India (under Modi) can even test and get away (provided India plays her cards right)(and Crimea has certainly helped India in such matters).

But then there is always that lingering thought.

Linebacker, eh? Frankly I think India is in the driver's seat. Work hard, play hard.

Driver's seat= Quarterback

[vic]

I think AMCA should use GE414EPE for PVs and by the time LSP stage starts in say 2030, we will have our New 110/75 kn engine.

[member_20453]

True, love the GE F-414, by far the single most reliable jet engine made yet, still no crashes/ incidents due to engine failure and gets only better with EPE, this should make the AMCA purr right off the line, besides by the time AMCA comes the F414 would be made in India anyways under licence.

[NRao]

Q is is it considered to be a "5th Gen" engine?

Would it qualify for a "5th Gen" plane?

Even the one India is supposedly building and expected to come out in the 2020s, it would have the desired thrust it seems, but would it too qualify for the AMCA - a "5th Gen" plane?

[srai]

^^^

What is a "5th Gen" engine?

[Manish_Sharma]

True, love the GE F-414, by far the single most reliable jet engine made yet, still no crashes/ incidents due to engine failure and gets only better with EPE, this should make the AMCA purr right off the line, besides by the time AMCA comes the F414 would be made in India anyways under licence.

EPE is a hybrid engine? Gives more mileage?

[SaiK]

a gen difference to 4+ should bring some significant changes to support additional features for the fighter jet - super cruise with no afterburner, 40% less weight, 20% more thrust, TVC, all aspect digital controls, lower mtbf, yadi yada.

check pw f119

[NRao]

^^^

What is a "5th Gen" engine?

Do not have a good idea. I am basing my take on a few articles I have read. However, it has to do with the usual: fuel efficincies, more thrust, but also some newer thinking, as in (Sept, 26, 2013):

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1518092

Pratt & Whitney and the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) have begun testing with an adaptive fan engine test rig that is based on the company’s F135 afterburning turbofan found on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

According to P&W, the fan rig test is being conducted at the AFRL Compressor Research Facility in Dayton, Ohio, in tandem with the USAF’s Adaptive Engine Technology Demonstration (AETD) programme, the US Navy Fuel Burn Reduction (FBR) programme and other company-funded efforts.

“Developing an effective adaptive fan concept is a critical step in advancing technology that will ensure next generation air dominance for our military,” says Jack Hoying, the AFRL’s programme manager for the AETD effort.

Next-generation adaptive fan engines will allow a fighter-sized afterburning turbofan to alter its bypass ratio for different phases of flight by using a third stream of air. For low speeds below about Mach 0.85, the third air stream will be used to increase the engine’s bypass ratio and boost its propulsive efficiency.

However, at transonic and supersonic speeds where high specific thrust is needed, that third stream will run through the core and increase the jet velocity of the exhaust. The third airstream can also be used for cooling the engine during especially demanding operations.

“We’re building on our foundation of proven fifth generation capabilities, and we are now mastering adaptive technologies – really expanding the boundaries of state of the art engine technology critical for the next sixth-generation aircraft,” says Bennett Croswell, president of P&W military engines.

The results of the P&W adaptive fan rig tests will flow into the AETD programme, which has a stated goal of improving fuel consumption by 25% while providing a 10% increase in thrust compared with current fifth-generation fighter engines such as the F135. The navy’s FBR programme hopes to deliver a better than 5% fuel burn reduction on an F135 demonstration engine.

The jointly USAF and USN-funded adaptive fan test effort was launched in late 2011, with testing of the adaptive fan concept taking place from August through September 2013, according to P&W

Then this:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/01/26 ... om-moscow/

“The Russians are certainly not up to speed in avionics,” Robbin Laird, who has served as a consultant to the Marine Corps and Air Force and started the website Second Line of Defense, told FoxNews.com. “For them to pull off a stealth airframe, and for it to actually be stealthy, the engine technology has to be very good. Americans have done it with the F-22 and F-35. But it’s not easy to do. No one has done it but ourselves.”

I do not know how the two (stealth and engine) are related, but that is a data point to consider.

There is another article, on the latest GE engine, that I will have dig out. That too should provide some direction.

[NRao]

What we will run into is the normal lack of information from the Russians and none from the Chinese. Having said that, given the amount of time that the American private companies have had, the funds that they have received, the facilities they have and the brain power they can assemble, I really cannot think of another that will rival them. ?????

The US already has an engine that is being thought of for a "6th Gen" plane - whatever that is (I have no clue). Russia is not even close to an engine for a "5th Gen" plane and China, who knows, they perhaps investing in trying to break into the next computer to hack.


So, if that is true, then the AMCA team will perhaps gravitate towards one of these US vendors. Going elsewhere means more development cycles. Perhaps reviving the GE/RR engine does make sense after all. ?????

************

Also a touchy point. What does all this say about the AS report that the IAF had reservations about the FGFA. Note that the FGFA was to have a totally different engine than the PAK-FA has right now, so the thinking the PAK-FA is on schedule for end of 2016 does not hold water. From an IAF PoV it does not matter what the PAk-FA does or does not do. From what I am seeing and connecting the dots the IAF, IMVVVHO, has a point.

[Cosmo_R]

@NRao: ^^^

"So, if that is true, then the AMCA team will perhaps gravitate towards one of these US vendors. Going elsewhere means more development cycles. Perhaps reviving the GE/RR engine does make sense after all. ?????

I'm only saying this from the Indian perspective. IF there is strategic imagination on the Indian side, then looking at the politics (US domestic/UK domestic), reviving hopes on the F-136 is huge opportunity to get our hands on a real 5G engine that we build the AMCA around instead of the usual HF-24 Helwan/Orpheus nonsense.

GE and RR are almost out of the jet fighter engines market and they are desperate.

Here's the rub. The R&D of $2.5 bn is a sunk cost. No one expects it to be recovered. So no build it here for employment 's sake or it's something we don't want to export stuff. It's a classic indifference curve--get what we can for it..

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the ... sco-03070/

Ashton Carter who is one of the people tipped to be the next US Amby, could take this and run a 98 yard touchdown.

And, even if this ploy does not work, don't you think that P&W would not pressure GOTUS to let it sell enough ToT to India since, the F-35 orders are being cut back?

Better than waiting around for the ALF -117 Proyect 971 FAK/PA to mature as an 'analog' with 'atavistic advantages' and other blather that Saturn is prone to mouth.

JMT

[NRao]

March, 2014 :: The case for speeding up India's domestic fifth generation fighter projects

Either way it is clear that the AMCA project now needs to move out of the design study phase and be pursued in right earnest. The LCA project warts and all has brought India to a stage where both Russia and America are willing to offer India a role in their key combat jet programs, howsoever convoluted that role might be. When the combat jet developers of the world realize that India is wholeheartedly pursuing a home grown stealth fighter, they are likely to be even more amenable to giving the IAF what it wants.

The AMCA project if pursue wholeheartedly would yield India a home grown contemporary fighter by 2027-28 since a much larger aerospace base has already been built in India through the LCA project. Besides, if large orders for the AMCA are guaranteed private players would find setting up new facilities much more lucrative. Indeed, the AMCA should actually be executed on a newer kind of public private model that could obviate many of the concerns the IAF has about indigenous production today. Moreover some of the envisaged capabilities for the AMCA including fly by light, cloud shooting and new generation man-machine interfaces actually put it in a realm closer to that of a sixth generation fighter.

The present day anxieties of the IAF are also understandable. India has long depended on superior airpower capability to keep its adversaries at bay and would like to keep it that way in the face of China's pursuit of the J-20 and J-31 programs. Given the budgetary resources available to the IAF and its emerging force mix, the time is ripe for it to commit heavily to the AMCA. One must remember that the IAF has to play to its own airpower doctrine and for that it also needs to 'build' its own aircraft at some level. As an aside, the IAF's move to set up its own R&D practice on the lines of the USAF's Air force Research Laboratory (AFRL) is therefore a welcome step. Of course this new R&D setup must fully synergize itself with the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) which is developing the AMCA.

[member_28526]

Need a new engine? How much money for the programme? 2000 cr? Give 200 cr to a good hacker and he'll get you your design blueprints.

[NRao]

reviving hopes on the F-136

Was googling around and found: diameter of F-135: 51", F-136 48" and F-414 35". AMCA - I would imagine - would be designed with something like the 414 in mind. ?????

Some more info on the "6th gen" engine.

Sept, 2013 :: Pratt & Whitney Advancing Sixth Generation Military Engine Technology

...........really expanding the boundaries of state of the art engine technology critical for the next sixth generation aircraft.

GE seems to be still in the ball game (older article tho'):

Sept 2012 :: 6th Gen Engines -- Pratt In, Rolls Out, GE Stays On

In 2007, Rolls-Royce shook up the US fighter engine business when it, and not Pratt & Whitney, was selected to demonstrate the next leap in combat-aircraft powerplant capability under the Air Force Research Laboratory's Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (ADVENT) program.

Today, it's Pratt's turn to fight back, and the company has been selected over Rolls for AFRL's follow-on Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) program. General Electric, the other winner back in 2007, gets to stay on for AETD, which will take the variable-cycle technology being developed under ADVENT to the next level of maturity.

And, the crux of the matter:

Feb, 2014 :: Pentagon, Air Force Double Down on Engine Technology

In his preview of the Pentagon’s 2015 budget request, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel made a clear statement that the Air Force plans to invest heavily in new engine technology.

“We also recommended investing $1 billion in a promising next-generation jet engine technology, which we expect to produce sizable cost-savings through reduced fuel consumption and lower maintenance needs,” Hagel said in his Feb. 24 speech. “This new funding will also help ensure a robust industrial base, a very strong and important industrial base — itself a national strategic asset.”

The request for $1 billion for new engine programs came as a surprise to budget observers, who have been focused on potential cuts to whole platforms. Announcing a major investment, particularly in the research and development realm, was unexpected.

While Hagel did not offer more details on the engine technology, Dr. Mica Endsley, chief scientist of the Air Force, indicated in an interview that the funding would be focused on the service’s Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) program.

AETD is focused on developing a “sixth-generation” fighter engine which could provide better fuel-burn rates. At the core of the program is a move to a design with three streams of air, allowing more flexibility for pilots to operate at varying conditions.

“That was one of the things that we saw recently, and I think it’s a good investment,” Endsley said. “You have to approach it like a business — are we going to get a good return on investment on these activities? That is one that I think you will get good return on investment when you look at the lifeycle cost and fuel usage.”

Endsley, who has focused on engine technology since she took office last June, hopes programs like AETD can see “a 25- to 33 percent” improvement in fuel efficiency. Given that the Air Force is the largest consumer of fuel in the federal government, those level of improvements would net huge returns.

“Those are investments that are worth making if it can save us that money in fuel costs,” Endsley said. “There are a lot of benefits you can get out of those kind of investments. So I think there are a lot of our technology investments that can also help us with our costs over the long run, but you have to make those upfront investments to be able to do that.”

Getting that money is the challenge, which is why the support from Hagel is so powerful — especially in a budget environment where whole platforms are being cut.

“I think there are certainly some people who understand” the need to invest in research and development, Endsley said. “I think they realize that not only is it really important for our national defense, but it also flows into the economy. It has a lot of benefits — it’s a matter of getting it through that process, the political process, that I think is a challenge.”

The $1 billion investment is a major boon for the engine industry.

“We are very interested and excited,” Jimmy Kenyon, general manager for next-generation fighter engine programs at Pratt & Whitney, said. “As an engine company, seeing that engine tech is that high on the secretary of defense’s list is really kind of underscores the importance of what we do to our nation and for our military customers. It really is gratifying to see that called out as such a priority.”

Pratt is one of the companies involved in the AETD program.

We want to see this technology move forward,” Kenyon said. He noted comments Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force Chief of Staff, made at last week’s Air Force Association Air Warfare Symposium about the need to start thinking of sixth-generation fighter technology. “We see this as critical to be able to do that.”

They expect the first "6th Gen" engine to come out in 2020 (as a comparison, the Russians expect the engine for their 5th Gen fighter at the same time). The USN expects to put it into service in 2028 and the USAF in 2032.

To achieve those dates, they have to invest *now*, is the argument that Hagel has made.

Much food for thought here. What does India want to do? Can do? Would like to do? ??????

[Philip]

Remember the words of the USN's CNO as a caution,Adm.Greenert."in an age of PGMs,who needs a luxury car when a bomb truck will do?"

We simply cannot match either the US,Europeans or even Russia in engine tech,developing it on our own-just look at the Kaveri fiasco. Instead off just one super-duper 6th gen engine for the AMCA,it is more relevant for the DRDO to set up a comprehensive engine R&D facility which will design and develop engines across the board for all fighters,trainers,transports and helos,etc.This is a far better way to invest our money which is in short supply.If you look at almost all our aircraft and helo programmes,it is the choice/selection of the engine which has caused the maximum delay and controversy. The Chinese are steadily developing a range of different engines for their mutliple requirements and have made far more progress than us.

A 6th-gen bird will cost around $125-150M at least when it arrives.How many will we be able to afford? What will be the composition of the IAF around 2020? Almost 50% comprising Flankers! In the meantime,the Chinese while they develop their own stealth fighters,will simply keep on building/acquiring another 1000 or so Flankers (SU-35s too),plus lesser JF-17s and possess overwhelming superiority in numbers that Rand says will defeat US tech superiority in the Asia-Pacific theatre!

And what is wrong with a Russian 4th-gen engine being incrementally improved until they've developed their 5th-gen plant? To cast scorn on the TVC engine that gives the SU-30MKI/SU-35 its fantastic superiority over all other fighters flying barring the F-22 is to be exceptionally myopic. We've seen it in action at our air shows and know how the Flanker has wiped the pants off western opposition in exercises.

It's why I keep saying that we should develop more LCA prototypes using engine variants available from both east and west,choose the one best suited for the MK-2/3 whatever and use that ,or an improved derivative for the AMCA.This will ensure commonality and reduce MRO issues.The EJ already has a TVC option.The IAF/HAL/DRDO need to think outside the box and innovate and experiment.
Just look at the USN.Lasers,rail guns,LCS trimaran class,DDX/Zumwalt class .They acquired the OZ Tasmanian fast cats with speed! Another good product out of that little island apart from Sullivan's Cove single malt,which won the best whisky contest this yr.!

In developing the LCA we have a great platform upon which to experiment and innovate and the best part is that it is an indigenous design,even if key components like the engine are firang. It should be the route towards succeeding with the AMCA,UCAV

[Cosmo_R]

@NRao ^^:

GE focusing on 6th gen engines means they've abandoned the 5th gen which is what we need for AMCA

We loves bargains

[NRao]

@NRao ^^:

GE focusing on 6th gen engines means they've abandoned the 5th gen which is what we need for AMCA

We loves bargains

Well, neither P&W, nor GE has abandoned their engine. The so called 6th Gen is based on the 135 and 136 from the respective companies.

However, unless I am missing something, I do not see any other actor who has engine technologies at this level of maturity + the funds to push the next generation of engines. It certainly seems, if possible, at face value, to hitch ones future to such efforts based purely on techs.

The flip side of the coin is also very interesting. Along with the news on next gen engines is the older news about potential next gen planes:

The LM thinking, as of 2012:



(narration at: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... als-conce/)

and the Boeing thinking, as of 2013 (looks very close to the original AMCA):



(With narration at: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... pt-384291/)
_______________

BTW, before anyone lights a fire under me, google for "USAF wants F-22 Replacement by 2030" - Reuters has an article some time back. The Boeing effort is from a rec placed by the USN. These are not some pipe dreams, dreams of sorts for sure - at this point in time.

________________

OK, back to the thread.

[tushar_m]

Japan’s indigenous stealth jet prototype ‘to fly this year’

Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera has reaffirmed the nation’s plan for a 2014 first flight of the Advanced Technology Demonstrator-X (ATD-X) fighter: a prototype for a future fighter to replace the Japan Air Self-Defence Force’s Mitsubishi F-2.

Such rapid development

[chetak]

A cautious assessment.It is good that from TM's statement the engine appears to be the crucial decision to be taken before other factors kick in. It also spells the death-knell for Kaveri as far as its use in any current or future fighter programme .

Once bitten, always shy??