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.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2708
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 15 Feb 2017 08:49

brar_w wrote:Only design team that I know of that proposed a single vertical tail low observable configuration for a fifth generation fighter failed to make the cut and the company was subsequently acquired.


Should have been more clear - I have no problem against twin tails on 5 Gen platforms, but feel the ones in the models above are fugly, thats all. The ones on the F-22 and T-50 are fine, especially the latter - real looker that one!. These are like fat rectangles, similar to the JSF, one ugly plane that.

But then this is just jingo whine :(( no more

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2370
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 15 Feb 2017 10:31

PratikDas wrote:
Indranil wrote:Image

Does it look like the AESA panel in yellow is pointed upwards there?


I always thought they have a mechanical articulation system to move AESA panel up-down. If you want it in A-G mode move it down, for interception mode, pitched up etc. This would increase angular range in azimuthal plane.

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Marten » 15 Feb 2017 11:04

JTull wrote:Do we get the impression that they are close to commencing fabrication?

Secondly, doesn't it make sense to start building a prototype to validate many of the other technologies involved.

And any word on the engine?

What about the FBL, what about FCS changes required, what about the radar, what about the naval variant being designed as part of the first iteration? Folks heading to Aero India with access to ADA team should ask.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2054
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby kit » 15 Feb 2017 11:32

Cain Marko wrote:Those twin tails are fugly...


depends on what angle you are looking boss :mrgreen:

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 921
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Thakur_B » 15 Feb 2017 11:43

So many iterations of amca means design team is hard at work. It also means they are no way near freezing the configuration.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2370
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 15 Feb 2017 12:11

Thakur_B wrote:So many iterations of amca means design team is hard at work. It also means they are no way near freezing the configuration.


From the walkie talkie baldie show, C. Balaji saar said that AMCA preliminary design is pending approval, there are few technical issues needed to be sorted out before it can be approved and FSED phase can be started.

We should not be surprized to see some more config changes down the line as well.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 921
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Thakur_B » 15 Feb 2017 12:20

They are also not integrating laser designation system internally. F-35, J-20 like eots should be looked into.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1808
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby PratikDas » 15 Feb 2017 12:43

JayS wrote:
PratikDas wrote:Does it look like the AESA panel in yellow is pointed upwards there?


I always thought they have a mechanical articulation system to move AESA panel up-down. If you want it in A-G mode move it down, for interception mode, pitched up etc. This would increase angular range in azimuthal plane.

CAPTOR is the only AESA in a fighter that I know of with a swiveling AESA panel.

The Uttam AESA for LCA is static and vertical.
Image

AN/APG-81 has a static upward slant, as shown for the AMCA but with "no moving parts", on the F-35 as shown here:

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2370
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 15 Feb 2017 12:46

PratikDas wrote:
JayS wrote:
I always thought they have a mechanical articulation system to move AESA panel up-down. If you want it in A-G mode move it down, for interception mode, pitched up etc. This would increase angular range in azimuthal plane.

CAPTOR is the only AESA in a fighter that I know of with a swiveling AESA panel.

The Uttam AESA for LCA is static and vertical.


AN/APG-81 has a static upward slant, as shown for the AMCA but with "no moving parts", on the F-35 as shown here:


How difficult is to put swivelling base for the panel..?? Mechanically is no brainer. SW wise as well, I can't think why it should be a big challenge. But I know very little about Radars.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1808
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby PratikDas » 15 Feb 2017 13:04

JayS wrote:How difficult is to put swivelling base for the panel..?? Mechanically is no brainer. SW wise as well, I can't think why it should be a big challenge. But I know very little about Radars.

It's certainly harder than building an AESA with a static panel, which in itself is a challenge. The Uttam still isn't done and dusted. Adding mechanical swiveling would just increase the complexity and reduce the robustness.

Found this confirming the upward slant:

Image

In any case, I posed the question because it's an interesting choice which gives a broader panel surface thanks to the angle of the cross-section, which means you can fit more T/R modules. Good for stealth as well, apparently. The Air to Ground mode of the radar + the lower IRST + sensor fusion should keep the AMCA in good stead.

Image

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2370
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 15 Feb 2017 14:06

PratikDas wrote:
JayS wrote:How difficult is to put swivelling base for the panel..?? Mechanically is no brainer. SW wise as well, I can't think why it should be a big challenge. But I know very little about Radars.

It's certainly harder than building an AESA with a static panel, which in itself is a challenge. The Uttam still isn't done and dusted. Adding mechanical swiveling would just increase the complexity and reduce the robustness.

Found this confirming the upward slant:

In any case, I posed the question because it's an interesting choice which gives a broader panel surface thanks to the angle of the cross-section, which means you can fit more T/R modules. Good for stealth as well, apparently. The Air to Ground mode of the radar + the lower IRST + sensor fusion should keep the AMCA in good stead.



Obvisouly its harder. I am wondering how much extra efforts would be needed. But I did not consider cross -section area factor, honestly. That's could be a perfectly valid reason. A swivelling set up could means smaller panel than a fixed one for the same nose diameter (for smaller angles it shouldn't matter much, but I don't know enough to conclude one way or the other.).

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14366
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 15 Feb 2017 14:43

Upward canted AESAs are de jure on stealth fighters as are frequency selective radomes.

JTull
BRFite
Posts: 1996
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JTull » 15 Feb 2017 16:27

JayS wrote:How difficult is to put swivelling base for the panel..?? Mechanically is no brainer. SW wise as well, I can't think why it should be a big challenge. But I know very little about Radars.


Livefist: The Indian LCA Navy’s Big Fight Back

There’s activity on the radar front too. Balaji’s team will freeing up LCA Tejas LSP-2 shortly for ground integration of India’s indigenous Uttam AESA radar. The ADA has asked the DRDO’s LRDE lab to keep the Uttam’s interfaces as similar as possible to the current system. ‘It will be a challenge, moving from a mechanically scanned radar to the AESA without interface changes but that is the attempt, to save time and forestall any structural changes to the aircraft or radar,’ says Balaji. Interestingly, since the LCA doesn’t have an integrated liquid cooling system necessary for an AESA radar, the team has suggested that a small auxiliary compartment that becomes redundant after the mechanical-to-AESA switch could be utilised to house a liquid cooling system.


Gives you an idea on what they may be planning for AMCA too.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 15 Feb 2017 16:32

How difficult is to put swivelling base for the panel..?? Mechanically is no brainer. SW wise as well, I can't think why it should be a big challenge. But I know very little about Radars.


Interestingly, both side arrays (which were part of Lockheed's ATF concept and is still something they plan on for future block) and a movable AESA antenna was something they looked at as part of an early JSF trade (Sweetman reported on it when he was at Intravia iirc) but the early experience in the lab with the LPI Multifunction Advanced Data Link essentially allowed them to skip it since a high degree of autonomy meant that it practically on its own built up situational awareness from other F-35's and any other MADL compatible aircraft. This was why they decided to double the number of MADL connected aircraft that could link up to something like 2 dozen from a high single digit number planned earlier.

http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt27 ... 8dc3ff.jpg
Last edited by brar_w on 15 Feb 2017 16:39, edited 1 time in total.

JTull
BRFite
Posts: 1996
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JTull » 15 Feb 2017 16:39

Personally, I think that if there's space to move the faceplate then there's space to make a bigger antenna (provided there's enough power and cooling available). Also, a curved antenna could also be used.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 15 Feb 2017 16:41

Antenna size and radar performance on a stealth fighter is a function of the integrated avionics and the RCS. RCS calculation of the actual design has a huge impact on the size of the radar since the end goal is to always delay detection while detecting your opponent from afar. With ESM where it is if you are trying to stay hidden you aren't blasting away using a large and powerful AESA radar as you would on previous generation aircraft. Therefore besides the physical size of the antenna what is more crucial in an LO aircraft is wide transmit bandwidth, LPI modes, the ability to limit field of view, divide signal among several frequency bands etc. Traditional methods of developing trades for a radar footprint have to be modified when taken in context of a Low Observable fighter. I've in the past posted on these trades and the controversy that erupted over the AN/APG-77 when Raytheon was trying to pull a fast one through their PR.

The point behind building a hard to detect and target aircraft is to make the other guy use much higher than optimal RF energy to look for you thereby opening up the possibility of building ESM tracks and geolocating ground emitters. The CONOPS is often to use your own active RF sparingly.
Last edited by brar_w on 15 Feb 2017 18:32, edited 2 times in total.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7457
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Pratyush » 15 Feb 2017 16:47

I was under the impression that the AMCA twin crew design. The latest renders show a single pilot design. Any ideas as to why.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9101
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Aditya_V » 15 Feb 2017 16:49

I guess with computers playing a greater role, no longer need a separate pilot to manage workload, F-15E, Su -30MKI will probably be last of these 2 crew aircraft. Saves a lot weight and space which can be used for electronics and fuel.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 15 Feb 2017 16:58

Both Lockheed and Sukhoi had 2 seat variants proposed or asked for on the F-35 and PAKFA but both did not pursue it further. The problem is that it complicates your design vis-a-vis RCS as opposed to a simple range drop as would happen if you converted a single seater 4th generation to a 2 seater design.

With integrated avionics, an exponential growth in RF and IR footprint the burden is not as much on a back seater as it is on the ISR community that must provide you the information to effectively build your suite, threat libraries etc. This is where the USAF labs at Eglin are struggling for example completing the Mission data files on the F-35 which quadrupled the amount of data required from the F-22. The joke in the ISR community is -

3rd/4th Gen Pilots - Just give me a heat source and a phosphorescent green thing and I’ll give you an ACE.

5th Gen. Pilots - Give me everything you know about flares, front aspect heat signatures, rear aspect heat signatures, radar signatures, ELINT signatures, for blue gray and red jets for the next 15 years and I’ll ....

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2370
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 15 Feb 2017 17:56

Anybody making this "<" shape of AESA panel..?? That could possibly help get better coverage in vertical plane. And a even better, a pyramid shape panel could increase both azimuthal and vertical angular range without need for swivelling. Please excuse if this looks like a stupid thought.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 15 Feb 2017 18:00

I vaguely recall reading that the AESA is chanted to reduce reflections. In fact, IIRC even in a mechanism that supports movement of the face, in an idle position, the face always droops.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 15 Feb 2017 18:19

XPosting from SE thread:

ashthor wrote:
Delhi Defence Review ‏@delhidefence 3h3 hours ago

Also mentions that engine ha been identified. AMCA engine consultations are being done with IAF.

JTull
BRFite
Posts: 1996
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JTull » 15 Feb 2017 18:52

NRao wrote:XPosting from SE thread:

ashthor wrote:
Delhi Defence Review ‏@delhidefence 3h3 hours ago

Also mentions that engine ha been identified. AMCA engine consultations are being done with IAF.


Glad to see progress

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 15 Feb 2017 19:00

JTull wrote:
NRao wrote:XPosting from SE thread:



Glad to see progress


I *think* that is part of the DTTI effort, with GE and the GE F414 INS6 enhancement suggested by India (tied at the hips to the F-16 deal). Let us see.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2370
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 15 Feb 2017 20:03

NRao wrote:
JTull wrote:
Glad to see progress


I *think* that is part of the DTTI effort, with GE and the GE F414 INS6 enhancement suggested by India (tied at the hips to the F-16 deal). Let us see.


DTTI has nothing to do with INS6 version per se. It was there even before that. Even local assembly for INS6 or EE version if we had chosen to buy it, would have come. Where DTTI will make the difference is the ToT that we can get from GE.

If Engine deal is attached to F16 buy, I suppose we would be getting GE engines and not the PW engines for F16, if we buy them.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2370
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 15 Feb 2017 20:04

NRao wrote:I vaguely recall reading that the AESA is chanted to reduce reflections. In fact, IIRC even in a mechanism that supports movement of the face, in an idle position, the face always droops.


Makes sense.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 15 Feb 2017 20:06

I don't think pilots go on the radio and chant AESA to avoid detection but I could be wrong :rotfl: ;).

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 15 Feb 2017 20:22

JayS wrote:DTTI has nothing to do with INS6 version per se. It was there even before that. Even local assembly for INS6 or EE version if we had chosen to buy it, would have come. Where DTTI will make the difference is the ToT that we can get from GE.

If Engine deal is attached to F16 buy, I suppose we would be getting GE engines and not the PW engines for F16, if we buy them.


You are right, DTTI has nothing to do with the INS6 (meant for the MK2).

My assumption/suggestion is the *enhanced* INS6 (uprating to 110 kN) is something India brought up ............ via the DTTI (under discussions in the Jet Engine Working Group). Just like the help with the Carrier (NOT EMALS).

The F-16 tie up, supposedly a proposal put forth by the US. IF it does happen the F-16 will (my expectation) the PW engine. Dunno.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4935
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby ShauryaT » 15 Feb 2017 20:59

brar_w wrote:5th Gen. Pilots - Give me everything you know about flares, front aspect heat signatures, rear aspect heat signatures, radar signatures, ELINT signatures, for blue gray and red jets for the next 15 years and I’ll ....
How much of this two seater and single seater to do with being reliant on a "networked" environment for these inputs and the management of the same to come from external assets, like an AWACS to manage the workload of the single seater fighter? AWACS I guess is just one example of ISR, could be ground based too with long range tracking? I suspect AMCA is not just about a plane, what will be needed is a complete re-evaluation of IAF war fighting philosophies. At the end of the day, they need to be tailored to the Indian environment and not just blindly adopt the US strategy of a technological overmatch. Caveat.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1808
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby PratikDas » 15 Feb 2017 21:11

Karan M wrote:Upward canted AESAs are de jure on stealth fighters as are frequency selective radomes.

Thank you

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 15 Feb 2017 21:25

ShauryaT wrote:
brar_w wrote:5th Gen. Pilots - Give me everything you know about flares, front aspect heat signatures, rear aspect heat signatures, radar signatures, ELINT signatures, for blue gray and red jets for the next 15 years and I’ll ....
How much of this two seater and single seater to do with being reliant on a "networked" environment for these inputs and the management of the same to come from external assets, like an AWACS to manage the workload of the single seater fighter? AWACS I guess is just one example of ISR, could be ground based too with long range tracking? I suspect AMCA is not just about a plane, what will be needed is a complete re-evaluation of IAF war fighting philosophies. At the end of the day, they need to be tailored to the Indian environment and not just blindly adopt the US strategy of a technological overmatch. Caveat.


I was referring to routine ISR as in intelligence and surveillance on your threats to develop and build your threat libraries that go into the automated target recognition and identification. While on the spot SA would contribute a good reference library in the RF and IR spectrum is required to fully exploit the sensors you have. Moreover one needs to plan for and be one step ahead of that and develop cognitive electronic warfare techniques to analyze on the fly unknown RF behavior from both previously known and unknown RF emitters, characterize those emissions and pass them along to your SA bubble and outside specially since not all assets you bring to the fight will be able to generate cognitive solutions. RF spectrum threats are now increasingly adopting digital architectures and showcasing waveform agility so besides maintaining a robust SIGNINT and ELINT programs you need to expect and prepare for behaviors and waveform that you have not previously encountered.

This isn't a 1 vs 2 man/woman thing but about autonomy, processing and networking and how you get that right within an avionics architecture and how you network your platform to be able to talk and share information (autonomously) in a discrete fashion within its peer LO cohort and talk to non LO assets that may not possess the sophisticated networking hardware/software that it possesses. LO aircraft have the ability to operate in areas that will be highly contested if you send in less survivable assets so AEW/AWACS and SA communication assumes another important dimension in that you need to pipe out valuable SA information from these platforms as opposed to just piping in information as you would in a traditional AWACS set up.

For example in a 5th genreation mix for the USAF the most important asset in a contested environment is probably not an E-3 (although it too is important here in a defensive set up) but a Global Hawk BACN flying high above from a safe distance sucking up data being piped out by the LO assets and transmitting it over the various channels to the rest of the assets connected in the fight. That's how you get the force multiplier affect and maximize your capability across the various assets you bring in.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4935
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby ShauryaT » 15 Feb 2017 22:14

brar_w wrote:I was referring to routine ISR as in intelligence and surveillance on your threats to develop and build your threat libraries that go into the automated target recognition and identification. While on the spot SA would contribute a good reference library in the RF and IR spectrum is required to fully exploit the sensors you have. Moreover one needs to plan for and be one step ahead of that and develop cognitive electronic warfare techniques to analyze on the fly unknown RF behavior from both previously known and unknown RF emitters, characterize those emissions and pass them along to your SA bubble and outside specially since not all assets you bring to the fight will be able to generate cognitive solutions. RF spectrum threats are now increasingly adopting digital architectures and showcasing waveform agility so besides maintaining a robust SIGNINT and ELINT programs you need to expect and prepare for behaviors and waveform that you have not previously encountered.

This isn't a 1 vs 2 man/woman thing but about autonomy, processing and networking and how you get that right within an avionics architecture and how you network your platform to be able to talk and share information (autonomously) in a discrete fashion within its peer LO cohort and talk to non LO assets that may not possess the sophisticated networking hardware/software that it possesses. LO aircraft have the ability to operate in areas that will be highly contested if you send in less survivable assets so AEW/AWACS and SA communication assumes another important dimension in that you need to pipe out valuable SA information from these platforms as opposed to just piping in information as you would in a traditional AWACS set up.

For example in a 5th genreation mix for the USAF the most important asset in a contested environment is probably not an E-3 (although it too is important here in a defensive set up) but a Global Hawk BACN flying high above from a safe distance sucking up data being piped out by the LO assets and transmitting it over the various channels to the rest of the assets connected in the fight. That's how you get the force multiplier affect and maximize your capability across the various assets you bring in.
Fair enough. This involves assets in the mix, who's total costs would scale in the Billions of dollars with a dozen or more assets in the mix for a single mission. It also uses, what I call as a technological overmatch strategy. The strategy works but at a certain cost. My caveat for India is, do we have to do it this way, at these costs and this evolution? Even the US for example is looking carefully into programs that rely on swarms of low cost reusable drones, with the idea that many of these would be disposable thereby inflicting higher costs on the enemy. Our own APJ Abdul Kalam gave us some ideas on reusable missiles. Are we to wake up only after the US adopts drone carriers? The strategy of LO aircraft with ISR technologies is an expensive route as the main stay of your fighter force. Are there alternates is what I am asking? If I may suggest even a cold answer, can India afford to take a higher risk for its environment at costs commensurate with its capabilities and provide some solutions.

With the way things are, I guess most are just salivating on the idea that either a US import or a local fifth generation should eventually be the main stay of the IAF along with US style ISR assets in the mix. I am just not sure, if we can ever afford this as at stake is not only financial viability but also our strategic independence, the way things are.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 15 Feb 2017 22:21

The IAF has adopted network Centric warfare approach and the AMCA is a 2030's platform that will be kept in service till well past 2070 so yeah at some point these things (and beyond) will need to be adopted and absorbed as per the IAF's own doctrine and operational construct. Embedded antennas, and integrated RF and IR sensors is on the AMCA plate so yeah the IAF is looking at and has identified these things. Having a band two antenna on board for example will only tell if there is that band specific emitting threat at range. What you want ideally with an advanced integrated avionics architecture is to be able to use that, and other available organic and supporting assets (Other RF sensors, IR sensors, outside assets etc) to develop a clearer picture as to what that threat is, where exactly it is (Geo location) and utilize that to develop a tactical response to that threat (avoid, jam, kinetic response, stand off/stand-in etc etc). The better you get at networking the less reliant you get at organic capability and this distributed approach saves money.

What I was referring to is how you utilize these to maximize the gains from your ability to exist in that space which is only half of the solution. The other half is being able to develop a tactical advantage based on what you sense and then stay inside your opponent's decision cycle. Even now the IAF and the IC in India keeps tabs on its adversaries vis-a-vis SIGNINT and ELINT activity and this will only get better as capability in this domain is enhanced. It's what you with the data, how you build layers of that data to provide to your tactical aircraft that maximizes your investments and gets you an advantage. And RF behaviors aren't just important against acquisition or surveillance radars but also against electronic attack techniques, radios, data links etc.

Everything from radio to the very large and expensive radar is adopting a digital and software based approach so you can't jam your way out of this problem in the future like you did in the past..you have to sense, analyse, discriminate and then avoid or engage a threat in the RF spectrum (active and passive EW). For that you need precision jamming that can keep up with the threat. The more you know about the behavior of the threat the better you will be at tactically knowing full well that some behaviors will be predictable where the hard work is done during peacetime in acquiring high quality signal and electronic intelligence, while the higher end threat will be agile and will introduce behaviors on the fly hence the need to enhance cognitive electronic warfare abilities. I've posted about this in the International Thread over the years. When IADS, Data Links and even tactical radios become software defined, highly agile AESA based RF architecture you need to step up your capability to maneuver in the EMS or else you'll struggle in getting an upper hand against these through either Electronic Warfare or stealth or a combination of the two. Previous generation aircraft couldnt use the data you had on a threat to this extent because they couldn't get close enough and if they did they lacked the sophisticated sensors to gather this data. If you put those sensors on these aircraft they became mission specific and specialized. Fifth generation fighters with embedded arrays (F-22 has 30 embedded antennas and the F-35 close to a dozen), AESA radars, Fused IR SA provide you the ability to detect, analyze and engage these threats or pass on this valuable information to more appropriate assets.
Last edited by brar_w on 15 Feb 2017 23:19, edited 1 time in total.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2708
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 15 Feb 2017 23:16

brar_w wrote:Antenna size and radar performance on a stealth fighter is a function of the integrated avionics and the RCS. RCS calculation of the actual design has a huge impact on the size of the radar since the end goal is to always delay detection while detecting your opponent from afar. With ESM where it is if you are trying to stay hidden you aren't blasting away using a large and powerful AESA radar as you would on previous generation aircraft. .


Isn't this supposed to be the design philosophy the rafale too? Discrete and emphasis on spectra instead of large nose and radar dish ala typhoon.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 15 Feb 2017 23:21

Yes that is what they are aiming there as well but of course a relatively higher RCS aircraft would not be able to get close enough to an agile threat to gather all this SA so will be at a disadvantage. The F-16 block 60 also has a digital Active+Passive suite (Falcon Edge) and the F-15 and Typhoon are getting this as well (EPAWSS for F-15). Modern AESA based EA/EW solutions give you the ability but where the fifth generation aircraft take it a step beyond is in their ability to cover larger parts of the spectrum from a lot closer. This is because a Falcon Edge, EPAWSS or Spectra has to dedicate a larger C-SWAP (Cost, Space, Weight and Power) to defending the fighter from a self-defense EA suite perspective (larger, more powerful EA emitters). An inherently stealthy (Lower RCS) assett such as the AMCA requires proportionally less jamming to provide the same level of self protection and therefore can dedicate larger CSWaP to its antenna farm and to cover larger parts of the EMS.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2708
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Cain Marko » 15 Feb 2017 23:31

What about the rafale airframe....not vlo for sure but the design seems interesting with hollowed out cheeks, crisscross joints, ram treatments etc....will that make a difference. Say on a lightly loaded rafale, qra type config - 2 meteor and 4 mica semi recessed under belly.

Just wondering if this will have a chance against a j20 type.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 15 Feb 2017 23:33

Lower RCS is always better all things considered but a quick look at the radar equation tells us that you need a high reduction in RCS to have that translate to decisive tactical advantage against a peer competitor. Of course put a Rafale against a non stealthy old F-15A and it will negate the larger aperture advantage of the Eagle through a lower RCS but then other 4+ generation aircraft are also looking at lowering RCS through either design decisions or RAM application. The Rafale needs bags and carries external stores so there are limits to high stealthy it can be before it begins to become tactically limiting.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2370
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 15 Feb 2017 23:53

NRao wrote:
JayS wrote:DTTI has nothing to do with INS6 version per se. It was there even before that. Even local assembly for INS6 or EE version if we had chosen to buy it, would have come. Where DTTI will make the difference is the ToT that we can get from GE.

If Engine deal is attached to F16 buy, I suppose we would be getting GE engines and not the PW engines for F16, if we buy them.


You are right, DTTI has nothing to do with the INS6 (meant for the MK2).

My assumption/suggestion is the *enhanced* INS6 (uprating to 110 kN) is something India brought up ............ via the DTTI (under discussions in the Jet Engine Working Group). Just like the help with the Carrier (NOT EMALS).

The F-16 tie up, supposedly a proposal put forth by the US. IF it does happen the F-16 will (my expectation) the PW engine. Dunno.


As we have discussed a few months ago, for EE version, someone needs to bankroll the development/Certification phase where GE will put together all the things which according to brar_w would be $0.5~1B dollar. USN doesn't seem to be in the mood. For India, its too much to pay for. A single engine costs about $3-4mil. So you can imagine how significant is that cost of $1B (=300 engines)

Whats in it for GE if PW gets to supply F16 engines?? GE anyway would do local assembly given enough orders. But to extract some serious ToT from them, means we need to sweeten the deal for them over and above mere orders for F414.

Or we could go for PW. PW engine for F16 and F119 for AMCA. :wink:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 16 Feb 2017 02:10

Movement on the F414 Enhanced

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4752&p=2116274#p2116274

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 16 Feb 2017 05:04

Many moving parts. So, let me try ................ All the following is IMHO. Because it is specific to the AMCA, will leave it in this thread.



As we have discussed a few months ago, for EE version, someone needs to bankroll the development/Certification phase where GE will put together all the things which according to brar_w would be $0.5~1B dollar. USN doesn't seem to be in the mood. For India, its too much to pay for. A single engine costs about $3-4mil. So you can imagine how significant is that cost of $1B (=300 engines)


It was then, and even perhaps now, it is too premature to consider funding, leave alone *any* US entity who may or may not fund such an effort.

Here is what know (my data points that I use to help me track and predict), not in any order:

* Two years ago (nearly to the day?) as part of a (near dead?) DTTI process, India requested two major assistance from the US - which resulted in two "Working Group" (Jet engine and Carrier)
* IF that is true, then there is some form of work share between the two nations
* Both have met about 4/5 times over the past two years
* As far as I know the "Jet Engine" was related to uprating the F414 INS6, specifically, from 98 kN to 110 kN. Since only India is expected to use the INS6 I find it hard to believe anyone else would be interested in funding this uprating (which is the second part of my statement above)
* The US DoD has always been interested in a "Brahmos" type of a deal with India. The "Jet Engine" was proposed, by India, under that umbrella. I am not familiar with the Brahmos internals, but, *I assumed* it to be some sort of a split of funds and IP. But this is nebulous and I think it is not worth talking about right now
* What is of value is:
** The US did change their internals. During the previous trip by Parrikar, the US announced that India can access techs that India was not allowed to until then
** (As an aside, the change in internals is a very, very big deal. They had to coopt the DoS and Kerry a Pakistan supporter and India hater
** The US then went on to make some noise in the Congress about Strategic Partner
** Last Dec the two met at Wright-Patt, when "hot section" bubbled up. I guess that is the tech that India was chasing and the one US decided India to access
* The link to F-16 was from an Indian source - not a US one. However, it did surface just around when it looked like the DoD agreed to make changes to their (or more likely DoS) approval list. There was some noise on the amount of air crafts (Modi said 200-300?)
* A report that Modi was close to an agreement (on his last trip)

So, I have not followed any posts on USN funding, etc - much of what you posted. To me it just does not apply. At the same time, I agree, that the issue of funding this is unresolved, but which is why I think it is too premature.

On the flip side, I wonder if India would get that kind of tech (that India asked for) even if India invested a $1 billion anywhere else. Leave alone within India. Considering India does have access to Russian and French resources, the Indian request went first to Obama (on his Indian trip). Not Carter. Not GE.

Another interesting point: While india opted to work with the INS6, India opted to go with a Russian company for the TVC - for the very same engine!!!!!!!! So far.

Whats in it for GE if PW gets to supply F16 engines?? GE anyway would do local assembly given enough orders. But to extract some serious ToT from them, means we need to sweeten the deal for them over and above mere orders for F414.

Or we could go for PW. PW engine for F16 and F119 for AMCA.


Since India asked for engine techs, I just do not see the worth of a question like "What is in it for GE?" I do not know, but the closest I can think of was what was in it for Russia in the Brahmos deal? That just *may* provide an answer.



From the chatter I *think* the two have come to some sort of an agreement (on the engine hot section + the F-16). IMHO, all that is remaining is a dog and pony show to accommodate the Indian procedures.

I expect a resolution by this year end. A 90 mt EMALS, it seems, is nailed down. Carrier, I do not know, but do not expect much - the Vishal is already past the drawing board as far as I can tell. Unless they go the nuclear route, then it is a diff story.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher, Sridhar K and 39 guests