AMCA News and Discussions

[Prasad]

Shivji, you might see that these are again communication hardware details and interface details. This will not be the bottleneck. This is the next step for the network hardware designers/fabricators. It is not the moon.

I can't however answer why FBL is superior to FBW. Some guru from this field should enlighten us.

But this is not a series connection in the development chart of the AMCA. It is on a parallel connection with a complete different set of designers and implementers. What's more we can always fall back on the FBW if FBL fails!

Greater BW(especially useful for a distributed architecture to carry more data within the aircraft b/w different components), lighter compared to copper per metre of cable, protection against EMP (Si based processors notwithstanding) are a few that I can think of.

[Willy]

Shivji, you might see that these are again communication hardware details and interface details. This will not be the bottleneck. This is the next step for the network hardware designers/fabricators. It is not the moon.

I can't however answer why FBL is superior to FBW. Some guru from this field should enlighten us.

But this is not a series connection in the development chart of the AMCA. It is on a parallel connection with a complete different set of designers and implementers. What's more we can always fall back on the FBW if FBL fails!

Well one advantage FBL over FBW would be the data transfer rates.When it comes to network centric stuff this would play an important role.

[vardhank]

Should we be looking at a parallel project to develop a 4++ fighter, based on most of the tech we already possess? Perhaps the simplest option as a hedge would be to manufacture more MMRCAs, but I'd very much like to have our own option ready, as a supplement to the MMRCA if needed.
Shiv, I understand you don't like the idea of a twin-engined LCA. Fine, we don't do exactly the same, but maybe a project to make a feasible fighter based around the Kaveri, MMR and the other tech we've developed for the LCA? Call it a TD if you want for now, but keep a manufacturing option ready. If nothing else, it's a good place to learn, and perhaps it'll turn into a fighter we can export, if all goes according to plan on the AMCA and this 4++ fighter isn't needed.

[Pratyush]

Should we be looking at a parallel project to develop a 4++ fighter, based on most of the tech we already possess? Perhaps the simplest option as a hedge would be to manufacture more MMRCAs, but I'd very much like to have our own option ready, as a supplement to the MMRCA if needed.

SNIP..........

.

Why not play arround with the LCA and the MKI like it is being done by the firangies & our friends the Ruskies.

[vardhank]

Should we be looking at a parallel project to develop a 4++ fighter, based on most of the tech we already possess? Perhaps the simplest option as a hedge would be to manufacture more MMRCAs, but I'd very much like to have our own option ready, as a supplement to the MMRCA if needed.

SNIP..........

.

Why not play arround with the LCA and the MKI like it is being done by the firangies & our friends the Ruskies.

Not really. I don't think we have the license to fiddle that much with the MKI, and in any case, both are the wrong weight class. We really need a medium fighter - the LCA is one of the lightest fighters around, and the MKI one of the heaviest
I think basically what is required is a new airframe - the rest of the stuff we have.

Should we move this to the Design your own fighter thread?

[Pratyush]

Posted in design your own fighters thread.

[Austin]

I remember reading BAe did some research work on FBL on Harrier and used it for extending flight testing , they did not find FBL any more useful then FBW , except some basic weight reduction.

That is i think one of the reason why countries with advanced aerospace development and even big civil aircraft makers like airbus or boeing did not move to FBL and are stuck with quad FBW.

[Pratyush]

Austin,

If weight saving was even in the region of 100+ Kgs then it was a substantial improvement over the previous generation of control system.

[shiv]

Should we be looking at a parallel project to develop a 4++ fighter, based on most of the tech we already possess? Perhaps the simplest option as a hedge would be to manufacture more MMRCAs, but I'd very much like to have our own option ready, as a supplement to the MMRCA if needed.

...

maybe a project to make a feasible fighter based around the Kaveri, MMR and the other tech we've developed for the LCA? Call it a TD if you want for now, but keep a manufacturing option ready. If nothing else, it's a good place to learn, and perhaps it'll turn into a fighter we can export, if all goes according to plan on the AMCA and this 4++ fighter isn't needed.

400% agreement from me.

[Austin]

Austin,

If weight saving was even in the region of 100+ Kgs then it was a substantial improvement over the previous generation of control system.

We do not know what the weight saving is 100+ Kg or 1 Kg , the fact that no civil airlines of Boeing/Airbus or any military fighter opted for FBL just tells me there is not much gain.

Civil airlines like Boeing and Airbus are always on the technology edge because of the competitive nature of the game there are in , hard to see why they didnt opt for FBL on A-380 or Dreamliner.

[Rahul M]

well, wiki says

Fly-by-optics

Fly-by-optics is sometimes used instead of fly-by-wire because it can transfer data at higher speeds, and it is immune to electromagnetic interference. In most cases, the cables are just changed from electrical to fiber optic cables. Sometimes it is referred to as "Fly-by-light" due to its use of Fiber Optics. The data generated by the software and interpreted by the controller remain the same.

doesn't seem too ambitious to me. but then I'm clueless about this right now.

Austin, may be it doesn't make sense for civil aircraft but does for mil ones ?

edit : some more links
http://www.deagel.com/news/Gulfstream-D ... 03886.aspx

SAVANNAH, Ga., March 18, 2008 � Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD), announced today that it has successfully demonstrated aircraft control using fiber-optic "Fly-By-Light" (FBL) technology. This is the first time FBL has been tested on a primary flight-control surface of a Gulfstream business aircraft.
............
FBL technology provides significant weight savings and increased safety over fly-by-wire systems. The system streamlines a bulky wire bundle into just four fiber-optic wires. The fiber-optic harness transmits a redundant signal for enhanced integrity and system safety. The redundancy is inherent to the design of the harness. A fly-by-wire system would require an additional harness to achieve the same level of safety.

"We're pleased with the system's performance and will continue to research its use in future applications."

[Austin]

Rahul , I have read that Gulfstream tests with FBL , so the question I would ask if BA's have experimented FBL on a Harrier why didnt they pursue that technology with Typhoon , if it achieves significant weight saving and enhanced safety ?

I have not come across any of the major player planning to incorporate FBL in any modern Fighter and Civil Aircraft , you can surely agree that Boeing,Airbus,Sukhoi and others have FBW system experience for decades and and FBL was that significant enough they would have experimented and incorporated in 5th Gen Civil and Military aircraft program.

Everybody wants weight saving and enhanced safety civil or military , so FBL should have reached a critical mass in some program beyond the R&D phase of Harrier or Gulfstream.

Probably thats an indication FBL is not as significant as it is made out to be.

[Lalmohan]

two things i can think of
1. the fibres may not be particularly durable in a high-g environment
2. the mux and repeaters for optics still weigh a lot and might need a lot more power than fbw tech - possibly negating any 'cable advantages'

[Austin]

On field maintenance of optical cable could be an issue as well , you can fold bend wires with optics you need to be very careful

[Rahul M]

Austin, I agree that we need to know more on this. right now I personally can offer little more than speculation. perhaps the tech is not mature yet to go in a high G fighter ? (LM's point basically)

LM ji, would it need repeaters for the distances inside a fighter aircraft ? I've only some theoretical knowledge of optic fibres, so I can't answer that.

>> On field maintenance of optical cable could be an issue as well , you can fold bend wires with optics you need to be very careful

very valid point.

[Lalmohan]

repeaters maybe not, but certainly lots of mux/de-mux - i seem to recall that these were still a bit fragile and bulky and there are all sorts of phase problems. however, things do move fast and i am an old mullah more fond of lal things these days...

[Kanson]

As P. S. Subramniam, ADA head, told none of the MMRCA contenders will be state of art in 2017 but AMCA will. The capability that we like to see for a fighter is to win a duel and not for show off. Remember the comment from former IAF chief that during an airshow seeing all these acrobatics, these aircraft are shell what goes inside does matter.

Apparently what the Rafale/EF today has is also state-of-art by 2-5 years. And they will develop and upgrade as well. I don't see how the MCA will suddenly supersede all the avionics/electronics/engines of these guys.

The IAF chief definitely knows much more than me . But I don't think he meant aerial/airframe-stealth characteristics have ceased to matter.

What Air Chief meant to Russians who try to impress him with the MiG-29/35 airshow is, what matters *more* is the things(avionics/sensor) that go inside the aircraft and not just the platform which can pull off such shows.

If you ask me no one other ADA chief is qualified enough to make such statement. More than us he knows what will be called as state of the art in 2017/18. He knows more than anyone the capabilities planned for the AMCA which is expected to make a first flight by 2017/8. By being associated with IAF which evaluated MMRCA candidates; properly briefed about the technological road map of those aircraft and who set the ASR of AMCA which will outlive the MMRCA candidates, in my judgment, P.S. Subramanyam is more qualified to make that statement.

Added later:
I think, these Qs and As by P.S. looks tailor made to address the doubts you raised as well as by others.
http://www.domain-b.com/aero/20090206_l ... ramme.html

What are the major state-of-the-art aircraft technologies used on the LCA?

To begin with, I'd like to take you back to 1983 when the programme began with the attempt to develop second generation technologies. The whole world then was developing fourth generation technologies. There was a gap of almost two generations of technologies. This is what we have overcome with this particular LCA programme.

When we talk about state-of-art technologies in the LCA, we are talking about state-of-the-art technologies related to unstable aerodynamics based aircraft, where the basic airframe is unstable. We have to make it stable by what we call instant fly-by-wire flight control systems, which is also a unique technology - we are only the fourth or fifth country in the world to have developed this digital technology.

Another technology that has been developed for the programme is called digital avionics technology, or a glass cockpit.

Yet another technology where we have really bridged the gap is in the area of composites.

I have mentioned these four state-of-the-art technologies because when we started the programme many foreign consultants on the programme said this country cannot catch up with these technologies at this point and suggested we go back to older technologies. It was then that Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, who was the director general of the organisation, who said no. He told us he had confidence in us and that we could go ahead with developing these technologies.

We did that and today we have arrived - these technologies are now in use with the two Technology Demonstrator aircraft - TD1 and TD2.

We have gone over the hump and today we are at the 4+ generation of technologies. In these particular aircraft all electronic and mechanical systems are controlled by computers.

Even today we don't have such functional systems as digital avionics, glass cockpit and other related technologies in the Indian Air Force.

Another state-of-the-art feature in these technologies is that all the microprocessors used in our systems are only 12-16 months old - since we have deployed the open system architecture. With such a concept we can catch up with any evolution in electronics and keep on changing the hardware, as with computers.

So all the microprocessors used in the system are only 12-16 months old . That's the kind of currency we have got.

All sensors used in our aircraft are state-of-the-art - whether it is the navigation systems, the helmet mounted system, or what we call the day-night attack sensor. If you look at the Indian Air force, even they have picked up the system only a year or so ago.

Most of the things we use, even the materials, are state-of-the-art and in terms of technology this aircraft is going to be current even after 10 years.

What are the derivatives of LCA?

Seeing the performance of the Technology Demonstrators the Indian Navy and air force have now gained confidence in the aircraft – a confidence that they can move on to higher derivatives of the aircraft.

First, in March 2003, the Navy came forward with an order for a naval variant of the aircraft and decided to fund it.

Subsequently, the air force, realising that there was inadequacy of thrust in the aircraft, asked for a higher derivative of the aircraft with a new engine in the 90 tonnes class. This will be a Mark 2 version of the aircraft and will boast of new electronic warfare tools, reduced weight and improved performance.

The navy has also asked for a Mark 2 variant which will use a very small distance for take off and landing from an aircraft carrier. It will land with an arrestor hook. So, almost four new derivatives are planned – the air force and naval variants, the air force fighter trainer,the navy fighter trainer and Mk 2 versions of these.

This shows the confidence with which the user is placing orders for these derivatives.

Another very important point is that the users are funding the development of these derivatives. This shows we now have a lot of business, which is taking place with user participation.

What are the future programmes planned?

As I said earlier, when we began the programme we were dealing with second generation technologies. Now we have jumped to fourth generation technologies. If you don't have future programmes planned, and stay where you are, you will only be widening the technology gap with the rest of the world. If you wish to progress further, one way is to keep developing technologies. Keeping this in mind we now have a separate programme for technology development.

But unless technologies are packaged and put on the aircraft they will not mature. So we are working on programmes like the medium combat aircraft. So far we were quite hesitant whether the user will require such technology. But they have communicated that they need a medium combat aircraft, in the medium weight class, in which platform they have asked us to incorporate next generation fighter technologies.

So we have conceptual studies for the next generation fighter aircraft with medium weight - of around 20 tonnes. The technologies which will go into that are futuristic technologies, like stealth. The aircraft should not be visible. It will have radar cross section reduction, infrared reduction. It will have super cruise technology, and also, this kind of an aircraft will have all weapons concealed in the airframe itself - all the conformal weapons.

In the case of avionics we have visualised that unless we take a quantum jump and understand what is happening in the rest of the world we will again be widening the gap.

So we have decided to work on integrated modular architecture of the weapons and avionics system. That architecture will be built into this.

These are some of the technologies on which we are currently working .

What is the relevance of this seminar for your future technology requirement?

The seminar is very relevant. As I have pointed out we are now working on future technologies and programmes -so depending on what we need, and what we understand from our interactions with our users, we have to conceptualize what our future programmes and technologies are going to be like.

Using interaction opportunities with experts from the rest of the world we intend to understand what they are contemplating... here we will find ourselves hobnobbing with all the experts who are coming eg: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Embraer - you name it and all the companies are coming. Based on our interactions and one-on-one discussions with them we will try and figure out what future technologies they are contemplating.

As one of my colleagues said today the rest of the world has realised that India is a force to reckon with. Earlier, they would never have partnered with us but today they want us to be partners. They are ready to share information. Through this sharing of information we will realise if the technologies we are contemplating for development are contemporaneous are not.

What kind of aircraft to make ...what kind of unmanned aircraft we should make, what kind of technologies we have to put into these aircrafts - all this visibility will come only from a seminar of this nature.

We have also made sure that the people who come, the topics we cover are of such a spectrum - that we get to know if the technologies that we intend to develop are the right technologies.

We would also like to understand their approach with such programmes, their programme management techniques which will help us make our plans perfect.

In what way would co-operation with foreign agencies or companies benefit the LCA programme?

Since this our first time we are very conservative when it comes to designing and developing this aircraft. We wish to avoid failure at any cost. Technically, our aircraft weight is1.5 tonnes extra – because of our conservative design the weight is 500 kg extra.

If we had a foreign consultant on this project -someone who has gone through the same processes he doesn't have to do anything for us but tell us simply, where we could possibly curtail the weight of the aircraft. We would be prepared to improve our design. In other words, a large number of design iterations which will be required to reach perfection would be cut short because that consultant has already gone through similar experience.

Another thing is with regard to flight testing - the number of flight tests that we do is more than is required. This is something even the foreign vendors are saying. They know the optimal size of the testing that we need to do. Most of the companies have been in the industry for the last 50-60 years and have made three to four generations of aircraft. These are things they have already done and we have not.

The inputs we take from them is intellectual and not related to hardware or software. We will tell them what we intend to do - their job will be to tell us to achieve meaningful reductions in time and energy.

With such consultancy the number of design iterations we are going to do is likely to reduce - the number of flight tests we are going to do is also going to reduce.

If we reduce flight testing time by, say, six month we will achieve savings of nearly Rs1000 crore. So whatever small amount we will pay them for consultancy is meant basically for them to tell us whether we are on the right track, or not.

There is going to be no hardware or software support.

This is the way ahead for our future programmes where foreign collaboration will take place - we have now come to the four and a half generation level but when we contemplate taking on fifth generation fighter aircraft technologies benefits are expected to be substantial.

This is the purpose of the collaboration, which we are contemplating for the existing LCA programme, as well as for future fifth generation fighter programmes. This is the advice given to us by our higher management - do some kind of consultancy or participation programme so that partners also invest resources and result is optimal in terms of time and cost.

[Indranil]

Exactly my point!

There must be very valid reasons they have drawn out the outlines of the AMCA in a certain fashion.

You can call me a pacifist. But my first attitude is to understand rather than question. So I am trying to understand why are they gunning for something and not gunning for something else. They are much more knowledgeable than me in the capabilities requires and capabilities present. Definitely they can make a better decision than me. So in my opinion we should try to discuss what is planned to go into the AMCA. What is the state of art in India in those technologies. Whether 7-8 years is feasible timeline to up the ante to the proposed level. Whether the tech is required in 2025 onwards?

However with all due respect, we have started to question the ends, before considering the means.

I have been asking a question for long. Those of us who are asking for an AMCA with medium size/weight and the guts of LCA, (I understand the idea, and I must say their is nobility in it) what the characteristics of that plane should be. That airframe will have to be made, the layout has to be made, and all the components built and tested and certified. What will be the time required? And who will buy a medium aircraft with the guts of LCA 10 -15 years from now? Would we have bought an MMRCA with the capabilities of the LCA? What will come out of that endeavour? We will learn almost nothing since we are re-using. IAF will not buy that plane. Since IAF itself is not buying that plane, there will be no export. Even if you call it a TD, what will come out of it?

[Kanson]

However with all due respect, we have started to question the ends, before considering the means.

I have been asking a question for long. Those of us who are asking for an AMCA with medium size/weight and the guts of LCA, (I understand the idea, and I must say their is nobility in it) what the characteristics of that plane should be. That airframe will have to be made, the layout has to be made, and all the components built and tested and certified. What will be the time required? And who will buy a medium aircraft with the guts of LCA 10 -15 years from now? Would we have bought an MMRCA with the capabilities of the LCA? What will come out of that endeavour? We will learn almost nothing since we are re-using. IAF will not buy that plane. Since IAF itself is not buying that plane, there will be no export. Even if you call it a TD, what will come out of it?

I couldn't get you. Maybe you can explain little more.

[SaiK]

Well if we put this - "over weight of a ton or less but is a 'done done' aircraft with everything working" is enough to save 1000s of crores. Do we need firangi consultants still to tell us we are on the right path?

Weight reduction and structural engineering aspects are not our problem areas rather more on the turbines and complex algorithms and processing units for radars was our understanding.

I really do not understand where we have incapability holes that prevents us to do a JSF/rapotoriski tranche by tranche starting from LCA. Investments in flight testing, to advanced materials and super computing is the need of the hour. And we need a trust based approach to development and every aspect of it introduced in every stage of the development process. Let that trust come results of R&D rather some paid consultant, who would still recommend a Snecma core or Elta module or a sextant avionic requirement.

In the process, we trust is required as first step plan into R&D. Feedbacks and corrections to such processes enable maturity.

[Indranil]

Kanson sir,

I am sorry for being ambiguous. Let me explain.

There is a floating theory here that let's develop a Medium size airframe by scaling up the LCA or a new airframe altogther. For the internals, let us put whatever we already have on the LCA.

But this is easier said than done. This "new" plane has to go through the entire design process for the airframe, air intakes. This will be followed by the testing and certification. This would clearly take close to a decade, right?!

In 2020, would we like to get a "medium" sized plane with the capabilities of the LCA. Even in 2010, would we have bought an hypothetical MMRCA which is medium in size and has the capabilities of the LCA (with may be 2-3 more hardpoints and more range). Something tell me it wouldn't make the cut. So why will IAF buy it in 2020?

If IAF doesn't buy it, we won't be able to justify our case to export customers as well. We would have wasted our resources completely.

Instead use this resources to build a LIFT which is a scaled down LCA. Get a basic trainer! We will need them again at around 2025!

[svinayak]

Another technology that has been developed for the programme is called digital avionics technology, or a glass cockpit.

Yet another technology where we have really bridged the gap is in the area of composites.

I have mentioned these four state-of-the-art technologies because when we started the programme many foreign consultants on the programme
In the case of avionics we have visualised that unless we take a quantum jump and understand what is happening in the rest of the world we will again be widening the gap.

This is the kind of experience which is bing performed in India

• Extensive experience in Avionics Software Development, Validation and Verification, System integration and testing.
• Worked at Aerospace as Technical Lead for Software development of Displays Systems Core Software AGM (Advanced Graphics Module) and I/O Platforms for highly successful Primus Epic™ systems delivered to aerospace clients-Embraer ERJ170/175/190/195, Cessna Citation Sovereign, Raytheon Hawker 4000, Agusta AW139, Sino SJ-30 and Citation XLS, and CDS/R for retrofit market.
• Involved in Verification and Validation of Proprietary OS DEOS™ (Digital Engine Operating System) which is deployed in various Honeywell avionics products such as display systems and flight controls.
• Well experienced with the FAA Certification Process for avionics software development, verification and validation, configuration management procedures as per the DO-178B Standard and pertinent FAA requirements.

Worked on the integration of CIPFD (Common Integrated Primary Flight Display) with the host system developed for Cessna Citation Sovereign. Common IPFD is a set of Dynamically Linked Libraries (DLL) that allows the host system to display: 1) SVS (Synthetic Vision System) terrain with related symbology, and 2) a collection of PFD symbols common to most Primus Epic primary flight displays.
Responsibilities:
• Performed design, analysis, high level and low level requirements specification, trace, coding, debugging and validation of the Primary Flight Display Software for Primus Epic® DU 1080 display systems for various components.
• Integrated the Common IPFD system components to enable synthetic vision (perspective terrain, runways and obstacle symbols) with the host system.
• Developed the PC based version of the Cessna and Embraer Primary Flight Display system for design analysis of the IPFD symbology and to reduce the target software development time.

The 1080 HW3 displays software provides the flight crew with flight information for aircraft control, navigation, engine control and monitoring, crew alerting, and system synoptic. The LCD DU’s rely on externally generated pixel image data received from 1080HW3. The program strives to have a common platform/software strategy such as graphics common with AGM, processor common with PM Proc, INAV, and Charts & Maps.

[shiv]

I think, these Qs and As by P.S. looks tailor made to address the doubts you raised as well as by others.
http://www.domain-b.com/aero/20090206_l ... ramme.html

What are the major state-of-the-art aircraft technologies used on the LCA?

Good article.

[Christopher Sidor]

Plans for Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

some notable points
1) Stealth capability
2) Super-cruise ability
3) To be 5th-generation one. (WOW)

I think that the last point is important. As we cannot or will not compete with chinese in the numbers game, we will need to overcome PLAAF with technical edge.

[vic]

Since this our first time we are very conservative when it comes to designing and developing this aircraft. We wish to avoid failure at any cost. Technically, our aircraft weight is1.5 tonnes extra – because of our conservative design the weight is 500 kg extra.

So does it mean that it is confirmed that LCA is 2 tons overweight. Instead of 5500kg it is 7500kg?

[shiv]

Since this our first time we are very conservative when it comes to designing and developing this aircraft. We wish to avoid failure at any cost. Technically, our aircraft weight is1.5 tonnes extra – because of our conservative design the weight is 500 kg extra.

So does it mean that it is confirmed that LCA is 2 tons overweight. Instead of 5500kg it is 7500kg?

Watch this video. It has some related info
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT_R1FRo_Rw

[Philip]

I am simply aghast.I am all for indigenisation,but this takes the rossogolla! When we cannot even deliver a 4th-gen fighter after 30 years on time,that too with a foreign engine, and possiblya foreign radar too, and not to mention the entire range of foreign missiles and a lot of foreign avionics, and we still haven't got our composites production humming and in place,we confidently say that we can develop by 2017 a 5th-gen aircraft entirely on our own? Even if by some miracle we have the capability,what then is the whole point of collaborating with Russia on another 5th-gen aircraft whose agreement will be cemented in a fe weeks time when Pres.Medvedev arrives? Other than the USAF,which other nation is developing and fielding two 5th-gen stealth fighters,which even for the USAF is becoming massively expensive?

Will the LCA MK-2 itself be in production by 2017? The truth is that no one actually knows,given the dozens of claims made especially over the last decade.When we cannot even design and manufacture a working engine that can be certified for use in the LCA despite decades of Kaveri R&D,and no disrespect to those involved,the task appears to be Himalayan to them,how on earth are we going to produce a 5th-gen engine whose technologies are expected way beyond that of the 4th-gen.It is the engine which is the heart of the aircraft and this failure on our part to have our own engines availabel,or at least a suitable one from abroad in a JV or buy,plagued the HF-24 programme and as we are seeing right now,the LCA.

I see here some mischief.Either this announcement on the eve of the singing of a 5th-gen fighter programme with Russia is meant to scuttle it,or water it down,or it is an attempt to get funding (and keep jobs safe and secure) for the same people who have been responsible fo the LCA devlopment as they see the "light at the end of the tunnel" wiht the LCA engine for MK-2 chosen.Not too long ago,it was revealed in our media that the DRDO/ADA/HAL whatever,were suffering from a huge shortage of boffins to work on the various projects in hand.Such was the shortage that the "5th-gen project was being given to those in charge of the IJT as well"! Where are the genius boffins for the AMCA ggoing to come from? I seriously wonder how we can run two parallel programmes for 5th-gen stalth aircraft while even the most advanced nations find it difficult to afford even one and have to collaborate!

Many moons ago I mentioned that one option for the IAF for the future was to develop indigenously our own long-endurance UCAV designs,even using older mothballed aircraft like Gnats and MIG-21s initially,using them until we could develop our own designs to suit our needs,using the technologies developed for the LCA.The increasing use of manned aircraft in major air forces globally will ensure that in the future,the number and role of such aircraft will start taking over many duties of manned aircraft.Rather than starting a programme for another aircraft,which will to me never see the light of service until the next decade,but to identify the technologies that will be required and set a task force to achieve them and UCAvs rerquired before embarking upon a project that will simply eat up billions in developing mere "technology demonstrators"!

PS:If the argument is that we want a smaller 5th-gen fighter than the PAK-FA/FGFA which will be two-seat,then the way to go is to start right now and develop LCA MK-2 into the future AMCA and save a huge amount of moolah.To keep numbers happy,buy more SU-30s/MIG-35s/Gripens MMRCAs, or even build asap more LCA MK-1s with their limited capability.

[RKumar]

I am simply aghast.I am all for indigenisation,but this takes the rossogolla! When we cannot even deliver a 4th-gen fighter after 30 years on time,that too with a foreign engine, and possiblya foreign radar too, and not to mention the entire range of foreign missiles and a lot of foreign avionics, and we still haven't got our composites production humming and in place,we confidently say that we can develop by 2017 a 5th-gen aircraft entirely on our own? Even if by some miracle we have the capability,what then is the whole point of collaborating with Russia on another 5th-gen aircraft whose agreement will be cemented in a fe weeks time when Pres.Medvedev arrives?

I dont understand this rant and passion of people with 30 years. Crying that by doing R&D we are wasting billion of Tax payer Rs what about imported stuff? Do those come free of cost or are not funded by the poor tax payer? Do not give us the same logic which arm exporting countries are giving to us. I can accept from them because they want to sell their stuff but not from senior members like you.

LCA program helped us with MKI program. Fighter upgrades done on existing planes. We are ready to accept MKI with iterative approach but not LCA, why we have different logic on local equipment. In this aspect, I respect Paki and Chinki.

Sorry for the OT. I will not reply any further as dont want to de-rail this thread.

[Philip]

RK,don't mistake my views.I am not anti-indigenisation,but I strongly object to wasting money simply to prove that the "bird can fly",re-inventing the wheel ,by developing mere technology demonstrators.I'm simply asking why we are simultaneously going ahead with two 5th-gen projects,one indigenously,when we haven't even perfected our first 4th-gen aircraft.The two big Qs are whether we have the R&D and human resources capability (both of which we don't),when we cannot even perfect a 3rd-gen engine-Kaveri still has a long testing regime ahead of it,and whether we can afford the luxury of two 5th-gen programmes when even the US is feeling the pinch in its pocket developing the JSF.The FGFA's,250-300 are going to cost a whopping $30+ billion alone.Add another programme to this.Is it financially affordable to India where the other services have critical needs ?

Where air forces all over the world are heading is for huge induction of UCAVs and here,though we operate a reasonable number of Israeli UAVS,we have a long way to go.The concept of manned and unmanned aircraft operating togther is being planned and the RAF plan to have a sizable part of their future force unmanned.UCAVs will also be smaller and cheaper to build because of the elimination of the pilot and his interactive helmet,cockpit avionics,ejector seats,cockpit A/C.etc.This will increase endurance and payload and with internal weapons bays,improve stealth.My suggestion is for India to leapfrog the indigenous 5th-gen manned fighter,as we already have a JV with Russia for the same and can develop a smaller single-seater version if need be out of that programme and concentrate upon devloping a family of UAVs/UCAVs and stealth UCAVs which will increasingly be the mainstay of air combat in the future.LCA MK-2 can incorporate whatever 5th/6th-gen tech one needs much as Russia is using 5th-gen tech to late model Su-30s and SU-35s.

[SaiK]

Phillip, I think you should counter your objections on "bridging the technology gap" rather on wasting money just to make a bird fly. In what you say, it totally jettisons out of the discussion towards constructive aid to the development of core technology in India.

We all know the deficiency and technology capabilities and the amount of actual investments we require to achieve to make people like you happy. The problem is that did not happen in the right time or the politics from people who were very opinionated just like you were scuttling various investment plans or having firangi clouts to sustain firangi programs so that their middle-men business sustained no matter working as long term stealthy traitors.

Please do not take holistic view of things when we are not asking for that and when we need to mature in compartments, and complement on those LRU / component /project achievements.

[shiv]

Was someone looking for this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfrAMveMsUI

[vic]

I think, these Qs and As by P.S. looks tailor made to address the doubts you raised as well as by others.
http://www.domain-b.com/aero/20090206_l ... ramme.html

What are the major state-of-the-art aircraft technologies used on the LCA?

Good article.

LCA "programme" has been very successful in developing lot of technologies except putting LCA in mass production. It reminds me of a saying "Operation successful patient dead".

[SaiK]

I agree on the patience being dead.

[Philip]

Vic & Saik,the two of you should start a comedy show!

Seriously guys,when we are extended with developing the foll: LCA- 1&2,LCA-N,IJT,MTA,FGFA,not tomention UAVs/UCAVs,where on earth are we going to find the human resources,technological resources (5th and 6th-gen) and financial resources for the same,all in short supply.It appears to me that the DRDO lobby want a huge sum of money so that they can attend to their favourite "hobbies" for another decade+.Where is the IAF's stand on all this? I still haven't seen a clear picture of the IAF's short,medium and long term strategy as to what the IAF needs to meet current and future challenges and how it intends to acquire the technology,aircraft,weaponry,etc.,if indigenisation is the "holy grail".There has to be greater transparency here.The IN on the other hand has a clear vision which it talks about from time to time.Why can't the IAF do the same?

PS:To give the AMCA lobby a chance,can we list out the various technologies that we require and how we propose to acquire them? We do know of many of our labs that have done great work and a list of our strengths and weaknesses in developing an AMCA could be examined.

[SaiK]

Just take one weakness : Kaveri engine - check what is happening in Russia. What was bashed up on this precision engineering product, now slowly raising from the dust. I guess there is the hidden or classified information under the comedy show must not be forgotten.

[Pratyush]

Philip,

The UCAV will not be entering service for another 20 years. The AI is ints infancey. The nation will not be getting any workshare with the T 50. It will be made to pay through its nose though. If we know the russian way of doing things.

So the HR to do things in house ought to be present.

JMT

[Kailash]

Philip ji,

If any country can do it, it is India. A few posts back, there was an article quoted by Kanson.

I have mentioned these four state-of-the-art technologies because when we started the programme many foreign consultants on the programme said this country cannot catch up with these technologies at this point and suggested we go back to older technologies. It was then that Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, who was the director general of the organisation, who said no. He told us he had confidence in us and that we could go ahead with developing these technologies.

APJ might be a great visionary who got the ball rolling. But if we just look at the amount of work ahead and stop trying, that wont help. LCA gave birth to an organization (ADA), bridged a 2 generation gap, gave us the the momentum. It would be foolish not to capitalize on that momentum. It WILL be a difficult task, but not impossible.

Human resources would not be an issue for the second most populous country. Just show them there is money in research - all those bright minds with the aptitude for science would stop going into software and management.

[Philip]

Look,I can understand the burning desire to achieve the impossible,but one must remember wise advice on learning to "walk before we can run".This was Adm.Ronnie Pereira's advice when we were offerd a Russian N-sub aeons ago.He wanted us to first learn how to build conventional subs before we had N-sub ambitions.That led to the German U-boat /U-209 programme,where we took 7 years to assemble just two subs! Letting that expertise to die a natural death without further orders,just like the HF-24 aftermath,we seemed to have learnt nothing with the manner in which we negotiated the Scorpene,also delayed and with three price revisions.We have yet to perfect the LCA,the first MK-1 sqd. has yet to be commissioned and the first MK-2 is expected to fly/get perfected only by the middle of the decade.When we will have taken 3+ decades to develop the 4+ gen. LCA,how on earth does anyone expect us to develop in 7 years an AMCA with 5th-gen tech,an astounding achievment as the PAK-FA production will be arriving at the same time,and when we cannot even develop an engine for the LCA MK-1!

Secondly,where does the AMCA fit in? I've asked many time what is the battle order of the IAF going to be by 2020.There appears to be confusion here because of the late arrival of the LCA,its numbers that can be manufactured by then and whether it will be relevant at all in the face of new thrats in the hands of our enemies by then.How many MMRCAs will we also be able to induct,as the majority of them are to be manufactured at home.When even the US is having huge difficulties in getting the JSF developed on time,apart from seeing a massive cost escalation,I am amazed at the optimism of our PSUs.We've seen the same attiutude with the GTRE and its claims about the Kaveri.I think the fear of being left out in the great Indian aerospace mela and left with the crumbs (FGFA with Russia,MMRCA also foreign,LCA half foreign for the record),is why the urgency to start an AMCA project and demand a share of the cake has emerged.To me it's not a matter of "nothing ventured,nothing gained",but more of "fools step in where angels fear to tread".

[Kailash]

well, we have a tendency to run before we walk. But I dont think the results have been that bad. We skipped the third gen - after Marut, LCA was the next aircraft designed and built in the country. Would you term LCA a failure? When we believe and struggle for it, it usually pays off..

It is not resonable to compare the LCA development with the MCA or MCA with F35. We had less money, a less cooperative customer, sanctions and an uncle who was unwilling to help. Situation now is very different to say the least.

US facing an economic crunch (and cutting the number of F35s) or US facing cost escalations due to its own internal inflation or because its customers are losing trust in the capabilities (of F35) and reducing numbers or the global economic slowdown at the exact time when they are trying to produce this jet is not our problem.

My suggestion is for India to leapfrog the indigenous 5th-gen manned fighter,as we already have a JV with Russia for the same and can develop a smaller single-seater version if need be out of that programme and concentrate upon devloping a family of UAVs/UCAVs and stealth UCAVs

but one must remember wise advice on learning to "walk before we can run".

When "Run before we walk" wont work, how will "leapfrog"? Without mastering stealth, is building a UAV or UCAV easier than a manned stealth aircraft?

[SaiK]

Hey, we have started walking from LCA. Now we need to run with AMCA /.