AMCA News and Discussions

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby RamaY » 21 Nov 2010 22:20

OT.
Last edited by Rahul M on 21 Nov 2010 22:27, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: please use the strat forum.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16831
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Rahul M » 21 Nov 2010 22:26

F-35 can carry external loads in a non-stealthy mode or it can go stealthy and carry everything inside. obviously the later is much less in amount.

as for the AMCA it might not be able to carry as much as it can in terms of weight inside it's weapons bays, like the F-35. I would hazard a guess that it's weight/payload figures would be similar to the mig-29k. I do hope they keep the option of external weapons carriage. you may not need stealth all the time.

Pratyush wrote:Marten that the internal load for the JSF. If the external load is included it goes up to 15000 lbs
only neanderthals still use FPS. :P

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7734
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 21 Nov 2010 22:36

I have to agree with the Karan here.

I was about to type an answer to Vic 's tech leap questions. But Karan has typed in my thoughts here.

Besides the LCA exterior cannot be scaled up "evolutionarily" and made stealth. We have to design stealth planes at some point. The internal guts of it are evolutionary from the guts of LCA!

Vic, why equate the date of the first flight of MCA (2017) and FOC LCA Mark II (2017)? Besides, I frankly don't know why you go from 2018 in the first post to 2020 in later post for the LCA :). Also, we shouldn't compare the hyperplane with AMCA.The priorities and the available funding for the two are not matched.

We can't deliver the MCA in 3-5 years. If we could the IAF might have settled for an evolutionary LCA. IAF in 2025 won't induct an evolutionary LCA (I won't blame them at all). I would say ADA has got it right this time. They are setting the expectations for a 2025 plane right and gunning for it. That is much better to design and implement. IMHO it much more difficult if the ASR changes every 3-5 years after the design has been made.

Please don't compare the AMCA of 2025 with the MMRCA of today. MMRCA will be having their half life extensions then in many countries. They can't upgrade to stealth requirements, but the other stuff will be close to what you are seeing as the requirements from the MMRCA.

The engines will always be a concern. We can only hope that Kaveri delivers the good. If not, we have to import the engines. If anything Kaveri is getting some time to mature and has a better chance of being mated into the AMCA.
Last edited by Indranil on 21 Nov 2010 22:39, edited 1 time in total.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7734
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 21 Nov 2010 22:38

Rahul da ... I am 100% sure that they will have external hardpoints :).

I also think AMCA will be like Mig-29K. It has the same power and weight.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18537
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 21 Nov 2010 22:53

Marten wrote:What would be the payload of a 20-ton stealth fighter?
If the MTOW of a JSFA is 31~ tons and it can carry TWO LGBs, what should we logically expect the AMCA to carry and how many of each article?


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... AWAY+5.JPG

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... AWAY+3.JPG

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... AWAY+2.JPG

These are ADA released pics of the MCA. Aroor, without any shame, has taken pics from a somewhat public presentation, and has gone and put his own logo on it. As if they belong to him, without even giving credit to the actual owner/s.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18537
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 21 Nov 2010 22:59

Rahul M wrote:
vic wrote: six-generation AMCA aircraft shortly.

vic wrote:ADA was identifying technologies for 6 {+t} {+h} generation combat aircraft.

the fellow talks of '30 km operational range' for god's sake !
is it too hard to see that the reporter has no idea what he is talking about and this is just a slip of tongue or a typo ? please, we don't need people to go off on a tangent about 6th gen and start a self-flagellation-athon.


Yeah, true. Plus ADA used to call the LCA 5G earlier, and F-22, 6G based on their internal classification of aircraft generations. Who knows what the reporter heard and what he interpreted.

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 539
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Avarachan » 22 Nov 2010 00:05

The more I think about the AMCA, the more depressed I get. It seems that we are making many of the old mistakes all over again.

This "low-numbers but indigenous-and-highest-quality" philosophy is proving to be a disaster.

I would really like someone to talk about the design philosophy of the AMCA. What are the requirements for range, payload, speed, etc.? It seems like we are copying-and-pasting the JSF design. But the JSF program is in serious trouble.

I've been reading through the U.S. Government Accountability Office's 2010 report on the JSF. Good gracious: if the U.S. is encountering all sorts of problems with their medium-weight stealth aircraft, I can only imagine what will happen with the AMCA. Here's the report: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10382.pdf
Another article worth reading is Air Power Australia's analysis of the JSF in comparison to the USAF's 1960s tactical fighter, the F-105. http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-JSF-Thud-2004.html

I support the idea of building on the experience of the LCA with another manned aircraft. The problem is that the current approach to the AMCA seems to be extremely risky. Hopefully the B-R guys who are coming to Aero India 2011 can ask some questions to the DRDO personnel there.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7734
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 22 Nov 2010 01:16

^^^

Could you please specify what do you mean by MCA is a copy paste of F-35?

Instead of going in rounds and rounds for those who are saying that we are repeating the mistakes again.

What do you want to see the "incremental" AMCA as?
When do you think should be the induction time of such an "incremental" AMCA?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18537
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 22 Nov 2010 01:55

Avarachan,

"I would really like someone to talk about the design philosophy of the AMCA. What are the requirements for range, payload, speed, etc.? "

These are being finetuned with the IAF, I believe more details will be released next year or thereafter.

Initial work on estimated performance is here (please disregard the odious watermark): http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... velope.jpg

Payload is 2 heavy LGB + 2WVR, 4 BVR + 2 WVR

Range details - I don't remember.

"It seems like we are copying-and-pasting the JSF design. But the JSF program is in serious trouble."

The JSF program is more ambitious IMO. It will probably be stealthier, is single engine (as a result much more investment into the world's most powerful fighter engine ever developed) and also has more complex avionics. Such as the integrated Electro Optical Targeting system.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/1232.pdf

They also stuck to the original mandate for a strike oriented fighter, but are constantly adding more capability since the F-22 production is capped at 187 fighters.

I think, as the IAF will be acquiring 200-250 PAK-FA, we may get by with less demanding specifications for the MCA (regarding radar cross section and onboard systems). But yes, it will still be a challenging endeavour. This for instance, is similar/analogous to the architecture adopted by the F-22 and JSF.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... ionics.JPG

The engines are actually our stumbling block, but with the Safran venture, we should have an option there.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36390
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 22 Nov 2010 02:43

Asking IAF now what they require may not be the same as delivering the aMCA to those needs after 30 years. Hence, tranches based requirements analysis need to be done, so that every prototype, phase and product delivery is executed on a planned manner with no schedule slippage and IAF the real user does not feel they are out of date with the technology as well.

This is going to be the real capability and maturity aspect of aMCA. Having done LCA to near FOC, it is important that we don't sleep on these respect. Engaging is not enough, but doing the right engineering and management is required.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7734
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 22 Nov 2010 03:09

I ask again.

What would you like in "Tranche" 1 of AMCA?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36390
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 22 Nov 2010 04:31

What IAF may like is what that needs to be determined for each doable tranches.

babbupandey
BRFite
Posts: 180
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 16:53

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby babbupandey » 22 Nov 2010 06:55

From what I have read in this forum, I think AMCA project looks too ambitious for 2017-18 deadline.
The team, it is possible, is riding high on the success of LCA but they must not get into the vicious circle of over-promise and under-delivery.
I think there should be some backup plan in place for each of the technology like electro-optic architecture with fiber-optic links.
But I am sure those who are working on feasibility study must be keeping all of this in mind.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 22 Nov 2010 07:09

babbupandey wrote:From what I have read in this forum, I think AMCA project looks too ambitious for 2017-18 deadline.



Thank you for being one more person who is pointing this out. Nobody said "too ambitious" when the LCA was first conceived. Everyone thought that the technologies were all within easy reach. They were not.

I am no expert but I read a few things here and there. I could make this post in the China thread with reference to Chinese engines, but choose to make it here as India is more relevant to me.

In the course of the last decade on BRF I have learned words like "powder metallurgy" for engine blades, which was overtaken by "single crystal blades" which in turn has been overtaken by "blisk" where the blades and disk are a monolith. I have also learned about the complex microstructure of each fan blade making it run cooler. I have also figured out that th study of gas flow and thermodynamics in engines has moved on from simple (simple?? :eek:) college IIT level stuff to an science that is far more discriminating about behavior at a sub atomic level.

To me these revelations have come just in the last 10-15 years largely on BRF

Now take "supercruise". For supercruise you need a low drag structure of the aircraft. But in addition you need an extremely efficient engine and all those fine details mentioned above be to be mastered to produce a super-efficient supercruising engine.

We (India) have not yet mastered single crystal blade manufacturing tech. We are nowhere near making blisks. No educational institution in the country can give you post graduate training of the level required to understand what is happening inside an old generation jet engine, leave alone a supercruising engine.

Does anyone seriously believe we can get anywhere near supercruise in 10 years without importing engines? We need to be realistic. We are not going to get there. We are lying to ourselves if we think magic can be done because getting there in 10 years from a stage when we have not made a single in service engine requires magic.

We need to take a different route. We must not copy what is being done abroad and imagine that it is teh way forward for us.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7734
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 22 Nov 2010 07:11

Sai sahab,

Don't put it on the IAF. And 'you' are just figurative. But I am trying to understand what should the alternative "evolutionary" AMCA or AMCA tranche 1 or whatever we call it, look like. It doesn't need to be an elaborate or an expert evaluation. But basic broad points.

1. What should be the characteristic of the airframe (Don't worry about the wing, fin etc.)
2. What should the engine be?
3. What should be the radar?
4. What should be the attack capabilities (strike and A2A)?
5. What should be in the EW?
6. What all pilot aides?

Again just the basics answers for what you think should go in the AMCA.

When I personally asked myself these simple questions, I found that whichever way we go we would need 7 years from now to field the AMCA. For all testing and certification, it would be 7-8 years. You would have to make the plane stay relevant for 20-30 years from then.

The evolutionary design might take 5 years less. But in 2020 IAF would change the ASR, and rightly so. They would have the option of the FGFA/F-35. Also Chinese would have fielded their fifth gen J-XX. So actually if you go the "LCA-evolutionary" way in 2020 you will have a LCA saga again!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7734
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 22 Nov 2010 07:11

We can trust that the Chinese can come up with a fifth gen aircraft. Somehow we can't trust our own designers! Is all this talk that LCA being a learning experience to go to the next level just talk? Or is it really a feeling of confidence that WE CAN DO IT! The junta I talk outside looks down upon sarkari development. I fight everyday with people who don't understand the LCA because they read news like what Rajat Pandit writes. I found BR was different. There are knowledgeable people here who have faith in OUR brethren. Show some faith gentlemen. Sorry for the rant. Just felt like saying it out. Mods, please feel free to retain only what you think is relevant.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7734
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 22 Nov 2010 07:17

Shiv sahab,

I am sure you know that we don't need BLISKs or SCBs to supercruise.

If 10 years from now we can't provide a Kaveri/Ganga/Yamuna engine that can't supercruise, we should close our engine shops. I don't know whether we will have BLISKs in 10 years. But I am very sure that the GTRE guys know that almost all planes which will be relevant till 2050 will need super cruise ability. I would be very surprised if they don't think so and are not planning for the same.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 22 Nov 2010 07:25

indranilroy wrote:Shiv sahab,

I am sure you know that we don't need BLISKs or SCBs to supercruise.


I don't know.

But I do know HF 24 could supercruise on Orpheus turbojet. Why are we chasing after surpecruise for 5 Gen when we had it in 2nd gen. I think even I can answer that one. It's about fuel efficiency, power and range. If we can achieve that with Orpheus why do we need Kaveri?

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 22 Nov 2010 07:27

indranilroy wrote:We can trust that the Chinese can come up with a fifth gen aircraft.


We really must not bring the Chinese in here. The China argument is often a bogey. We "trust" Chinese 3rd gen to be a threat to us despite operating and making 4th gen ourselves. We are desperate for 5th gen. Most people's minds seem to stop working the minute the name "China" is mentioned.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 22 Nov 2010 07:38

indranilroy wrote: Show some faith gentlemen.


I used to have faith in the 1980s when I was sitting in the UK and saw Agni I and plans for LCA. 25 years later I still have faith, but that faith is tempered by experience and knowledge of the many pitfalls.

Faith alone is not enough. A does of reality is essential.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7734
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 22 Nov 2010 07:42

Shiv sahab,

That is exactly the point. If you put a good slick body which stays slick at the transonic and supersonic flight. If you know how to feed supersonic air to the engines. And If you have a powerful enough thrust, you will super cruise!

Chinese 3rd generation and our 4th generation are the same. They have a different numbering system. You might question that the JF-17 is not a true blue 4th gen plane. But I am sure we both have spoken about this irrelevance of generations. JF-17 may be a modified Mig-21 airframe. Many people here don't understand that the Mig-21 was a good airframe to refine! They have the airframe. They have the engines. They can upgrade the avionics. They can't upgrade the basic airframe!

Same goes for AMCA, if we want it to be a fighter of tomorrow, its airframe has to be stealthy. Do you believe any body starting a design today will start will a non-stealthy version (even the Chinese). Even with there J-10Bs they are trying conformal antenna etc.
Even PLAAF won't accept a plane in 2020-25 which is a J-10B, J-11B upgrade. Look at the simulator of the J-XX. It also showcases a wide ( I don't know when wide becomes panaromic) touch screen display! And this plane will fly much before MCA. Not a single eyebrow is raised. With the AMCA it has been termed a repeat of a mistake!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7734
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 22 Nov 2010 07:52

shiv wrote:
indranilroy wrote: Show some faith gentlemen.


I used to have faith in the 1980s when I was sitting in the UK and saw Agni I and plans for LCA. 25 years later I still have faith, but that faith is tempered by experience and knowledge of the many pitfalls.

Faith alone is not enough. A does of reality is essential.


I agree Shiv sir that you would have lot more grey between your ears.

The faith I am speaking of is that of belief that now we have a lot of base and money to build on. You will agree that the AMCA starts of with demanding 2 billion. If the LCA team demanded for one more cycle to carry the rudder, they would have been sent back.

We are giving our designers 5 years to design one up on what they have done till now. And the implementers/fabricators 7 or more years.

Don't worry about the displays and FBL, distributed computing and all that stuff.That's not the challenge for an IT powerhouse.

The main questions are elsewhere.
1. Airframe - design know-how for stealth/fabrication
2. Engine - Reliability/adequate power
3. Radar - antenna (packing ratio)
4. Indigenous missiles - (Don't know where to start)
5. EW Suite

They are the real bottle necks! But know what we have to develop them for even an evolutionary-LCA kind of fighter.

The challenge is not to create THE AMCA. It is to create a AMCA. Don't worry about the skin the fox wears. What matters is the internals. And there we are actually going the evolutionary way!

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 22 Nov 2010 08:18

indranilroy wrote:
The challenge is not to create THE AMCA. It is to create a AMCA. Don't worry about the skin the fox wears. What matters is the internals. And there we are actually going the evolutionary way!


In fact that "grey around the ears" tells me that this is only half the story. It is the other half of the story that is left out that is going to affect India.

What if an AMCA is delayed? What aircraft will fill the role?

If AMCA is supposed to come by 2020 but gets delayed till 2030, what will be the shape of our air force in 2030? Will AMCA be with us in sufficient numbers and give us sufficient capability in 2030? Or will we have to import F-35 at that time?

If we start producing MMRCA by 2015 and keep it going till 2035. Does that mean that it is OK for AMCA to appear by 2030-2035 time frame since we are "already covered" by MMRCA?

If it is OK for AMCA to appear by 2035 will it have the same capabilities as F-35 in 2010? Or something more? What will it have?

If we can realistically wait till 2030 for AMCA then I am quite happy with the idea. But I have not seen any mention of any technologies that AMCA will have that are not already flying in the F-35 in 2010. At least we will not be claiming that we are becoming cutting edge. By 2030 we can expect to have the tech that is currently cutting edge in 2010. In the meantime if some other revolutionary tech is available, we will be crying in 2030 that AMCA is too little too late just like we are crying in 2010 that LCA is too little too late.

I believe this is a perfectly realistic assessment of our capabilities.

babbupandey
BRFite
Posts: 180
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 16:53

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby babbupandey » 22 Nov 2010 08:28

indranilroy wrote:We can trust that the Chinese can come up with a fifth gen aircraft. Somehow we can't trust our own designers! Is all this talk that LCA being a learning experience to go to the next level just talk? Or is it really a feeling of confidence that WE CAN DO IT! The junta I talk outside looks down upon sarkari development. I fight everyday with people who don't understand the LCA because they read news like what Rajat Pandit writes. I found BR was different. There are knowledgeable people here who have faith in OUR brethren. Show some faith gentlemen. Sorry for the rant. Just felt like saying it out. Mods, please feel free to retain only what you think is relevant.


LCA has been a learning experience, but India has still made just one fighter aircraft so far. We have taken a baby-step, shouldn't we go easy on ourselves and learn to walk, then stride and then finally fly.
This is for our own good, because then 7 years down the line, on the thread of AMCA we will be cursing IAF for not accepting MCA and posting another tender to foreign companies. It should not go down as another a project of promises and no deliveries.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7734
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 22 Nov 2010 08:32

Shiv sir, very very valid point.

One very important lesson to have learn from LCA would be the project management. Has that bottleneck been cleared? Can we set real time-lines and make sure that we stick to them?

If the AMCA is delayed may be we will see a hike in production MMRCA/Tejas Mark II.

Also you make another very valid point the specs that you see on the AMCA is not achieving the moon. The glass in the cockpit and the wires are just the dazzle. The true capabilities have been kept to the evolutionary 4th-5th gen jump. And come to think of it those exact 5th gen tech is a challenge for us, the real bottlenecks in our strive to go one up on a 4th gen-LCA.

Having said that the glass will be often immense help on a single pilot system and will need quite a lot of hard work to provide fault-tolerant and mature system. But that IMHO is not the bottleneck. Sadly, we in this forum are jumping on AMCA going for the moon because the cockpit is next-to-next-generation. The wires are made of glass instead of copper!

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7171
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby nachiket » 22 Nov 2010 08:40

shiv wrote:But I do know HF 24 could supercruise on Orpheus turbojet. Why are we chasing after surpecruise for 5 Gen when we had it in 2nd gen. I think even I can answer that one. It's about fuel efficiency, power and range. If we can achieve that with Orpheus why do we need Kaveri?

Is that true? :eek: I thought the HF-24 had trouble going supersonic at all due to the severely underpowered engines.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7734
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 22 Nov 2010 08:41

babbupandey wrote:
indranilroy wrote:We can trust that the Chinese can come up with a fifth gen aircraft. Somehow we can't trust our own designers! Is all this talk that LCA being a learning experience to go to the next level just talk? Or is it really a feeling of confidence that WE CAN DO IT! The junta I talk outside looks down upon sarkari development. I fight everyday with people who don't understand the LCA because they read news like what Rajat Pandit writes. I found BR was different. There are knowledgeable people here who have faith in OUR brethren. Show some faith gentlemen. Sorry for the rant. Just felt like saying it out. Mods, please feel free to retain only what you think is relevant.


LCA has been a learning experience, but India has still made just one fighter aircraft so far. We have taken a baby-step, shouldn't we go easy on ourselves and learn to walk, then stride and then finally fly.
This is for our own good, because then 7 years down the line, on the thread of AMCA we will be cursing IAF for not accepting MCA and posting another tender to foreign companies. It should not go down as another a project of promises and no deliveries.


Thats what I am asking "you" (again figuratively). What should be the next step. We havn't gone very very far into the AMCA. If we start designing an EF/Rafale - like fighter today, how many years will it take? I can guarantee you that it wouldn't be less than 12-15 to get FOC. Because you have to do everything, and test everything that you would do on a stealth body. With a stealth body we are saying it will take 5 years more (just my assessment which is most probably more faulty than true).

I mean come to think about it. what is there in the ASR of AMCA beyond what you would expect in the next evolution of our fighter? Again don't get dazzled by the glass. Think of the core stuff. Incidentally, those core stuff are still challenges for us. Engine/Radars/weapons/EW/sensor/fusion. We have to solve them for the next step of our fighter design and that will take 10 years. In those ten years, we are getting useful glasses all over as well.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 22 Nov 2010 08:49

If you look at the reverse side of the coin, you find that the technology of 25 years ago is the primary technology being used to fight battles in 2010. It will be at least 2020 0r 2025 before the technology of 2010 becomes widespread enough to make a significant dent in warfare across the globe.

That means that if we can get AMCA by 2025 then it will be a first class achievement.

If we must look at China we need to recall that they too are struggling with engines. For all the bravado and bluster they are not really "ahead" of India. The JF 17 appears to be an aircraft that even China is going to operate. The J-10 appears to have issues that will take time to sort out. The Chinese bought the Su27 (and called its Chinese clone the J-11) because the J-10 was not there yet. And its still not there. Recall how teh Russians came up with spectacular flying displays in the mid 1980s with Su 27 and MiG 29? Have you seen the insipid displays of J-10? he JF-17 does a beter job - but belongs in the MiG 21 genre. OK maybe F-16. But nowhere near MiG 29, Su 30, Mirage 2000, Gripen, Eurofightyer or even f/A 18. Just watch the displays and you will know what I mean. Of course the argument is that airshow displays mean nothing. But doing nothing in an airshow certainly means something no?

The point I wish to make is that we need to be honest about our own capability and equally honest about others capabilituies. If we say that we are useless because we can only do 3rd gen but China is great because it produces 3 gen and call it 4 gen then we cannot accurately assess what is happening. we need to be realistic about our threats. Never underestimate an adversary. But don't over estimate him either. Never over estimate your own capability. But do not underestimate it either.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 22 Nov 2010 08:54

nachiket wrote:
shiv wrote:But I do know HF 24 could supercruise on Orpheus turbojet. Why are we chasing after surpecruise for 5 Gen when we had it in 2nd gen. I think even I can answer that one. It's about fuel efficiency, power and range. If we can achieve that with Orpheus why do we need Kaveri?

Is that true? :eek: I thought the HF-24 had trouble going supersonic at all due to the severely underpowered engines.


No. The severe underpowered engines only made the HF 24 lose speed and altitude in turns. it was certainly supersonic and even managed to supercruise just like Vishnu Som's description of Gripen supercruise.

Supercruise is a word like "fast food". For centuries Tamil Nadu roadside restaurants have served "fast food" in the form of hot dosa produced for 25 people in 10 minutes. But we did not learn the word "fast food" until McDonald's came.

HF 24 and other aircraft could supercruise. We only found out when the Americans told us that F-22 could supercruise.

Why the hell does my spellchecker think I am spelling something wrong when I type dosa or samosa? But it does not object to the word "Microsoft". Is this lack of global clout? Sorry OT.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Willy » 22 Nov 2010 09:02

srai wrote:There are several ways to build the AMCA to its full specifications. Here is my version of it divided into three 5-7 years Phases with successive realization of key technologies. R&D related to IOC completed by 2030. Full FOC by 2035.

Image


Phase I (2011-2018)
  • First build 2 Technology Demonstrators using the F-414 engines (being licensed produced) plus 4th-Gen LCA technologies, such as its FBW, Avionics, Controls, Computers, EW, Composites etc. This way the AMCA TDs will be flying by 2018 and start the flight testing program to verify the airframe flight characteristics and to test the "Advanced Airframe" design with its Serpentine Air Intakes, Internal Weapon Bays, Advanced Radomes, Low IR and Stealthy Airframe design
.

Phase II (2018-2023)
  • TD 1/2 (Airframe Technology)
  • PV-1 (Advanced Control) -> GTRE/Snecma Kaveri engines replacing the F-414 with advanced engine controls and Supercruise
  • PV-2 (Advanced Control) -> Flight Control, Active CG Mgmt, Brake Controls
  • PV-3 (Advanced Control) -> Flight Control, Active CG Mgmt, Brake Controls
  • PV-4 (Aero-Flight Dynamics) -> Control of High Asymmetry, Re-Configurable Control System, Internal Weapon Bay opening/closing in supersonic flight
  • PV-5 (Advanced Avionics) -> Integrated Modular Architecture, Flush/Body Conformal Antenna & Pods, Advanced Comm, AESA radar
  • PV-6 (Materials for Stealth) -> Radar Absorbing Composites & Paints
  • PV-7 (Advanced Manufacturing) -> Jigless Manufacturing & Static Tests

Phase III (2023-2030)
  • PV-1 (Advanced Control) -> GTRE/Snecma Kaveri engines w/ TVC
  • PV-2 (Advanced Control) -> Flight Control w/ Kaveri engines and Flush/Body Conformal Antenna & Pods
  • PV-3 (Advanced Control) -> Flight Control w/ Kaveri engines and Flush/Body Conformal Antenna & Pods
  • PV-4 (Aero-Flight Dynamics) -> Internal Weapon Release in supersonic flight
  • PV-5 (Advanced Avionics) -> Situational Awareness (Sensor Data Fusion), Decision Support System, Advanced Sensors, Net Centric Warfare
  • PV-6 (Materials for Stealth) -> Advanced Composites & Materials, Micro-Electro-Mechanical System (MEMS)
  • PV-7 (Advanced Manufacturing) -> Superplastic Forming, Micron Surface Finish
  • LSP-1 to LSP-8 (Advanced Manufacturing) at HAL
[/quote]


Does the ADA even have a set of timelines like this? or are they shooting for the moon again. The engine is going to be a major problem again.They should give a 5 year lead for engine development and only then start on the rest of the stuff.

JimmyJ
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 07 Dec 2007 03:36
Location: Bangalore

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JimmyJ » 22 Nov 2010 09:03

If our aim is to get AMCA into air at the earliest, then I believe we must strike out the word indigenous first and attempt to replace what ever foreign components present in tranches.

I wonder whether the FBW can be replaced by FBL in a similar way rather than attempting it from the word go. This would ensure that we will have the fighter in air even if we face set backs in some department. While the airframe has to be Indian, without which there won't be a fighter, whatever can be purchased off the shelf for the moment should be considered.

But if we our slogan is 'indigenous' from day one then I guess we may not be seeing AMCA in air any time soon.

JMT

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7734
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 22 Nov 2010 09:08

shiv wrote:If you look at the reverse side of the coin, you find that the technology of 25 years ago is the primary technology being used to fight battles in 2010. It will be at least 2020 0r 2025 before the technology of 2010 becomes widespread enough to make a significant dent in warfare across the globe.

That means that if we can get AMCA by 2025 then it will be a first class achievement.

If we must look at China we need to recall that they too are struggling with engines. For all the bravado and bluster they are not really "ahead" of India. The JF 17 appears to be an aircraft that even China is going to operate. The J-10 appears to have issues that will take time to sort out. The Chinese bought the Su27 (and called its Chinese clone the J-11) because the J-10 was not there yet. And its still not there. Recall how teh Russians came up with spectacular flying displays in the mid 1980s with Su 27 and MiG 29? Have you seen the insipid displays of J-10? he JF-17 does a beter job - but belongs in the MiG 21 genre. OK maybe F-16. But nowhere near MiG 29, Su 30, Mirage 2000, Gripen, Eurofightyer or even f/A 18. Just watch the displays and you will know what I mean. Of course the argument is that airshow displays mean nothing. But doing nothing in an airshow certainly means something no?

The point I wish to make is that we need to be honest about our own capability and equally honest about others capabilituies. If we say that we are useless because we can only do 3rd gen but China is great because it produces 3 gen and call it 4 gen then we cannot accurately assess what is happening. we need to be realistic about our threats. Never underestimate an adversary. But don't over estimate him either. Never over estimate your own capability. But do not underestimate it either.
!

Exactly Shivji

Avionics wise, engine wise (except the TVC), EW wise we are gunning for Rafalesque (2013) capabilities. I mean look at the ASR. We are packaging it within a stealth skin. That's all. I don't know where this 6th gen talk is coming from. But just compare the capabilities of Rafale of 2013 and AMCA "wishlist".

I am big fan of the airshows and don't believe airshow maneuvering is a complete disconnect from wartime maneuvering. A capability is a capability in any arena. I don't expect that we will have a "complete" AMCA by 2017. But get a capable airframe up. Add things as they become available. Very much like the JF-17.

Otherwise we will have an augmented finless larger LCA flying in 2017. The other things that go into the MCA will have to be anyways developed. Whether they are developed or not. By 2025 IAF looks in its vicinity, and alas a larger LCA airframe doesn't make the cut to make it through the next 25 years to 2050. Changes are made to ASR at 2020, MCA drags on till 2030 with an order for 40 planes, and and plans for AMCA Mark II and the saga continues.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7734
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 22 Nov 2010 09:16

JimmyJ wrote:I wonder whether the FBW can be replaced by FBL in a similar way rather than attempting it from the word go.
JMT


I think it should be the other way round. FBW should be the contingency plan. We already have the know how to do write control logic and design/build the hardware for FBW.

The algorithm for controls will be anyways developed. The hardware designers who designed the FBW hardware, are now free to find out how optical fibres could be used instead of copper wires! Otherwise we would be wasting our manpower in redoing what has already been done and can be easily reproduced.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 22 Nov 2010 09:22

hose who have been following developmens in Indian avionics will know that Indian aurcraft have been optimised for teh Military Standard (Mil Std) 1553 bus.

What is required for fly by light (AFAIK) is the Mil Std 1760 bus. Unless something new comes up.
From my Auntee Wikee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-1760

There are five main groups of MIL-STD-1760 signals:
    1. power connections;
    2. MIL-STD-1553 data communications interface;
    3. high and low bandwidth analog signals;
    4. discrete signals; and
    5. fiber optics.


Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2977
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Kanson » 22 Nov 2010 09:25

shiv wrote: In fact that "grey around the ears" tells me that this is only half the story. It is the other half of the story that is left out that is going to affect India.

What if an AMCA is delayed? What aircraft will fill the role?

If AMCA is supposed to come by 2020 but gets delayed till 2030, what will be the shape of our air force in 2030? Will AMCA be with us in sufficient numbers and give us sufficient capability in 2030? Or will we have to import F-35 at that time?


If we go by Shiv Aroor report, there was no MCA contemplated till 2008 as fighter program that was meant to join in service. It was, as per his source, merely a feeder programme for the PAK-FA project. So what delay and replacement we are talking about now. Every programme of this nature carries the risk of delays. You have before eyes the example of F-35 from the aero industry which is considered the best. To mitigate the risk, one can rely on Su-30mki - upgraded, PAK-FA, LCA-Mk2 or Mk3 and then MMRCA. It is also been said that AMCA acts as a hedge against PAK-FA. Just as delay can be part of any high risk programme, what will be happen to IAF strength if Pak-FA is delayed? The much cherished aircraft JF-17 by you started during in late 80s, just like LCA. It is a copied design, still it took so many years. No home grown engine still. Radar and avionics are not par to 4th gen western standards. I'm not talking here about 4+gen aircrafts. But they are trying to make that a/c as modern and as relevant as possible. But all these didn't make them bog down saying we better make a 3rd gen aircraft as we don't have capabilities.


If we start producing MMRCA by 2015 and keep it going till 2035. Does that mean that it is OK for AMCA to appear by 2030-2035 time frame since we are "already covered" by MMRCA?

If it is OK for AMCA to appear by 2035 will if have the same capabilities as F-35 in 2010? Or something more? What will it have?

If we can realistically wait till 2030 for AMCA then I am quite happy with the idea. But I have not seen any mention of any technologies that AMCA will have that are not already flying in the F-35 in 2010.
15 yrs is standard time for fighter a/c development. So if we start now, we can get the aircraft by ~ 2025 or 2030. When the IAF wants an aircraft by that time, it thinks in terms of what capabilities it should have *at that time* depending on the threat that the adversaries might bring in *at that time*. By 2025 or 2030, F-35 will be available to whoever wishes to purchase depending upon the geo-political interest. As we can predict the alignment of geo-political interest, IAF may be forced to think of bringing more if not equivalent capabilities to its a/c. Whatever could be the reality, atleast they wish to have *more* capabilities than the *standard* at that time. Now the developers task is to fulfill that reality.

Now what we have different here in AMCA project that we don't have in LCA to be atleast moderately confident?
We have 3 feeder programs that can bring technologies, experiences, methodologies and alternate sub-systems as plan b to AMCA programme. They are 1. LCA 2. PAK-FA 3. MMRCA

Why we can moderately expect AMCA could be different from LCA?
First, the team that started the LCA is different from AMCA, if any one wish to take any solace from that. Present team is the one which is bringing LCA to IOC as per deadline.
IAF which was so different to LCA is no more carries that attitude and as we seen in many reports, it is the IAF which wants the AMCA. So the parent of AMCA is not just ADA/GoI.
We have learnt a lot of lesson in project management and the players(HAL/ADA/IAF/MoD) might be well aware of the pitfall of not playing along, more so by IAF than by anyone.
More importantly, industry is much more capable and willing to play a role in the development which was not the case in 80s when LCA project began.

So lets wait for the completion of feasibility studies, then we may have an understanding of where we stand.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8109
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Pratyush » 22 Nov 2010 09:27

Rahul M wrote:only neanderthals still use FPS. :P



But, I am a kindergardener Neanderthal who has returend from the dead :P :twisted:

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Willy » 22 Nov 2010 09:36

Just give it a Tech Demonstrator tag for the moment. Then when technologies have matured enough announce that an AMCA will be developed based on the tech demonstrator. If not we will have people cribbing how it took 50 years to develop the AMCA.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2977
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Kanson » 22 Nov 2010 09:36

indranilroy wrote:Avionics wise, engine wise (except the TVC), EW wise we are gunning for Rafalesque (2013) capabilities. I mean look at the ASR. We are packaging it within a stealth skin. That's all. I don't know where this 6th gen talk is coming from. But just compare the capabilities of Rafale of 2013 and AMCA "wishlist".

I am big fan of the airshows and don't believe airshow maneuvering is a complete disconnect from wartime maneuvering. A capability is a capability in any arena. I don't expect that we will have a "complete" AMCA by 2017. But get a capable airframe up. Add things as they become available. Very much like the JF-17.


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

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7734
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 22 Nov 2010 09:40

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

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

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

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7734
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 22 Nov 2010 09:44

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


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

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


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests