AMCA News and Discussions

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Rien » 07 Sep 2014 19:01

SaiK wrote:Going by "make in india" drive by the current gov, you can expect some vital movements for projects moving towards engaging India to create its own hub. However, when it comes to niche and defense technology, there are certain drivers that might fail that policy altogether how much ever red-carpet we have for firang gov controlled products and collaboration restrictions. even the best in the field have restrictions when it comes to ownership and IPRs. so, in the sense, there is only a very small window of opportunity when we are talking about joint IPR projects. Only countries that is also in similar boat (or willing to either shelve or partner with like minded country (perhaps Japan), might consider a deep drive technology agreement where IPR is shared in a manner acceptable to both countries.

We have not invested in AMCA technology, nor the design is frozen. The japanese one is like the LCA of 5th gen nature for japan. Both might have similar challenges where we can think about mergers, and joint program aspects.. again all depending on the project charter and how the japanese would like to view things. As Singha said, they put way too much money into unproven things.. their priorities, needs, risk agenda is different to ours. unless, both nations sees a common enemy, it is hard to get a common functionaly set as well.

still.. there may be sub component level participations.. especially japanese materials section for stealth. we still have lot of disconnects on the specifications. so,so much for it!


So do we. Neither side has much of a history building aerospace stuff yet. That's why we collaborate, to share risk and rewards. The Japanese have many strengths we lack. Technology for a start. Engines, composites. Toray Industries produces the best carbon fiber in the world.

The South Korean effort, like ours, is a Rafale 5th gen clone. There is an enormous degree of overlap, so surely we can come to an agreement when our common enemy is China, and we face no threat from each other.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9239
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 07 Sep 2014 21:42

Japan and SK want a 5th gen fighter that can go toe to toe against the Chinese. So do we.


Are you seriously going to use this? Both Japan and South Korea want a fighter that fits into their planned force structure and enables them to counter threats expected. You do realize that it is entirely possible for 2 nations with a similar threat to have a different capability requirement depending upon their ultimate objective and force set-up? Expect the home grown fighters to offer a complementing capability to the F-35 with the level of capability depending upon the ambitions of the projects. Also expect these fighters to be Integrated with the F-35 and not just interoperable. This is the major driver of the F-35 fleets in the Pacific with Australia, USAF, USN, USMC, and Japan bringing together their assets and calling for ASSET INTEGRATION and not just interoperability as has existed with previous fighters (F-18 with F-15, F-16 with F-2 etc).

Japan already has a great relationship with us


They only removed HAL from Blacklist like last week, I do not think they have any working relationship with HAL.

I refer you to Modi and Abe following each other on Twitter


So thats all that is required for the "stars to align" and a joint fighter program being kicked off?

Cost is a huge issue for 5th gen fighter projects. For Japan, and for South Korea, our participation would guarantee success in keeping costs down.Neither country could afford a JSF style disaster


How will costs be kept down when the entire objective of the programs is to fund production from domestic aerospace sector? They want to make the darn thing in Japan and South Korea, not co-design the thing and outsource most of the production to India.

I know Japan won't be getting an US engine


Japan need not make a decision until 2018. Currently the program is a scaled program that de-risks the eventual program that kickstarts around 2018. Its too early to tell which direction that program will take.

And South Korea has yet to decide whether it would prefer the EuroJet engine.


Want to bet that they'll choose either GE or P&W?

Japan originally wanted the F-22, and was rejected. And South Korea is embarking on this program to get away from the US


The geopolitical situation is different than when the F-22 was denied. Back then there was no 5th generation threat in the region. Come the 2020's and there would be multiple 5th generation fighters flying in that region.

And South Korea is embarking on this program to get away from the US


South Korea is designing the fighter totally in line with their aerospace industry's maturity. Following the T/F-50 the new project and the level of its ambitions makes perfect sense. Both Japan and South Korea will be vital US kit operators well into the 2040's and 50's with the F-35 (With Japan assembling and producing certain aspects of in house), and the F-15 program (and the F-16 modernization program for the ROKAF). Lockheed is involved in both the projects as both these air-forces demanded lockheed's tunnel data and design validation studies on 5th generation aircraft as a part of the F-35 offset deal. Moreover, US OEM's will be competing for the ROKAF engine contracts and it would be quite likely that US OEM involvement in the NG Korean fighter may resemble the level of involvement in the T/F-50 program especially if the T-50 is selected for the T-X program of the USAF.

That's fairly weak. Neither Japan nor SK can afford to waste billions. Cost is our huge advantage, and their massive weakness. Both sides know this. Also, independence from the US is the primary objective. Bharat also doesn't want to rely on the US. We have a lot in common


The point of both these programs is to gain aerospace - independence and being able to design and produce advanced military fighters with minimal assistance from outside. One major concern is to bring up the aerospace industry in Japan and Soko. They will be producing the fighter in their home nations through their own aerospace industry. They won't co-design and then offload the expensive production to HAL and India. It makes absolutely no sense. Similarly a partnership with HAL would also make little sense since an outside partner has to bring aerospace-expertise much above the level existing internally (or else its "doing it" just for the sake of doing it). Both Japan and South Korea have design experience, South Korea has the T/F-50 that they have mass produced, co-designed and delivered for export. There is little logic in them seeking a partnership with HAL and it would be much wiser for them to seek to align with a Lockheed or Airbus (or Boeing, Dassault etc) that bring a much higher level of expertise and experience into the picture.

From what we know currently, both of them (J and SK) demanded and received a lot of 5th generation design data form lockheed martin as a part of their F-35 negotiations. How much assistance each of them requires over and above this will probably be decided as these projects mature and develop. South Korea appears to have decided on the propulsion and taking it from the available options in the international market. Here they will most likely pick either GE or P&W with whom they have a working relationship. Japan need not make a firm decision on the F-3 until the technology demonstrator (ATDX) has matured and verified a lot of its modeling. Current estimates suggest that Japan will be making a call on the F-3 around 2018-2019 and this is the same timeframe where the USN will be embarking (or would have finalized the vendor down-select) on an RFP for the FA-X fighter. Its entirely possible that the USN goes it alone on the FA-X and Japan embarks on the F-3 basing it on a lot of the technologies it has matured in the ATDX. Even if Japan goes ahead with a totally new F-3 i don't see them totally doing away with the F-2 model but only scaling it down and making it more JAPANESE then JOINT.

Not even those indulging in fiction will predict that India,Japan and South Korea partner on a military project or that South Korea and japan partner on anything remotely connected to national security and advanced aerospace. Ignoring this, I see little benefit for Japan to work with HAL on the F-3.

The argument that the AMCA and the F-3 should be similar because both are designed around he chinese threat completely ignores basic common sense. I'll leave it at that !

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9239
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 08 Sep 2014 18:09

Rien wrote:
SaiK wrote:Going by "make in india" drive by the current gov, you can expect some vital movements for projects moving towards engaging India to create its own hub. However, when it comes to niche and defense technology, there are certain drivers that might fail that policy altogether how much ever red-carpet we have for firang gov controlled products and collaboration restrictions. even the best in the field have restrictions when it comes to ownership and IPRs. so, in the sense, there is only a very small window of opportunity when we are talking about joint IPR projects. Only countries that is also in similar boat (or willing to either shelve or partner with like minded country (perhaps Japan), might consider a deep drive technology agreement where IPR is shared in a manner acceptable to both countries.

We have not invested in AMCA technology, nor the design is frozen. The japanese one is like the LCA of 5th gen nature for japan. Both might have similar challenges where we can think about mergers, and joint program aspects.. again all depending on the project charter and how the japanese would like to view things. As Singha said, they put way too much money into unproven things.. their priorities, needs, risk agenda is different to ours. unless, both nations sees a common enemy, it is hard to get a common functionaly set as well.

still.. there may be sub component level participations.. especially japanese materials section for stealth. we still have lot of disconnects on the specifications. so,so much for it!


So do we. Neither side has much of a history building aerospace stuff yet. That's why we collaborate, to share risk and rewards. The Japanese have many strengths we lack. Technology for a start. Engines, composites. Toray Industries produces the best carbon fiber in the world.

The South Korean effort, like ours, is a Rafale 5th gen clone. There is an enormous degree of overlap, so surely we can come to an agreement when our common enemy is China, and we face no threat from each other.


Natural alliances between OEM's exist when one complements the others capability. KAI going to Lockheed Martin is natural. Kai was a small player with a limited design expereince and were able to offload a lot of design risk (and cost) onto Lockheed martin for the T/F-50 program. Similarly any effort to seek an active alliance (as opposed to a simply transfer of test data, as has already occurred in japan and will occur in Soko) for the 5th generation fighter would look to do the same i.e. bring in a partner that is well versed with 5th generation designs, advanced materials, program management and advanced technology development and implementation. You do not go out and actively seek a partner that is having the same level of maturity as yourself for the entire point of adding a partner in that case doesn't make sense. Same applies for HAL, If they wish to partner up with a foreign partner for whatever future project, they would look at the challenges they are likely to face which most likely would warrant advanced aerospace manufacturing, marketing and creating a supply base for foreign sales and de-risking the design or production phase through consultancy based on solid R&D done by the consultant on advanced aerospace projects. Something like a SAAB, dassault or Bae makes much better sense as compared to KAI, Samsung or Mitsubishi that themselves have similar challenges and have offloading them to other more experienced OEM's in the past (Kai and Mitsubishi both worked with Lockheed for the T/F-50 and F-2 fighters) and have sought design data from these OEM's for their future projects.

You do not go out and hedge a complete program on someone else just because they have something in Carbon fibers or have plans to develop an engine for a future fighter by 2027-2030 time frame. Propulsion plans have to be defined, frozen, de-risked very very early in the program phase as is evident from the AETP program for the US 6th generation fighters or the ATF program of the past. Hedge your program on an engine that will take a decade or more to be delivered and you are slaved to plenty of risk in that department, this is assuming that the engine meets your technical requirements in the first place. Best bet would be to go out with a proven engine sourced from engine suppliers (Russia, US or Europe) while you continue to develop an in house engine for the future.

The mentality that " They are figuring stuff out and we are figuring stuff out so lets get together and figure stuff out" is best left for discussion forums. Its just not how strategic decisions are made within organizations.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 08 Sep 2014 18:35

I want to dread to completely engage HAL as the solo decision maker here, however their participation is vital for any success. A combinatorial formula to invovle private, public is the ideal way to get this done. HAL has to move away from R&D and focus their R&D towards "Production Engineering" and Automation/Robotic manufacturing process, Concurrent engineering etc. should be HAL niche points. They can leverage private help as well. It is important to note that HAL has failed reputation with regards to R&D and advanced engineering setups. With the help of ADA and NAL, there are lot of progress, but sadly below our national capability lines.

Take for example, we have the SC blades done at GTRE, and there was no private capability to take it from R&D state to production quality jigs. There is a serious lack of capabilities, expertise and technology skills, in addition to the drivers that enable such setup happen - funds, engineering-management and vision.

So, there are lot avenues and weakness here that can be exploited by strengthening our firang relationship where it needs the most. A complete FDI or transfer of responsibilities will result in no expertise gain nor capabilities established within the country. Might as well scrap the program, and go for outright purchase model. People have to be woken up to reality.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 08 Sep 2014 19:11

Take for example, we have the SC blades done at GTRE, and there was no private capability to take it from R&D state to production quality jigs. There is a serious lack of capabilities, expertise and technology skills, in addition to the drivers that enable such setup happen - funds, engineering-management and vision.

So, there are lot avenues and weakness here that can be exploited by strengthening our firang relationship where it needs the most. A complete FDI or transfer of responsibilities will result in no expertise gain nor capabilities established within the country. Might as well scrap the program, and go for outright purchase model. People have to be woken up to reality.


There is another dimension to this: as time goes by, it will only get worse. Because the other guy will make progress and you will either be where you are (stagnant) or behind the other guy - all the time - trying to catch up, which is another form of where-you-are, but not stagnant. The latter introduces a "coma" state - where there is a (good) feeling of movement, but not enough to make any difference (no RoI).

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 939
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby sankum » 09 Sep 2014 00:24

There is no urgent need of AMCA and there fore it is being regularly delayed.

By 2030's 10sq FGFA+16sq Su30+ 9sq Rafale+ 9sq LCA= 44sq will more than fulfill the requirement of IAF and IN can be expected to have 3sq NFGFA+ 2sq mig 29k+ 3sq NLCA= 8sq

AMCA should be developed as full fleged 6th gen fighter for period 2040-60 as 20sq(420 nos) for IAF and 5sq (100nos ) for IN will be required.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 09 Sep 2014 01:08

^^^^^

How many planes are there in your squadron?

member_28722
BRFite
Posts: 333
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby member_28722 » 09 Sep 2014 02:39

We have more than enough multirole & air superiority fighters in ongoing and future projects Su30, Tejas, FGFA etc ...Shouldn't the AMCA be more of a dedicated bomber? F117 type combat profile?
JMT

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 09 Sep 2014 04:24

Perhaps you have missed the memo: Both Russia and France are eager not to lose their expertise in designing/building fighters (planes) and engines!!!

IF there is one area that India can never let go it is fighters. She has tutored herself into getting one - perhaps not as fast, not as elegant, etc, nonetheless it is a fighter. Cannot let go of that effort. AMCA has to make it to center stage.

Next, nice to have *all* those squadrons of FGFA and Rafale - *but* they are both foreign made. IF at all India is reliant on a foreign plane that far into the future, it better be a better "gen" than that.

The word from the latest interview with Chander is that the AMCA is "5+ Gen" (or did he say 5.5 Gen?). I have no clue what that means (cannot see it until one sees the white in the eye? - dunno). (I have no clue what a "6th Gen" means outside of the US (even there the US is just about defining it!!)

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Managing Cost and Risk in 5th Gen Fighters: Japan option

Postby Rien » 10 Sep 2014 16:42

Singha wrote:japanese products have traditionally been unsustainably costly due to lack of exports. if indo-japan venture can add 300 to the order book, it would not harm them in any way.

same can said for cough cough the soryu.


Singha, we are the cheapest major world economy. The cost of 5th Generation fighter projects is a huge risk. Witness the JSF. The only reason Japan is even running a 5th generation effort is because they have enormous doubts about the cost of the JSF and its capability. So I notice, does Turkey and Korea. Tells you a lot. For that matter, we need to hedge against the risk implicit in the PAKFA. Contrary to the marketing drones we get posting on BR, nobody is any position to give guarantees about the cost of a 5th Gen fighter. Or even if it will not be obsolete by the time it comes out due to UCAVs. There is a lot of risk involved which is hard to quantify. Unknown Unknowns.

So in addition to orders, we can offer them a huge across the board cost decrease. We do software, which is a major part of 5th gen planes, cheaper than anyone else too. Titanium and other aerospace materials are cheaper here than elsewhere, as well as skilled and unskilled labour. Japan can also give us engine technology. Japan is a unique proposition. Unlike the US, which has the quite accurate fear of what if the bloody Bharatis turn around on us and make a JSF fighter just as good but half the price? The Japanese would like us to be strong. The stronger we are, the worse it is for China. And the better it is for them. And vice versa, of course. Unlike the US, Japan has plenty of reasons to want us much stronger than we currently are. And it has the technology to help us get there!

I'm in agreement that the Soryu if it comes with 100% ToT is of interest. But I'm not sure why we can't switch to an all nuclear navy. We are going to have nuke subs, and nuke powered aircraft carriers. It may be more sensible to go all nuclear like the US is. I haven't done my homework on this idea, but it does seem sensible. Rather than pine after something we don't have, why not make the best of something we do have?

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Rien » 10 Sep 2014 16:47

SaiK wrote:<snip>

Take for example, we have the SC blades done at GTRE, and there was no private capability to take it from R&D state to production quality jigs. There is a serious lack of capabilities, expertise and technology skills, in addition to the drivers that enable such setup happen - funds, engineering-management and vision.

So, there are lot avenues and weakness here that can be exploited by strengthening our firang relationship where it needs the most. A complete FDI or transfer of responsibilities will result in no expertise gain nor capabilities established within the country. Might as well scrap the program, and go for outright purchase model. People have to be woken up to reality.


Saik, we need to consider Japan. Our technology transfers have been dismal failures to date. But Japan has transferred technology to us. And the reason for this is because Japan wants us, needs us to be strong. Against a certain country.

The technology to make engines exists in Japan, along with carbon fiber composites. The best carbon fiber is made at Toray Industries at Japan. The only people who might want to give us high technology is there! This kind of chance will never come again, we must grab it with both hands before the US gets there and stops us dead in our tracks.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9239
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 10 Sep 2014 17:25

The only reason Japan is even running a 5th generation effort is because they have enormous doubts about the cost of the JSF and its capability.


:rotfl: :rotfl: The huge number of legacy F-2 and F-15J's has nothing to do with the fact that they want to operate more than just the F-35 in the future? Keep on making stuff up!

So I notice, does Turkey and Korea.


These countries have domestic aerospace ambitions. Are we making the AMCA because we have doubts on the PAKFA? That would be a highly inaccurate assessment of things. Most air-forces have a need to operate more than one fighter with different mission sets. Korea has an aerospace industry that finally has had export experience with the T/F-50 and they are ready to take this to the next level with a stealthy 5th generation project. Turkey also has a huge requirement for 5th generation that goes beyond the 80-100 F-35A's they'll be acquiring. There has been some talk about watering down the ambitions but there long term goals also involve being a player in the global aerospace industry above and beyond a player in the prime supplier base.

Or even if it will not be obsolete by the time it comes out due to UCAVs. There is a lot of risk involved which is hard to quantify. Unknown Unknowns.


And who is guaranteeing that drones will come fast, will be highly successful and make manned fighters obsolete? You don't count!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 10 Sep 2014 17:58

@brar_w,

You are very well read, articulate, etc.

Do you know how to use the ignore list?

Yet?

Believe me, the ignore list mechanism is BR's way of attaining Moksha.

Peace.

(That, even tho' I learn from your responses!!)

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Cosmo_R » 10 Sep 2014 18:27

brar_w wrote:Whats the big deal on the landing gear? Trying to scavenge parts is ok for a prototype but there is really no need to do this for full production aircraft especially when designing the landing gear is the least of worries given that the IAF expects the AMCA to be its backbone with a very substantial force presence (Hopefully 500+) in the future. If it were a custom build aircraft, hand made effort then it would make some sense, in the case of the AMCA though they'd have no problem designing a gear for the aircraft.

...


Especially since the Frenchies will want royalties on the landing gear.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 13 Oct 2014 02:49

NAL's Annual Director's report is out.

During the year, the R&D divisions at NAL have significantly contributed towards the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft programme of Aeronautical Development
Agency (ADA). The R&D efforts led to the new configuration AMCA-3B-08 and a structurally efficient wing layout with four bending attachment brackets and two shear attachment brackets. For the AMCA 3B-08, structural design, analysis and size optimization was carried out to cater for all critical symmetric and un-symmetric load cases. Finite element models were built separately for each of the fuselage segments and then integrated to build a full fuselage finite element model.


The attached image is not like the model shown in AI'13. It is actually close to my favourite shape of AMCA. So I am super happy :D .

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 13 Oct 2014 04:13

is there a translation available?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 13 Oct 2014 05:19

From what? It is in Hindi and English. Scroll down for English.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 13 Oct 2014 06:09

DDo not know about the 2013 model, bubut, this is fairly close to the 2012 wire diagram. Seems to me it has a slight diamond shape. ?????

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9858
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Yagnasri » 13 Oct 2014 06:38

I hear it is more close to f23.

It is a bird. It is a plane. No. It is super plane. :D

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby PratikDas » 13 Oct 2014 06:52

indranilroy wrote:NAL's Annual Director's report is out.

During the year, the R&D divisions at NAL have significantly contributed towards the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft programme of Aeronautical Development
Agency (ADA). The R&D efforts led to the new configuration AMCA-3B-08 and a structurally efficient wing layout with four bending attachment brackets and two shear attachment brackets. For the AMCA 3B-08, structural design, analysis and size optimization was carried out to cater for all critical symmetric and un-symmetric load cases. Finite element models were built separately for each of the fuselage segments and then integrated to build a full fuselage finite element model.


The attached image is not like the model shown in AI'13. It is actually close to my favourite shape of AMCA. So I am super happy :D .


AMCA Version 3B-08
Image

AMCA circa January 2013 (Courtesy: Tarmak007)
Image


AMCA Version 3B-08's wing does indeed look like a diamond but the intakes seem to have been desi-fied.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 13 Oct 2014 10:54

Same here. I would be very happy to see it fly by 2020.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19836
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 13 Oct 2014 10:59

That intake looks off and not blended in with the structure. Perhaps they will refine it further. But overall, the design looks great.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 13 Oct 2014 22:17

They need to first get a sign off on the high-level requirements from IAF pukka!
- MTOW
- T:W
- Weapons package
- stealth features
- maintenance and LRUs
- Training
- UX and interfaces
- strategic suites - EWS, ops specific instruments, sensors, etc.

some of the niche areas are:
- stealth skins and shapes
- super cruise
- higher t:w
- passive tracking and locking
- lpi aesa (algan) - 300km range
- home grown OLS

and the rest as is in pakfa/raptor/jsf etc - avionics and electronic suites - some of those israelie technology can get some home grown factoring as well.

---

on the design above (dark gray pic wala) does the tail wedge and the wing flaps have a wider gap when compared to the first pic?

member_28797
BRFite
Posts: 188
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby member_28797 » 13 Oct 2014 22:27

Why can't the prototype be prepared sooner? Like 2015 end? We know how to make planes now with designing and developing Tejas. Now that we have a steady design (The design development and research has been going on since 2010 atleast IIRC). Really hope this doesn't turn out to be another Tejas. No point in seeing this inducted in IAF in 2030.

member_28797
BRFite
Posts: 188
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby member_28797 » 13 Oct 2014 22:27

Why can't the prototype be prepared sooner? Like 2015 end? We know how to make planes now with designing and developing Tejas. Now that we have a steady design (The design development and research has been going on since 2010 atleast IIRC). Really hope this doesn't turn out to be another Tejas. No point in seeing this inducted in IAF in 2030.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 13 Oct 2014 22:46

The two figures are not related.

The first figure is current, but, it is a FE diagram. Shows an approx. The final plane could be different, especially the body.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2779
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JTull » 14 Oct 2014 01:22

For scaled prototypes by 2016 and flying prototypes by 2017, the aircraft should already have been in fabrication. And we haven;t even heard of engine selection yet.

This baby is not gonna roll out by 2020.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 14 Oct 2014 01:39

^^^^^

There are a lot of unknowns.

The engine is the most obvious one.

The latest report from the FGFA camp - that India-Russia will jointly develop TV for the FGFA was another nugget that tossed me for a loop. Will that be rolled in into the AMCA? IF true, then the chances of a Russian engine are very high I would think. But, .............. is there a Russian engine to consider or do the Indians have any faith? ?????marks all around.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Cosmo_R » 14 Oct 2014 02:19

NRao wrote:^^^^^

There are a lot of unknowns.

The engine is the most obvious one.

The latest report from the FGFA camp - that India-Russia will jointly develop TV for the FGFA was another nugget that tossed me for a loop. Will that be rolled in into the AMCA? IF true, then the chances of a Russian engine are very high I would think. But, .............. is there a Russian engine to consider or do the Indians have any faith? ?????marks all around.


Faith Indians might have about Russian engines. But have the Russians have come even close to building a F-404/414/F-110-132/PW F-119/135?

The explanation has always been "quantity has a quality of its own."

The Russians have not been able to build a world class automobile engine.

If we don't want AMCA to be another HF-24 dialing for a date with an engine, don't go there.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1739
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Thakur_B » 14 Oct 2014 06:18

PratikDas wrote:The attached image is not like the model shown in AI'13. It is actually close to my favourite shape of AMCA. So I am super happy :D .

AMCA Version 3B-08
Image


AMCA Version 3B-08's wing does indeed look like a diamond but the intakes seem to have been desi-fied.



There have been several models under study at NAL, so don't get excited over it (for eg the MiG-29ish 3B-04 configuration)
Image

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Hobbes » 14 Oct 2014 06:50

Cosmo_R wrote:
NRao wrote:^^^^^

There are a lot of unknowns.

The engine is the most obvious one.

The latest report from the FGFA camp - that India-Russia will jointly develop TV for the FGFA was another nugget that tossed me for a loop. Will that be rolled in into the AMCA? IF true, then the chances of a Russian engine are very high I would think. But, .............. is there a Russian engine to consider or do the Indians have any faith? ?????marks all around.


Faith Indians might have about Russian engines. But have the Russians have come even close to building a F-404/414/F-110-132/PW F-119/135?

The explanation has always been "quantity has a quality of its own."

The Russians have not been able to build a world class automobile engine.

If we don't want AMCA to be another HF-24 dialing for a date with an engine, don't go there.


+1. If that happens, it would be the fourth time we screwed up on engines; the HF-24, the Tejas and of course the current example of the IJT and its Saturn engine, with the AMCA waiting in the wings. From what I understand, aircraft are built around engines and not the other way around, so we need to first select a reliable engine that already exists and that has a good chance of being manufactured for the next 20 years, and build the AMCA around that.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Victor » 14 Oct 2014 08:14

AMCA obviously won't be using the FGFA's engines since it seems to be much smaller. Even the F414 (LCA2 and F/A-18 engines) would seem too big for it. The only thing close that exists is the JSF's F-135 but two of them would seem to be overkill. So what are these AMCA designs based on? Surely we need basic configuration, size, weight, thrust info to put stuff on paper, so to speak?

Also, with the FGFA in the pipeline and engineers already working on it, where does the AMCA fit in? One good thing is that we haven't definitely pigeon-holed it as a "5th gen" fighter AFAIK. The word "advanced" is broad enough so we can keep working on it and come up with a "6th gen" fighter down the road, which actually makes more sense than a "light" FGFA.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 14 Oct 2014 09:32

Actually, AFAIK GE-414 and the EF-200 are the prime contenders for AMCA. A very very distant third is the GTRE proposed 110 kN engine.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2618
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Cybaru » 14 Oct 2014 09:53

No M-88 in the race? If that rafale deal ever happens, it would mean a reasonable common engine, that we be inducting in large numbers. 250+ engines. And if we are to make 150-200 of these then that's another 500 engines of the same type that we can standardize on.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 14 Oct 2014 17:48

indranilroy wrote:Actually, AFAIK GE-414 and the EF-200 are the prime contenders for AMCA. A very very distant third is the GTRE proposed 110 kN engine.


A claim of an unreliable web site states that GE claims that the MK-II engine will be used, modified with a TV.

What I would be interested in finding out is, would the GoI be interested in funding several groups: FGFA + AMCA + etc?

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Victor » 14 Oct 2014 20:06

indranilroy wrote:Actually, AFAIK GE-414 and the EF-200 are the prime contenders for AMCA. A very very distant third is the GTRE proposed 110 kN engine.

Well if LCA has one F414 and AMCA has two, the drawings don't square. If you join two 414s side by side and extrapolate the visuals, you end up with a much bigger bird. Not that it's a bad idea, it's actually a chankian idea to end up with a desi brute that combines the best of Rafale, Su30 and F/A18.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 14 Oct 2014 20:51

I don't know why it will be a brute. The F-35 is under-powered for an A2A platform. It should not be a benchmark. Eurofighter is currently powered with 2 X EJ-200s. And it was supposed to be upgraded with the upgraded EJ-200s (if funds permit). AMCA cannot be as sleek through the air as the Eurofighter (internal carriage and stealth shaping). So, 2 X 110 kN might be perfect. For example the J-31 (another aircraft) of very similar role and dimensions is supposed to be powered by 2 X 100 kN (WS-13A) engines.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2618
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Cybaru » 14 Oct 2014 21:30

If they manage to get 8K-10K Kgs of fuel in this bird then it will fulfil so many roles. That will be a game changer. The f35A has about 8K kgs of internal fuel volume.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 14 Oct 2014 23:40

Kaveri as we know it today will go into IUSAV and generators. We learnt a lot through it, so much so that we won't accept the M88 ECO core and be done with it. IAF and GTRE have both rejected that proposal. GTRE's foray to build the 110 kN turbofan is a dead giveaway on the desired thrust of AMCA engines. I expect AMCA to weigh in at around 22-25 Tons (MTOW).

GTRE's 110 kN engine (based on when it comes on board) will find it's way into LCA-Mk2s ( during midlife engine upgrades) and AMCAs (in serially produced aircrafts).

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16829
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 15 Oct 2014 01:38

An article about the recent MKI crash claims that there are concerns about the MKI engine - which I thought was very reliable.

IF this is true, I wounder what is the projected thinking about the PAK-FA and if a new engine were to be fitted into the FGFA.

#DoesNotLookGood


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests