AMCA News and Discussions

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Aug 2013 01:17

NR,If you've been following my posts on the JSF you will realise that the entire programme is so heavily dependent upon the successive levels of software without which the bird is even incapable at the 2B level of carrying underwing munitions! Your problem is that you don't read my posts thoroughly to understand the argument.

And by the way,our boffins never invented FBL,Here is a blast from the past! in 1977,our boffins hadn't even conceived of the LCA whose programme began in the early '80s!

March 1988

Fly by Light
By John Rhea

With a decade of experience under their belts, Air Force program managers are looking at fiber optics for the advanced aircraft of the 1990s.

Fiber optic flight-control systems are finally coming to the Air Force. After more than a decade of research—while the other services forged ahead in implementing this new technology—the Air Force is now ready to take fiber optics out of the laboratory and put it into two of its top aircraft programs for the 1990s—the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) and the X-30 National Aerospace Plane (NASP) being developed in cooperation with NASA.

The Air Force originally took the lead in this technology. The Flight Dynamics Laboratory at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, awarded a development contract to Honeywell in 1977 for the DIGITAC (digital tactical aircraft control) program to demonstrate the use of advanced computers and data buses in operational aircraft. First flight of the A-7D test aircraft was on February 7, 1975, and on March 24, 1982, at Edwards AFB, Calif., it made the first totally fiber optic-controlled flight using a single-fiber flight-control system.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... light.aspx

PS: Wow! Everyone is certainly looking at our stupendous efforts in aviation....the world's best basic trainer which the IAF and MOD have rejected ,the HTT-40!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Aug 2013 01:50

* On FbL, so? They invented it. I asked you who has "proposed" it (for a operational, stealth, military aircraft). Recall you were talking about something descending on our boffins? So, my question still stands, and, I do not think you can provide an answer
* On code: FbL by itself should force a re-write of much, if not all, of the code. The F-35 was evolutionary. The AMCA has nothing to stand on (which of course you do not seem to agree with - and that is fine - or perhaps you do not understand). I also stated, and you seemed to have missed (unless you are not technical enough to understand - and that is OK too) the proposed architecture for the AMCA is distributed, way different than the LCA (I am summing you assume that is where the code will come from)
*On code: another example: The AMCA is expected to have a panoramic, touch display. How can that use old code?
* OK, for the sake of peace, they can use some 5% of the code (but I doubt that too - why introduce any inefficiencies when they have the time to redo everything?)

I cannot say where the AMCA is headed. But, for sure, there is none (technology wise) like it so far.

All these examples you provide are great, BUT I just do not see them applicable to the AMCA. You have not answered if Turkey, as an example, has the foundation to design a stealth aircraft - ground up. Nations can say things they want, but, they really cannot come even close to what the Khan can throw out there. Just the field of materials the rest will get blown. Not a knock on anyone.

This plane seems to be way too different. Granted it is a sub-paper plane as we post.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Aug 2013 02:31

if we are using modular components, then embedded systems are reused. that means the code in them too.. by introducing fiber optics as data lines, that has nothing to do with real-time characteristics of these embedded systems or devices.. for example, if control surfaces respond say in 1* per ms, then between ms, the whole time span is available free for the controls to process feeds. just a embedded control example.. unrealistic values though.

but where it can improve is the data presentation on the display, more crunching on the data etc.. but the bottlenecks of net speed remains if the data say needs to dispatched to cnc-hq for real-time video feeds, or ops from awacs- netcentric missions, etc have nothing to do with fiber data... the wireless microwave bandwidth decides.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Aug 2013 02:48

Wow! The AMCA is so advanced,almost beyond imagination,I wonder where the tech is going to come from.

FBL.So our boffins have proposed it 3 decades after it was first introduced.I wonder why it was not proposed for the LCA earlier? Great foresight.In fact,this simply underscores my argument about the ADA/HAL "biting of more than they can chew"! Without even being able to deliver on the LCA and the HTT,we wet dream beyond our capability.No harm in wet dreaming,but the IAF cannot fight the enemy with thought waves or holograms.

If you have read my post,not just skimmed through it, about the Turks and their stealth bird,you would see that they want foreign partners and have had SoKo and Sweden in mind.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/kf- ... am-010647/

Turkey is a big defense customer for South Korea, and discussions have been held concerning KF-X, but Turkey wanted more control over the project than a 20% share, and no agreement has been forthcoming. The TuAF is already committed to buying about 100 F-35As to replace its F-4 Phantoms, and many of its F-16s as well. They’re also investigating the idea of designing their own fighter, and have enlisted Sweden’s Saab to assist (vid. March 20/13 entry).

July 30/13: Turkey. Hurriyet quotes “a senior official familiar with the program” who says that $11 – $13 billion would be a realistic development cost for Turkey’s planned TF-X fighter. That’s actually a reasonable estimate for a 4.5+ generation machine, but even this figure adds $50 million per plane to a large national order of 200 fighters. Keeping costs within the official’s $100 million per plane target will be challenging, which means a 200 jet program would cost Turkey $31 – $33 billion if everything goes well. Which won’t happen, especially if Turkey pushes for ambitious specifications.

That math offers daunting odds for a national jet program, and much of the same math can be expected to apply to KF-X. Will sticker shock cause Turkey to take another look at collaboration with Korea? Push them to abandon TF-X and buy something else? Or just be ignored by local politicians looking to make big promises? Hurriyet Daily News external link

Korea:Moreover, if KF-X was developed, how big would the 2025-2040 export market really be? Even in a hypothetical market where production lines for the F-16, F/A-18 family, Eurofighter, and Rafale had all shut down, that still leaves South Korea competing for mid-tier purchases against China’s J-10, J-11, and “J-31″, Russia’s SU-35 and possibly its MiG-35, Sweden’s JAS-39E/F, and the USA’s F-35.

Take a dekko at the last quote.Korea and the "2025-2040" export market.Sad to see no Indian bird in the list at all.The firangs have indeed taken a good "look" at our developments and don't think our birds will be competing at all!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Aug 2013 06:13

Do you remember what the very first MCA looked like? A tailless, finless, plane that used TVC to operate in 2 of 3 dimensions. I happen to visit with one those boffins. Asked her why did they abandon that effort, her response: so that Philip did not die of an heart attack!!!

Since you have had a very low impression of pretty much every Indian effort and have promoted (mostly Russian products) foreign products to no end, your response is not a surprise.

Why would anyone who has followed the MCA/AMCA be surprised is beyond me. The MCA effort started around 12+ years ago. Granted it was mostly a ppt effort, nonetheless it had some thinking behind, however rudimentary. Point being unlike any other effort the AMCA has had time on its side. How far have they gone - I do not know. But the fact they have only been bolder than the previous year leads me to believe that they have something up their sleeve.

WRT not delivering the LCA, yes, I am disappointed too. However, although I have not said this for a while, I am of the opinion that the LCA is a tech demo and that the MK-I is good enough for the IAF and MK-II for the IN. I have always said that the AMCA would be the statement maker. For the LCA get a good project manager, it will right itself. All the problems are indicators of classical PM related issues. NOTE: NOT a boffin related problem!!!!

Turkey and partners: so be it. I know that the Indian effort can stand on its own. It has - if one cannot see it in the CAD diagrams so be it. Best of luck to them.

Good that the Indian plane/s did not make that list. The problem is Indian internal politics and mismanagement, it is not a technical issue. Those planes will be out there because of good project management, including PR/Mkting.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Aug 2013 06:19

if we are using modular components, then embedded systems are reused

I am not familiar with details, but I do not think they would use much from the LCA for a variety of reasons. Just my thinking.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Aug 2013 06:25

well.. it is hard for me think, they will have to begin from scratch as well.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 08 Aug 2013 06:40

AMCA won't be taking as long since some of the tech/procedures/production phase issues would be well understood, much better than 30 years ago. It won't be incorrect to state that it will be state of the art in every possible way as far as our own understanding is concerned.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Aug 2013 09:07

NR,Ha!Ha! Good one.I don't know if you also recollect,as it was in the early '80s,when the first pics of the LCA came out with curved wings! Talk of Dan Dare,Digby and the Mekon....well for those who haven't heard of them or Blake's 7,it'll give you a clue as to how ancient I am.

I agree with you,as has been pointed out umpteen times by various committees,etc.,that management has been the prime issue and after that the level of tech/tech base within the country to achieve high-tech aviation goals.As I said in an earlier post,there are "good,bad and ugly" in the DPSUs,which is why results are patchy.It is incumbent upon the GOI/MOD,the chief stakeholder of the projects on behalf of the nation,to sort out these issues and provide good governance-meaning quick decisions and leadership.

astal · Post by **astal** » 08 Aug 2013 11:23

Ah Nrao and Phillip saars, though PM may have a big contribution imho the real problem is bureaucracy. They do not want lowly scientists and engineers to have higher salaries than the babus themselves. This causes a lot of churn as it vity companies pay more and patriotism does not pay the rent.

The bureaucrats have also been penny wise and pound foolish. We are going to pay atleast $20 billion for rafale. Funds allocation for LCA has been piecemeal until recently. ADA were swapping parts to save money. Politicians do not care as they are interested in the kickbacks gravy train or the clean ones don't want to take any decisions that could be controversial.

Combiine that with ad-hoc sanctions, massive ego's in IAF and ADA/HAL/GTRE and a low product engineering and technology base. We have sure recipe for disaster. The surprising thing is that LCA is finally seeing the light of day. We are so close to Tejas flying in IAF colors. Lets just hope the 2014/2015 FOC deadline Is met. It will.mean that much.less money to France or Russia.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Aug 2013 18:47

Babu jealousy of men in uniform and boffins is legion.They have steadily downgraded the protocol status of the armed forces.They also know how to sabotage decisions already taken by delaying files moving a few feet from one table to another,taking weeks and even months and years if need be!

But the ultimate buck stops with the political leadership who have the power to transfer incompetent babus to Siachen or the tropical rainforests ,where their dicks and ghoulies can drop off due to frostbite,or their blood sucked out by leeches,feasted upon by animals of the wiild or throttled to death by pythons! They have been elected by us unfortunates in our collective stupidity in the hope of providing decisive leadership and good governance.But what do we usually end up with? That arrogant buffoon of a minister from Bihar who has just insulted our martyrs and added injury to insult to the families by refusing to apologise ,only expressing regret.

Let me regale you with the late great FM Sam Manekshaw's take on our political leaders.It has been posted many a time but worth recalling.

Can those of our political masters who are responsible for the security and defence of this country cross their hearts and say they have ever read a book on military history, on strategy, on weapons developments. Can they distinguish a mortar from a motor, a gun from a howitzer, a guerrilla from a gorilla, though a vast majority of them resemble the latter.

...... every time you go round somewhere, you see one of our leaders walking around, roads being blocked, transport being provided for them. Those, ladies and gentlemen, are not leaders. They are just men and women going about disguised as leaders – and they ought to be ashamed of themselves!

Another Manekshaw quote:

No man likes to be superceded, and yet men will accept supercession if they know that they are being superceded, under the rules, by somebody who is better then they are but not just somebody who happens to be related to the Commandant of the staff college or to a Cabinet Minister or by the Field Marshal’s wife’s current boyfriend. This is extremely important, Ladies and Gentlemen.

We in India have tremendous pressures- pressures from the Government, pressures from superior officers, pressures from families, pressures from wives, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews and girlfriends, and we lack the courage to withstand those pressures.

Garooda · Post by **Garooda** » 15 Aug 2013 21:03

90's tech and demos IMO.

Northrup_AESA_AEHF

"Our demo marks the first time that AESA antenna technology has been used to communicate with the AEHF network," said Byron Chong, Northrop Grumman's B-2 deputy program manager. "We showed that our antenna will consistently produce and maintain the high-gain beam needed to communicate with AEHF satellites." Not sure if this is really true

During the test, he added, Northrop Grumman successfully demonstrated extended data rate (XDR) communications between the AESA antenna and the AEHF satellite at EHF frequencies. XDR communications take advantage of the AEHF satellites' most advanced, most secure signaling protocols and communication waveforms.

The new antenna is designed to support both tactical and strategic missions. Its innovative "no radome" design allows it to bring new communications capabilities to the B-2 while maintaining the aircraft's major operational characteristics.

[img http://media.globenewswire.com/cache/18 ... /20733.jpg[/img]

[img http://media.globenewswire.com/cache/18 ... /20734.jpg[/img]

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Aug 2013 21:10

90's tech and demos IMO.

That must be version I of the AESA technology, right? AMCA cannot rely on old technologies. At least what the FGFA has perhaps, if not more recent.

What are those pictures supposed to narrate?

Garooda · Post by **Garooda** » 15 Aug 2013 21:23

NRao wrote:
90's tech and demos IMO.
That must be version I of the AESA technology, right? AMCA cannot rely on old technologies. At least what the FGFA has perhaps, if not more recent.

What are those pictures supposed to narrate?

Nothing much but its the flat panel AESA tested in the 90's is what I meant to imply

End of the Radomes in many air frames.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Aug 2013 21:31

but its the flat panel AESA tested in the 90's

So, what is the significance?

Garooda · Post by **Garooda** » 15 Aug 2013 21:45

NRao wrote:
but its the flat panel AESA tested in the 90's
So, what is the significance?

Nothing more but its a maturing technology.

Sujata · Post by **Sujata** » 23 Aug 2013 11:04

While learning about how other companies were developing their 5th gen. fighters I saw that they had multiple ways of collecting that data ,and making adjustments to the jet fighter. Collecting data ,and seeing what works and what doesn't is a big process of developing the final product.I have seen on some youtube videos were they put the wings of the fighter on the top of passenger plan and fly for 10 hours and see how the programming and wings are performing in real time. Having multiply was of gaining data ,and learning from that information ,and making corrections to the product is major process.Does the program that is in charge of the AMCA have this capability?

I have suggested that they make 1/2 size planes that would be cheaper to produce ,but gain a lot of data from it thou.

Do they use flight simulators to check the programming is working properly?Using a high level flight simulator as a real world situation to see it performs and also battle other jet fighters.

What are some other methods that you have seen that the AMCA company can apply,maybe from other jet fighter companies ,or other industries that will help develop the plane faster ?

While developing the YF-23 the pilots flew the aircraft 75 times in the flight simulator before they actually could fly it,and not crash.Then they also had a "Iron Bird" (thats what they called )is was where they put all of the wiring,radar,and all of the other internal components that you wouldn't be able to see in a shell case to see all of the moving parts working with out anything blocking the view. Then they hooked the Iron Bird to the Flight simulator ,and tested to see if it would work while the pilots flew it in the flight simulator.The flight simulator was the most expensive part of the YF-23 one billion dollar budget.That was 23 years ago.I think that Nvida could cut the cost down just a little.

Great testing ,and great ideas that save time and money.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Aug 2013 18:35

I've said several times that the most cost-effective way in which we can develop our own future stealth fighter is an incremental development of the LCA.The LCA has to succeed in the national interest.If it fails to deliver,then its curtains for the AMCA or any future fighter for some time.Right now our concentration is focussed on perfecting Mk-1 and then Mk-2. Though we've unveiled an AMCA model at Aero-India ,if it mirrors the FGFA ,it would be "reinventing the wheel".Why would we need two similar fighters when with the FGFA JV,even if the project is already in truth a 75% Russian dominated programme? We simply can't afford it.At the lowest level,the issue is somewhat similar to that of the basic trainer where the IAF do not want to support two types for the same purpose.Therefore two options open up.The first that the AMCA is a smaller fighter,an incremental development of the LCA --a stealth variant,with a single engine,stealth airframe,conformal radars,sensor fusion,TVC engine and internal weapons bay/s.This way,numbers of LCAs could increase from the 150-200 planned to 300-400 eventually,as the smaller aircraft would be far more affordable.It will give us a definite qualitative edge over Pak and give us the extra numbers needed to counter the Chinese.Or an even larger aircraft than the FGFA with a strategic strike as priority and secondary tactical strike role.

The news about China developing a strategic bomber developed from the TU-Backfire line is very worrying.We have absolutely no strategic strike fighter whatsoever.Many analysts,and I've been an ardent advocate of the same,is very worrying.We need the same so that as one analysts (BK) says,we can strike at all parts of China.Missiles are exceptionally expensive and will be few and far between and used mainly for our strategic deterrent with N-warheads. At least a couple of sqds. of the SU-34 dedicated bomber variant of the Flanker should be acquired ,as it will be easy to induct into the IAF,with 200+ Flankers planned for the IAF.

A stealth bomber ,with exceptional long range ,internal bays that can carrry Nirbhay,Brahmos,a 400km AAM,improving the AMCA's earlier requirements should be studied and the project definition stage quickly firmed up.The secret AURA UCAV project could be also leveraged for the tech requirements.With the rupee's collapse,numbers of 4++ gen MMRCAs will be curtailed methinks.Acquiring/building 200 would be very optimistic.This opens up opportunities for the LCMK-3 ,and or an AMCA of larger dimension and expanded strategic role.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Aug 2013 19:30

Talking of advanced technologies and shared procurement:

Updated Aug 23, 2013 :: Top 10 Next Gen Fighter Aircraft

Done deal folks, done deal.

: )

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Aug 2013 20:31

On a more serios note:

1) Per Wiki IAF did issue an ASR for the AMCA in April, 2010
2) Prior to that the IAF and the Labs have been working closely on the AMCA project
3) The AMCA effort has spent substantial time and funds, so they have some of the technologies in place
4) WRT the engine, why not the Kaveri - even in its present form? One does not need the final product - the engine can still be in development while the less capable one is being used. IF the IAF and Indians can accept such a deal in the FGFA, they have to accept it in the AMCA too
5) Came across the following article. To say it is interesting is an understatement:

Jun, 2013 :: Indian ‘Home-Grown’ AMCA, An Alternative To FGFA {my comments in blue}

by Vladimir Karnozov

Despite being involved in the fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) joint program with Russia, India is developing a next-generation fighter of its own–the advanced multirole combat aircraft (AMCA). {Both have been funded to the extent possible - so the argument "we cannot afford both" does not apply - so far}

The Indian defense ministry’s Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) showed a large-scale model of the AMCA at Aero India 2013 in February, in Bengaluru. The aerodynamic shape has been considerably refined in comparison to an earlier model exhibited at Aero India 2011, and even more so when compared to a model for wind-tunnel testing shown at Aero India 2009, at which time it was “MCA” without being “Advanced.” This provides evidence that AMCA is being developed in parallel with FGFA. DRDO’s Aeronautical Development Establishment is leading the AMCA program.

Addressing the next-generation fighter issue, Air Marshall Norman Anil Kumar Browne, the Indian air force chief of staff, declined to compare the AMCA and FGFA, but insisted that “homegrown” projects shall be continued, especially in the area of mission equipment and fighter engines, since “nobody will give us these technologies.” {IF the CAs can desist from comparing, on the same level, for the time being, I suggest we should too.} {The AMCA is valuable because - as the CAS states - nobody is going to give us these technologies. The FGFA, valuable as it is, is not valuable enough form making India independent in the longer run. Yes, the FGFA has a place, but the AMCA has a great place. And, if one HAS to go, for whatever reason, it must the FGFA - unfortunately}

Browne also spoke in support of the light combat aircraft “Tejas,” despite the continuing slow progress of this indigenous fighter project, which has been delayed by some 20 years. He said the Tejas would attain initial operational clearance (IOC) at the end of this year and would be through final operational clearance in 2015, with the rider that the air force does not expect this airplane to fully meet specification until the advent of the Tejas Mk.2, with its entry-into-service planned for 2024.

The AMCA is likely to be powered by the Kaveri motor, also developed in-country. This engine had been conceived for the Tejas, but ran slower than expected and was eventually “detached” from the airframe effort. Instead, experimental and series production Tejas aircraft received the General Electric F404 turbine engine and later will get the more advanced F414.

The very fact that India continues with the AMCA is an indication that New Delhi has some concerns about the FGFA. Browne hinted that because of India’s late decision to join the Russian project, the FGFA is difficult to arrange as a 50/50 program, as the baseline airframe is too advanced for that. There are also some other fears, such as maturity of the Russian technology in certain spheres. In particular, the prototypes constructed so far feature extensive use of metal in their airframes, reflecting the gaps and shortcomings in the modern composite technology available to Sukhoi. At the same time, the homegrown Tejas has a 43-percent share of composites in its airframe. {Interesting that the MiG-35 has run into some technical issues. The Russian industry - as a whole - seems to be facing issues that it never faced decades ago. Seems like the risk is relatively higher right now.}

Official information on the AMCA at Aero India 2013 was limited to a one-page leaflet with three views and key marketing terms, such as net-centric warfare, vehicle management (including weapons), data fusion, decision aids, integrated modular avionics, internal carriage of weapons, signature control with sharpening for low observability, AESA radar, IR search-and-track, supersonic persistence, high-speed weapon release and thrust vectoring. It was stated that the aircraft would be able to “swing roles” variously between long/short-range and air-to-air/ground strike.

According to press reports, scientist Dr. A.K. Ghosh heads the AMCA development effort. Some observers have suggested that, unlike the FGFA, the AMCA’s primary role will be ground attack, and so it will be a direct replacement to the MiG-27M and the Jaguar. Also, there are reports about a “revolutionary” pilot station employing a panoramic active-matrix display (or displays) with touch-screen interface and voice commands, and a helmet-mounted sight replacing, rather than supplementing, a head-up display.

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

Sujata · Post by **Sujata** » 23 Aug 2013 21:00

philip you give out comments that are bias towards the AMCA being successful ,and you also write 5 page posts to bury subject you don't like to talk about.That's a deflection tactic that the Mods should pay attention to and delete your negative posts.

What is the computer power of the AMCA program? Can they build small super computers for example using Nvida Cuda or Tesla computer system?This is an old video ,but it's cheap,and it works.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8FUmS1h-5U

They should have a model of this NASA simulator , and bring it to India:http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/resear ... s/vms.html
VMS -- Vertical Motion Simulator
This unique flight simulation complex provides scientists and engineers with exceptional tools to explore, define, and solve issues in both spacecraft design and mission operations. The VMS aids the aerospace community in generating fast and cost-effective solutions using high-fidelity, real-time piloted simulation in the largest motion-based flight simulator in the world.

from this page:http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/aero/background/tools/

I'm sorry but the NASA links don't work on this page ,but trust me they are Awesome sites to look up ,so please do

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 23 Aug 2013 21:03

the LCA willl replace the Mig 21
the rafale will come in alongside the su30
the su30 will be replaced by the FGFA which will co-exist with the rafale
the rafale will be replaced by the AMCA which will co-exist with the FGFA
the LCA will be replaced by a dedicated air defence UCAV after Sqd Ldr Singha Jr., has become a modern fighter ace having downed 15 TSPAF jets in precision BVR and intense dogfights over the Sukkur barrage in the Tejas Mk4 - making his daddy a mighty proud man

Sujata · Post by **Sujata** » 23 Aug 2013 21:14

I think if you're not Stealth then you are dead in the sky vs when the mass production of the china 5th gen. fighters come on line in 10years.As time goes by the "speed" of being lethal will increase ,and I think some of you guys think that if you get 1000 MKI's or 500 Rafale fighters that it will keep you safe is false.Maybe from now till 2020 yes ,but after that no.Like having Windows 95 vs Windows 7 or 8 the 4++ generations will be obsolete vs 5th fighters.

If china or pakastan comes out with laser weapons mounted on their jet fighters with a 100 or 200 mile range with unlimited rounds then why wait for a 4th gen. fighter that can't hide from it.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 23 Aug 2013 21:21

^^ As of now Chinese don't have even have their own 4th gen engine .

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Aug 2013 21:46

It all sounds very interesting and ambitious and exciting.A laudable project to pursue in the national interest. However,being very realistic,as was also stated elsewhere,developing the AMCA by the timeframe given by the DRDO is very optimistic.If you examine the key components,how much do we possess or can develop at home? "TVC" is one stated capability.Where is it going to come from? Certainly not from a desi engine.Just forget about Kaveri. It has been a miserable failure and is obsolete.When we are facing difficulties in using an underpowered GE-404 for the Tejas,and have rejected Kaveri for the same,why on earth should we repeat the error with an underpowered non-TVC Kaveri that is inferior to the 404?!

If the aim is to have a totally desi aircraft,so that we are not dependent upon anyone as is the stated goal/aim of the entire exercise,then ALL the major components must be desi.Engine,radar,sensors,composites,avionics,displays,weaponry,etc.Seriously ask oneself how much of the stated items are being manufactured at home or can be developed by either by the DPSUs or pvt. industry? The LCA flies with a firang engine,firang radar,firang weapons,etc.;calculate costwise,what % is Indian!

Our strength is in software and we also possess a decent level of composite tech.Some avionics.Our best birds flying have a masala of eastern,western and Indian avionic components.We have been successful at integrating diff. tech from diff. sources.But an entirely homegrown bird,with homegrown tech? Just look at the unseemly spat between the IAF and HAL over the basic trainer.HAL insists on developing a bird which has as its unfortunate predecessor a failure that took the lives of many IAF pilots,both instructors and rookies,and is trying to forcefeed the IAF into buying it when it exists only on paper! What confidence will the IAF have in the AMCA arriving from the same stable unless the LCA is first perfected? This is why countries like SoKo,Turkey and Japan are exploring JVs/consortiums with other nations in developing their own similar projects.Even if the bird arrives in prototype form,what about production facilities? This has been the forgotten aspect in the LCA programme,where it has been stated that setting up a production line and its accompanied technology was as important as the aircraft itself.At the planned Indian rate of "8 per year" for the LCA,we will not be able to produce the AMCA until 2030. With the pace of aviation tech development these days,will the basic concept still be relevant by then for a mainly strike role? As I've stated often,that role is being rapidly taken over by UCAVs.

I am not against an AMCA in general.My Qs are several.Where does it fit in with our future force inventory? Replacing our existing "bomb trucks" with a stealth bird is being debated even in the US.If we are acquiring the Rafale,that bird is expected to serve us for 30-40 years! the MIG-21 has served us for 50 and still going strong !
* (Incidentally,in one of BK's articles,he mentions that our pilots have been told not to overstress our Bisons with extreme manoeuvres to prolong their lifespan.he akso states that some IG-21FLs are still flying!)
With increasing use of stand-off weapons and the increasing use of UCAVs,the requirement for a stealth bird for just replacing the existing bomb trucks will be less attractive in the future,especially as anti-stealth development is progressing.In the Paki context too we have several tactical missiles in our inventory that could reduce the risk of being taken out by very expensive manned fighters.Where I feel a gap exists is in our strategic bombing requirement ,where the US,Russia and China too are developing.building new long range dedicated stealth bombers.This is where the AMCA should be oriented.

The hard fact is that unless we have firang partners/collaborators in the programme for the key components it will fail,delays and cost-overruns will plague the programme.If the IAF is serious about the AMCA-and they have to be the ones who decide upon its configuration,capabilities etc,,right from the start,plus lead the project.That way no indifference and passing the buck happens if delays and cost escalations are experienced-inevitable with all global aircraft programmes.One key decision is in selecting a TVC engine right now.We have choices form both east and west.However,the most important is in deciding a project head,a DG for the project,an individual vastly experienced for the same who can manage and deliver the same.Look at our great successes in the missile/space regimes.They have all featured dedicated project heads,from Kalam,etc.,who have delivered the goods..Not a babu chief! Just see (in another post/td.a report) how the IAF's recent request that a distinguished former chief be appointed as chairman for HAL was shot down allegedly by babudom/DRDO.I have given earlier details also of how a similar appointment of an AM,VCoAS as DG of the ADA project to oversee the LCA was also sabotaged time and time again by the DRDO/babudom. If this is going to be the attitude of the GOI/MOD ,we are going down that well trodden pot-holed road again which has plagued the LCA,and all that we might achieve in the future is another tech-demonstrator or limited number of AMCAs built.

PS:Please also remember the timeframe taken for the LCA to get where it is today.It is more than a decade since the LCA first flew and flight testing for MK-1 is still going on.IOC is expected perhaps this year and FOC end 2014.The JSF also is taking about a decade of flight testing/aircraft development to iron out snags before full-scale production begins.If we start from next year,it will realistically take a min. of 20+ years to arrive,by 2035.I'll be "six ft. under" much before!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Aug 2013 21:58

Phillip wrote:The LCA flies with a firang engine,firang radar,firang weapons,etc.;calculate costwise,what % is Indian!

When you make such statements, how can you be taken seriously?
The number of LRUs in the LCA of indigenous origin - already - are 53%. Thats a huge achievement considering the Gripen, from an aerospace industry far ahead of India's has a similar percentage or lower, to begin with. ADA has already released a list of the LRUs that can now be sourced from local industry, and many will, given the LCA is headed for series production, and hence it makes economical sense for local manufacturers to produce these items.

Next, foreign radar? Are you even aware that the LCA's have the MMR - aka the Multi Mode radar, which has an Indian architecture, an Indian antenna, an indian gimballed assembly, Indian RF channel - with the crucial TWT, receiver, all sourced locally, and rely on Israeli input merely for adding to the signal processing functions & software?

And what if the LCA has firang weapons? Where exactly was it in the LCA charter to develop local weapons? The IAF has a huge stock of foreign AAMs and other items, if the LCA uses them, fine enough. Besides which, the Astra is intended for the LCA, there are tactical missiles/PGMs now in development.

Just forget about Kaveri. It has been a miserable failure and is obsolete

Yes. We should all follow what you say, since the above makes so much sense. Forget Maitya's posts where, he valiantly attempted to make you understand where the Kaveri is currently, but you would have us ditch whatever we have, achieved against incredible odds and which can be used as a stepping stone to much further (the same as the Indra radar lead to AESA radars today) - and we just go ahead with what you say.

I am sorry but you have no idea of what India is strong at, what India is weak at, or anything otherwise for anyone to take you seriously. Copy pasting articles written by others, claiming to have inside knowledge from rtd types who play up their own role (and disparage others) does not translate into anything serious.

On the other hand, anything written about the Russians and you regurgitate it without the slightest bit of analysis.

how the IAF's recent request that a distinguished former chief be appointed as chairman for HAL was shot down.

Of course it was. What would the impact on HAL morale and what lesson would it have been for the organization when a man with no background in aerospace manufacturing, and merely a limited exposure to test flight evaluations be parachuted over senior folks in the organization breaking all rules of precedence? The IAF intervention lead to an Oil person now getting into HAL, no positive improvement.

I have given earlier details also of how a similar appointment of an AM,VCoAS as DG of the ADA project to oversee the LCA was also sabotaged by the DRDO/babudom.

ROTFL. Your best buddy who loudly claims that he would have single handedly saved the LCA. Never mind that he may have been entirely the wrong man for the job and was probably rejected for that exact reason. What was his technical competence? What were his singular abilities to lead a complex program like the LCA? Its one thing to have a staff mentor at AHQ where a man like this can be useful. Another thing for him to head the project itself.

And what rubbish of IAF folks being sabotaged when it comes to the LCA. AM P Rajkumar headed the LCA program. He was supported by Kalam/DRDO throughout, and matter of fact when IAF treated him shabbily, it was R&D which pushed for his promotion and pushed it through.

Your ignorance about all things LCA is remarkable.

Net, when you say:

.If you examine the key components,how much do we possess or can develop at home?

Go ahead and answer this yourself. Tell us.

Kindly dont copy paste somebody else's half baked articles or claims of percentages of indigenization or similar!!

If you actually knew something about the LCA, you would have this information at your fingertips.

Show us that. Not ctrl+c AvWeek or xyx articles from whosoever you wish to selectively quote.

Sujata · Post by **Sujata** » 23 Aug 2013 22:12

philip did you just add 2 more paragraphs to your already super long response.Nice deflection! Out of sight out of mind,if people can't see positive post then I will just keep on posting super long comments so they don't see it ,and hope they forget about it.

This is Bull crap Mods, please do something!!!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Aug 2013 22:35

Karan,since you know so much,and state I'm so ignorant of the facts,I bow to your superior knowledge.Therefore pl. let us all of us know why with all our indigenous achievements why it has taken 3 decades + to get to where we are with the LCA,and when Mk-2 is going to arrive? What AESA radar it is going to feature,when series production is to start,what is the timefrrame for the first 40 ordered by the IAF to be delivered?

You simply disparage and dismiss the many statements on record by veteran IAF officers,chiefs,etc. on the issues,as if they are of no consequence.That is grossly insulting.They have spent decades flying and operating the various types of aircraft in service and have well documented our tall claims and actual achievements of the DPSUs.

As for the AMCA,Please give us if possible a timeframe for the development of the aircraft ,as if it a serious project then there must be some stats/data existing.Can you let us know which TVC engine is it going to fly with,approx. unit costs,etc.? Surely as taxpayers/stakeholders who will be financing the whole exercise we are entitled to details. "The proof of the pudding s in the eating" .One will believe in it when one sees it first flying and then in service in IAF colours.

You know,quoting yourself,how can any one take the claim to be able to develop an AMCA entirely indigenously within a reasonable timeframe given the track record of the LCA ,basic trainer and IJT?

It appears that you represent the interests of a perpetuation of the under-performing DPSUs who are unaccountable to anyone and wish to perpetuate their stranglehold over the entire spectrum, of Indian defence .

PS:By the way,my "buddy" was VCoAS,the first Indian pilot to fly the MIG-25,headed the ASTE,was in charge of the DARIN programme earlier and chosen as stated time and time again by various technical boards right upto the PM to be DG of the ADA.
Why is there also no comment about the IAF wanting (and was rejected) a former air chief to head HAL?

Quoted again for the benefit of those who haven't read it earlier.

He was then a full Air Marshal holding the post of Vice Chief of the Air Staff. Dr Abdul Kalam was then the SA to RM. He wanted **** to take over the LCA project in the existing vacancy of Director General ADA as he had done good work earlier on the very successful “Jaguar Darin” project. **** was willing to take on the challenge provided his name was proposed jointly by DRDO & Air Force so that he was not identified as an “Air Force” man or a “DRDO” man and he could function freely in the interests of the project. Accordingly, the SA to RM routed the file through the CAS who concurred with the proposal and forwarded it to the RM Sri Sharad Pawar in Feb 93. It is learnt that the same got approval from three out of the four members of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) within a couple of months but was held up by the PMO for more than two years on various pretexts. It was examined by a few more search Committees all of whom had concurred with the original selection of ****. Dr Kalam intervened again and **** appointment was finally cleared by the PM in Jun 95. The file was then passed to the Establishment Directorate for issue of an official letter of appointment. Even after another one full year, this letter had not been issued. It looked as if no one other than Dr Kalam was interested in strengthening the LCA project Management, and even he was powerless to enforce his will in the face of departmental apathy/antipathy. ***** was determined not to pursue his own case but act only if the formal appointment letter was issued. That post still remains vacant after almost two decades! That was that.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 23 Aug 2013 22:47

Sujata wrote:I think if you're not Stealth then you are dead in the sky vs when the mass production of the china 5th gen. fighters come on line in 10years.As time goes by the "speed" of being lethal will increase ,and I think some of you guys think that if you get 1000 MKI's or 500 Rafale fighters that it will keep you safe is false.Maybe from now till 2020 yes ,but after that no.Like having Windows 95 vs Windows 7 or 8 the 4++ generations will be obsolete vs 5th fighters.

If china or pakastan comes out with laser weapons mounted on their jet fighters with a 100 or 200 mile range with unlimited rounds then why wait for a 4th gen. fighter that can't hide from it.

^ some very exciting R&D are taking place in the sensor development. You cannot yet discount non-stealthy ones. Wish somebody could lead the sensor and radar thread that has been lying unused for years. In fact some of the developments (political) suggest an Avro Arrow like compliments from the Amerikaans.

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

Philip ji, please do explain w.r.t. the below, how the west is progressing towards resolving its debate and why FGFA+AMCA+Legacy, cannot fulfil the same needs as are being projected for F22+F35+F15. Hell even the Chinese have 2 machines progressing simultaneously with the non stealthy J-10 still being improved. And Russians can begin doing that any day ie. making a F-35 equivalent (Only their air space volume most likely will never justify it).

RE.

I am not against an AMCA in general.My Qs are several.Where does it fit in with our future force inventory? Replacing our existing "bomb trucks" with a stealth bird is being debated even in the US.If we are acquiring the Rafale,that bird is expected to serve us for 30-40 years! the MIG-21 has served us for 50 and still going strong !

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Aug 2013 22:52

since you know so much,and state I'm so ignorant of the facts,I bow to your superior knowledge

You can be as knowledgeable IF you read up!!!!!! Even in the F-35 thread your lack of knowledge showed.

As far as his post goes, he merely answered your questions or concerns.

Regarding LCS, etc, for the nth time, there is nothing unusual in its progress. WE ALL would have loved to see it come 20 years ago. Nothing to be ashamed about.

Avinash Chander wrote: On the project’s cost overrun

The cost of LCA is a small fraction of what an F-15 costs. We have developed one of the lowest costing aircraft. We are confident that the LCA will be able to compete very well in performance as well as on cost basis with equivalent aircraft. It will be comparable to Gripen aircraft. The day we start thinking about LCA, you cannot start putting cost on it.

Kaveri a failure? Says who? It is taking a nation like Russia - no less - around 10 years to build a new engine, with all these years of expertise. So, what is the big deal if India could not field an engine in the time and funds she had? And, you still have not answered my question, why not the Kaveri for the AMCA. It seems very, very close to the requirements. (I think it is a materials issue and not an engine design issue. Which they will overcome.)

I suggest you read and get yourself acquainted with what is out there and not post very, very biased opinions.

I am slowly finding the FGFA to be a bigger turkey that anything out there - turning out to be another Gorky, where the cost starts low and slowly Russia increases the cost. I have suggested dropping the FGFA and I seriously think it is time to dump it. Not worth the delusional "JV", which it is not. There are other reasons, l8r.

And the F-35 is no longer a Turkey as you have claimed either.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Aug 2013 23:52

NR seriously,Kaveri was intended to power the LCA.It has been unable to do just that and therefore can only be considered as a failure on that score.There is no other aircraft project on the anvil where it can be used,except perhaps the UCAV one.

After rejection as the engine for the LCA,it was earlier touted a few years ago that it could be alternatively used in marine applications,but what has come of that option thus far? GE and Ukranian gas turbines are the IN's engines of choice. In the stated capabilities/performance of the AMCA it is clearly stated that the aircraft will feature an engine with TVC.It is why I've said that Kaveri is unsuitable. I haven't heard anywhere that a TVC Kaveri is being developed/has been developed,perhaps I'm mistaken.Secondly,what is going to be Kaveri's performance vs the 404 or 414? Isn't it inferior to both? Wouldn't it be better if the 414 was chosen as interim engine for the AMCA since it has already been selected for the LCA MK-2 for the sake of commonality ? The Russians are using a proven engine for first avatars of the FGFA to play it safe (Austin has posted news of the FGFA's engine development).The EJ-TVC is another option.

I'm a hard headed realist from experience.Just look at all our indigenous efforts for all 3 services across the board.Which major programme has not suffered major delays beyond reasonable extra-time? Read the numerous CAG/parliament reports. Ultimately after wasting much time,money and effort,we run in desperation to a firang supplier.The Arjun has a German engine,LCA a US one,IJT first with a French engine and then changed mid-way to a Russian one causing another 2 yr. delay! Even the Dhruv had a second engine fitted ,did it not?

Years ago,a decade+ I think,when we had a BR get-together at an Aero-India,we had the AM in charge of Eastern Command and Rakesh Sharma too with us.RS was then a test pilot with HAL also flying the LCA.We were all jingoistic about the LCA expecting it to be in service within a couple of years. He gently brought us down to earth by listing out the testing regime that had to be completed,problems that would arise,asking us to be patient.It is why I state again that if we are serious about the AMCA,unless we acquire/include partners for the vital components of the aircraft like the engine,the most vital component,at the programme's start,headed by a suitable project head as in the missile programmes,we may suffer the same fate as the LCA, inordinate delays.And for the record,LCA MK-2 is going to fly with the chosen 414.This is reportedly going to require redesign of the fuselage requiring another round of flight testing,etc. The lack of a suitable engine grounded the full development of the HF-24,why are we ignoring past lessons? This is what my "buddy" warned APJAK ages ago when he was given BS about Kaveri arriving in a "few months time" by the GTRE. A decade+ later ,it is still to arrive! Therefore I trust that you will understand my scepticism about Kaevri powering the AMCA.

It isn't as if we Indians do not have the capacity to be able to compete the best brains in the world I know several Indians in the US ,leaders in their field of expertise,also involved in the def. industry.They've succeeded because there is a sustained national /governmental effort to succeed (unlike India) and if you don't deliver you get sacked,or the programme like many defence programmes in the US gets shot down.Not so at home.Incompetence is rewarded with Padma awards,as one wit sarcastically said.

PS:I won't cross post FGFA,F-35 material here.Mods have been unhappy.Those two birds,turkeys ,crows whatever ,will stand or fall by their performance.We'll carry on the debate elsewhere.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Aug 2013 00:16

I have not heard anything about Kaveri TVC either, but the Kaveri is not a failure - no matter what.

On Kaveri/404/414? Dunno. Not a matter of concern.

What is, is this (all from wiki):

LCA:
Powerplant: 1 × F404-GE-IN20 turbofan
Dry thrust: 53.9 kN[93] (12,100 lbf)
Thrust with afterburner: 85 kN[94][95][96] (19,000 lbf)

AMCA (proposed):
Powerplant: 2 × GTRE GTX 35 VS Kaveri NG turbofans
Dry thrust: 54 kN (12,130 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 90 kN (20,230 lbf) each

Kaveri (latest):
Military thrust (throttled): 11,687 lbf (52.0 kN)
Full afterburner: 18,210 lbf (81.0 kN)

We have been through these discussion before. Those Kaveri figures are no shabby at all.

The ONLY -ve I could find is that the Kaveri is obese. Badly obese.

I FEEL that better materials will help both - weight loss and better AB thrust.

You happen to pull out old info and keep harping on it ad nausea.

And, check out that article too on the FGFA. Granted it is a year old, yet the FGFA > PAK-FA. For the Indians to ask for these 40 odd improvements (that are not present on the Russian plane) it has to mean something. I am betting that the Indians have thought of if not actually built these techs for the AMCA (they all need to be integrated - NOT an easy task).

This is not the same set of people from 2-3 decades ago. They have a LOT more in their pockets, all achieved with peanut funds (even ISRO).

Yes, we all would love a Kaveri that could propel every flying object out there, be a sipper if fuel consumption, provide the best thrust for the next 6 decades, etc., It will get there. Neither the AMCA not the Kaveri can be given up on. Not an option. Not at any cost I would say.

And, the Russians are only using India as a funding source - look at the current meeting notes on the subs (they want a 2nd upgrade?). Sink hole. Granted India needs them to a great extent, but I do not consider them any kind of "friends".

I have said this before, if India cannot afford two 5th gens efforts, then the FGFA has to go.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Aug 2013 00:52

Philip wrote:Karan,since you know so much,and state I'm so ignorant of the facts,I bow to your superior knowledge.Therefore pl. let us all of us know why with all our indigenous achievements why it has taken 3 decades + to get to where we are with the LCA,

Seriously, you attempt to be sarcastic, and then you ask this? Why its taken "3+ decades " for the LCA (never mind the projects sanction in 1983 was but a paper one)..

It just reiterates that you are completely and totally ignorant of the program itself, what mil aircraft design & development is about, and what challenges the LCA has faced, both in terms of infrastructure & manpower to get those in place, then build system level capability and then proceed to subsystem level. That you don't even know this, yet proceed to pontificate on the AMCA, just shows how totally and utterly unaware you are of the LCA program!!

How can anyone even take you seriously?

and when Mk-2 is going to arrive? What AESA radar it is going to feature,when series production is to start,what is the timefrrame for the first 40 ordered by the IAF to be delivered?

Seriously, of what use are your rhetorical questions? What do you even know of the topic to demand answers on it? Lets start with AESA, copy pasting reams from some AvWeek article is pointless. Tell us, how many AESA programs are underway in India right now - what are the differences between them?

Again no copy paste. No quoting from Wiki/Wikia or whatever your random google search takes you to. Tell us what YOU know.

See, this is the reason why you just go on & on & on - its very hard to even debate you, when you don't know anything about the topics under question. Do you for instance know, that the AESA radar program was sanctioned only recently, that the first prototype unit is already in testing, that a proven Tx/Rx module supplier has supplied its first modules to LRDE for testing, and that LRDE is proceeding apace with multiple AESA programs?

What you will do however, is simply copy paste some article which mentions some of this and tom tom it as a discovery. Then two weeks later, some other article will say the reverse and you will copy paste that as well, and selectively bold whatever you want to convey.

Boss, when you can't even fathom what India is doing, where it is at, when you ask questions like "why did the LCA take 3 decades" - when the correct answer is so obvious to anyone who has followed the program seriously, and can look through all the loaded questions you ask, and all you have to answer in turn is more rhetoric and name dropping....

You simply disparage and dismiss the many statements on record by veteran IAF officers,chiefs,etc. on the issues,as if they are of no consequence.That is grossly insulting.They have spent decades flying and operating the various types of aircraft in service and have well documented our tall claims and actual achievements of the DPSUs.

Enough of this name dropping rubbish Phillip. None of us were born yesterday, we all know & have conversed with many IAF officers, scientists and veterans etc. Unlike you however, we keep our wits beside us, and have enough of our own perspective to take whatever they say, with a requisite pinch of salt!

For instance, all that rubbish of your friend being sabotaged by the DRDO is clearly just that - his perception / being hurt at not being selected for that project. Same as that of some "boffins" (your favorite word, never mind that our locally educated scientists would not even understand your fancy Brit slang) who were likewise dropped from prestigious big name programs. However, everyone else has the common sense to overlook the pet peeves of some of these people. Its high time you woke up as well.

A IAF man has headed the LCA project already and written openly about he was personally selected by Kalam and supported by him and DRDO. He also mentions that the IAF itself was not interested in the project.Another IAF leader openly mentioned the IAF did not participate in the program.

So much for your claims!!

As for the AMCA,Please give us if possible a timeframe for the development of the aircraft ,as if it a serious project then there must be some stats/data existing.Can you let us know which TVC engine is it going to fly with,approx. unit costs,etc.? Surely as taxpayers/stakeholders who will be financing the whole exercise we are entitled to details. "The proof of the pudding s in the eating" .One will believe in it when one sees it first flying and then in service in IAF colours.

No, why DONT YOU provide us with the details I asked you before. The exact details of the radar, the LCA systems, and NO copypasting allowed either.

Listen,several of us can actually come up with back of the envelope estimates of all that you have asked. But since its the LCA which segues into the AMCA, the onus is on you - WITHOUT copy pasting, to tell us each and every system that the LCA program has NOT been able to make here.

I see you ignored each and every post directed at you which was factual or technology specific like Maityas.

We want specifics Phillip. Not your usual rants based on copy pasted stuff citing "people of authority"/ your drinking buddies/ third party journalists yada yada.

If you can't provide those specifics - which several of the people on this forum can, then its high time you listened and read more, instead of haranguing all and sundry about how incompetent the local "boffins" are, because your friends said so.

You know,quoting yourself,how can any one take the claim to be able to develop an AMCA entirely indigenously within a reasonable timeframe given the track record of the LCA ,basic trainer and IJT?

And when did I say that they should develop an AMCA entirely indigenously?

I merely pointed out that you have no idea of what they should be collaborating on and what they shouldn't be, given your track record of
a) complete and total inability to understand what the LCA project is and where it is.
b ) Your constant flip flops based on a cursory reading of whatever copy paste you do. You have quoted strategy page, izvestia and other such "reputable sources" on indian defence, without an iota of understanding of how ridiculous they are.
c) No clear understanding of tech whatsoever beyond quoting what other people say is critical. Note your latest posts from wikia on what the F22/F35 are. When one doesn't even understand what source is credible or what is not...it becomes high farce to "debate"..

It was hilarious to see you tom tomming Arun Prakash saying the LCA could not be allowed to fail. It took Prakash to say that for you to understand this? Typical!!

It appears that you represent the interests of a perpetuation of the under-performing DPSUs who are unaccountable to anyone and wish to perpetuate their stranglehold over the entire spectrum, of Indian defence .

No I represent the interests of a long suffering minority who is fed up of reading your copy pasted drivel which raves and rants against anything and everything Indian without having the foggiest idea of how technology development works!!

Its one thing to read acerbic but well researched, tech sound opinions grounded in reality.

Quite another to read your idealogical rants which neither identify what our strengths are, and on the other hand constantly seek to mock and disparage whatever we have succeeded at. In contrast, our true weaknesses are not even known to you!

And unlike you, I dont act like a propagandist for the Russians either. Even they would shake their heads at the manner in which you run down every Indian institution while unquestioningly mentioning the state sponsored bilge they give.

PS:By the way,my "buddy" was VCoAS,the first Indian pilot to fly the MIG-25,headed the ASTE,was in charge of the DARIN programme earlier and chosen as stated time and time again by various technical boards right upto the PM to be DG of the ADA.

PS, your buddy may have been the bees knees and guess what AM Rajkumars CV who did head the LCA program was equally and perhaps more impressive. Guess what, amongst those rejected for heading the LCA program were one of the most notable flight/aero specialists ever produced in India (who headed NAL later), multiple HAL/DRDO types.

Most of them don't have folks like you making a mountain out of a molehill, when its known to everyone that an IAF man did head the LCA program.

Why is there also no comment about the IAF wanting (and was rejected) a former air chief to head HAL?

Again more brilliance. Do you even know of how many IAF people ended up at HAL in years past? Go look up the name Wollen.
The IAF itself sought to stop this practise citing manpower constraints.

And many years later it seeks to parachute its people back in right at the top, this when HAL has become a more professional organization and has clearly demarcated lines of authority, promotion and succession. Which professional organization would accept such ad hoc behaviour?

oted again for the benefit of those who haven't read it earlier.

He was then a full Air Marshal holding the post of Vice Chief of the Air Staff. Dr Abdul Kalam was then the SA to RM. He wanted **** to take over the LCA project in the existing vacancy of Director General ADA as he had done good work earlier on the very successful “Jaguar Darin” project. **** was willing to take on the challenge provided his name was proposed jointly by DRDO & Air Force so that he was not identified as an “Air Force” man or a “DRDO” man and he could function freely in the interests of the project. Accordingly, the SA to RM routed the file through the CAS who concurred with the proposal and forwarded it to the RM Sri Sharad Pawar in Feb 93. It is learnt that the same got approval from three out of the four members of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) within a couple of months but was held up by the PMO for more than two years on various pretexts. It was examined by a few more search Committees all of whom had concurred with the original selection of ****. Dr Kalam intervened again and **** appointment was finally cleared by the PM in Jun 95. The file was then passed to the Establishment Directorate for issue of an official letter of appointment. Even after another one full year, this letter had not been issued. It looked as if no one other than Dr Kalam was interested in strengthening the LCA project Management, and even he was powerless to enforce his will in the face of departmental apathy/antipathy. ***** was determined not to pursue his own case but act only if the formal appointment letter was issued. That post still remains vacant after almost two decades! That was that.

LOL and this is supposed to prove that the DRDO sabotaged the appointment of the gentleman above? If anything, it shows how Kalam kept pushing his case against all opposition. The same way he and DRDO pushed for AM Rajkumar.

Sorry, but you are so full of blind prejudice that you can't even critically analyze what you yourself post.

If copy pasting was analysis, you would top everyone here. Sadly, it isn't.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Aug 2013 01:10

Philip wrote:I'm a hard headed realist from experience.Just look at all our indigenous efforts for all 3 services across the board.Which major programme has not suffered major delays beyond reasonable extra-time? Read the numerous CAG/parliament reports. Ultimately after wasting much time,money and effort,we run in desperation to a firang supplier.The Arjun has a German engine,LCA a US one,IJT first with a French engine and then changed mid-way to a Russian one causing another 2 yr. delay! Even the Dhruv had a second engine fitted ,did it not?

Kya bakwas hain ... where is the comparison between where India has started from, where other manufacturers in western OEMs were at and what the funding and manpower has been. For hecks sake, how does one even begin to make sense of these sort of claims.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Aug 2013 01:12

NRao wrote:You happen to pull out old info and keep harping on it ad nausea.

Yet another person realizes the truth.

I have said this before, if India cannot afford two 5th gens efforts, then the FGFA has to go.

Quoted for truth.

Ramu · Post by **Ramu** » 24 Aug 2013 04:02

there are few interesting points being mentioned about AMCA. I have my own theory about it.

1. Lets wait for LCA to mature before starting AMCA. It may delay the LCA efforts.

I beg to differ. When the LCA idea was conceived, let me repeat - the idea of LCA, some non techie babu must have thought
small plane = small capabilities = small number of test points and achievement factors = a small step into indigenisation = easy peasy.

Now lets look at LCA in its current form wrt capabilities it needs to pack in. BVR, WVR, LGB, Dumb bombs, mission computers, avionics, software, radar, EW, IFR, guns etc. All of them are being packed into its tiny body. Because of this, engine thrust has been uprated already twice and additional internal fuel tanks are being fitted in by lengthening/widening its body along with considerable weight reduction. if we compare it with lets say MKI, the only difference would be its range and weapon load. I can easily conclude that there is a considerable mismatch with the airframe and its capability for LCA.

The Point I am trying to make is - AMCA won't be constraint of space to pack the required capabilities. For example it will take less time to fit in an IFR proble to AMCA than an LCA.

2. If AMCA is a duplicate effort to PAKFA, why pursue it?

Let me answer it via a counter question. If PAKFA is arriving soon, why order $10bn Rafale. Both will start to arrive almost at the same period if Rafale is signed today, right?

3. Why waste money? Aren't we a poor country with crashing economy?

The development of LCA took 40 years (For once I will take the side of people who mentions decades of delay right from early 80's as the starting point) with a cost of lets say 2 billion including all cost escalation ? Is that a lot of money for 40 years?
Can we not spend half a billion on AMCA for its 6 years development in parallel? Won't it help some of these poor buggars living in and around bangalore? Before answering this question to yourself, please look at question 2.

My Conclusion

There is absolutely no reason to tie AMCA project to LCA's. I see it as a form of self-containment.
Lets not restrict our own development.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Aug 2013 04:45

The Arjun has a German engine,LCA a US one,IJT first with a French engine and then changed mid-way to a Russian one causing another 2 yr. delay! Even the Dhruv had a second engine fitted ,did it not?

Friend, even the Russians are taking 10+ years to deliver an engine for the PAK-FA!!!!!

With ALL their experience for around 70-80 years. AND, right now they have regrouped all their engine companies into one single entity - all brain power under one roof.

Based on past experience I am fair sure these arguments mean little to you - but the fact remains that engines are huge challenge. What I am willing to grant you is that India has been rather casual about such efforts in the past, including being corrupt.

But I think the time has comes for India to take off. No other option. Seems to me that all core things are in place.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Aug 2013 08:40

To all knowing Karan,you please give me details and dates since you claim to have so much of inside knowledge.Please also refer to the several dates that were trotted out year after year for IOC,FOC,etc. which have never been met.
You mention AM Philip Rajkumar,I personally know that he has the highest respect for his former colleague.They went to Russia together.Ask him if you have any doubts.Why here is AM PM himself on one aspect of the project.Secondly he was the Programme Dir. for the project,not designated as DG ADA which would've given him far wider and sweeping powers to take crucial decisions.

Says Rajkumar: “It was an absurd managerial decision to give the task of developing a jet engine to GTRE [Gas Turbine Research Establishment] and radar development to HAL Hyderabad. They never had any experience of doing such complex work. The only organisation that could have developed the radar was LRDE [Electronics and Radar Development Establishment] and the HAL Engine Division in Bangalore, which had the experience of developing engines. Today, with the benefit of hindsight, we can say the decisions were wrong, though we cannot blame anyone.”

lack of adequately trained workforce was also a problem. Says Rajkumar: “When the IJT [Intermediate Jet Trainer] project was taken up by HAL, the manpower got split. That had an adverse effect on the progress of the LCA project.’

And here is a report,just a few months ago quoting both AKA -the buck stops with him,and AM PR!

Why A.K Anthony is upset with DRDO on Lca Tejas?
Published May 31, 2013 |
SOURCE: PRASAD CHAWAN FOR IDRW.ORG

In recent months Defence minister A.K Anthony has been vocally criticizing delays faced by India’s much delayed light combat aircraft (LCA) aircraft and has repeatedly urged DRDO to focus on the project and get Final Operational Clearance (FOC) of Lca Tejas by the end of next year.

The IOC-I of the LCA was achieved in January 2011 in Bangalore and its IOC-II was scheduled to be held in July but it has now been postponed till end of this year. But the main question which remains is will Tejas get FOC by end of next year? , within one year of achieving full IOC? .

According to Defence experts, Security advisers to Defence minister might have already informed him that LCA is unlikely to achieve full FOC by end of next year; people associated with agencies have informed idrw.org that amount of work related to maturing weapons platform on LCA might take longer and FOC might be achieved in phases very similar to how IOC was achieved on Lca Tejas.

Defence experts who have been monitoring Lca Tejas Project have told idrw.org that,” Deadlines for FOC were not realistic and DRDO should have come up with realistic time line for Lca achieving FOC, if we study aircrafts projects around the world IOC to FOC is achieved in 5 or more years, but deadline of two years from IOC to FOC is highly unrealistic set by DRDO, Maturing each weapon in the aircraft needs own integration’s and testing time and each weapon is cleared phase by phase for operational use by the user.”

DRDO in past has been putting up unrealistic deadlines in the project phases but faced regular slippage and delays on Lca Tejas project, Air Marshal Philip Rajkumar air force official who was associated in past with the project, in this book on Lca Tejas had criticized DRDO of coming up with such un-realistic deadlines which everyone knew was not achievable. It seems now that DRDO is caught in web of lies and are under fire for promises which they couldn’t keep.

Powered by idrw.org O

http://idrw.org/?p=22737

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Aug 2013 08:55

The DRDO chief on future tech required for future warfighting.He's looking way beyond the AMCA.

http://newindianexpress.com/cities/bang ... 747471.ece

'Unmanned weapons future of warfare'

We need the sixth generation aircrafts with stealth capability, hypersonic speed, extra manoeuvrability to change shape- morph, fuel efficiency, heat and flame resistance. We need aerospace materials like Aluminium Lithium alloys which can perform the above roles. We need materials for aerostats that stay at altitudes of five kilometres for months,” he added.

'Unmanned weapons future of warfare'

By Papiya Bhattacharya - BANGALORE

Published: 23rd August 2013 08:31 AM

Last Updated: 23rd August 2013 08:31 AM

DRDO chief Avinash Chander stressed on the need for weapons, which would not show on radars, be unmanned and have protection against laser attacks with plasma-based surface coatings to either absorb or dissipate the laser attacks.

According to him, photosensitive structures at several places on these machines would lend them the colour of the environment for camouflage. He said the weight of a bulletproof jacket of a soldier is about 12 kg and it needs to be lighter.

“Materials are the core of defense capability, “ said Avinash Chander. The Padmashree, who is also the scientific advisor to the Defence Minister of India, Secretary to the Department of Defence (R&D) was here to deliver the Brahm Prakash Memorial lecture on ‘Materials in Defense’.

The event was organised by the Indian Institute of Metals, Bangalore Chapter. Also present on the occasion were Professor K Chattopadhyay, the president of The Indian Institute of Metals and Chairman, Division of Mechanical Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. An alumnus of the IIT, Chander joined the DRDO after completing studies in the IIT. “Agni I, II and III missiles were developed under his (Chander) leadership,” said Prof Chattopadhyay.

Chander said the future will produce more challenges with high energy weapons, cyber warfare and warfare that is unmanned in space or underwater and technology intensive.

“To fight these future wars, the defense requirements are materials that can function in extreme environments like the ocean bed and can resist high temperature. “We need the sixth generation aircrafts with stealth capability, hypersonic speed, extra manoeuvrability to change shape- morph, fuel efficiency, heat and flame resistance. We need aerospace materials like Aluminium Lithium alloys which can perform the above roles. We need materials for aerostats that stay at altitudes of five kilometres for months,” he added.

He said defense research needs high energy fuel cells, solar Cells, biofuels, thermoelectric batteries and more to run these machines.

The immediate problems are shortage of rare elements and their processing methods. According to him, elements like Tungsten, Helium, Tantulum, Lithium, Nickel, Cobalt and high purity Boron used in making these weapons and machines are in short supply.

Chander said an integrated and national approach was needed to make the industry participate in the sourcing and designing of such materials, develop a skill force and certify materials and methods. “A national material initiative will accelerate innovation, manufacture and deployment of materials,” he said.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Aug 2013 09:41

The DRDO chief on future tech required for future warfighting.He's looking way beyond the AMCA.

Excellent.

Proof enough that they are very confident of accomplishing what the AMCA is expected to achieve.

This should - to a very great extent - answer the question "where are they going to get the technologies from"!!!!

Very nice to hear the word "material". Now if I can hear "PM" that would be quantum leap.

And best of all "looking way beyond the AMCA", although it is not "way beyond" - it is the next Gen - it is an excellent indicator.