Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

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.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2866
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 15 Nov 2017 00:38

Philip wrote:Bolded gems? The truth does hurt esp. for the taxpayer.

Suryag and others, tx for the criticism accepted in good grace but consider the following.
Just imagine that the ADA does not exist ( it never did when we built the HF-24) and that there are only two parties to the programme.End-user and manufacturer.They can cooperate and sort out design/ dev. issues themselves, division of roles without any interlocutor agency that only adds to the bureaucratic pile-up , like a multiple vehicle crash on a foggy, smoggy day on a Delhi expressway! Plus abolishing the ADA will save enormous amounts of money by avoiding duplication of staff, time in communications between the end-user and industry, not to mention the reduced MOD red tape, thus accelerating project completion and bringing huge savings to the project cost.The ADA simply adds another unwanted layer of bureaucratic control over the core aspect of a product's design and dev. which is best handled by the end-user or industry.

There are no ADA equivs. either in Europe, the US or Russia in the aircraft industry.There are design bureau's like Sukhoi, MIG,Tupolev, etc. in Russia and huge defence MNCs like BAe, Dassault,Lockheed or Boeing in the West who do not have an interlocutor in between telling them what to do for their aircraft programmes.In both the US and Russia, design bureaus compete for a defence requirement.Take the one for the USAF fighter won by the F-16 .The loser, F-17 was redesigned into the USN's F-18.Likewise the contest between SU and MIG for Russia's 5th- gen bird.MIG's I- 42 lost out.

I still strongly feel that the ADA must be dissolved or totally absorbed by either the IAF or HAL.Less duplication of management and non- essential staff too.
Trying to reform its structure will be another great opportunity for babudom to delay matters and yet again ensure its control over an entity that has proven to have been detrimental as far as the LCA is concerned.

Are we not at the same stage as the HF-24 when it comes to a suitable engine for a desi aircraft? At least the HF-24 also came with its guns! The LCA has yet to test this vital component , essential for both dogfighting and GA/CS.
Then there's the little issue reg. radar? Is Uttam going the same was as the Kaveri?

We've mastered production of MKI TVC engines entirely from Desi raw material, 50 built so far out of a total of 350+ produced with varying degrees of desi %. For the AMCA we could easily manufacture a derivative of the TVC engines being used on the MIG-35 ,or as said many a time the TVC option of the same EJ engine used on the EF Typhoon.The TVC EJ should also be considered for future improved LCA variants .

The success of the AMCA will be its engine.We must first decide upon the engine/s, have a second prototype flying with an alternative too, before embarking upon the rest of the design.Oncd the powerplant details are known fixing the design /dimensions, etc. of the aircraft will be easier accomplished otherwise choosing the engine first and trying to shoe-horn it into a fixed design will result in another underpowered LCA fiasco. The new 414 engine for the MK-2 will effectively result in a new design!



Again, while I have myself have advocated merging ADA with some private company and do not favour separate design and mfg organisations, its difficult to take you seriously if you cannot see the simple fact that ADA was in fact created to avoid red tapism in our system. Despite being notionally under DRDO it functions very autonomously. It was formed with creme layer taken from all government agencies such as DRDO/HAL/ISRO/NAL. ADA is quite lean and agile compared to any government entity, much like ISRO and work-cuturewise, I daresay, better than even majority of private companies in BLR. If not for ADA, LCA would have been crawling even worse. The real problem with the set-up was that ADA was given only money and responsibility of project management and execution but no authority over other stake holders such as HAL. And since 2006 its the combined ADA-IAF-HAL committee chaired by the RM which governs the LCA project, not ADA. A simple fact that ADA was very easily sidelined over MK1A vs MK2 issue should tell you how much say ADA exactly has in LCA's decision making.

If only you can dispense with those gems, your posts would be much more pleasure to read. Find SEF partner who will ensure export of LCA..really..?? Who da **** will kill their own orders..?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2866
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 15 Nov 2017 00:52

JayS wrote:OK guys. Listen to this at 10.00 min. Coming from DCOAS AM Bhaduria, its quite credible. And this is the second instance that I have heard this from an IAF officer. Hope it comes to reality as expected.

"AMCA is coming next year, it will fast tracked"

:mrgreen:



Also good to see top brass of IAF appreciating how LCA is helping the desi MIC build up and AMCA will be the next big step in the correct direction.


So AM Bhadauria took a ride in LCA today. This is the kind of moral support from IAF, LCA can use. Turns out he was Test pilot for LCA in initial years. Another good one to see a test pilot raising up the ranks and occupying very important position in IAF top brass.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15002
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 15 Nov 2017 02:11

Philip wrote:Bolded gems? The truth does hurt esp. for the taxpayer.


Philip, kindly stop projecting your bias and ignorance of the organizations in question as facts. You know next to nothing about the LCA or who ran it and how, apart from whatever you copy paste from magazines. This has been evident time and again, in your screeds on the topic. We are all taxpayers here, so stop using that as an excuse for your slurs on ADA and the LCA program, using folks who are against the program as foils for your claims.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5114
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Dileep » 15 Nov 2017 07:06

The "love" for AM Matheswaran for ADA and LCA (and vice versa) is legendary. The root cause apparently is that his ideas were not accepted in the LCA.

There are a number of retired see-near aircraft folk who got hired by the pvt sector, and got kicked out because of 'not getting anything done'. We are going to see a lot of "pieces of wisdom' on 'how things must be done' from them.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3725
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby deejay » 15 Nov 2017 07:26

Dileep wrote:The "love" for AM Matheswaran for ADA and LCA (and vice versa) is legendary. The root cause apparently is that his ideas were not accepted in the LCA.

There are a number of retired see-near aircraft folk who got hired by the pvt sector, and got kicked out because of 'not getting anything done'. We are going to see a lot of "pieces of wisdom' on 'how things must be done' from them.

We are seeing the coming to life of Mathy 2 a lot these days. Just keep listening to the bad news and you will hear this new gent chirp more and more.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Manish_P » 15 Nov 2017 11:13

JayS wrote:[
So AM Bhadauria took a ride in LCA today. This is the kind of moral support from IAF, LCA can use. Turns out he was Test pilot for LCA in initial years. Another good one to see a test pilot raising up the ranks and occupying very important position in IAF top brass.


+1. Not too long ago, i seem to remember reading on these forums how it was almost a punishment posting (with delayed/missed promotions) for IAF pilots to be test pilots in ADA/HAL

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9174
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Yagnasri » 15 Nov 2017 11:21

What does "coming next year' means. As far as my mango man brain remembers no funds were sanctioned to build a prototype to date. So how can it come next year? Does it mean design is getting finalised???

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5114
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Dileep » 15 Nov 2017 12:02

Next year is there every year :)

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2866
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 15 Nov 2017 17:09

Dileep wrote:Next year is there every year :)


Yeah. LCA FOC is next year. :wink:

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5114
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Dileep » 15 Nov 2017 18:17

^^Same-Same onlee.. Right now, the only thing certain is "planes will keep being built and inducted. The 'daggers' will keep slogging them". I wouldn't even hazard a guess on FOC.

Will
BRFite
Posts: 553
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Will » 16 Nov 2017 18:48

Now that the Indian Army is going down the path of the "FCRV" for its future armored vehicles , anyone wanna bet that the IAF will come up with a similar idea for a future fifth gen fighter and shaft the AMCA? :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Though having said that , think they cant till they get rid of the FGFA idea. :mrgreen:

enaiel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 88
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby enaiel » 17 Nov 2017 22:03

Not sure if this was posted before:

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indi ... 39202.html

It seems that the Indian Air Force (IAF) is not in favour of acquiring the 127 fifth-generation fighter aircraft from Russia due to the "very high cost" involved in the project. It in turn wants to back a DRDO Make in India project - which it is planning to develop a similar plane called Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).
It is learnt that IAF's views on the aircraft programme have been conveyed to the defence ministry even as a government panel has expressed its views in favour of the programme.
"The Air Force has its reservations on the programme mainly on three points. First, the project cost is too high and way beyond what it had expected. The learning curve is not there as the project is already at an advanced stage and the stealth technology of the planes is not as advanced as that of the other similar planes," senior government sources told Mail Today.

The maintenance cost of the planes is also expected to be very high and similar to that of the Sukhoi-30 planes whose maintenance and upkeep has been quite demanding in their around 20 years in the force, they said.

"The cost of the FGFA progarmme is coming to be huge. While we have already spent close to $300 million (Rs 2,000 crore) on the preliminary design phase, the Russians are demanding $6.7 billion (Rs 44,800 crore) as the development cost of the planes which is coming to be much higher than what we had perceived," the sources revealed.

"The Russians are asking us to make big investments in the programme. While we are planning to induct only 12 of these planes in their IAF, they are asking India to buy 127 of these aircraft," added the sources.
Sources said the investment of $6.7 billion (Rs 44,800 crore) would give India only four prototypes of the FGFA aircraft and it will have to pay another $135 million (Rs 900 crore) each for the 127 planes, which would be ready for induction only after 2027-28.

The cost per aircraft at the time of delivery in 2027-28, due to high inflation in defence deals, would come around $250 million bringing the total project value to around $32 billion (Rs 2 lakh crore), sources also said.

AIR MARSHAL SAYS OTHERWISE
Air Marshal S Varthman committee has recommended that the IAF should go ahead to coproduce the planes with Russia and the Defence ministry has to decide on it taking into account both the viewpoints.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3725
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby deejay » 18 Nov 2017 16:23

This article is a very funny article. Read it well folks because the gems of subterfuge and disingenuity are hidden above.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18137
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 19 Nov 2017 00:43

V.costly if accurate.However if we can buy an inferior Rafale without TOT of non- stealth tech for $200M a pop,
$130M or so for an FGFA is far more reasonable! Even if the claimed 30% reduction in the price of the Rafale is accurate, it would still be in the same price range of a 5th-gen fighter that outclasses it.

Nevertheless, all aspects of the entire deal should be thrashed out in the light of the abominably expensive and bug-ridden JSF programme. We should " hasten cautiously".
f

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2167
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby kit » 19 Nov 2017 02:36

Philip wrote:V.costly if accurate.However if we can buy an inferior Rafale without TOT of non- stealth tech for $200M a pop,
$130M or so for an FGFA is far more reasonable! Even if the claimed 30% reduction in the price of the Rafale is accurate, it would still be in the same price range of a 5th-gen fighter that outclasses it.

Nevertheless, all aspects of the entire deal should be thrashed out in the light of the abominably expensive and bug-ridden JSF programme. We should " hasten cautiously".
f



The PAK FA is reportedly at the RCA range of 1 m ( their own brochure) and the "unstealthy" Rafale is 1 m as well .. how much of tech upgrade is the PAKFA really is compared to a super sukhoi ? is that worth it ?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3830
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby srai » 19 Nov 2017 04:05

kit wrote:
Philip wrote:V.costly if accurate.However if we can buy an inferior Rafale without TOT of non- stealth tech for $200M a pop,
$130M or so for an FGFA is far more reasonable! Even if the claimed 30% reduction in the price of the Rafale is accurate, it would still be in the same price range of a 5th-gen fighter that outclasses it.

Nevertheless, all aspects of the entire deal should be thrashed out in the light of the abominably expensive and bug-ridden JSF programme. We should " hasten cautiously".
f



The PAK FA is reportedly at the RCA range of 1 m ( their own brochure) and the "unstealthy" Rafale is 1 m as well .. how much of tech upgrade is the PAKFA really is compared to a super sukhoi ? is that worth it ?

LCA is 0.5 sq m

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7294&p=2150824&hilit=LCA+rcs#p2150824

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2167
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby kit » 20 Nov 2017 04:56

srai wrote:
kit wrote:

The PAK FA is reportedly at the RCA range of 1 m ( their own brochure) and the "unstealthy" Rafale is 1 m as well .. how much of tech upgrade is the PAKFA really is compared to a super sukhoi ? is that worth it ?

LCA is 0.5 sq m

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7294&p=2150824&hilit=LCA+rcs#p2150824


yes saab .. its not just the rcs but the avionics and weapons as well ..thats where the Rafale scores .. and a MK2 LCA as well would be better than Gripen anyday not to say about the 16

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20120
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Austin » 29 Nov 2017 12:24

Would be good if India and Japan can coperate on 5th Gen Fighter

http://aviationweek.com/defense/japan-r ... re-fighter

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15925
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 29 Nov 2017 13:03


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18137
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 29 Nov 2017 23:21

Karen, keep your biased personal attacks in your pocket.I know more about the LCA from those involved than what has been posted, but discretion prevents me from doing so.My info is not just acquired from mags.,but first hand.If you don't like what I've posted, revealed, lump it.I don't make personal attacks against anyone, gentlemen don't.

Without some success on the LCA front, at least smooth delivery of MK-1,40 by 2020, the GOI isn't going to open its purse wide enough esp. with the IAF's lukewarm attitude towards the AMCA. If the IAF is firmly embedded from project inception, then there may be a more positive attitude from the govt.The ADA is not the end-user and the AMCA will like the LCA be a project conceived by the DRDO meant to be thrust upon a service.Like naval projects where The IN is in the driving seat,so too should aircraft projects be headed by the IAF or OEM HAL.The ADA is an anomaly that should be absorbed by either entity.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6140
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 29 Nov 2017 23:40

There are three types of partnerships Japan has and is looking into. One is with a mature product where they can absorb workshare and buy an affordable system and another is to tie up with an OEM/Nation that can help it move its program along. Finally they want and value interoperability since this is embedded and required in many of their systems (AEGIS, BMD that is upcoming, fighters AEW etc) in order for them to work with its allies. Hence they reached out to US and UK and OEMs from there for help on both a short-medium term help (FMS on F-35A) and long term planning (help deliver something to their industry that follows the F-2). The very high cost attributed to their indigenous project is necessary to fulfill this last need of actually doing end to end design, development and production of their NG fighter. If they dilute that then the entire enterprise becomes less attractive. What they will likely take 2-4 years to decide will be whether they are willing to commit themselves to a $50 Billion (guesstimate) national project that would be a natural successor to the F-2, or they spend much less amount and partner with a mature OEM, using the money saved on other areas. A partnership with India, on the AMCA doesn't really work to advance any of there primary interests imho besides moving closer to an ally.

Given a whole host of ship-building, IAMD, and other "offensive" needs likely to arise, I have a feeling that an F-16 ---> F2 like F-35 upgrade is quite possible given the very high cost of an indigenous program (with very high industrial benefits as well no doubt). The USAF requirements for next-gen figther will like size a nation like Japan out of the PCA and the SOKO-Japan dynamic will always limit how much the US can involve Japan into a 6th generation aircraft without it being a multi-national effort (which it won't).

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15002
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 29 Nov 2017 23:47

Philip,

It was a moderator note. Take it as such. Your spamming multiple threads with unproven, biased allegations against Indian organizations whilst engaging in constant pro-Russian propaganda is neither subtle nor appreciated.

There have been many complaints. Kindly temper your behavior & dont abuse our trust.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1818
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Vivek K » 30 Nov 2017 01:16

Philip wrote:V.costly if accurate.However if we can buy an inferior Rafale without TOT of non- stealth tech for $200M a pop,
$130M or so for an FGFA is far more reasonable! Even if the claimed 30% reduction in the price of the Rafale is accurate, it would still be in the same price range of a 5th-gen fighter that outclasses it.

Nevertheless, all aspects of the entire deal should be thrashed out in the light of the abominably expensive and bug-ridden JSF programme. We should " hasten cautiously".
f

Compare prices with availability - 50% max for roosi aircraft and 80% plus for frog material. The Rafale = 200/0.8 = $250 mill and the FGFA = 130/.5 = 260 mill. If one takes MBTO for engines etc, the FGFA will be un-affordable, more so than the Rafale.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18137
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 30 Nov 2017 03:07

"Unproven biased allegations against Indian orgs...",a long time ago I posted/quoted from a sr. IAF off. from his own
site the very same.If anyone doubts the veracity of my posts, in confidence I can give them more info.I've left enough clues.If you also go by open statements made by def.mins and the PM too, chiefs of the services,reg the DRDO/DPSUs etc. reg.their shortcomings - in some cases specific, and where open and available I've quoted the sources. On an open forum like this one can only post from open info., not anything classified.Where do other posters get their info from then, do they invent it?

The worst attitude is to sweep the dirt under the carpet and fool oneself that everything is hunky-dory.Performance matters and unfortunately the lack of accountability in the DPSUs is one major reason why their performance is patchy.The very fact that the ADA,HAL,etc. haven't performed as expected with delayed dev. and low production rate is why the SEF deal has emerged.

I am merely trying to provide as wide as poss. info that gives as total a picture as possible and draw conclusions, make observations and offer options and solutions to the problems bedevilling the issue of providing the armed forces with the weapon systems they require in our unique context.

Secondly, pro- Russian propaganda? That's a sick joke.I vehemently deny it.It is our armed forces who've seen over decades that around 70% of our weaponry is of Sov/Ru origin.I didn't order them! If you read my posts I've always maintained a "horses for courses" policy.What about other posters who want us to buy US turkeys like the ultra-expensive JSF;still a work in progress or Rafales at huge cost? Has anyone accused them of being US propagandists? Is this forum sold out to the US? I have- to prove a point advocated buying more US systems where relevant.P-8Is, C-130s,Chinooks,helo-operated mine countermeasure systems, UCAVs,etc. It's not my fault if the C-17 prod. line is closed, we now have only the upgraded IL-476/90 heavy transport ( which we've operated for decades successfully) if we want more heavylifters! And who has chosen this same platform for more AWACS?

In every case I look for cost-effective solutions/options. I've quoted Adm. Greenert, former USN CNO sev. times before about "bomb trucks" instead of "sports cars being more cost-effective to do the biz, not Gen.Pizzmeov! So pl. take a balanced view of my posts, the truth often hurts ,but I don't pull my punches and compromise where one has to speak out.I enjoy the civilised combat with those who have differing viewpoints.I don't see them criticised, why? After all I thought India and BRF was a free country.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15002
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 30 Nov 2017 03:42

Philip,

Your claims quoting a disgruntled senior officer were countered by many others who quoted serving officers and others on public record. You choose to disregard those. Even when those reports are posted merely a few pages away on multiple threads. Speaks volumes.

There have been dime a dozen other times, when you have quoted dubious news reports and then sought to state they represented the only facts regarding the matter.

The very fact that the ADA,HAL,etc. haven't performed as expected with delayed dev. and low production rate is why the SEF deal has emerged.


For instance. The SEF deal merely flows from the cancelled MMRCA deal, for which the Tejas was not there to begin with. The fact that you casually throw around such assertions besmirching local organizations by comparing apples to oranges, is typical of bias at play.

The worst attitude is to sweep the dirt under the carpet and fool oneself that everything is hunky-dory.Performance matters and unfortunately the lack of accountability in the DPSUs is one major reason why their performance is patchy.


Please bring the same claimed sense of objectivity when it pertains to anything and everything Russian. Who is fooling whom? Clearly not the forum, judging by the number of reports that periodically accumulate on the forum and as complaints regarding your posts. The issue is also not of accountability with DPSUs alone as you claim, but with multiple vendors, our procurement process & there is a huge lack of nuance in your posts in even analysing what we have achieved and havent.

I am merely trying to provide as wide as poss. info that gives as total a picture as possible and draw conclusions, make observations and offer options and solutions to the problems bedevilling the issue of providing the armed forces with the weapon systems they require in our unique context.


I wish that were the case. However, what we have seen is diametrically the opposite in multiple cases:

- Namecalling Indian organizations and Indian programs with insulting acronyms and accusing them without an iota of real evidence bar "he said, she said"

- Quote selectively from disgruntled individuals who never worked for ADA etc whom you insist are the only truth about programs like the LCA as versus the public statements of many folks from the IAF, ADA and DRDO who have given their heart and soul to the program

- Refusal to accept facts when countered with objective data, on multiple topics. Shoot & scoot posts with incendiary comments made & then sidestep rebuttals entirely & then post much the same in other threads

-When anything non-complimentary about Russian organizations is posted, Indian programs and projects are unecessarily dragged into the picture.

- Furthermore, your technical assertions are often merely verbatim reports of biased reportage from news mags. Then ignoring details posted on BR itsel countering those reports.
..................................................

The above are examples of deep-rooted bias which vitiates the forum atmosphere.

I have stated the issues & have no personal animus with you. As I recall, ages ago we may have even met at a BR meet. It is genuinely my wish that you continue to contribute to BRF & not have to state the above.

Having said that, it increases moderation workload and vitiates the atmosphere by an incredible amount to have the usual flame war between you & multiple posters on thread after thread.

Kindly take the above in the right spirit. Thank you.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18137
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 30 Nov 2017 03:54

PS:FGFA costs vs Rafales.2015 off. statements said that the progr. would deliver 250 for RuAF and 144 for the IAF for a total cost (incl dev, etc) of $30B.Anyone can ck. this out, there are news reports.That's well under the $100M fig./aircraft., approx.$75M.However, even I feel that $100M may be more accurate after studying the JSF progr. in depth.I cannot see the Rafales cost approaching that fig. given the initial $200M/aircraft for 36 incl. dev. costs, etc.The second batch said off. statements, would be "30%" cheaper, still $135M approx.What would one buy? A cheaper 5th gen fighter or the Rafale? Same yardstick if by some extraordinary feat the JSF also comes in at around $100M ( most conservative tests. say around $135M), but even at the same cost and if available a better option than the Rafale.

But right now with cheaper options like SS upgraded MKIs , even exg.MKIs with BMos-A and low-cost Tejas , the latter available at least 4-5 instead of 1 Rafale, we have more cost-effective solutions.

PPS:"A few disgruntled officers..."That would include sev.service chiefs who've been openly frank after retirement.I' ve quoted them sev.times.So must one ignore them and display bias with only positive statements about the underperforming DPSUs? If they performed why are we still in the import race to be one of the 3 or 4 largest importers of arms?! The truth is that we've often failed despite decades of dev. time and money like the GTRE with Kaveri.Selective memory does not produce results and apologists for the same don't improve things either .

Why we've not improved our aero-engine infrastructure and set up facilities to master/develop the same for all our requirements remains a great mystery.A decade ago when we dumped Kaveri for the LCA, we should've begun on work on drastically revamping the entire set up.Even the promise of a marine version has yet to arrive.

Where we've succeeded I've praised the same unhesitatingly.IN warships, Pinaka,BMos, Desi arty,strat. missile systems- even wondered why no naval Akash was not developed for commonality.If you look more closely at my analysis you'll find much less critique and far more praise for the IN which took charge of its programmes to achieve success.I've quoted Dr.Pillai's "BMos mantra" ad nauseum as how JVs can be set up with foreign OEMs and deliver, in this case spectacularly.Coincidence that it happens to be a Russian JV! To my observations,there is an element of bias in the opp. direction.So pl take my views in the same spirit! After all as many have said we're on the same side.The mountain looks different from each side from different observers but arriving at the top requires finding the easiest route...my mantra!

Anyway points taken in good spirit.Let's keep fingers crossed and hope that the decision makers make good ones and Desi outfits improve performance under the NDA now under NS' stewardship.
Last edited by Philip on 30 Nov 2017 04:16, edited 2 times in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15002
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 30 Nov 2017 03:59

The challenge is there is no firm price for the FGFA bar estimates as it is nowhere near a firm delivery ready aircraft. JSF comes with greater transparency but also US meddling, threat of sanctions and what not. No local sustainment either. Perhaps the best way is to buy a limited number of JSFs for kick in the door ops, upgrade Su-30s plus LCAs and focus on AMCA. Plus a couple more Rafale squadrons and cancel the SEF circus.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15002
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 30 Nov 2017 04:19

Philip wrote:A few disgruntled officers..."That would include sev.service chiefs who've been openly frank after retirement.I' ve quoted them sev.times.So must one ignore them and display bias with only positive statements about the underperforming DPSUs? If they performed why are we still in the import race to be one of the 3 or 4 largest importers of arms?! The truth is that we've often failed despite decades of dev. time and money like the FREE with Kaveri.


Philip,

When other chiefs comment or reports emerge about positive developments, we rarely if ever see anything from your side to admit to the same.Some recent posts show more balance, but again, the merest mention of Russia and you name call Indian programs, scientists and organizations.

Its been noted by so many members, across so many threads, that its not even up for debate anymore.

There is a lot to be said about the Indian MIC, but its equally ludicrous to suggest that India has anywhere near funded a MIC to develop everything from C-17s to An-32s to Su-30s. Our imports will remain high for that simple reason alone, even as we reduce it in other categories.

The truth is that we've often failed despite decades of dev. time and money like the GTRE with Kaveri.


There is an entire thread on Kaveri on BRF. It speaks volumes that you are ignoring what the program has achieved, and continue to engage in such descriptors.

Selective memory does not produce results and apologists for the same don't improve things either .


Indeed. Which is why, we expect much more from your posts than apologia for underperforming, crooked Russian deals.

Where we've succeeded I've praised the same unhesitatingly.IN warships, Pinaka,BMos, Desi arty,strat. missile systems- even wondered why no naval Akash was not developed for commonality.If you look more closely at my analysis you'll find much less critique and far more praise for the IN which took charge of its programmes to achieve success.


Quite so, and before these successes occurred, I hope you do remember your acerbic commentary regarding these very programs as failures.

I've quoted Dr.Pillai's "BMos mantra" ad nauseum as how JVs can be set up with foreign OEMs and deliver, in this case spectacularly.Coincidence that it happens to be a Russian JV!


Case in point, while you insist on the Russian part and quote Dr Pillai, whereas you don't deem fit to mention the TELs are from DRDO's Akash program, the FCS from the Prithvi program & dime a dozen other systems from the very programs you usually slagged as being worthless examples of DPSU sloth.

I trust you see the point? That without those worthless Indian DPSUs and Indian scientists, Dr Pillai's magnum opus would have gone nowhere.

Yes, we are all indeed on the same side, however, constantly disparaging Indian organizations, while giving all sorts of excuses for Russian and other ones is not acceptable.

Anyway points taken in good spirit.Let's keep fingers crossed and hope that the decision makers make good ones and Desi outfits improve performance under the NDA now under NS' stewardship.


Fair enough, and thanks.

Lets stop this OT conversation now. I will delete the OT posts later.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18137
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 30 Nov 2017 04:32

Sustainability in the twilight years of a weapon system a major factor.Costs actually increase as all who've owned old crocks havd realised.Here I'm saying this in the context of an IA spokesman who said that Arjun-1 availability was low becos of difficulty in obtaining spares for the imported eqpt.Now the MBT is almost brand new.Either we've selected old tech now being put to pasture, or firang OEMs are making it hard for us.

We had the same issue with Sov. eqpt. after the collapse of the SU.In the case of the MKI we perhaps have the best
achievement for some time.But unless deals are negotiated and contracted properly esp. with the tech aspects by the MOD, who don't involve the services enough at this stage, flaws will continue to appear and sustaining availability rates become more difficult.In the Rafale's case the fewer we have the costlier it will be. So ironically we have to buy more for later cannibalisation. How many more can we acquire without detriment to the myriad other programmes in a challenging eco situ is the $B Q.The option of another 18, even taking the total to 60 may be possible, but no more than that, better to put more money and effort into the LCA and as you say , say sayonara to the SEF.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15002
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 30 Nov 2017 04:39

Philip wrote:Sustainability in the twilight years of a weapon system a major factor.Costs actually increase as all who've owned old crocks havd realised.Here I'm saying this in the context of an IA spokesman who said that Arjun-1 availability was low becos of difficulty in obtaining spares for the imported eqpt.Now the MBT is almost brand new.Either we've selected old tech now being put to pasture, or firang OEMs are making it hard for us.


Again, where was this IA spokesperson? This is a perfect example of taking an unreliable report and jumping to conclusions. The fact is the deals for spares was stuck up at MOD & Parrikar greenlighted them, as a result of which Arjun MK-1 sustainment increased substantially. It was the IA which did not put up the spares requisition early enough & there were delays with MOD as well.

We had the same issue with Sov. eqpt. after the collapse of the SU.In the case of the MKI we perhaps have the best
achievement for some time.


Unfortunately, this is not entirely accurate. Unlike the Arjun case, in many cases we simply did not get spares from the Russian side because of price gouging or bad reliability. This is the reason IAF BRDs make MiG-29 spares. In the case of the Su-30, the CAG clearly notes HAL/MOD did approach the Russians in time for TOT but it was delayed & even technical assistance required political intervention.

The Russians simply don't care for product serviceability at an organizational level & their opaque system makes the process harder.

But unless deals are negotiated and contracted properly esp. with the tech aspects by the MOD, who don't involve the services enough at this stage, flaws will continue to appear and sustaining availability rates become more difficult.In the Rafales case the fewer we have the costlier it will be. So ironically we have to buy more for later cannibalisation. How many more can we acquire without detriment to the myriad other programmes in a challenging eco situ is the $B Q.The option of another 18, even taking the total to 60 may be possible, but no more than that, better to put more money and effort into the LCA and as you say , say sayonara to the SEF.


The vendors are not as blameless as you infer here. The Russians have often been handed sweet heart deals which they proceeded to muck up.

The Su-30, T-90 are perfect examples. Delayed TOT, improper documentation, last minute arm twisting (T-90 barrels and armor + FCS).. the list goes on.

Merely signing deals on paper a la MOD does not ensure vendor compliance who assumes we don't have the wherewithal to force them to comply.

After all, cancelling the T-90 deal may have ramifications on Su-30 procurement, or so we fear. Other nations may have merely walked, taking speedy decisions. Take the A-380 vs Boeing, and Emirates for instance.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15925
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 21 Dec 2017 09:10

Bestest news ever heard. On predictive path. From LCA thread.

Dileep wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:
Dileep Saar,

As an evolutionary path do you think we have now developed a sufficient body of knowledge to be able to go down the AMCA path - bypassing MK2.

Was there anything in MK2 that would have been useful for AMCA.

thanks


There is no straight answer to this. But we sure can bypass the "bigger airframe and engine" version of MK2.

At this point, the only gaps we have for AMCA realization are:

1. Twin engine propulsion, and its integration to the 'brain' of the aircraft. This include the power train design, FCS, FADEC, fuel management etc.

2. Stealth. a lot of theoretical and mock-up work was going on, and what I hear is that they have pretty good clue on the body shapes already.

The AMCA TDs are being planned to close this gap. The current electronics platform will be used for the TD with the necessary expansion of sensors, actuators and other infrastructure. Meanwhile, the new gizmos will be developed and tried on the current platform.


TD by 2020-21?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3830
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby srai » 21 Dec 2017 12:21

^^^
TD phase will take 7-years from project green-light. So looking at 2025 at the earliest if project sanctioned sometime next year.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18137
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 21 Dec 2017 13:43

15 years to serial production if started next year.A faster method is to seal the FGFA deal with a rider to assist in the AMCA progr. with full unstinted use of tech used in the FGFA. It will ensure a faster development and production as there could be many commonalities with components.

There are little commonalities with the F-22 and JSF, and the F-22 line has been closed down.This problem need not be there in the FGFA/AMCA program.AMCA could also use some of the so-called 6th-gen.tech to be developed and fitted to these aircraft/ upgraded 5th-gen.which we may see around 2030.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5114
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Dileep » 21 Dec 2017 13:52

Hmm.. You will have to say Foxtrot Golf Foxtrot Alpha anywhere near the aero complex at Bangalore, Kerala, because you can get assaulted if you say FGFA straight.

No sir.. We will go on our own, 100% desi onlee. Some of us might be retired, but AMCA will happen.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 787
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby ArjunPandit » 21 Dec 2017 23:05

Dileep wrote:Hmm.. You will have to say Foxtrot Golf Foxtrot Alpha anywhere near the aero complex at Bangalore, Kerala, because you can get assaulted if you say FGFA straight.

No sir.. We will go on our own, 100% desi onlee. Some of us might be retired, but AMCA will happen.

With lack of any further news beyond that it will be useful it seems FGFA will go through the MKI route only. The price for what Phillip sir is asking may be too high for the SDREs who after LCA may be overconfident (read brimming with confidence) to accomplish things. We have all the building blocks in place (i even think for engine), all we need is to pour in money and involve the mushroom jungle of engineering colleges within two decades we will have all have all we want with us or within our sight

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15925
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 22 Dec 2017 02:45

TD 01, IMHO, does need to be no more than the frame + fuel tanks + engines + minimal avionics/etc.

Absolutely no need for a radar, missiles, sensors, drop tanks, .................... etc. All that can come in TD 02 onward. Make one TD per year for 5 years. Each more advanced than the prior.

While at it, stub for the naval version - folding wings, stronger landing gears, tail hook provision, etc.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15925
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 22 Dec 2017 03:07

ADA 31st Annual Report 2015 - 2016. From Mar, 2017, pdf.

11. ADVANCED MEDIUM COMBAT
AIRCRAFT – AMCA


The Government sanction for feasibility studies
of design and development of Advanced
Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) was
accorded on 5 Oct 2010, at a cost of Rs.90.5
Crores, for a duration of 1 ½ years initially and
subsequently PDC was extended upto 31
March 2017
, in order to facilitate the
continuation of next generation advanced
technology development projects

11.1 AMCA Feasibility Report:
Feasibility studies have been carried out
based on IAF's Top Level Operational
Requirements and completed the scope of
the project. Feasibility Report was
compiled and Review held in November
2013. Feasibility Report was updated in
October 2015 with various activities carried
out post the reviews and submitted to Air
HQ and Hon'ble Raksha Mantri.

11.2 Present Status:
AMCA configuration has been arrived after
considerable refinements and it was
accepted by Indian Air Force. Currently,
the validation tests are being conducted.

These are AMCA intake model of 1:1
nd scale for RCS test, 2 campaign of high
speed wind tunnel tests, static intake test,
dynamic & rotary derivative tests for
generating un-steady data etc. Also a
simulator has been developed which
would be used for sizing the system and
r e fining the a r chit e c tur e . The
technology development and testing
projects are being continued at various
work centres.

11.3 PSQR Finalization:
ADA received Draft Preliminary Services
Qualitative Requirements (PSQRs) for
AMCA in September 2014 from Air HQ for
study and feedback. Appreciation of
requirements document was forwarded to
Air HQ for finalizing PSQRs. Reviews
have been held by VCAS, DCAS and
ACAS (Plans). AMCA latest Configuration
and development approach are accepted
by IAF. First two/three prototypes will fly
with proven 90kN class engine and 110 kN
class engine will be installed in a phased
th manner from 4 prototype onwards. PSQR
is being amended by IAF towards
finalization.

11.4 Powerplant:
It has been communicated by Air HQ that
the AMCA should be powered by 110 kN
class engine. GE, Euroject and Rolls Royce
have proposed G-G route for AMCA
powerplant. A final decision is awaited.

11.5 Business Models and Execution
Methods:

As part of AMCA feasibility, various
possible scenarios of AMCA Programme
execution were studied which includes
participation of Indian and foreign aircraft
houses in various collaborative modes.
AMCA team with the help of Indian
Institute of Management, Bangalore
(IIMB) has carried out the strategic
analysis of possible candidate Programme
Execution Models (i) Joint Venture (JV)
with International Aircraft House (IAH) &
Domestic Aircraft House (DAH), (ii) JV
with IAH, (iii) JV with DAH and IAH as
consultant and (iv) IAH as consultant), for
the Design & Development, Production
and Product Support phases of AMCA
Programme.

Based on the Analysis & Discussions, it can
be concluded that the Execution Model 'JV
with IAH & DAH' is the unanimous first
choice of the Experts for attaining the
defined Programme Goals in the AMCA
Programme. The Execution Model 'JV with
IAH' stands in the second place followed
by 'JV with DAH and IAH as Consultant'
and 'IAH as Consultant' in the third and
fourth places respectively.

11.6 Way Forward:
Permission may be given to initiate next
phase of activities. In-principle approval
for submission of CCS papers and Lead-in
project has been sought.

11.7 AMCA - NAVY:
Indian Navy (IN) Projected requirement
for Naval variant of AMCA and
forwarded Top Level Operational
Requirements (Vide Letter No:
th AO/9670/NAMCA, dated 7 Sep 2015).
th Meeting held with VCNS on 24 Nov 2015
at Naval Head Quarters and discussions
held on Way Forward for AMCA – Navy.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5955
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby nachiket » 23 Dec 2017 00:47

Dileep wrote:Hmm.. You will have to say Foxtrot Golf Foxtrot Alpha anywhere near the aero complex at Bangalore, Kerala, because you can get assaulted if you say FGFA straight.

No sir.. We will go on our own, 100% desi onlee. Some of us might be retired, but AMCA will happen.

Dileep saar, is it possible to elaborate the reasons for the animosity?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2861
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 23 Dec 2017 22:18

NRao wrote:Bestest news ever heard. On predictive path. From LCA thread.

Dileep wrote:
There is no straight answer to this. But we sure can bypass the "bigger airframe and engine" version of MK2.

At this point, the only gaps we have for AMCA realization are:

1. Twin engine propulsion, and its integration to the 'brain' of the aircraft. This include the power train design, FCS, FADEC, fuel management etc.

2. Stealth. a lot of theoretical and mock-up work was going on, and what I hear is that they have pretty good clue on the body shapes already.

The AMCA TDs are being planned to close this gap. The current electronics platform will be used for the TD with the necessary expansion of sensors, actuators and other infrastructure. Meanwhile, the new gizmos will be developed and tried on the current platform.


TD by 2020-21?

Indeed. And this...
Dileep wrote:"MK2 is dead. Long live MK2". The concept of bigger airframe and engine are dead. Many proposals are on for MK2 elements that can get into the current airframe.

The 414s will be used for AMCA TD as I understand. Two of the TDs are apparently sanctioned.

So, LCA is increasingly becoming hals bird and ADA is moving on amca. What I have been saying for some time now.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18137
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 24 Dec 2017 20:20

Said aeons ago that it will be a great achievement if we build more LCAs than HF-24s.Given the long gestation time given- (one report said 7 years for a larger MK-2) can arrive,and it has to be shoehorned into an exg. dated concept, virtually a new aircraft, the prospect of a much better stealth bird is far more attractive.We simply do not have the financial and human resources to work on a multitude of projects.The JV option will be the fastest way to go and if we seal the FGFA deal leverage that deal to the maximum, saving both development costs and time.But if we try and replicate the LCA management pattern, good luck to everyone.We will definitely be buying some firang bird come the next decade.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArjunPandit, bijeet, bksahu and 55 guests