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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2611
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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2611
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
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
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: 5080
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
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3502
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: 884
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: 9157
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: 5080
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
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2611
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: 5080
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: 536
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: 87
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
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3502
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: 17601
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: 2115
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: 3556
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


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ashishvikas, dwaipayandhar, Raicharan and 27 guests