AMCA News and Discussions

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 17 Mar 2011 15:12

IMO, We are not looking the right way. The 6th gen is expected to be 1) a UAV based 2) a space based or LEO plane. IMO 5th gen may the last of the mohicans.

We are working on both 1) and 2). 1) we already know.. 2) we are testing scramjets and associated vehicles in bothe ISRO and DRDO.

Hopefully, I will be seeing (if not reporting) the 2) in next 2 months or before. Fixing up the dates for visit.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby vic » 17 Mar 2011 15:41

Gaur wrote:
vic wrote:AMCA is a good project but it requires a budget of something like US$ 20 Billion to be successful in reasonable time

On what basis have you quoted this figure? Just curious.


PAKFA on which considerable amount of work is already done and has the benefit of Russian defense infrastructure, is slated to require US$ 10-12 Billion with extras for advanced radar, advanced engine, say US$ 15-18 Billion dollars.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby vic » 17 Mar 2011 15:45

shiv wrote:I wonder if we (on BRF) are approaching AMCA discussion from the musharraf side.

Let me explain that. I mean that the name "AMCA" puts a certain picture in or minds - and that picture reminds us of F-35/F-22/PAKFA/J-20. Then we work backwards and start getting disappointed by what we find. Like telling my family - I am going to become an actor. Everyone thinks "Ah shiv! Actor! Like Hritik Roshan. Like Aamir! Wow!" But when they discover that my potential and performance is more on the lines of a male version of Tuntun they are disappointed. But hey Tuntun was actor too and had a role.

We need top ask what are the technologies that are needed for AMCA? Make a list of technologies needed. Of that list, what do we have now? What can we achieve? Start from the beginning - the sperm and ovum. Not the musharraf - which produces the end product that we all see.


IAF has never been satisfied with "Indian tuntuns". They are ok with 1960s Hawk but want the best in DRDO products. They are doing may may be not with slightly plumpy south Indian LCA and going for blond MMRCA

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 17 Mar 2011 15:46

chackojoseph wrote: The 6th gen is expected to be 1) a UAV based 2) a space based or LEO plane


Also US 6th gen calls for directed energy weapons.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16186
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 17 Mar 2011 15:48

ComparisonS:

1) With the US, will, inevitably, result in HBP and loss of sleep.
2) With what IAF wants and what India can deliver, IMVVVHO, is a rosy picture.

________________________________

AShukla seems to have blown the lid there, eh? I cannot say much about India and that 35. But no MMRCA, am all for it.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2013
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Gaur » 17 Mar 2011 15:57

vic wrote:PAKFA on which considerable amount of work is already done and has the benefit of Russian defense infrastructure, is slated to require US$ 10-12 Billion with extras for advanced radar, advanced engine, say US$ 15-18 Billion dollars.

Which is the exact reason because of which AMCA's cost should be much lower, don't you think? A lot of research from FGFA program (composite, design data, mission and navigational computer, RAM, rcs and design lessons etc) would be transferred to AMCA. On top of that, we would be using Kaveri (K10?) variant for AMCA. So a lot of money should be saved there.
But perhaps at such an early stage, this discussion is hot air. :)

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby chackojoseph » 17 Mar 2011 16:37

shiv wrote:The 6th gen is expected to be 1) a UAV based 2) a space based or LEO plane


Also US 6th gen calls for directed energy weapons.[/quote]

Hopefully they will be able to miniaturise it.

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1061
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Kailash » 17 Mar 2011 17:06

^^^
IMO, for A2A, agility of a directed energy weapon platform should'nt matter. As long as it has enough power/range and an accurate targeting system. Put it on a IL76 or an aerostat and you can fry fighters from few hundred Kms

Like stealth, directed energy weapons would its own tactics and strategies in application.

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1144
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Samay » 17 Mar 2011 22:26

shiv wrote:
Sorry Samay - your reply is typical of a person who is super-competent at criticism but does not even know what he is being critical about.

You accuse DRDO of not working on 5th gen tech in the 1990s, Fine. Let us say you are 100% correct.

But DO YOU KNOW what technologies DRDO should be working on today in 2011 so that we are up to date in 2025 and Samay Junior of BRF in 2025 does not have to whine the way you have whined? I put it to you that you do not know what technologies we should be working on in 2011 for 2025. You are sitting in 2011, looking at the US and Chinese - and criticising the Indians of 1996. But unless you can put your gyan where your mouth is you are no better than the people you are criticising.

With all due respect sir, let me state my point clear, I am not blaming DRDO , neither could anyone, because they are the people with the tools, not with the stick .

Some crooks at the top level in all organisation, lack vision, whole country pays ,by blood and by money . We do not know who made what mistake until its effect are seen.
If this sounds as criticism, then lets look at some facts before dealing with fantasy . Everyone knew that usa used stealth jets in 1991. We started developing it in 2011(starting with some feasibility study that will take at least 2 yrs before completion and selection of an alternate design) .

Now,why 2011, well it could be seen a period when lca got its final ioc after a long wait , naval lca flew ,etc,. But we also cracked a deal with russians for pakfa-mki ,.. If these events led to the start of amca, then it means we were waiting for the russians to do it first for us or using lca as a taboo, to be done firstl. What is the d#$56 problem in running two parallel projects?

If these events did not led to the starting of a feasibility study then it could be because chinese have got it now.

Whatever the reason maybe, it seems highly probable that DRDO will start doing , only when somebody at the top level wets his dhoti and orders them...
If you deny then please give your own reason why we didnt started 10 yrs earlier... It doesnt matter anymore..

If you ask me what should we do now for 2025 then there are two areas
1.Kill corruption , specially in defence related organisations and
2. Run parallel projects in line with those being developed in the west and east.. we could delay a bit but wont be out of the game. But we arent,. Because mere development of a ucav based upon some copied design wont bring supportive and cutting edge technology which is equally important, for example AESA ... We arent investing enough,and we are importing a lot, and the budget is not limitless

My whining or not whining wont matter in 2025 but sure we will pay more , because many people when they had a chance could not whine on mod,drdo, etc in 1990s

I remember a long time ago I said in this forum that LCA-X is possible but everyone here rejected it as a possibility. But someone in ADA was planning it and its because of those people that we boast of our LCA, not because of few lousy men who prefer natashas than their country

What they should do is to set a deadline for the completion of AMCA project ,not for the feasibility study alone .

Pogula
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 22 Jan 2011 08:04

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Pogula » 18 Mar 2011 00:27

It is kinda annoying to see this continuous stream of negative comparisons between US and Indian defense industries and their capabilities.

America is the birth place of flight... starting a century ago. We got our independence hardly 64 years ago. And now, they have a mere 15 to 20 years lead over us. It surely looks like we are catching up, despite our government's lack of long term vision in defense R&D. So, I do not see why people whine so much!

Also, please look at the track record of America's major defense companies over the past 3 decades. It is appalling.

Case in point: The F-22 Raptor...
Went from 750 fighters at $11 Billion with IOC in 1994 to 187 fighters at $70 Billion with IOC in 2005.
That is a 7-fold cost over-run with Quadrupled decrease in numbers with a time delay of 11 years.
Total project time? --> 1979 to 2005 (IOC) --> over 26 years!!!

Feasibility study: 1979
******************
Planned IOC: 1994
Planned Units: 750
Program cost: $11 Billion
******************
ASR issued: 1981
RFP issued: 1986
1st R&D review: 1990
******************
Revised IOC: 1996
Revised units: 648
Revised cost: $18 Billion
******************
Design choice: 1991
2nd R&D review: 1994
******************
Revised IOC: 2003
Revised units: 442
Revised cost: $26 Billion
******************
First Flight: 1997
3rd R&D review: 1997
******************
Revised IOC: 2004
Revised units: 339
Revised cost: $48 Billion
******************
IOC tests: 2003
4th R&D review: 2003
******************
Revised IOC: 2005
Revised units: 277
Revised cost: $62 Billion
******************
IOC: 2005
4th R&D review: 2006
******************
Revised units: 187
Revised cost: $70 Billion
******************

Source: globalsecurity.org & others.

Now, compare this to HAL/ADA effort, skipping a whole generation of R&D efforts, starting in 1983 and achieving an IOC for LCA-Tejas by 2011 --> a project time of over 27 years and a total budget of less than $1.5 Billion.

Where is the huge difference in capabilities? The generation gap is a direct result of the 60 year head-start US had in this field, even if we ignore the lost decade of Indian aviation, in the 1970s.

EDIT: Also, if one feels the F-22 program was an exception, you just need to look at the F-35, V-22 and Zumwalt programs (the list does not end there).

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1436
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Christopher Sidor » 19 Mar 2011 13:01

^^^
Another factor which many people tend to parrot is that LCA took 30 years. Nothing can be far from the fact. It was only in 1990s that the design of the fighter was finalized. And it was only in 1993 was the full funding allocated and development work started. So in the lost decade of 1990s when India did not do any significant foreign Defense acquisition we were paying money for SU-30 and LCA only.

Whereas LCA is concerned 1993 should have been taken as the watershed and not some where in 1980s. That is if we over look at the constant underfunding of this program.

The progress we have made w.r.t LCA is commendable to say the least. Our penchant of comparing LCA with F-35 or F-22 of F-15E does not factor in the amount of money that has been spent on these fighters.

Gurinder P
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 30 Oct 2010 18:11
Location: Beautiful British Columbia

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Gurinder P » 19 Mar 2011 16:11

I will have to play the fence sitting liberal here and say that both sides are correct if the time line for the LCA and AMCA fell within their respective linearity. What I mean by this was if India had a running start in the 70's to develop the LCA like the f-16 [not a comparison of aircraft just development]. If India had the necessary infrastructure to develop these projects then, we could then now be bickering about deadlines. What India did instead was a quantum leap of FEARLESS ENGINEERING, and any engineer or technician here knows that fearless engineering = bad because of the amount of errors that come out in the end and the amount of time to debug them. All in all, India did well and DRDO should be commended for their fearless engineering projects, though more humble organizations would have went with smaller projects and joining them to bigger projects.

AMCA is another quantum leap forward, and setting a deadline I feel would be futile, and the project should be handled piece by piece and with patience [from the public too] since going into 5th gen and beyond is basically trying make dreams into reality [beam me up Scotty!].

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16757
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Rahul M » 19 Mar 2011 16:24

CS, correct. but he is using the same yardsticks for the F-22 etc program. of course other programs didn't face a 5 year funding holiday or a 2 year loss induced by sanctions related stealing by US.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36292
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 19 Mar 2011 17:52

Samay, you did not get what shiv saab is saying and you are still on parallel thoughts and at times orthogonal.
what technologies DRDO should be working on today in 2011 so that we are up to date in 2025?


That would be the question you should chase after rather.

Let us take -
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... AWAY+2.JPG
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... AWAY+3.JPG

Can some one explain the complexities behind this., and these pics are very confusing. e.g. the amount of space it is taking to house these internal weapons. Something the design itself looks premature, or it could be some artist's fancy.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16186
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 19 Mar 2011 18:57

...................
If this sounds as criticism, then lets look at some facts before dealing with fantasy . Everyone knew that usa used stealth jets in 1991. We started developing it in 2011(starting with some feasibility study that will take at least 2 yrs before completion and selection of an alternate design) .


Not true, not even close. The "AMCA" did live as the "MCA" from around 1998ish. Granted it was not a whole hearted effort, but there are enough articles that address this issue. It relates to the then maturity level of the LCA and related technologies.

Now,why 2011, well it could be seen a period when lca got its final ioc after a long wait , naval lca flew ,etc,. But we also cracked a deal with russians for pakfa-mki ,.. If these events led to the start of amca, then it means we were waiting for the russians to do it first for us or using lca as a taboo, to be done firstl. What is the d#$56 problem in running two parallel projects?


There could be some correlation between all these events you mention. I do not think that there is much open source information about these relationships. However, there is enough out there to indicate that some aspects of the AMCA (fly by light comes to mind) that no one has tried. It is my understanding that there have been teams that have been conducting research in assorted areas. I would expect and think that such efforts are NOT a flash in the pan, and, that they in fact are coordinated, but not given much publicity (and I think that is good).

If these events did not led to the starting of a feasibility study then it could be because chinese have got it now.

Whatever the reason maybe, it seems highly probable that DRDO will start doing , only when somebody at the top level wets his dhoti and orders them...
If you deny then please give your own reason why we didnt started 10 yrs earlier... It doesnt matter anymore..


India did start the MCA effort 10 years ago. It has since been evolving - as best as I can see.

BUT,for SURE, to ask the question as to why India did not start x number of years ago exposes the ignorance. Simple as that. (Not that it is bad thing, just an irritant.)

If you ask me what should we do now for 2025 then there are two areas
1.Kill corruption , specially in defence related organisations and
2. Run parallel projects in line with those being developed in the west and east.. we could delay a bit but wont be out of the game. But we arent,. Because mere development of a ucav based upon some copied design wont bring supportive and cutting edge technology which is equally important, for example AESA ... We arent investing enough,and we are importing a lot, and the budget is not limitless


More ignorance. What I am sure anyone can grant you is that you have some points in your post. If one digs into some of the other threads we could find many answers to these concerns. They MAY not satisfy you, but there are answers out there.

My whining or not whining wont matter in 2025 but sure we will pay more , because many people when they had a chance could not whine on mod,drdo, etc in 1990s

I remember a long time ago I said in this forum that LCA-X is possible but everyone here rejected it as a possibility. But someone in ADA was planning it and its because of those people that we boast of our LCA, not because of few lousy men who prefer natashas than their country

What they should do is to set a deadline for the completion of AMCA project ,not for the feasibility study alone .


India is improving, but, for sure, has her own way of doing things. Granted such "own ways" could drive a person nuts - to say the least - yet I am sure we ALL can agree that India today is far better (at designing/building/etc planes) than even 5 years ago. Today there are more mature processes in place, which can only help in the future.

One more point: I for one do not see any thing within Indian air craft development to be reactive to say China. I understand the concerns WRT other nations progress, but yet, for whatever reason, India seems to have the confidence of doing better in the longer run. And, I think that is right. It will necessarily mean that there will be some (or lot of) frustrations in the immediate future - for sure.

The AMCA is, IMVVHO, in good hands. In the end it should surprise people.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 19 Mar 2011 20:07

Samay wrote:If these events did not led to the starting of a feasibility study then it could be because chinese have got it now.


You are still unable to say what technologies are needed. But you are able to criticize someone or the other. All Indians are just like you. They too don't know but are willing to hit out and curse. They are your people. If you can accept that it gets easier to understand why we are such an idiotic and incompetent nation good only at cursing each others faults.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2013
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Gaur » 19 Mar 2011 21:49

SaiK wrote:Let us take -
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... AWAY+2.JPG
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... AWAY+3.JPG

Can some one explain the complexities behind this., and these pics are very confusing. e.g. the amount of space it is taking to house these internal weapons. Something the design itself looks premature, or it could be some artist's fancy.

I would not take these (or any) 3D renders of AMCA too seriously. Even at AI, there were multiple differences between the different digital 3D models and the display model.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby bmallick » 21 Mar 2011 09:45

shiv wrote:We need top ask what are the technologies that are needed for AMCA? Make a list of technologies needed. Of that list, what do we have now? What can we achieve? Start from the beginning - the sperm and ovum. Not the musharraf - which produces the end product that we all see.


Shiv sir,I believe 2025-2030 time frame would be a realistic period when we can expect the AMCA to start production. So if we look at this time frame the following things would be happening:
1. FGFA/PAKFA would have been inducted in some numbers.
2. Su-30MKI would be in more than 300 numbers in IAF.
3. LCA in sufficient numbers. ( Am not putting any numbers here as the exact numbers are not known as of now)
4. AMCA production start.
5. UCAV (AURA) that we have started working on too should be entering production.
6. 126 MRCA
7. Nirbhay cruise missile also should have entered in production.

Looking at this, 1 & 2 would most probably be providing bulk of the Air-Superiority cover. 3 would be doing the mud-hauling for us, probably mostly within our own lines and providing point defense. 5 & 6 would be providing medium/long range strike and interdiction. This I think is something we should always be keeping in mind when designing AMCA. 5 & 6 would take over most, if not all, of the strike/interdiction mission. This is a capability that the IAF never had. Thus 5 & 6 would be relieving the AMCA from this role. The AMCA in my opinion need not be a true multi-role, but a fighter optimized for Air-Superiority and limited(very limited) ground attack. Dont put all the bells and whistles avioinics for multi-role. Just put all that is required for Air-superiority. Allow attachment of pods when ground attack work needs to be done. Now some would say that attachment of pods would mean loss of stealth. But for stealthy strike we already have the UCAV. Hence, AMCA can do away with stealth for ground strike roles. Also designing AMCA for Air-superiority only would also probably keep its cost down. Let the AMCA and UCAV complement each other. Now in this scenario one can argue that if FGFA is providing air-superiority, then why make AMCA. Well make AMCA the back bone of the force. Yes we have invested a lot in FGFA, but AMCA is the one which would remove us from the clutches of import. Buy the 250 odd FGFA that we have commited to now. Build up fighter numbers with AMCA, make 300-400 of them.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby vic » 23 Mar 2011 09:46


kmkraoind
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3908
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 00:24

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby kmkraoind » 23 Mar 2011 09:57

bmallick wrote:Shiv sir,I believe 2025-2030 time frame would be a realistic period when we can expect the AMCA to start production. So if we look at this time frame the following things would be happening


Why you want to do a projection of 2025-2030. In your opinion till that time Pakistan will not start any misadventure or China will not flex her muscle. Still you think that there will be stagnation in PAF and PLAAF and only India can acquire fighters numbers and in quality. It would be better to project adversary's strength also during that time and to check IAF's strength and better to compare them. I would be realistic to project for the time line of 2011-2016. Probably at any given time Chinese will maintain its numerical superiority at 1:4-5 and Pakistan would vie for a 1:0.5-0.75.

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby bmallick » 23 Mar 2011 10:56

kmkraoind wrote:Why you want to do a projection of 2025-2030. In your opinion till that time Pakistan will not start any misadventure or China will not flex her muscle. Still you think that there will be stagnation in PAF and PLAAF and only India can acquire fighters numbers and in quality. It would be better to project adversary's strength also during that time and to check IAF's strength and better to compare them. I would be realistic to project for the time line of 2011-2016. Probably at any given time Chinese will maintain its numerical superiority at 1:4-5 and Pakistan would vie for a 1:0.5-0.75.


No where in my post did I mention that " till that time Pakistan will not start any misadventure or China will not flex her muscle". Nor did I say that " there will be stagnation in PAF and PLAAF and only India can acquire fighters numbers and in quality. " . With all due respect you are reading too much between the lines and putting words in my mouth. My post is not for comparing the relative strength of the airforces in the region.

Gist of my post is simply that UCAV and Nirbhay will be going into production during that timeline, a capability that the IAF till now didn't have. Hence when we think of the capability matrix of AMCA, we should keep this in mind and may tone down the ground strike capability requirement, as UCAV and Nirbhay would be complementing the AMCA in this department. Such a toning down of requirements may result in cost saving and lesser complexities. With regards to AMCA already we have a learning curve. At no time I am questioning the capability of our scientists and designers. They have already proven that they can deliver when asked to. All I am suggesting is that maybe a toning down of ground strike capability requirrments(which would be taken care by UCAV & nirbhay) may just make their life a bit easier. One of the pictures of AMCA shows it carrying bombs internally, for stealthy strike mission. Well if we need the AMCA to do so, then what is the UCAV do, because stealthy strike mission is the only thing that UCAV is being designed for. Hence my argument that remove stealth requirement for strike mission of AMCA. It can hang bombs outside and attack. When stealth is required send the UCAV.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2415
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby vic » 23 Mar 2011 11:05

I think that we should first give mass production orders for LCA Mark-1 for 100 and LCA Mark-2 for 400. If MMRCA is good enough for production between 2016 to 2025 then why not LCA Mark1, 2 followed by even Mark-3 and 4. We should cancel MMRCA and order more LCA + Su-30MKI. Simultaneously increase the R&D budget for AMCA to US$ 25 Billion.

vardhank
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 17 Feb 2007 15:16
Location: Mumbai

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby vardhank » 28 Mar 2011 08:52

Noob question, sorry if it's been asked before:
How difficult would it be to retro-fit fly-by-light into the AMCA? If it isn't too difficult, would it make more sense to first aim for a FBW system (which we already understand) and get the bird out as early as possible?
Also, even more noob: I understand the concept of FBL in general, but how would it improve a fighter's performance? Why would you consider it necessary to have on a future fighter jet?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 28 Mar 2011 09:59

vardhank wrote:Noob question, sorry if it's been asked before:
How difficult would it be to retro-fit fly-by-light into the AMCA? If it isn't too difficult, would it make more sense to first aim for a FBW system (which we already understand) and get the bird out as early as possible?
Also, even more noob: I understand the concept of FBL in general, but how would it improve a fighter's performance? Why would you consider it necessary to have on a future fighter jet?

I am no expert, and therefore best qualified to answer without any worries 8)

I suspect fly by light will be most useful only for situations where high data transfer rates are required. This is less for flying and more for sensors and communication. Power requirements may be lower for FBL rather than FBW and perhaps the same cable can carry multiple data channels normally carried by several cables???

vardhank
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 17 Feb 2007 15:16
Location: Mumbai

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby vardhank » 28 Mar 2011 11:01

:D
Ok, so it would reduce data transfer time, possibly reduce reaction times, and definitely reduce weight and complexity by requiring less wiring. Correct?

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7218
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Prasad » 28 Mar 2011 13:49

Significant increase in bandwidth and reduction in weight are the main advantages of using optic fibres. What a single optic fibre bundle can carry is far greater than equivalent weight of twisted pair copper can carry. Which means greater number of sensors can be used and pooled together to form a bigger better picture. 360 degree radar coverage sort of thing if you will, if the plane has sensors all over the skin, all that data will need to be transferred to the core computer in the plane someplace and then act on it. Build and they will come sorts.

vardhank
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 17 Feb 2007 15:16
Location: Mumbai

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby vardhank » 28 Mar 2011 14:32

Ok. The main question is: what's the plug-and-play ability? i.e. imagine a situation where we hit major delays with the FBL system. Is it possible to go with FBW for the first tranche and retro-fit FBL later? Or is this impossible to do?
(This might be a completely pointless question - maybe we already have the tech, I don't know. I'm just confused by the term FLY-by-light; all the answers I've received have spoken about the avionics, not the actual flying setup, as in FBW.)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16186
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 28 Mar 2011 15:40

Also, it is not susceptible to electro-magnetic impulses.

You really cannot retrofit - should not. FL is not just much, much lighter (it should impact CG and like), it is also so much more faster that you will have to replace everything to accommodate FBL. Switches, actuators, cockpit display panels (refresh rate), to whatever need to respond to the higher speeds.

You can have mix-n-match, but then the system will be as slow as the slowest link and when you replace the slow "links" you will have to recompute everything, retest, etc.

Not worth the pain. Take the risk (it is relatively risky) and go either way for good.

(BTW, I feel/think it is great that they are trying out FBL.)

vardhank
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 17 Feb 2007 15:16
Location: Mumbai

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby vardhank » 28 Mar 2011 16:03

^^
Oh yeah, completely agree - I love the fact that they're trying it. There's a mad-scientist gleam in DRDO's eyes, especially so because the first batch of monsters isn't just alive but singing and dancing a very graceful tango - and hats off to them, as long as they don't lose sight of the goal.

My worry was, there are enough complications with a fifth-gen fighter (stealth, engines, internal weapons bays, etc etc), so there is a risk of delays anyway. If there's ANYTHING that can be plugged in later (and isn't entirely critical), I think it should be looked at as a retro-fit, just to minimise delays.
However, if FBL IS critical and can't be retrofitted, I guess we might as well go for it from the word go.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 28 Mar 2011 16:58

Using the services of my unkal googal it takes me only seconds to be more expert than the experts. Anyhow here is a link from Indiadesh related to FBL that gives an idea of what might be happening.

http://nal-ir.nal.res.in/3441/
An active fiberoptic data bus compatible with MIL-STD-1553B, which could be used for fly-by-light, stores management, AEW etc., on an aircraft has been developed. The data bus is considered intelligent because it can automatically sense which station is in the transmit mode and control the active interface accordingly, so that smooth flow of data takes place on the bus. The tests carried out on the bus including those on the Jaguar Avionics Rig to check its validity are also described. As no software is involved in the operation of the bus, this could be used on any aircraft having its own software

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16186
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 29 Mar 2011 05:08

shiv wrote:Using the services of my unkal googal it takes me only seconds to be more expert than the experts. Anyhow here is a link from Indiadesh related to FBL that gives an idea of what might be happening.

http://nal-ir.nal.res.in/3441/
An active fiberoptic data bus compatible with MIL-STD-1553B, which could be used for fly-by-light, stores management, AEW etc., on an aircraft has been developed. The data bus is considered intelligent because it can automatically sense which station is in the transmit mode and control the active interface accordingly, so that smooth flow of data takes place on the bus. The tests carried out on the bus including those on the Jaguar Avionics Rig to check its validity are also described. As no software is involved in the operation of the bus, this could be used on any aircraft having its own software



Manoharan, LC and Muthuvel, S (1988) An intelligent fiberoptic data bus for fly-by-light applications. In: ICAS 1988, 28 Aug-02 Sept 1988, Jerusalem,Israel.

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1061
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Kailash » 29 Mar 2011 15:41

NRao wrote:Also, it is not susceptible to electro-magnetic impulses.


NRao wrote: the system will be as slow as the slowest link


Will the system also be as succesptible as its weakest link? I mean a single electronic link between optic elements leaves it open to jamming etc?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16186
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 04 Apr 2011 05:30

Kailash wrote:
NRao wrote:Also, it is not susceptible to electro-magnetic impulses.


NRao wrote: the system will be as slow as the slowest link


Will the system also be as succesptible as its weakest link? I mean a single electronic link between optic elements leaves it open to jamming etc?


Sorry, did not see this earlier.

Am not too sure what you mean, but if the concern is physical connectivity between two optical gadgets, then no. Splicing optical cables and the like has been there for decades now and since this is defense related, I would expect it to be even more precise - specially to cover the jamming angle.

Gizmos like the Cray had incorporated fiber, for communications, long back.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16186
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 04 Apr 2011 05:38

Data point for the AMCA:

Designers insist Tejas will belie all sceptical questioning

The Tejas Mark-II, to be developed by 2014 and roll off production lines by 2018, will perform 40 per cent better than the current fighter. After which would come the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft, the AMCA, which the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) says will be a “fifth-generation plus” fighter, more formidable than anything flying today.


And, as I had suspected, that the AMCA would steal the spot light (from the FGFA too):

The Tejas programme will provide the springboard for the ADA’s next project, a more heavily armed and capable fighter. Even as Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd and Sukhoi, the Russian aerospace giant, jointly develop the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA), ADA will go it alone in developing an Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft. The DRDO’s R&D chief, Prahlada, has told Business Standard the AMCA will have features more advanced than current fifth-generation fighters. That means AMCA will be technologically ahead of the FGFA when it enters service at the end of this decade. {enters service more like 2025 I would think}

Asked whether that might be over-ambitious, Prahlada retorts, “When we had begun the LCA programme, people asked the same question. They thought we would not be able to build a fighter with composite materials, and with an unstable aerodynamic configuration. The Tejas has proved them wrong. Today, we say we will build a fighter that is better than Gen-5. And, the sceptics will be proven wrong again.”


I LIKE his confidence. (Wonder if Rakesh will allow me to borrow his "Balle, Balle"?) (Too late, borrowed, without interest.)

tejas
BRFite
Posts: 773
Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby tejas » 07 Apr 2011 21:36

Confidence is fine and no one wishes complete success for the AMCA than I. However, the Tejas has neither an indigenous powerplant or even a mechanically steered radar. How the hell are next generation engines and a multimode AESA radar as well as numerous other technologies the Russians are struggling with going to be mastered in India in the 10-15 year time frame we're talking about?

We need to start throwing the kind of money we spend on imports at private R&D as well as manufacturing. How many more decades will it take to understand parasitic state undertakings (PSUs) will forever keep us dependent on the kindness of strangers?

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

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby P Chitkara » 11 Apr 2011 18:30

Does any source confirm that Kaveri-Snecma engine will be used on the AMCA or is it a speculation?

How much growth potention will that engine have?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36292
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 11 Apr 2011 23:35

Not a speculation, but a wish that kaveri stands alone all by itself without any firang inputs. We have come this far to flight testing at Gromov. Now, we can work on the Kaveri Mk2 versions. It is okay to put tax payer money on such projects and a million times a better investment than into pockets of double-x agents, and swindlers, including babudom who always fail to pump money where it requires the most.

Kaveri is core and must be kept pure and pristine desi product.

Megh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 04 Mar 2011 02:16

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Megh » 14 Apr 2011 23:47

Photo from yesterday's flight of IL-76LL with Kaveri

Some pics here

username changed to Megh.
you can request a human sounding username if you want.
Rahul.
Last edited by Rahul M on 15 Apr 2011 00:06, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: username changed.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36292
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 15 Apr 2011 00:02

amazing weatherman! laddus for you.

So, how is the weather for K?

Megh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 04 Mar 2011 02:16

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Megh » 15 Apr 2011 01:05

So, how is the weather for K?

Despite the cloudy weather in Moscow region, for K - "all clear" :)


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ravikr and 44 guests