AMCA News and Discussions

Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 364
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Eric Leiderman » 30 Jan 2016 09:29

Gyan ji

I agree with a protion of the post however I will concentrate on the points I do not agree on

We have passed the crawling stage and are now toddlers. Our expectations need to be tempered or else we set up ourselfs for failure.

Do we have the 1) political will to complete these projects concurrently and will this will last over a few decades. I mean are all silos firing in tandem?
MOD IAF HAL Private sector Political class , the last entity being the most unpredictable.
2) Trained and experienced manpower to run multiple design's and implementation of the projects listed below (concurrently?)

If your answer is no to the above two questions than maybe what is being done now is a compromise solution which has more risk mitigitation built in.
What we have to ensure is that we can fight the next war and not loose it.

The current situation can be looked at as a glass half full or half empty. However it is a lot better than the lost decade. :

member_29294
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby member_29294 » 30 Jan 2016 10:46

Gyan wrote:Can BRF generate a list of leading Empires in the history of Mankind which depended on "imported arms"? My list = NIL.

Paying some other Nation to do research on your behalf is height of absurdity. A JV means that India should contribute "in kind" by doing research of components that fall to India's share in Indian Labs with Indian Scientists and Engineers.

PAKFA R&D contract is of USD 4 Billion with Rafale coming near USD 10 Billion (give or take a couple). Why not spend USD 5 Billion on 200 LCA, USD 3.5 Billion on 50 Su-30MKI and Balance USD 5.5 Billion on aggressively pursuing AMCA, LCA Mark-3, UCAV, turbine engines etc.


Because this would make too much sense.

Remember we must never spend more than a few crores for strategically important projects. The $50 million spent on NAL was too much weight for our broke government, remember just look at how ma..... wait what's that? IAF wants $10 Billion for foreign maal? Wow! Great Idea. 10/10! Padma Shris for the babus who thought up of this ingenious plan.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 30 Jan 2016 11:29

Chakra.in wrote:^

The problem is that there is such obvious tensions between HAL and IAF, where IAF blames HAL for all their failings. IAF just wants to cut them out of the picture at this point, hence their obsession with buying phoreign maal and stalling indigenous development at HAL.

For example, IAF Air Chief will make statements such as "There is no Plan B for Rafale", directly undermining MoD position during negotiations that were and are still ongoing. http://www.spsshownews.com/news/?id=172&h=No-Plan-B-on-MMRCA-IAF-Chief

Old Scamgressi government also liked to keep low transparency in the military establishment to keep their corrupt kickback deals a secret, Scamgressis might have gotten voted out but it will be years before all their moles and foreign agents are routed out of the military. MMRCA was conducted under their watch, and you can bet there must have been substantial kickbacks involved. Who knows how many people have already gotten paid under the table by Dassault to support this deal.

IAF and military as a whole needs a lot of in-house cleaning and anti-corruption measures to be taken, otherwise Tejas and Arjun story will continue to repeat itself.



And you have Plan B?

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and put down a detailed Plan B here so that everyone can gain from wisdom? There is a thread which was started to look into aircraft replacement imperatives for IAF. You can pick numbers from there and show everyone what the idiots in IAF have failed to see which you obviously can?

Tell you what - It is BRF which needs an in house cleaning where it can be spared these whine fests and name calling of Services w/o any bit of data or research.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 30 Jan 2016 11:31

nik wrote:For saving 8 billion $$$, I am willing to have ISRO send IAF and HAL to deep space - oblivion. India does not need this bullshit infighting, otherwise we will have another foreign flag flying from Rajpath in a matter of time (lessons from History should not be forgotten)

Millions of Indians over 10+ generations gave up their lives to free us from 1000 years of slavery. HAL and IAF have no business to put our freedom at risk.

India needs 1000 plus fighters at reasonable cost to deter any aggression. Our economy is a quarter of China, so need to use our money wisely.


I'm sure likes of you on this forum who are more patriotic than anyone else can be tasked for creating an IAF with right set of ethos? One which is perfectly inline with your patriotic thoughts and fervor? Would be good idea to write to PMO on twitter on this!

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Gyan » 30 Jan 2016 12:09

I have also blamed IAF a lot of times but simultaneously if we fund DRDO properly and give good capex for manufacturing units then IAF will also fall in line. If HAL had been able to fly LUH, HTT-40 and make IJT perform then IAF would have been forced to give orders. I think that both the funding and accountability of DRDO, HAL, DPSUs, OFB has to increase by factor of 5.

Recently I learnt that certain orders worth only Rs. 10,000 crores are stuck for 3 years as MoD has no interest in resolving a dispute of Rs 300 crore with an important component supplier. Is military to blame?

HAL was given order of 20 IOC LCA in 2006 with mandate to set up production line. They did not even place orders for "generic machines" for production line as late as in 2014 and total of 1 LCA produced till 2016. Is IAF to blame?

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 30 Jan 2016 19:05

The originator of design is Russia, and HAL gets the blame for integration and modifications for IAF. I can see many reasons and factors, but none of these are logical conditions for any big decision making.

LCA Mk1/a will define new relationship.. that would give a correct data between HAL-IAF relationship. That is like MOM reaching Mars and giving the first pic.

member_29294
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby member_29294 » 30 Jan 2016 22:43

rohitvats wrote:
And you have Plan B?

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and put down a detailed Plan B here so that everyone can gain from wisdom? There is a thread which was started to look into aircraft replacement imperatives for IAF. You can pick numbers from there and show everyone what the idiots in IAF have failed to see which you obviously can?

Tell you what - It is BRF which needs an in house cleaning where it can be spared these whine fests and name calling of Services w/o any bit of data or research.

Reread my post, nothing you have commented is even remotely related to what I have posted. Nothing I have said is untrue. IAF Chief has indeed made public statements that have directly undermined the MoD's position during Rafale negotiations. There is no defense of what he said. Maybe you can help explain to me why he would admit that 'There is no Plan B' for Rafale and that 'Su-30MKI is no replacement for Rafale' so that Dassault knows it can do whatever it wants in the negotiations. Which is evidently what is happening. This sort of damage against MoD position and negotiating power I expect from outside and paid presstitutes, to have it come from the establishment itself is just shocking. It is very telling of the current state of affairs, perhaps you disagree?

There is a very poor relationship between IAF, HAL, and MoD. This needs to be remedied else Military will be stuck up in non-stop dramas like this for a long time. This deal with ToT, local assembly, and reasonable costs should have been signed 5 years ago. Just compare how swiftly Brazil signed a deal with Saab over Gripen, and compare it to the Rafale saga. Hopefully the new DPP and early retirement for officers led under the new MoD will lead the way for even more reforms that will hopefully get the Military establishment up to international standards on procurement instead of the current state.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 31 Jan 2016 00:55

Chakra.in wrote: Reread my post, nothing you have commented is even remotely related to what I have posted. Nothing I have said is false or untrue. IAF Chief has indeed made public statements that have directly undermined the MoD's position during Rafale negotiations. There is no defense of what he said. Maybe you can help explain to me why he would admit that 'There is no Plan B' for Rafale and that 'Su-30MKI is no replacement for Rafale' so that Dassault knows it can do whatever it wants in the negotiations. Which is evidently what is happening. This sort of damage against MoD position and negotiating power I expect from outside and paid presstitutes, to have it come from the establishment itself is just shocking.

There is a very poor relationship between IAF, HAL, and MoD. This needs to be remedied else Military will be stuck up in non-stop dramas like this for a long time. This deal with ToT, local assembly, and reasonable costs should have been signed 5 years ago. Just compare how swiftly Brazil signed a deal with Saab over Gripen, and compare it to the Rafale saga. Hopefully the new DPP and early retirement for officers led under the new MoD will lead the way for even more reforms that will hopefully get the Military establishment up to international standards on procurement instead of the current state.


The fact that we had one of the most in-depth evaluation process of top fighters in the world EXCLUDING Su-30/35 should tell any reasonable person that there is no 'Plan B' as far as MMRCA category aircraft in the IAF's inventory is concerned. It is not Su-30 MKI nor it is LCA. Had that been the case, there would not have been the whole bloody song-and-dance competition. Leave that aside, when the GOI clarified that we'll not even talk to L2 bidder, it told everyone concerned that not only is there no Plan B for MMRCA, there is not Plan B for Rafale as well!

When you get into such evaluations, down-select two best fighters in the world short of Raptor, ask for financial bids, spend couple of years negotiating the deal and then don't close the deal because you suddenly discovered that it is too expensive, that is not called as having Plan B. That is called wasting time and then trying to somehow remedy the situation. When all the while your AF is going down in numbers and has been shouting for 1.5 decades about the impeding draw-down.

The present government became fully cognizant of the price aspect of the Rafale deal as well the falling squadron numbers of IAF when it assumed power. It could well have then and there taken decision to scrap the whole bloody deal and go for more Su-30MKI or Su-35 even. But it did not. Instead we had the PM talking about 36 fighters. Which is neither here nor there. Leading to IAF Chief to openly state that 36 are not enough. So, did GOI take IAF into confidence which is actually going to use these aircraft? Has the GOI told IAF that I'm only going to get you 36 and please make 'Plan B' for balance from Su-30MKI stable? Because Rafale or no Rafale, those 126 numbers need to be filled.

Plan A or B come with definite timeline. The price numbers are known to the government. Media reports talk about USD 4 billion gap in pricing. GOI can even now walk away from the deal. Or may be, it will. And then go back to ordering more Su-30MKI. But all that needs to happen within some definite timeline. And IAF needs to be on board with the decision from word go.

And what happens after you go back to Russians with them knowing fully well that they're now the only player in the town? What stops Russians from jacking up the price of not only the aircraft you're ordering afresh (126) but also the upgrade? After all, you've 272+126 = 398 or almost 45% of your IAF (assuming 900 a/c in 45 squadrons @ 20 a/c each) operating the type! Not to forget another ~150 odd FGFA likely to enter service and voila, more than 60% of IAF operates Russian a/c.

Coming to your procurement part - let me tell you a small secret: Services don't play any part in procurement after they've given inputs on the weapon system. That is for the MOD to take care of - same MOD which refused to treat IAF's request for 126 more Mirage-2000 as follow-on deal and invented the MMRCA competition for obvious reasons. Had that not been the case, this thread would've not existed.

Only thing constant is the threats this country faces and IAF has to be ready with whatever it has to best deal with those threats. MOD is least bothered and moves at its own pace. Not to forget that they won't allow Services into any decision making set-up. HAL can take its own sweet time to do things as it pleases. No skin of anyone's back there.

IAF/Service Chief has had to make every possible effort to get the best it can out of MOD. Because they know that when yellow matter hits the fan, they're the ones who'll be asked to clean the mess. The broken system is not because of Services. But they're the ones most impacted. On the face of it, MOD/R&D Establishment/Production agencies exist to empower the Services so that GOI can wield national policy through them. But it seems that everyone exists for himself, Services be damned!

And please stop these stupid remarks about leadership of IAF and/or Services just because you don't like what he says. They're denigrating and disrespectful to people who've given their life serving the nation.

His statements are not driven by desire for 'shiny toys' as you and many on this forum go about shouting...his statements are driven by now almost desperate requirement for getting replacement for aircrafts being phased out. I hope powers that be show half as much urgency as IAF is doing about the impeding problem.

PS: The Brazilian FX-2 program took 8 years from 'fresh' inception to closure, which happened not too many months back.

member_27581
BRFite
Posts: 230
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby member_27581 » 31 Jan 2016 03:58

Folks please..this is AMCA thread ..not HAL/IAF's valentine day plan thread. There are separate threads for that bromance. Mods apologies but the posts on this forum are getting farther and farther from AMCA.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Gyan » 31 Jan 2016 07:28

I agree with Rohit that Services only have a side role in All types of procurement. Civilian officers are attached at All levels in the military with Sevice officers and Military cannot even buy an ink cartridge and make payment without involvement of civilian officers. Though off course how does military interact with civilian counter parts to plan procurement says a lot about their attitude. They can do BPJ type fiascos or actually build aircraft carriers like Navy.

member_29294
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby member_29294 » 31 Jan 2016 12:01

^Rohit

I will say only this. IAF Chief remarks did not need to be publicized. If he has concerns he can relay them privately, no reason at all to let Dassault know IAF has no backup plans but the fighters they are selling. There is a huge difference between not meeting L2 bidders (Who were and are still offering), and outright stating that there is 'No Plan B' and that we need to buy these fighters no matter the cost while negotiations are ongoing.

For a functioning military you need alignment of interests in Services (IAF), Manufacturing (HAL), and Civilian leadership/funding (MoD). Navy has done this, they have clear long-term goals and orders to build shipyard capacity all while keeping in a reasonable budget. Even now, it seems that Navy is doing much more with supporting Tejas Mk.2 with their naval variant then IAF, which is a travesty. They keep the shipyard industry well oiled and fed with orders, and MoD is more than happy to spend reasonable amounts of money that ALL goes backs into the Indian economy and employs workers. We don't ever see this concern with IAF on HAL capacity, it wasn't even until recently that they agreed for large enough orders to make it financially viable for HAL to even build and upgrade factories. Imagine if IAF had agreed to purchase large orders of Mk1 back in the early 2000s even if they were dated, there wouldn't be so much squadron number problems (And no, spending +$7 billion for 2 squadrons that won't come for another 3 years will not fix this) and Tejas could have been incrementally upgraded and refitted, like the Chine J-10 or Russian Su-27. This is what Chine did for the past 15 years, ordering dated indigenous planes but keeping a healthy industry to the point now where they have a 5th gen plane in production. America and Russia both do the same with keeping orders high to support manufacturers.

If AMCA is to ever succeed and not be mothballed like Tejas it will need IAF to adopt an IN mentality to take ownership and align their interests with manufacturers and civilian leadership. Right now it seems HAL and MoD are in alignment with MII, one can only hope IAF follows suite.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Yagnasri » 31 Jan 2016 13:47

I think it is the culture since Bofors days. IN had a system of design and production which predates that period. IAF tried with Marut and later it was killed. Imagine Marut getting a better and more powerful engine. I am sure we would be seeing them still in the service and Mig21s and 27s. At least 27s would not have been purchased. May be no need for even Jaguars. We lost it then. Now we are almost losing it with LCA. Unless the MII is pressed against IAF opposition, if any, we will kill this chance also.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 31 Jan 2016 18:49

IAF Chief remarks did not need to be publicized


Another dimension is that no matter what the ground reality is, the statements of such people will always have some impact - be it positive or negative. And, the "No Plan B" - no matter what his intention was - did have a negative implication to it. Perhaps he should have used a different set of words, cannot say. But for sure, it did create more problems than solve anything. And, unfortunately it will continue to ring with the negatives. It is what it is and no matter how it is dissected and supported, it will not matter.

nits
BRFite
Posts: 1012
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby nits » 12 Feb 2016 11:31

Israeli Defence Analyst urges Jerusalem to invest in India’s AMCA over American F-35

Israeli Defence Analyst Caroline B. Glick who served has Captain in Israel Defense Forces in her latest report has urged Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in effort to maintain Israel’s qualitative edge against Iran should not depend on American solely on supply fighter jet after US administration rejected Israel’s requests for additional F-15 systems which it could have used to defend against Iran attacks.

US administration also has rejected Israel’s request to outfit its own electronics systems and bunker buster bombs in its current fleet of F-15 and instead wants Israel to buy F-35 which has been facing technical issues and will take next few years to fully become operationalised.

Analyst urges that instead of procurement of the 14 additional F-35s, Netanyahu should offer Modi to jointly develop a next-generation AMCA fighter jet based on the Lavi.



Interesting if it happens...

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

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Yagnasri » 12 Feb 2016 11:40

AMCA is based in Levi??? This is the first time I am reading. Is there any reports about it before ?

nits
BRFite
Posts: 1012
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby nits » 12 Feb 2016 12:11

AMCA is not based on Lavi; i think what he is proposing is to use Lavi as platform

From our perspective LCA is base platform for AMCA; we can use the positive of both aircraft and there technology to build up AMCA

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 12 Feb 2016 18:08


enaiel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 98
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby enaiel » 12 Feb 2016 18:08

She didn't mention AMCA - just a next generation fighter based on the Lavi:

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/COLUMN-ONE-The-IAFs-Achilles-heel-444662

In light of the F-35s massive vulnerabilities and the diminishment of US power in the Middle East and beyond, Netanyahu should view India’s enthusiasm for Israeli systems as an opportunity to end the IAF’s utter dependence on increasingly undependable US systems.

Instead of going through with the procurement of the 14 additional F-35s, Netanyahu should offer Modi to jointly develop a next generation fighter based on the Lavi.

enaiel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 98
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby enaiel » 12 Feb 2016 21:37

The Jerusalem Post?

All IDRW did is misquote her. She didn't mention AMCA. What she is asking for is the joint development of a single engine stealth fighter based on the Lavi instead of ordering more JSF. This could be LCA mk3.

SaiK wrote:pl move this to amca dhaaga, and check which is the org that is pedaling the news

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17048
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Rahul M » 12 Feb 2016 22:09

these are negotiating tactics vis-a-vis US, dont read too much into it. in any case basing a 5gen fighter on a scrapped fighter based on 80's tech makes no sense.

enaiel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 98
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby enaiel » 12 Feb 2016 22:41

I am not so sure. There is a lot of bitterness still lingering regarding the cancellation of the Lavi (similar to how we feel about the HF-24).

Please read this: http://www.haaretz.com/f-35-take-it-or-leave-it-1.304297

Does Israel still have the technological capability to design a first-rate fighter aircraft? That needs to be examined in some depth. No doubt some of the capability that existed at the time of the Lavi project has been lost over the years, but as has been proved time and again, Israel has a world-class technological capability. Its success in unmanned aerial vehicles is only one of a number of examples.
If it turns out that the capability to design the IAF's next fighter aircraft does exist in Israel, where could we go from there? Not to the U.S. Congress in search of funding, because we would have to remind them that 27 years ago they were fools to invest $1 billion in the development of the Lavi that Israel decided it did not want. We would have to look for partners who are prepared to invest resources in such a project, who have the necessary technological capability, and who are not involved in the F-35 project.
Are there such candidates? In theory, yes. France, with a great aeronautical industry, chose not to participate in the F-35 project. India, with a considerable aeronautical capability and a meteorically growing economy, might be another candidate. And there is Russia. Perhaps none of them would be interested, and perhaps all of them would be. It's worth a try.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Hobbes » 13 Feb 2016 09:04

Isn't the Chinese J-10 based heavily on the Lavi?

Will
BRFite
Posts: 637
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Will » 14 Feb 2016 02:36

As per reports the Israelis gave the Chinese the Lavi design when they were pally. That's till Uncle Sam put a stop to their Bahi-bahi relationship. To make up for the loss of the Chinese market Uncle Sam let them start exporting to India. Left to the Isrealis they would still like access to the bigger Chinese market.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2501
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby John » 14 Feb 2016 04:01

Will wrote:As per reports the Israelis gave the Chinese the Lavi design when they were pally. That's till Uncle Sam put a stop to their Bahi-bahi relationship. To make up for the loss of the Chinese market Uncle Sam let them start exporting to India. Left to the Isrealis they would still like access to the bigger Chinese market.


That is totally false yes US was not happy with Isreal China arms deals. But relationship soured because China started supplying arms to Iran (which in turn gave to Hizb) some of it was based on israeli tech.

wesley
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 23 Feb 2008 19:40

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby wesley » 14 Feb 2016 05:07

krishGAgain wrote:Although not quite related to AMCA, Japan unveiled a downscaled prototype of its 5th gen aircraft.

As impressive as rolling out a technology demonstrator for flight test might be, the bigger news is what's going on behind the scenes. In parallel with the prototype test program, the Japanese are funding an engine technology program:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/japan-r ... ngine-core

This is expected to include a core test in 2016, followed by a complete engine test in 2018. The Japanese are reportedly aiming at an F119-style configuration with a three-stage fan, six-stage high-pressure compressor (HPC), and single stage high-pressure turbine (HPT) and a single stage low-pressure turbine (LPT). The envisioned engine would be in the 15 metric ton (33,000 lb) thrust class, and would feature ceramic matrix composite (CMC) turbine shrouds, nickel single crystal alloy HPT stator and rotor blades, and disks produced from a new, Japanese-developed nickel alloy.

The engine development program is every bit as important, if not more important, than the flight test program. After all, Japan has built jet fighters before (the F-1 and F-2). But they've never designed their own jet fighter engine.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 14 Feb 2016 05:55

nik wrote:For saving 8 billion $$$, I am willing to have ISRO send IAF and HAL to deep space - oblivion. India does not need this bullshit infighting, otherwise we will have another foreign flag flying from Rajpath in a matter of time (lessons from History should not be forgotten)

Millions of Indians over 10+ generations gave up their lives to free us from 1000 years of slavery. HAL and IAF have no business to put our freedom at risk.

India needs 1000 plus fighters at reasonable cost to deter any aggression. Our economy is a quarter of China, so need to use our money wisely.

I have a request.

I understand the angst but hype is not necessary - especially about 1000 years of slavery. The idea that all of India was enslaved for 1000 years is a triumphant declaration by Pakis. We have simply swallowed that and we use that rhetoric as an argument against ourselves. A short while spent reading history will show that a large part of India came under. Mughal occupation for about 300 years in a 5000 year long story. Only the area that is now Pakistan has been Islamic for 1000 years.

So just because you feel angry about HAL/IAF disagreements there is no need to distort history to make your point. After all we are a forum where members claim hyper patriotism and curse leftists and historians for distorting history. But clearly we are not above using that same distorted history to prove a point that is personally important to us as individuals. That is hypocrisy and makes the attitudes of the Darkha Butts and their ilk "understandable". We can accept that if we can accept this.

I would like to see the disappearance of this 1000 years of enslavement rhetoric. Incidentally I also object to this business of sending IAF and HAL into oblivion which I consider as useless rhetoric that only brings down the already low quality of discussions on this forum - but the forum belongs to its members and discussions will go the way they want, so I will not say more.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 14 Feb 2016 19:05

we have only 0.3m wind tunnel for supersonic testing.. still waiting for the wonders. we need to move to actual size (up to say what is the largest available outside for LM and Boeing) wind tunnel facilities. this along with airborne engine test facilities should be taken up at the earliest.

we need to invest more

wesley
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 23 Feb 2008 19:40

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby wesley » 14 Feb 2016 19:14

enaiel wrote:I am not so sure. There is a lot of bitterness still lingering regarding the cancellation of the Lavi (similar to how we feel about the HF-24).

Please read this: http://www.haaretz.com/f-35-take-it-or-leave-it-1.304297

I would agree that there is a lot of regret over the cancellation of the Lavi. Israel would be much less vulnerable today if they had their own fighter industry.

There was an exceptional book that was published on the Lavi program just this past month. A lot of technical information, but also a great deal about the campaign by certain elements in Washington to kill the program:
http://www.amazon.com/Lavi-United-State ... 1612347223

The author of the book has also published online a couple of the "lost chapters" that were cut from the final version of the book:
http://john-golan.blogspot.com/2015/12/ ... eface.html
http://john-golan.blogspot.com/2015/12/ ... unted.html
http://john-golan.blogspot.com/2016/01/ ... -hope.html

As well as the original color diagrams and photographs (which are black-and-white in the published version):
http://john-golan.blogspot.com/2016/01/ ... tions.html
http://john-golan.blogspot.com/2015/12/ ... raphs.html

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 14 Feb 2016 19:29

Someone asked what is NAL gotta do with AMCA
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/05/0792.pdf
Further, the R&D divisions at NAL have significantly
contributed towards the advanced medium combat aircraft
programme of the Aeronautical Development
Agency (ADA). The R&D efforts led to the new configuration
and a structurally efficient wing layout with four
bending attachment brackets and two shear attachment
brackets. For this configuration, structural design, analysis
and size optimization were carried out to cater to all
critical symmetric and unsymmetric 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 (Figure 6).

page 794

google ref: http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2015/01 ... evise.html

Will
BRFite
Posts: 637
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Will » 14 Feb 2016 22:28

John wrote:
Will wrote:As per reports the Israelis gave the Chinese the Lavi design when they were pally. That's till Uncle Sam put a stop to their Bahi-bahi relationship. To make up for the loss of the Chinese market Uncle Sam let them start exporting to India. Left to the Isrealis they would still like access to the bigger Chinese market.


That is totally false yes US was not happy with Isreal China arms deals. But relationship soured because China started supplying arms to Iran (which in turn gave to Hizb) some of it was based on israeli tech.


Maybe they were but the fact remains that if the US had not put its foot down the Israeli's would still be doing business with the Chinese(rumours are that some cooperation with the Chinese still goes on. But that's geopolitics for you). The breaking point was when the US stopped the Phalcon deal with the Chinese .

SaiK wrote:we have only 0.3m wind tunnel for supersonic testing.. still waiting for the wonders. we need to move to actual size (up to say what is the largest available outside for LM and Boeing) wind tunnel facilities. this along with airborne engine test facilities should be taken up at the earliest.

we need to invest more


+10000 on that. Without adequate facilities our research is pretty toothless. Wind tunnels and engine test facilities should be a priority. What are the scientific advisors to the PM doing?
Last edited by Will on 14 Feb 2016 22:31, edited 1 time in total.

Will
BRFite
Posts: 637
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Will » 14 Feb 2016 22:30

.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 14 Feb 2016 22:46

Will wrote:.

Will you ?

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby vishvak » 15 Feb 2016 00:30

I think we are doing the right thing by keeping AMCA R&D in secrecy. I say build a few extended hose/pod-like structures that would move like (& at the same time as) landing gear just to provide cover at low speeds during take off and landing.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 15 Feb 2016 00:37

There is a good amount of info about the AMCA out there.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 15 Feb 2016 00:45

BTW:

Image

Checkout the dimensions.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 15 Feb 2016 00:57

I have the strongest feeling that we can develop a non-scattering skin kevlar or composite that permeates all radiations and we focus on designing the advanced platform totally on aerodynamics and mission needs (mach levels, turns and drags).

so how do we do stealth? 2 ways
1. Each component inside absorb, scatter
2. inner thin-nano skin to deflect

UB ji did bless this approach a while ago under bhurka.

externally, everyone will laugh at this design - how can this be stealth!?

he he he it is called onion architecture. you heard it here

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby vishvak » 15 Feb 2016 01:08

NRao wrote:There is a good amount of info about the AMCA out there.

Same goes for nuke subs too. There is a good amount of info so what.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 15 Feb 2016 02:52

Same goes for nuke subs too. There is a good amount of info so what.


Someone posted:

I think we are doing the right thing by keeping AMCA R&D in secrecy.


Far more than nuke sub.

member_29245
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby member_29245 » 15 Feb 2016 09:51

rohitvats wrote:
Chakra.in wrote: Reread my post, nothing you have commented is even remotely related to what I have posted. Nothing I have said is false or untrue. IAF Chief has indeed made public statements that have directly undermined the MoD's position during Rafale negotiations. There is no defense of what he said. Maybe you can help explain to me why he would admit that 'There is no Plan B' for Rafale and that 'Su-30MKI is no replacement for Rafale' so that Dassault knows it can do whatever it wants in the negotiations. Which is evidently what is happening. This sort of damage against MoD position and negotiating power I expect from outside and paid presstitutes, to have it come from the establishment itself is just shocking.

There is a very poor relationship between IAF, HAL, and MoD. This needs to be remedied else Military will be stuck up in non-stop dramas like this for a long time. This deal with ToT, local assembly, and reasonable costs should have been signed 5 years ago. Just compare how swiftly Brazil signed a deal with Saab over Gripen, and compare it to the Rafale saga. Hopefully the new DPP and early retirement for officers led under the new MoD will lead the way for even more reforms that will hopefully get the Military establishment up to international standards on procurement instead of the current state.


The fact that we had one of the most in-depth evaluation process of top fighters in the world EXCLUDING Su-30/35 should tell any reasonable person that there is no 'Plan B' as far as MMRCA category aircraft in the IAF's inventory is concerned. It is not Su-30 MKI nor it is LCA. Had that been the case, there would not have been the whole bloody song-and-dance competition. Leave that aside, when the GOI clarified that we'll not even talk to L2 bidder, it told everyone concerned that not only is there no Plan B for MMRCA, there is not Plan B for Rafale as well!

When you get into such evaluations, down-select two best fighters in the world short of Raptor, ask for financial bids, spend couple of years negotiating the deal and then don't close the deal because you suddenly discovered that it is too expensive, that is not called as having Plan B. That is called wasting time and then trying to somehow remedy the situation. When all the while your AF is going down in numbers and has been shouting for 1.5 decades about the impeding draw-down.

The present government became fully cognizant of the price aspect of the Rafale deal as well the falling squadron numbers of IAF when it assumed power. It could well have then and there taken decision to scrap the whole bloody deal and go for more Su-30MKI or Su-35 even. But it did not. Instead we had the PM talking about 36 fighters. Which is neither here nor there. Leading to IAF Chief to openly state that 36 are not enough. So, did GOI take IAF into confidence which is actually going to use these aircraft? Has the GOI told IAF that I'm only going to get you 36 and please make 'Plan B' for balance from Su-30MKI stable? Because Rafale or no Rafale, those 126 numbers need to be filled.

Plan A or B come with definite timeline. The price numbers are known to the government. Media reports talk about USD 4 billion gap in pricing. GOI can even now walk away from the deal. Or may be, it will. And then go back to ordering more Su-30MKI. But all that needs to happen within some definite timeline. And IAF needs to be on board with the decision from word go.

And what happens after you go back to Russians with them knowing fully well that they're now the only player in the town? What stops Russians from jacking up the price of not only the aircraft you're ordering afresh (126) but also the upgrade? After all, you've 272+126 = 398 or almost 45% of your IAF (assuming 900 a/c in 45 squadrons @ 20 a/c each) operating the type! Not to forget another ~150 odd FGFA likely to enter service and voila, more than 60% of IAF operates Russian a/c.

Coming to your procurement part - let me tell you a small secret: Services don't play any part in procurement after they've given inputs on the weapon system. That is for the MOD to take care of - same MOD which refused to treat IAF's request for 126 more Mirage-2000 as follow-on deal and invented the MMRCA competition for obvious reasons. Had that not been the case, this thread would've not existed.

Only thing constant is the threats this country faces and IAF has to be ready with whatever it has to best deal with those threats. MOD is least bothered and moves at its own pace. Not to forget that they won't allow Services into any decision making set-up. HAL can take its own sweet time to do things as it pleases. No skin of anyone's back there.

IAF/Service Chief has had to make every possible effort to get the best it can out of MOD. Because they know that when yellow matter hits the fan, they're the ones who'll be asked to clean the mess. The broken system is not because of Services. But they're the ones most impacted. On the face of it, MOD/R&D Establishment/Production agencies exist to empower the Services so that GOI can wield national policy through them. But it seems that everyone exists for himself, Services be damned!

And please stop these stupid remarks about leadership of IAF and/or Services just because you don't like what he says. They're denigrating and disrespectful to people who've given their life serving the nation.

His statements are not driven by desire for 'shiny toys' as you and many on this forum go about shouting...his statements are driven by now almost desperate requirement for getting replacement for aircrafts being phased out. I hope powers that be show half as much urgency as IAF is doing about the impeding problem.

PS: The Brazilian FX-2 program took 8 years from 'fresh' inception to closure, which happened not too many months back.


How come navy has been able to lend more support to Indian tech & products almost always ?

They deal with the same babu's same mod same development agencies same def psus ?

member_29245
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby member_29245 » 15 Feb 2016 09:55

NRao wrote:BTW:

Image

Checkout the dimensions.


If kaveri output is 80kn

And F404- in20 is 84kn

Why can't kaveri be used on lca ?

Can anyone tell on which other parameters it fails ? Or falls short ?

And the importance of that parameter ?


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests