AMCA News and Discussions

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Lalmohan » 26 Nov 2010 19:30

we haven't learned to walk until we have achieved competence in production engineering
i have no doubt we can build excellent technology demonstrators

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Gagan » 27 Nov 2010 07:01

The patience is surely dead.

The patient is soaring in the skies - in fact Marten reports that the patient soared into the skies of Bangalore as much as 4 times yesterday.

Err, if the patient is flying, the operation can't be a failure can it?

jaladipc
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 20:51
Location: i CAN ADA

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby jaladipc » 27 Nov 2010 07:13

My 2 cents on FBL for AMCA,

Without a doubt FBL is a way forward into the future.Just becos some major aerospace players didnt put this on thier commercial and military systems doesnt mean FBL dont offer any advantages. As your loving once did a project on OF based smart skins and data cum power transmission for aerospace applications ,he is throwing his two cents here.

Like some posters said that the MUx,Demux, blah blah based on fiber optics are heavy,which is absolutely inaccurate. Milgrade systems come in a variety of categories with different weight advantages depends on either passive or active. And the selection of active/passive components like splitters,couplers, mux,demux etc etc is based on architecture followed by the designers. Best shot would be to go with active one while on proto type testing and then consolidate when the system reaches series production.

A single mode/multi mode fiber itself offers tens of times of data carrying capability.Also same fiber can be implemented to transfer power to the remote and highly critical systems like fuel tans and propellant systems and weapon bays.

In one shot you can use the same fiber as a multi purpose tool to serve all your needs including the advantage of fiber grating based smart skins apps.

Though I am impressed by the idea of implementing a FBL for AMCA,I am still critical of DRDO .

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 27 Nov 2010 07:35

I think that the capabilities desired for an AMCA need to be frozen pretty soon and a formal design must be made.

At this point in time it is well worth noting one possibe consequence of "freezing the design specs". The minute you freeze the design specs - you are committed to creating an aircraft that may not be able to incorporate some technologies hat appears in 10 years time. This has o be accepted as an unavoidable fact.

As log as we remain dhoti-shivering and refusing to freeze the design we will build nothing. If we freeze the design to build something - it will likely be unable to meet all demands in 20 years Catch 22.

What we did with the LCA was to NOT freeze the design for a very long time. Already it was late by the time the design was frozen. and as expected the final product can never ever meet current specs because technology is a moving target. We HAVE TO ACCEPT that risk. We must not make that mistake again. Fix a design and build an AMCA and to hell with the fact that it will never ever be perfect. Perfection cannot be attained, but experiance and capability can be built up.

So if our design bureaus keep buggering about and producinga new CAD design evry year - tail-finless delta one year, stealthy AMCA the next year, flying wing the third year etc - we will repeat LCA's mistakes with AMCA.

If India wants the AMCA it is neither Rahul Gandhi nor Anil Ambani who will need to use it. But if the former two have any patriotism they will have to help fund it. It will have to be used by the Air Force. So the design bureaus and Air Force need to sit together and make a timeline by which time some flying opbject that approximately meets the design will be produced.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7360
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Prasad » 27 Nov 2010 07:40

It is a reflection of the project management that determines whether we are able to incorporate new tech 10 years down the line. Any project of this nature will almost always have scope creep and requirements changes till the 11th hour. It is the project management that directs the designers to ensure that the design while staying true to the current requirements also put in enough flexibility in teh design to incorporate additions or changes. So yes, we will want some new tech in the plane ten years down the line. How we design and approach the project now is a big factor in deciding our choice ten years later. Which of course seems common sense. imho.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20107
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 27 Nov 2010 16:21

Shiv has it.Fix the req. and fix the timeframe and then get on with the job.That way the IAF will get a fighter that can fight,not one that flies at air shows,which is what the LCA has done quite well thus far.I won't say that the LCA is a failure.It is hobbling around on crutches and with a little conncerted and focussed effort,can soon dispense with the crutches and walk and run quite well.If one wants 5th or 8th-gen tech. then as the Russians are doing supposedly with the SU-35 and upgraded SU-30MKIs,induct those technoligies as they are developed incrementally on later LCAs MMRCA or whatever,validate them and then use these on the first tranche of the AMCA or whatever.I do want to know still where the AMCA will fit in in the battle order,which types it is supposed to replace.

b_patel
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 22 Feb 2009 04:08

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby b_patel » 28 Nov 2010 14:17

Does DRDO plan on developing the FBL indigenously? Or are they planning on a JV for it? The FBL is obviously a smart decision but it could seriously delay the AMCA if its not delivered on time. They should rope in EADS or SAAB to help with the AMCA, (that would actually be an interesting way to fulfill the TOT requirements if either of those two companies win). EADS/SAAB fulfill part of their TOT requirements and India gets a major stumbling blocks for the AMCA out of the way.

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby P Chitkara » 29 Nov 2010 18:26

FBL should not be very different from FBW. It is the media responsible for transporting the signal that is changing - all or most of other stuff remains the same. Having said that, a very critical point is, do we have the technology to manufacture that media in house that is light and durable enough to be put on the a/c?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 29 Nov 2010 19:15

If GoI is planning JV right from the start, then it might as well wrap up the plans for AMCA. The very purpose gets defeated right from in the objectives.

/sorry.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Viv S » 29 Nov 2010 21:17

I hope for the love of God we're not building the AMCA around a Kaveri Mk2. One thing that has let down Indian as well as plenty of foreign (particularly French) fighters has been the powerplant. An underpowered if otherwise excellent aircraft doesn't find a lot of takers, be it the Marut in past or Tejas and, to an extent, the Rafale and F-35 today.

With the Tejas, the ADA the aircraft to be just about adequate at 82kN without a lot of spare thrust for incremental gains in weight later on. In any case, despite all the optimism fostered by the recent successes notched by GTRE, unless they can deliver (not promise) a F119/AL-41 class engine, they should concentrate on delivering engines for the Tejas and UCAVs. IMHO HAL and the IAF ought be seriously considering the F135.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16825
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Rahul M » 29 Nov 2010 21:57

AL-41/F119 class engine for AMCA ? F135 ? are you out of your mind ?

a 90-95 kN engine like EJ200 would put it in the highest TWR category in business, even above the current leader EF.
95 kN is what they should target. twin F119 class engines for a 20+ tonne fighter is sheer nonsense. but when has ignorance been a hindrance in making patronising comments on a domestic project. :roll:

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Viv S » 29 Nov 2010 22:59

Rahul M wrote:AL-41/F119 class engine for AMCA ? F135 ? are you out of your mind ?

a 90-95 kN engine like EJ200 would put it in the highest TWR category in business, even above the current leader EF.
95 kN is what they should target. twin F119 class engines for a 20+ tonne fighter is sheer nonsense. but when has ignorance been a hindrance in making patronising comments on a domestic project. :roll:


Hmm... I replied on the FAQ thread before reading this post. What the heck, I'll repeat myself, feasible - F135, probably not, F119 very much so. First off a twin engined fighter isn't going to have an empty weight that's less than 14 tons (bare minimum). The beauty of it is that like always the 90-95kN thrust will be give it an outstanding T/W ratio in 2010, but be ... lets say 'acceptable on a preliminary basis' when it actually enters service in 2025. For reference, the Tejas current TWR with the F404IN-20 is very competitive by '90s standards (it exceeds the Mirage-2000).

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16825
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Rahul M » 29 Nov 2010 23:41

both F119 and F135 are too damn big and heavy for a 2 engined 20 ton jet. if you plug two of those in it there won't be space for anything else OR it will have to become a 30 ton jet.
there is no engine right now that would meet the criteria you are setting. moreover that amount of thrust would drink up fuel very quickly and allow the aircraft mig-21ish very low flight time.

for a MTOW of ~ 20 tonnes, 2 90-95 ton engines would give superlative performance especially since no ordinances are carried externally. (the EF is 24 t MTOW with 2 90 ton engines and that gives it a TWR at par to F-22)

the problem with LCA and F404 is not the thrust but the fact that the empty weight has increased by 20% from original estimates. if, heavens forbid, AMCA gets such a weight increase it will face similar problems as well. but I think that would be most unlikely, given the lessons learned from LCA.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Viv S » 30 Nov 2010 01:01

Rahul M wrote:both F119 and F135 are too damn big and heavy for a 2 engined 20 ton jet. if you plug two of those in it there won't be space for anything else OR it will have to become a 30 ton jet.
there is no engine right now that would meet the criteria you are setting. moreover that amount of thrust would drink up fuel very quickly and allow the aircraft mig-21ish very low flight time.


The weight penalty would be about 1.3 tons (actually more because the larger airframe required). But the increase in thrust is still worth it. The aircraft empty weight would still be comfortably short of 18.5 ton PAK FA, though I'm still hazy on why that should be an issue. Fuel efficiency I understand is usually measured per unit thrust. I haven't seen any figures for the F119 but if the other figures are correct, the uber-efficient five stage EJ-200 is about 8% more efficient than the F135. On would assume the F119 would be roughly in the same range.

for a MTOW of ~ 20 tonnes, 2 90-95 ton engines would give superlative performance especially since no ordinances are carried externally. (the EF is 24 t MTOW with 2 90 ton engines and that gives it a TWR at par to F-22)


Has a requirement for two engines been sealed? I advocated the F135 assuming it hadn't.

If it has - we're looking for a fifth generation aircraft, with a thrust to weight ratio surpassing the EF, but with an internal weapons carriage, and having empty weight of about 10-11 tons. It would be an understatement to call that optimistic.

In addition, the aircraft's capability itself would be underwhelming. How many LRAAM/MRAAMs are we hoping the AMCA will be able to carry internally?

I'm surprised the F-35 gets lampooned for being short on performance. Its 13 tons empty, has a 32 ton MTOW and a thrust to weight ratio (with the same load) that's quite close to the EF. And it has the option of foregoing external stores.

the problem with LCA and F404 is not the thrust but the fact that the empty weight has increased by 20% from original estimates. if, heavens forbid, AMCA gets such a weight increase it will face similar problems as well. but I think that would be most unlikely, given the lessons learned from LCA.


The US has been building jet aircraft for 60 years now. They're still having weight issues with the F-35. A heavier more powerful engine seems to be the safer choice by far.

I confess I was looking at something larger than the F-35 and consequently more powerful. Especially considering its going to enter service over a decade after the F-35 and two decades after the F-22. The pessimist in me expects the IAF to change its ASRs not too far off in the future.


P.S. - Are you very sure 20 tons is the expected MTOW? I've generally heard the Su-30MKI referred to as a 30 ton aircraft despite having a 39 ton MTOW.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7713
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 30 Nov 2010 01:59

You are throwing a completely new hat into the ring questioning whether the MCA will be a 20T plane or not. 20T has been paraded around for a long time now! Anyways I would discount the exact 20T concept and stick to a medium size fighter. I hope you don't have a problem with that!

With all due respect, I don't think that you are making any sense whatsoever with 2 F119 engines on a plane which everybody has slated in the medium category. You are speaking of a TWR closing in on 1.5 or going beyond. What do you want to achieve with that TWR?

A planes manoeuvrability and agility is not proportional TWR. Neither instantaneous nor sustained turn rate are related to it. Roll rate has nothing to do with it. Acceleration would be the only place to again. But that will be offset by the strengthening of the airframe and carrying of lot more fuel. The top speed will go up as well, but are we building an interceptor? There is a limit till when TWR is of benefit. After that you are lugging a bigger engine and burning more fuel to achieve the same result. I build my aeromodels in a lab. I share the lab with undergraduate guys who are also build models for academic requirements. The first thing is to realize what is the sweet spot for the thrust for your plane. Given that thrust it is another challenge to find the sweet spot of what propeller to use and with what engine. One never just straps on the most powerful engine. It is detrimental to the performance.

It is not easy to strap on those 2 F119 engines at the back. Forget the mounts which have to be much stronger. Discount that! Even then not only is the weight of the engines a problem but also the size. I am sure you know the difference of the length of a Su-30 vis-a-vis a any MMRCA. I don't know if you have seen the Raptor, but it is huge too. therefore they can house engines of that length. where the engine is roughly 1/4th of their length. The intake constitutes 1/4 th of their length more. For a MMRCA this total length of about 10mtrs is roughly 2/3rd the length of the fighter!

Also imagine the faces of the compressors. Depending on how build the bends intake the width and the height of the fuselage will vary. Thinking that there is no space between the engines
1. you could go for a S-shape in one dimension, you will either have the plane to be either
- 4 times the diameter of engine in width (4 metres) and 1 times the diameter in height
- 2 times the diameter of the engine in both width and height (2 metres).
2. if you go for a S- shape in both vertical and horizontal axis
- your width will be (2+2^1/2) times the dia of the engine (3.4 metres) and (1+2^(-1/2)) times the dia in height (1.7 metres).
This is just the engine and the intakes. Even if we place everything else in the smartest of ways so that some how the gaps are filled up exactly as it can be, the bobble canopy in the cockpit only makes it wider. To give you a perspective the Agni III has a 2m diameter!

With a Kaveri like engine this width will by 2/3rd to 3/4th of the same.

That is just the width. Now think about where to put the wings. The centre of lift can be only so much further away from the CG (even for a plane with FCS)! One would have four ways of doing this,
1. Adding ballast to the front
2. Pushing the wings back
3. Making a lower aspect ratio wing
4. Making bigger elevators

I can delve into the ill-effects of each of this but it will only make a much much longer post.

There is a reason why Mig-35, EF, Rafale, SH are built with 2 engines with around 90 KN of thrust each. Much higher thrust engines were available to each one of them.
Last edited by Indranil on 30 Nov 2010 02:09, edited 1 time in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 30 Nov 2010 02:04

Is it possible to have internal weapons bay to carry a belt feed mechanism for more missiles/bombs store? space being the only restriction I guess. How about feed/delivery mechanism design and technology issues?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7713
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 30 Nov 2010 02:13

Where are you carrying the weapons that you want to place on the belt?!

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2285
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Prem Kumar » 30 Nov 2010 02:57

shiv wrote:I think that the capabilities desired for an AMCA need to be frozen pretty soon and a formal design must be made.

At this point in time it is well worth noting one possibe consequence of "freezing the design specs". The minute you freeze the design specs - you are committed to creating an aircraft that may not be able to incorporate some technologies hat appears in 10 years time. This has o be accepted as an unavoidable fact.

As log as we remain dhoti-shivering and refusing to freeze the design we will build nothing. If we freeze the design to build something - it will likely be unable to meet all demands in 20 years Catch 22.


I'd go even one step further: fix the timelines first & then fit requirements into each tranche. I feel that a "deadline driven" approach will work better than a "feature driven" approach. A deadline can focus a team in a way that a "desired feature list" cant. The former puts you into a "delivery" mode, while the latter puts you into an "R&D" mode. DRDO is both, but armed forces dont care much for technology-development & want a working product. So, when I see stuff like "AURA will fly in 15 years", it sounds like someone is in la-la-land. The guys making such claims may not even be working in DRDO 15 years hence. Where is the accountability?

Mark 1: flying prototype in 5 years (or whatever is reasonable). Determine what can be accomplished in this timeframe, keeping an eye out for the end-goal (so that we dont design ourselves into a corner). Tricky, but do'able.

Mark 2: 10 years from now. By then Mark 1 is rolling off assembly lines

Etc.

Shorter tranche-windows allow the designers to make mid-course corrections when the technology/threat changes.

The big issues have been :

a) Time overruns --> technology & threats not staying still --> more overruns, which is the Catch 22 you are talking about

b) The inability to produce/induct in numbers

Fixing the deadlines first & the tranche-approach would take care of (1), IMO. To take care of (2), the MOD needs to broker an agreement whereby "x squadrons" of each tranche will be inducted if it meets the time & performance within certain acceptable deviation parameters. The IAF can state up-front how much deviation in performance they can live with.

I work in a software company & the above approach has worked wonders for customer satisfaction. They always know when the next release of the software is due. They can count on the software being delivered on time with a pre-defined list of requirements. "Their" requirements do not always make it to a release, but they always know that there is another one coming out in a couple of months.

Not saying that IT-vity & aircraft design are the same but you need to put a stick in the ground somewhere. And usually, deadlines are better.

JMT & all that

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Viv S » 30 Nov 2010 03:28

indranilroy wrote:You are throwing a completely new hat into the ring questioning whether the MCA will be a 20T plane or not. 20T has been paraded around for a long time now! Anyways I would discount the exact 20T concept and stick to a medium size fighter. I hope you don't have a problem with that!

With all due respect, I don't think that you are making any sense whatsoever with 2 F119 engines on a plane which everybody has slated in the medium category. You are speaking of a TWR closing in on 1.5 or going beyond. What do you want to achieve with that TWR?


I think that is more or less the point. I have no doubt two F119s on a 9 ton (probably less) aircraft (w/o engines) is ridiculous. But, if we've established(I have my doubts) that the aircraft will have a MTOW of 20 tons, I'd be glad to withdraw my statement. Like I said, I expected the AMCA to fall somewhere between the F-22/PAK-FA and F-35 or at worst equal the latter (I'm of course not referring to avionics anywhere).

Which brings us to a heavier issue. If the MTOW is 20 tons, how much do you expect the empty weight to be? For reference:

EF : 23.5/11
Rafale: 24.5/9.5
Gripen: 14/6
F-35: 32/13.5
F-22: 38/19.5

Lets say 10 tons. Is it possible to produce a twin engined stealth fighter aircraft weighing 10 tons? The SDRE Tejas weighs in at about 6.5T if I'm not mistaken. Were we to tie a second engine to its undercarriage it would weigh 7.5 tonnes. Where are we planning to make sacrifices? Smaller weapons bays? Smaller payload/range? Can we assume a twin seat configuration is out?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7713
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 30 Nov 2010 04:33

^^^ What has generation got to do with size?!

F-35 wanted to put everything into one plane. Whether that pays off remains to be seen. Under such circumstances it can't be the precedent.

According to PS Subramanyam, "the AMCAs will bridge the gap between the Tejas and Su-30MKI class heavy fighters. With Russia and the US focusing on fighters in the 30-35 ton category, there was market space for a 20 ton aircraft." Going by this it is very unlikely that the AMCA and F-35 will be in the same category.

AMCA is supposed to be land attack variant. I will be very happy to see the AMCA stick to this role, with the ability to defend itself. I personally don't give a hoot whether it is called fifth gen or sixth gen. I am pretty sure the pilots/strategist will agree. I sincerely hope they don't emulate the F-35. Please keep it tailor made to our needs, a supreme ground attack plane.

For that it doesn't need the 119s. It needs around 180 kT to 200 kT. 2 Kaveris can definitely provide the same. We need to work towards the maturing of those engines.

P.S. ASR by the IAF mandates the MCA should not be greater than 25T. Engine requirements should be 90kn in thrust. IDRW reports "Its almost sure that the first aircraft will not be powered by the Kaveri-2 since it will take more then 5 years to develop this engine for the aircraft and will only power the later developed prototype , mostly likely new engine which will power Tejas MK-2 either Ej-200 or Ge’s F414 will power initial aircraft." I have to agree with them.
Last edited by Indranil on 30 Nov 2010 09:59, edited 2 times in total.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7713
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 30 Nov 2010 05:00

IMHO you would kick up a much better discussion if you ask how the Kaveri can be housed inside an operational fighter.

How will we ensure Quality control with such a nascent infrastructure to produce close to produce 40 engines a years in 2017-2020 and 60-100 engines a year by 2025!

The researchers will be free to develop a 130 kT engine from there on.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8108
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Pratyush » 30 Nov 2010 09:47

Guys,

The discussion on the virtues of the F135 class engine is great. But the ADA has dispalayed the windtunnel models with 2 engines onlee.

Also the 14 ton bare minimum weight for a 2 engine aircraft. IIRC Refale is an aircraft in the same class. It has an empty weight of 9 tones. No reason why that cant be matched by the ADA 25 + years after the 1st flight of the French jet.

So if we are going to dioscuss engines. The GTRE will IMO be better served in developing 20 K lbs dry thrust fuel effeicient supercruising powerplant. Which can be back fitted in the LCA.

IF the GTRE succeed in doing so. It will be a shot in the arm for the Indiginous efforts.

Going for some thing larger, will make sense only if India delinks it self from the PAk FA effort and decides to build some thing in that class.

In effect, India trying to build 2 seperate classes 5th gen of jets indigeneously.

We all konw that this will not happen.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7713
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 30 Nov 2010 10:12

Pratyush wrote:Also the 14 ton bare minimum weight for a 2 engine aircraft. IIRC Refale is an aircraft in the same class. It has an empty weight of 9 tones. No reason why that cant be matched by the ADA 25 + years after the 1st flight of the French jet.

I don't think that Viv was contesting that. His question was not about ADA's capability but the size required to perform certain ops.
Pratyush wrote:So if we are going to dioscuss engines. The GTRE will IMO be better served in developing 20 K lb dry thrust fuel effeicient supercruising powerplant. Which can be back fitted in the LCA.

IF the GTRE succeed in doing so. It will be a shot in the arm for the Indiginous efforts.

Most humbly, I don't understand what you said. 20 K lbf of dry thust :eek:. Even if you meant max AB thrust, how do you propose that they go about adding this. Besides could you please define an "efficient super cruising" power plant for me.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8108
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Pratyush » 30 Nov 2010 10:26

What I am looking at is an EJ 200 type powerplant. But one which is better then it in all respects.

Ie thrust, fuel effency and the size and weight are not that much greater then the current generation.

IIRC, that jet can with a proposed upgrade reach 26000 LBS of AB thrust.

So I want the GTRE motor to be better then that.

Can the GTRE do that. I have no idea.

bmallick
BRFite
Posts: 303
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 20:28

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby bmallick » 30 Nov 2010 10:33

Questions to the gurus, in case of the AMCA, wouldn't it be a bit prudent to design the aircraft around the current kaveri that we have, rather than build the jet around a yet to be build engine. This way we avoid falling into the LCA & Marut trap, having the plane ready but no engines to fully justify its potential.

Also using the current kaveri to build the AMCA means that as and when better versions of Kaveri come up, we can use it in the subsequent batches of AMCA, which could then easily accomodate weight gains.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7713
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 30 Nov 2010 10:40

That is how it should be done ... one always fixes the engine (based on experience of what the plane will most probably look like and wiegh) and builds the body around it.

With LCA we didn't have the experience, nor the engine to start with. With AMCA we have a better situation with both.

bmallick
BRFite
Posts: 303
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 20:28

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby bmallick » 30 Nov 2010 10:56

From what I have read on this forum and elsewhere, current Kaveri's thrust is ~80kN and weight 1.2 T. so for twin engined ~20 T fighter we have TWR , at almost full load ,is 0.8. The same for Rafale is 0.6, EF is 0.76.
If we are able to design AMCA with a empty load of 10-12 T ( I am think it would be on the higher side because kaveri is itself overweight) then empty weight TWR would still be more than good. Also this fighter would primarily be for attack and secondary defend itself. We would be having the FGFA to clean the skies by then. So for a primarily attack aircraft I think we would be having more than good amount of thrust even on current Kaveri engines.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7713
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 30 Nov 2010 12:07

The Kaveri to go on AMCA is K10 which would be around 90-100 KN

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 30 Nov 2010 12:25

I think GTRE will need a longish time to perfect the current kaveri engine and fit it into some Tejas for extended service and setup the manufacturing chain for it. the best bet for AMCA engine is probably a GTRE JV with eurojet as part of their MRCA commitments and come up with a "EJ-2020" spec - the materials and science will be far in advance of Kaveri so it will be another jump forward.

china will use the same carrots to make the CFM56 and other engine techs be transferred and eventually implanted into their domestic projects...

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8108
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Pratyush » 30 Nov 2010 14:06

Philip,

Actually my post was WRT Kaveri. Thrust was mentioned as 90 to 100 KN. Not being a engeneering type, did not understand how much force. So asked for a translation in 000 lbs.

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby P Chitkara » 30 Nov 2010 14:16

Since when did AMCA become 6th Gen?

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby nrshah » 30 Nov 2010 15:53

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/9987/amca.jpg

Dont know, if covered earlier.

the above report from aviation week, suggest Indian Navy has expressed interest in the naval version of AMCA and will contribute towards funding as well(again unlike IAF, where nothing of that sort has come so far).Also, naval version is now official part of AMCA programe

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Gaur » 30 Nov 2010 16:03

nrshah,
I had not seen that before. So, even if this was posted before, you have thanks of at least one happy jingo. :D

PS: Any more articles from AWST would also be most welcome.

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby nrshah » 30 Nov 2010 16:17

^^^ the pleasure is mutual...So 2 customers backing a program (one even promised financial stake). Good pre launch boooking....

Also, the financial commitment of navy shows the confidence and faith it has with NLCA, surely navy would have good look at NLCA and had a glimpse of its capabilities before committing to N-AMCA....

Added later - Besides, it also give an idea of no of carriers navy plans to have say by 2040.... around 50 Mig 29K, Around 50 LCA, RFI for additional aircrafts (Rafale / Mig 29K / SH/ JSF) and now N-AMCA... overall numbers likely to be 250 aircrafts...Looks like 5 carriers on cards even considering reserves and shore based
Last edited by nrshah on 30 Nov 2010 16:28, edited 1 time in total.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Gaur » 30 Nov 2010 16:24

I get a little worried whenever I read the requirements of supercruise and TVC. I know that the requirements are not yet frozen, I am worried that these 2 things may prove to be very risky for AMCA. Engine is surely not our forte and I hope that IAF finalizes ASR considering that.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby shukla » 30 Nov 2010 16:51

^^^ From the above link

Program officials indicate that talks have begun with Sweden's Saab on technology consultancy and partnership.


Hmmm... Saab has already pitched for this in its campaign to support Gripen sale..

From Saab's Gripen website.

Transfer of Technology (TOT)
-Saab is willing and able to provide ToT, that exceeds the requirements, to the Indian Government
-The level of ToT will enable India to manage all aspects of the life cycle including design
-Access to all levels of technology
-Saab is willing to enter a joint venture with Indian Aerospace Industry with the aim to develop the next generation of fighters (MCA)

The formation of long-term and direct partnerships between Saab and local industries is a key factor in delivering successful technology transfer. Our transfer of technology (ToT) programme will guarantee India full access to all levels of Saab’s aircraft technology through the transfer of unique and highly advanced competencies supporting the development of a self-reliant and world-leading aircraft industry.

Saab is prepared to transfer the latest technology to India, not just the technology base for development of the present product portfolio. We are also committed to providing knowledge that enables the receiver to utilize and apply the technologies transferred. The Gripen NG development programme offers a unique opportunity for India to gain insight into all levels of aircraft technology as well as transfer of knowledge and technology. Saab guarantees access to all levels of technology and management of all aspects of the product life cycle.


Saab's expertise and experience will be immensely valuable... Going with Saab, we'd get one of the cheapest aircrafts in the race. Though not as capable as some of the other birds in the race it fits IAF's requirements and given its willingness to share technology, sounds like a great deal!

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby nrshah » 30 Nov 2010 17:19

Gaur wrote:I get a little worried whenever I read the requirements of supercruise and TVC. I know that the requirements are not yet frozen, I am worried that these 2 things may prove to be very risky for AMCA. Engine is surely not our forte and I hope that IAF finalizes ASR considering that.


I understand and agree with your concerns.. However, still I feel the decision is best taken considering the our maturity now, our strength by the time we will be inducting them and also back up plan in case, AMCA is delayed..

Further, the best part is unlike LCA which was developed to replace aging fleet. LCA got so much criticism because it is was delayed tejas because of which we could not retire our aging force and our numbers started falling... Just think if we had a competent force and delayed LCA would not have resulted in falling numbers, LCA would not have been such victim... Instead, we would have shortage of words to praise it... Compare the timelines of LCA with tiffy and rafale and you will know...

AMCA is not being developed to replace any aircraft... Jags and M2K will be replaced by MMRCA and AMCA will just add to numbers... Thus even if the project is delay say by 5- 8 years, we wont be in a dire situation as was with LCA

Please refer my below two posts which is why I feel we should go for AMCA....

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5693&p=967559#p967559

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5693&p=967615#p967615

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Viv S » 30 Nov 2010 17:28

indranilroy wrote:^^^ What has generation got to do with size?!


Generation itself has nothing to do with size. But if the aircraft is to carry an internal payload, how can size not be a consideration?

F-35 wanted to put everything into one plane. Whether that pays off remains to be seen. Under such circumstances it can't be the precedent.


The AMCA will enter service in 2025 or later. What does the F-35A feature that the AMCA is not going to? The only thing that comes to mind is the EOTS instead of an external targeting pod. And even that may become a necessity given the proliferation of S-300 class systems in the vicinity.

According to PS Subramanyam, "the AMCAs will bridge the gap between the Tejas and Su-30MKI class heavy fighters. With Russia and the US focusing on fighters in the 30-35 ton category, there was market space for a 20 ton aircraft." Going by this it is very unlikely that the AMCA and F-35 will be in the same category.

AMCA is supposed to be land attack variant. I will be very happy to see the AMCA stick to this role, with the ability to defend itself. I personally don't give a hoot whether it is called fifth gen or sixth gen. I am pretty sure the pilots/strategist will agree. I sincerely hope they don't emulate the F-35. Please keep it tailor made to our needs, a supreme ground attack plane.

For that it doesn't need the 119s. It needs around 180 kT to 200 kT. 2 Kaveris can definitely provide the same. We need to work towards the maturing of those engines.


What sort of empty weight are we looking at for an aircraft with internal payload? How are they going to pull it off in the 10 ton range without serious compromises on range or payload (both essential for a supreme ground attack plane). Like I said before, just the Tejas with an addition F414 and the same airframe would weigh in at 7.5 tons.

P.S. ASR by the IAF mandates the MCA should not be greater than 25T. Engine requirements should be 90kn in thrust. IDRW reports "Its almost sure that the first aircraft will not be powered by the Kaveri-2 since it will take more then 5 years to develop this engine for the aircraft and will only power the later developed prototype , mostly likely new engine which will power Tejas MK-2 either Ej-200 or Ge’s F414 will power initial aircraft." I have to agree with them.


25T is certainly a more realistic figure. Well... the EJ-200 will be scaled up to a thrust-vectoring 120kN so ... maybe. I'm still wondering in terms of performance where exactly will sacrifices vis-a-vis the F-35 be made (range looks most likely - the F-35 carries 8T of fuel internally).

Willy
BRFite
Posts: 283
Joined: 18 Jan 2005 01:58

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Willy » 30 Nov 2010 17:34

Gaur wrote:I get a little worried whenever I read the requirements of supercruise and TVC. I know that the requirements are not yet frozen, I am worried that these 2 things may prove to be very risky for AMCA. Engine is surely not our forte and I hope that IAF finalizes ASR considering that.



An engine for an aircraft which is likely to see the light of day most probably 15 years from now, without Supercruise and TVC? 4th gen aircraft have TVC. Supercruise is already present in 5th gen aircraft. So it better damn well have Supercruise and TVC.

Partnership's are the way to go!!!!!!!! Working partnerships at that!

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby P Chitkara » 30 Nov 2010 17:52

One must understand that the technology gap of a couple of decades cannot be bridged in one single leap. A major part of gap has been covered by the LCA. AMCA may not be 100% of what F35 is going to be but, even if it is 80-90%, I will be happy. Rest of the percentage can easily be taken care of in later marks/tranches.

By then we will have enough experience built in to come up with new innovations/ideas that some say are "new brochure features" completely on our own and will hopefully stop playing catching up.

I am pretty much sure the IAF also understands it and is just waiting to taste the LCA pudding via the IOC. If they find it sweet, and I have little reason to believe they will not, then there is no looking back. The key is gaining their confidence. It is here that the Mk1 will play the crucial role. We can hope to see much greater participation with AMCA post Tejas IOC.

My two cents....


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests