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.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35589
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 21 Feb 2018 20:28

Prasad wrote:Where are we gonna get the 110kN (is that the design thrust rating?) engines from at the size of the F414?

They might offer a new variant. Remember their EDE core moved from 7 stages of standard config to 6. They improved to 20% thrust going blisk fans. Thd low pressure stage available now with CMC so more weight reductions. It is at 98kN now. The IN version could further look at 10kN more.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 21 Feb 2018 21:20

The Enhanced now has a page on GEs website and is likely being marketed to the USN (which is known to be considering it for their block enhancements ), South Korea and India.
https://www.geaviation.com/sites/defaul ... hanced.pdf

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6064
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby nachiket » 21 Feb 2018 23:41

One thing to keep in mind is that the F414-EPE (110kN) version would be its ultimate development. I don't think there is any room for further growth in that engine. So if we need something better in a future MLU we'll have to look elsewhere.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 21 Feb 2018 23:52

The data sheet (posted above) reports that the F414 Enhanced Engine (F414 EE?)is a 116 kN thrust class. I doubt this is the same engine that was envisioned via the DTTI - which was a 110 kN thrust class. The EE is entirely GE effort. The DTTI was expected/supposed to be a "JV". For what it is worth.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 21 Feb 2018 23:53

The Enhanced Engine as being currently promoted by GE is expected to come in at 116Kn thrust class. But yeah, not only will it max out its growth prospects but technology advances elsewhere would basically mean other performance gains would have been missed if they decide to stick to it. Hopefully by that time the Kaveri or a follow on can be ready so as to not require a new foreign engine.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35589
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 22 Feb 2018 01:59

Well.. you can't thrust out more than what the max the design can. We haven't advanced at electronics or software pace in the turbine space. So, we have tech space maturity room of about 20 years or so.

The pioneers are GE, RR, PW and few others. Rest are only copycats. There has to be genuine effort to leap in turbine space. It is a tough niche market that has large time to market only on certified maturity.

There aint any NASA kind outta da box thinkers elsewhere.. so we can be safe on engine choice if it meets thrust requirements by design specs.

I'm sure none is thinking a gyro-based-thruster to experiment here :mrgreen: .

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6754
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Prasad » 22 Feb 2018 11:22

The F110 that powers the F16 is longer and has a wider diameter than the F414. However the F22 engine pw119 has similar dimensions as the f110. So it is possible to get to that thrust within those dimensions. Just need the tech.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3229
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 22 Feb 2018 11:28

nachiket wrote:One thing to keep in mind is that the F414-EPE (110kN) version would be its ultimate development. I don't think there is any room for further growth in that engine. So if we need something better in a future MLU we'll have to look elsewhere.


Technologically there is room for growth with latest tech infusion beyond 116kN. But its not practically feasible. As Brar pointed out, if GE continues with that path it would mean that other promising areas which GE is working and which are the primary focus now, would have missed something essential. Those paths provide more organic growth and thus would take precedence in attracting funding rather than any further development of F414.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6064
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby nachiket » 22 Feb 2018 23:23

JayS wrote:
nachiket wrote:Technologically there is room for growth with latest tech infusion beyond 116kN. But its not practically feasible. As Brar pointed out, if GE continues with that path it would mean that other promising areas which GE is working and which are the primary focus now, would have missed something essential. Those paths provide more organic growth and thus would take precedence in attracting funding rather than any further development of F414.

It would practically be a new engine entirely just the same dimensions. Not saying it can't be done, but such a comprehensive (and expensive) development is unlikely for reasons you and Brar stated.

That pdf states the ENhanced engine being in the 116kN class. It does not mention the Dry thrust value and how much that has increased over the base F414.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2134
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Cybaru » 23 Feb 2018 00:49

Erj200+ had been selected for turkish 5th gen plane. I presume there is work on that on going. It will be nice if they can push to the larger 80KN dry-125KN wet with 3d nozzles.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2134
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Cybaru » 23 Feb 2018 00:50

Will the EPE 116KN engine be used to LCA-mk2 if GE ever finishes and makes it ready for production? Or Is the current f414 enough for mk2?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 23 Feb 2018 01:13

GE will likely go where the money is. Short term there best bet is the USN which is putting together its next block SH and is placing multi-year developmental awards. Next up would be South Korea which has already selected the F414 as the solution for its future fighter. I would think LCA MKII would be more lucrative for them in the short term. The USN will likely fund engine enhancements on their F414s in the next 2-4 years but I just do not see GE investing company funds to develop anything simply given the focus on their ongoing R&D efforts which along with P&W will determine the future as far as the supply of engines for fast jets to the USAF is concerned. I don't think the TD requires an Enhanced engine. They should most definitely consider the AVEN route for the F414 to get 3D TVC. GE's solution is pretty much at par or superior to any other out there and has been offered with the engine family in the past.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3229
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 23 Feb 2018 11:43

nachiket wrote:
JayS wrote:

It would practically be a new engine entirely just the same dimensions. Not saying it can't be done, but such a comprehensive (and expensive) development is unlikely for reasons you and Brar stated.

That pdf states the ENhanced engine being in the 116kN class. It does not mention the Dry thrust value and how much that has increased over the base F414.


Well, whether its a completely new engine or not would depend on how much work is needed. I haven't really given it a thought. Since its highly unlikely, lets not spend time on it. This is wrong thread anyway.

I have tried to find the hike in dry thrust, there is no indication anywhere on it. I must have posted couple of posts on this in engine thread like an year ago or two. Only available relevant info it that the max operating TET is hiked by some 64 K.

NachiketM
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 11
Joined: 25 Aug 2016 05:11

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NachiketM » 23 Feb 2018 18:54

Whilst we are discussing the engines for AMCA is there any news on the TVC in development for the AMCA engines... Didn't the DRDO have a tie-up with the Russians for developing the TVC tech and I believe it was in an advanced stage... whatever happened of it ...???

https://defenceupdate.in/indias-indigenous-amca-set-fly-russian-technology/

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3229
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 23 Feb 2018 20:34

NachiketM wrote:Whilst we are discussing the engines for AMCA is there any news on the TVC in development for the AMCA engines... Didn't the DRDO have a tie-up with the Russians for developing the TVC tech and I believe it was in an advanced stage... whatever happened of it ...???

https://defenceupdate.in/indias-indigenous-amca-set-fly-russian-technology/


Sounds a lot like Marketing article for Russians, on how Russia is helping AMCA.

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 659
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Vips » 23 Feb 2018 20:59



Check this : Some details on the AMCA (and Tejas in the background of FGFA Saga)

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35589
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 25 Feb 2018 09:19

Kartik wrote:Just for the sake of looking at it whenever I read this thread again.

Image

Does look beautiful, doesn't she?!


I did a hack job in MS Paint to grab and push the paint around.. someone who is good at can get it better. but heck, I wanted to see how it would look if I push those gaps between modules closer/ Don't point me back to that age-old LCA hack job :rotfl:

Image

25* pitch down, a bit of roll & yaw on left, and gave it a mach 2 push for docking! :twisted:

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10933
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Gagan » 25 Feb 2018 09:42

You didn’t push in the radome
The AESA will get wet in the rain :mrgreen:

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35589
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 25 Feb 2018 10:33

darn!.. let me do that

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35589
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 25 Feb 2018 10:40

here you go.

Image

Now it has LPI engaged! burst mode ops :lol:

ps: hard to slot in the vertical stabs

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35589
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 25 Feb 2018 11:41

Here, I cleaned up a little bit more. Added BRF chappa.
stabs are in place now.
Image

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1865
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby PratikDas » 25 Feb 2018 11:45

SaiK wrote:Here, I cleaned up a little bit more. Added BRF chappa.
stabs are in place now.
Image

Love it already. I hope the designers have been reading Indranil's rants about wing-body blending and do a commendable job.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 61995
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 25 Feb 2018 11:50

way it is unless they include a fat spine, either the fuel load or depth of internal bay will suffer.

unlike the pakfa it is not XXL wide to make up for it.

the f22 represents a balanced mix of size, depth, width imo and still looks great nearly 30 years after IOC!!

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35589
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 25 Feb 2018 12:03

makes sense...

Fat Spine:
Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 61995
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 25 Feb 2018 12:19

Image

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35589
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 25 Feb 2018 12:26

such teachings work only if we want to correct. :wink:

pravula
BRFite
Posts: 164
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 05:01

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby pravula » 25 Feb 2018 12:29

Singha wrote:Image


failure teaches survivors. The rest are fcuked.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35589
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 03 Mar 2018 02:06

Related data for analysis..
but they all lack several key components of a true 5th generation aircraft such as:
  • a low radar cross-section (“stealth”),
  • the capability to fly at supersonic speeds without using afterburners,
  • the ability to carry weapons inside a special weapons bay (as opposed to outside, under its wings or body)
  • an advanced “situational awareness” (network-centric) capability (sensor and external data fusion)
To make a long story short, the difference between 4th and 5th generation aircraft is really huge and requires not one, but several very complex “technological jumps” especially in the integrations of numerous complex systems.
https://thesaker.is/making-sense-of-the ... -in-syria/

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2353
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby kit » 03 Mar 2018 05:17

SaiK wrote:Related data for analysis..
but they all lack several key components of a true 5th generation aircraft such as:
  • a low radar cross-section (“stealth”),
  • the capability to fly at supersonic speeds without using afterburners,
  • the ability to carry weapons inside a special weapons bay (as opposed to outside, under its wings or body)
  • an advanced “situational awareness” (network-centric) capability (sensor and external data fusion)
To make a long story short, the difference between 4th and 5th generation aircraft is really huge and requires not one, but several very complex “technological jumps” especially in the integrations of numerous complex systems.
https://thesaker.is/making-sense-of-the ... -in-syria/


quite true .. i guess you need many jumps from 4.5 to get to true 5th gen .. system wise ..radars to sensor fusion and algorithms .. apart from materials .. dont think its that easy .. Russia and China still havent despite their immense resources

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2353
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby kit » 03 Mar 2018 05:19

having said that even if HALs AMCA is 4.75 it would be Indian Gen 5 ,, better get it from there .. all the more reason for the Tejas mark 2

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3229
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 03 Mar 2018 11:33

The concept of generation in Aerospace is not a mere marketing gimmick.

There is 4th Gen and there is 5th Gen. Anything in between is more or less a marketing gimmick. This 4+, 4++, 4.5++ and all reminds me of how HH renames their same old Splender and Passion with addition of Pro, Plus, Super and such adjectives.

Also it needs to be remembered that we generally take American concept of 5th Gen as criteria. What matters is organic capability of the design to have those characteristics. Not all those specific characteristics miight be present in the fighter at given point. But can it have it in coming future relatively easily? Similarly a 4th Gen aircraft might be able to have sensor fusion to the level of 5th Gen fighter but can it achieve other characteristics with some upgrades...? Organic capability of a design is what should be looked at when thinking of its generation.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 03 Mar 2018 18:31

These things are also tied to one another and the measuring criteria is not the stand along capability of each of these expensive and hard to engineer concepts (such as sensor fusion) but the overall effectiveness of the system as a whole relative to mission objectives (air-defense, strike, CAS, SEAD etc). For example, if you put the sensor fusion capability of the F-22 or F-35 on an F-15 or F-16, it will be not as effective as it is in these aircraft. The other characteristics such as the degree of freedom to get closer to potential targets, supercruise in the case of the F-22, and the ability to network and communicate discreetly and share SA all comes together to enable these things. Pilots who have flown both these capabilities point to the perils of using legacy aircraft metrics to measure the them (F22 or F35) because they enable concepts of operations and TTPs on account of their collective capability that would not be possible with older aircraft, so if you operate them like the previous aircraft you are not making full use of there potential. It is almost like starting with a clean slate and developing fresh CONEMPs.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 282
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby ashishvikas » 04 Mar 2018 12:11

The first two AMCA tech demonstrators are not likely to have many 5G features. They will basically demonstrate the new avionics suite and stealth shaping. Plus India's ability to configure a twin-engine jet.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/970 ... 71553?s=19

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 138
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Rishi_Tri » 05 Mar 2018 00:09

ashishvikas wrote:The first two AMCA tech demonstrators are not likely to have many 5G features. They will basically demonstrate the new avionics suite and stealth shaping. Plus India's ability to configure a twin-engine jet.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/970 ... 71553?s=19


Very superficial and misleading comment. Stealth shaping is perhaps the biggest struggle with 5th Gen. Avionics being next. Get this done and you have an aircraft that is asymptotically close to being Stealth without actually being one.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 204
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Haridas » 05 Mar 2018 03:30

Rishi_Tri wrote:
ashishvikas wrote:The first two AMCA tech demonstrators are not likely to have many 5G features. They will basically demonstrate the new avionics suite and stealth shaping. Plus India's ability to configure a twin-engine jet.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/970 ... 71553?s=19


Very superficial and misleading comment. Stealth shaping is perhaps the biggest struggle with 5th Gen. Avionics being next. Get this done and you have an aircraft that is asymptotically close to being Stealth without actually being one.

Indeed.
https://twitter.com/HaridasKukkur/statu ... 82688?s=19

But that is the core (difficult part) to stealth combat aircraft development?
The packaging for all internal weapon storage and conformal frequency selective antennas of the electronics is the first cut to address the technical aspect.

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 694
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby prasannasimha » 05 Mar 2018 10:40

What I was thinking if you get the shape and avionics first the others will follow

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 138
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Rishi_Tri » 05 Mar 2018 11:19

Haridas wrote:
Rishi_Tri wrote:
Very superficial and misleading comment. Stealth shaping is perhaps the biggest struggle with 5th Gen. Avionics being next. Get this done and you have an aircraft that is asymptotically close to being Stealth without actually being one.

Indeed.
https://twitter.com/HaridasKukkur/statu ... 82688?s=19

But that is the core (difficult part) to stealth combat aircraft development?
The packaging for all internal weapon storage and conformal frequency selective antennas of the electronics is the first cut to address the technical aspect.


++

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3229
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 05 Mar 2018 12:46

brar_w wrote:These things are also tied to one another and the measuring criteria is not the stand along capability of each of these expensive and hard to engineer concepts (such as sensor fusion) but the overall effectiveness of the system as a whole relative to mission objectives (air-defense, strike, CAS, SEAD etc). For example, if you put the sensor fusion capability of the F-22 or F-35 on an F-15 or F-16, it will be not as effective as it is in these aircraft. The other characteristics such as the degree of freedom to get closer to potential targets, supercruise in the case of the F-22, and the ability to network and communicate discreetly and share SA all comes together to enable these things. Pilots who have flown both these capabilities point to the perils of using legacy aircraft metrics to measure the them (F22 or F35) because they enable concepts of operations and TTPs on account of their collective capability that would not be possible with older aircraft, so if you operate them like the previous aircraft you are not making full use of there potential. It is almost like starting with a clean slate and developing fresh CONEMPs.


Correct. But that's next step for the folks who compare tick mark to tick mark while comparing two fighters. When one sits down and thinks seriously about each of the capabilities and what engineering changes are needed to achieve the,, one can easily arrive at a conclusion that you have mentioned. But sadly very few see it that way. We see people coming up with suggestions like adding internal bays to LCA, every week.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 05 Mar 2018 17:00

JayS wrote:But sadly very few see it that way. We see people coming up with suggestions like adding internal bays to LCA, every week.


Even the most well equipped (money and technical knowhow) teams of operators and developers take anywhere from 2 to 4 years to study requirements, develop an AOA, war game to validate some of their assumptions and capabilities before proceeding with a set of concrete requirements that they then go back and forth with industry with to better understand feasibility in terms of cost, capability and schedule. We on the other hand on forums,raid the internet and brochures and can easily mix and match.. ;).
Last edited by brar_w on 05 Mar 2018 17:50, edited 1 time in total.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3229
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 05 Mar 2018 17:27

brar_w wrote:
JayS wrote:But sadly very few see it that way. We see people coming up with suggestions like adding internal bays to LCA, every week.


Even the most well equipped (money and technical knowhow) teams of operators and developers take anywhere from 2 to 4 years to study requirements, develop an AOA, war game to validate some of their assumptions and capabilities before proceeding with a set of concrete requirements that they then go back and forth with industry with to better understand feasibility in terms of cost, capability and schedule. We on the other hand raid the internet and brochures and can easily mix and match.. ;).


We are going OT here, last one from me on this. As one quotes goes, the more you know, the less you talk about it. :wink:


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ashok Sarraff, Rakesh and 28 guests