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.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5737
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 22 Jul 2017 20:04

Khalsa sahab, correct thread? Soft warning for you. You can post it in the international aviation thread.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1000
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 24 Jul 2017 02:35

Indranil wrote:Khalsa sahab, correct thread? Soft warning for you. You can post it in the international aviation thread.

Roger that chief. Did not intend to derail.
Sorry actually cross posted in a couple of forums I think, it was a rush job from a Mobile.

The intention was to discuss few things.
1. Navalisation, merits in starting off with a rough tough landing gear and spine suited for Navalised operations ?
2. The Deep placement of the seat bucket along with the canopy being recessed into the body ?

Unlike the F22, or F35 which are more F-16 like, The Seat and Canopy were more deeper inside the structure of the aircraft in the AMCA and Mig design. Actually I am almost getting a feeling that this Mig-5 Gen concept might have lifted a few things from the AMCA.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1076
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Kakarat » 25 Jul 2017 16:11

Saurav Jha‏ @SJha1618

Saurav Jha‏ wrote:2:27 PM - 25 Jul 2017 - AMCA will need something in the 105-115 KN range. Preliminary test flights will be done with an upgraded F-414 member.
2:38 PM - 25 Jul 2017 - BTW, with 105-110 KN, AMCA will not really supercruise. it would be able to go supersonic at minimum after burner, however.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5893
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 25 Jul 2017 16:23

Design goals aside, you really need prototypes in the air to determine and account for weight growth that is always a challenge. They need to explore rapid prototyping and having a couple of pre-design freeze prototypes in the air by the early 2020s if they need an IOC_mature aircraft by the early to mid 2030s.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6576
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Prasad » 25 Jul 2017 16:40

Parallel program. Can do prototypes with a GE engine and develop an Indian engine at the same time without the LCA problems. Might need a high altitude test bed for any engine dev though. That and a boatload of cash.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 25 Jul 2017 17:22

Reading in between the lines (from those tweets), the new engine, for the AMCA seems to be ahead of schedule.

Prototypes can operate with the base GE F414 INS6.

The enhanced engine is derived from the INS6 and expected to deal with any excess weight - that was THE reason for the uprating.



First time hearing AMCA will not supercruise - though not sure what he means!!! Is it still part of the design, but will not for some reason or have they removed that element from the design.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2611
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 25 Jul 2017 17:43

NRao wrote:Reading in between the lines (from those tweets), the new engine, for the AMCA seems to be ahead of schedule.

Prototypes can operate with the base GE F414 INS6.

The enhanced engine is derived from the INS6 and expected to deal with any excess weight - that was THE reason for the uprating.



First time hearing AMCA will not supercruise - though not sure what he means!!! Is it still part of the design, but will not for some reason or have they removed that element from the design.


AMCA has dropped the requirement of super cruise for quite some time now. I remember to have read about it like a year ago or two. If it does, its good, but it will not be held back for that (hopefully).

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 26 Jul 2017 01:05

where, supercruise AFAIK is still very much part of the requirements

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 26 Jul 2017 07:46

This is good article to set base expectations (IMHO of course):

AWST :: Feb 23, 2017 :: India’s AMCA Fighter Targets Mid-2020s First Flight

Not too old or young enough. {The numbering is mine.}

(1)Preliminary design of India’s proposed Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) will begin in March, with a target of flying the aircraft in 2024 and making it ready for service as early as 2030.

As the defense ministry’s Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) (2)awaits approval for full-scale development, an upgraded version of the General Electric F414 has become the likely engine for the twin-engine indigenous fighter.

“We have completed the configurations and the feasibility study, and proposed users are happy with them,” says an official involved in the project at ADA. The agency, part of the ministry’s Defense Research and Development Organization, has until now been working on concept design of the AMCA, presented in the form of a model in 2015, by which time the general configuration was frozen.

The decision on whether to launch the program is with the office of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a defense ministry official says. Saab and Boeing have expressed interest in helping with development. The ADA official says preliminary design will begin in March.

ADA is allowing at least six years between flight testing and entry into service, in part because of its experience in developing the Tejas light fighter, which needed 14 years of flight testing. Experience in verifying Tejas systems will support the shorter period for the AMCA, the ADA official says.

But the schedule is elastic. Although the official says the fighter will fly in seven years and be ready as early as 2030, the clock cannot start running until the government approves program launch. Another program source points out that the duration of flight testing is hard to predict. Further, ADA has shown a timeline that envisions a first flight in 2025 and serial production from 2036. The Lockheed Martin F-35A needed nine years of flight testing before it became initially operational.

The engine will be chosen soon, the ADA official says, giving no specific date. The choices are the Eurojet EJ200 of the Eurofighter Typhoon, Safran M88 of the Dassault Rafale, and the GE F414, used in the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, KF-X, Saab JAS 39E/F Gripen and the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) Tejas Mk. 2.

ADA sees advantages in choosing the F414, the official says, without elaborating. Two are obvious: experience working with GE in the Tejas program and the F414’s thrust.

(3)ADA says the AMCA needs an engine of 110 kN (24,700 lb.), well above the ratings of the EJ200 and M88. The F414-404, installed in the Super Hornet, generates 22,000 lb. of thrust, but GE is offering an enhanced F414 that it says is in the 26,000-lb. class {That should be around 115 kN that Jha mentions. NOTE: "GE is offering"}. GE also has remarkably rich experience in integrating the F414 and its predecessor, the F404, in different airframes.

Like most modern fighters, the AMCA will be a multi-role aircraft. Although it will be shaped for stealth, a non-stealthy version has also been planned. Features will include a weapons bay, serpentine engine intakes, thrust vectoring, modular avionics, integrated aircraft health management, and a radar with an active electronically scanning array using gallium-nitride technology. (4)The aircraft is intended to fly supersonically without afterburning. {I find it hard to believe that they have left super cruise off the table. The AMCA was expected to do well with a 98 kN engine}

ADA proposes that AMCA will replace the Mirage 2000 fighter and Jaguar strike aircraft in Indian air force service. (5)A carrier-borne version is also proposed. (6)AMCA design work began informally in 2008 and became official in 2011.

The configuration has features that have become familiar on stealth fighters: apart from the weapon bay, these features (7)include fuselage faceting {hmmmm..... computed, ground-up stealth? If so, *very, very* impressive}, canted twin tail fins, edge alignment, and a forward-swept trailing edge of the main plane.

`“Everyone’s stealth fighter looks the same {IF one is computed, then they should be fairly similar, else by shear copying they will be similar},” says an engineer who is in charge of designing another.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2611
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 26 Jul 2017 13:45

I don't remember where exactly I read about it, but here is one reference. I am not sure if the finalised PSQR has included Super cruise or IAF agreed to ADA's proposal, or whether AMCA will be doing limited super cruise with 98kN engine in initial dev stage and with final 110kN it will be able to have true super cruise capability. ADA annual report doesn't say anything.

From 2015 by Sjha

https://swarajyamag.com/economy/indias- ... from-past/

For the AMCA, ADA is proposing a sustained speed of Mach 1.2 while using minimum after burner and expects that this would lead to a detection penalty of 5-7 km as compared to true supercruise.


Sjha reiterated the same thing a couple of days ago on Twitter - AMCA will not be able to supercruise with 110kN class engine.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Austin » 26 Jul 2017 14:40

Even if they use minimum AB ( not sure of the throttle setting has multiple AB setting ) they would consume fuel much faster , Better to be subsonic and use AB only when entering combat.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2611
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 26 Jul 2017 16:09

Austin wrote:Even if they use minimum AB ( not sure of the throttle setting has multiple AB setting ) they would consume fuel much faster , Better to be subsonic and use AB only when entering combat.


Older engines would have 3-4 separate fuel lines and thus 3-4 discrete steps of AB depending on how many lines are open. With FADEC now I think they can do a continuous variation for recent engines.

It would be wise to keep it as a 'good to have' option but given very limited options of engines available and considering the future growth, it may not be a practical to keep super-cruise as a hard requirement. Say 110kN is bare min requirement for true supercruise, and we opt for F414 EE, there is no more growth margin remaining for the EE version beyond that. Unless of coarse we pay GE a few billion dollars to come up with CMC bases version (which is a long shot). There is no other engine currently available in this class. (Future for EF200 is blurry). And we don't know how Kaveri will pan out, unless GOI puts truckload of money in it. Its upto the IAF to decide whether they really need supercruise or not. And then evaluate it against the realistic possibility of getting it.

We do not know all the variables in the equation so this is all guesstimate only.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 31 Jul 2017 03:49


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 31 Jul 2017 04:00

Austin wrote:Even if they use minimum AB ( not sure of the throttle setting has multiple AB setting ) they would consume fuel much faster , Better to be subsonic and use AB only when entering combat.


Unable to find the quote, but around 2008ish IAF stated just that, but with a tweak. They said (actually one person) they wanted super cruise just for ingress and egress into combat situations.

Also, a very recent comment on the FGFA situation, an IAF person stated that India should at the very least get super cruise and stealth knowhow from the Russians. Will find and post this comment.

So, I doubt that SC is off the table for the AMCA. They probably are unable to resolve problem/s so have shelved it for the time being.

Also , not being highly technical in such matters, the engine being requested, for the AMCA, should be 80 kN dry and 110 kN wet (INS6 numbers: 68/98). So, for super cruise would it not be the dry number that counts?

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2611
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 31 Jul 2017 11:19

NRao wrote:
Austin wrote:Even if they use minimum AB ( not sure of the throttle setting has multiple AB setting ) they would consume fuel much faster , Better to be subsonic and use AB only when entering combat.


Unable to find the quote, but around 2008ish IAF stated just that, but with a tweak. They said (actually one person) they wanted super cruise just for ingress and egress into combat situations.

Also, a very recent comment on the FGFA situation, an IAF person stated that India should at the very least get super cruise and stealth knowhow from the Russians. Will find and post this comment.

So, I doubt that SC is off the table for the AMCA. They probably are unable to resolve problem/s so have shelved it for the time being.

Also , not being highly technical in such matters, the engine being requested, for the AMCA, should be 80 kN dry and 110 kN wet (INS6 numbers: 68/98). So, for super cruise would it not be the dry number that counts?


What else Supercruise is useful for..? :-?

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2611
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 31 Jul 2017 12:02

NRao wrote:Also , not being highly technical in such matters, the engine being requested, for the AMCA, should be 80 kN dry and 110 kN wet (INS6 numbers: 68/98). So, for super cruise would it not be the dry number that counts?


It must be 58/98 for F414.

There is no engine which can give 80/110kN thrust ratings. This ratio is way more than even what F119 can give. One needs to have very less By-pass ratio to get high dry thrust. And it penalises the fuel consumption across the board, while you get advantage in ingress/egress. So its a balance. Else everyone would have simply used powerful Turbojets instead of Turbofans and made almost any fighter supercruise.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33671
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 07 Aug 2017 22:07

the F-414 has been down selected for AMCA. That is the best news I have heard for AMCA. I had lost hope

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1000
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 08 Aug 2017 01:34

shiv wrote:the F-414 has been down selected for AMCA. That is the best news I have heard for AMCA. I had lost hope

Saar

tell me more, you are elated because they were selecting a different engine or no engine had been selected and we were dragging our feet.
Any source ? clicky ?

Good Boost to the programme BTW (F-414)

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33671
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 08 Aug 2017 06:27

Khalsa wrote:
shiv wrote:the F-414 has been down selected for AMCA. That is the best news I have heard for AMCA. I had lost hope

Saar

tell me more, you are elated because they were selecting a different engine or no engine had been selected and we were dragging our feet.
Any source ? clicky ?

Good Boost to the programme BTW (F-414)

I thought that no engine had been selected. Which means that the program itself would be running on djinn power.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1000
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 08 Aug 2017 06:37

ah ... understood.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 16 Aug 2017 06:07

JayS wrote:
NRao wrote:
Unable to find the quote, but around 2008ish IAF stated just that, but with a tweak. They said (actually one person) they wanted super cruise just for ingress and egress into combat situations.

Also, a very recent comment on the FGFA situation, an IAF person stated that India should at the very least get super cruise and stealth knowhow from the Russians. Will find and post this comment.

So, I doubt that SC is off the table for the AMCA. They probably are unable to resolve problem/s so have shelved it for the time being.

Also , not being highly technical in such matters, the engine being requested, for the AMCA, should be 80 kN dry and 110 kN wet (INS6 numbers: 68/98). So, for super cruise would it not be the dry number that counts?


What else Supercruise is useful for..? :-?


IIRC the IAF was expecting to use it in very short distances. So, unlike a F-22 which (I think) can go for 200 miles (or so) in SC, the IAF was expecting the AMCA to do it in 40 miles or so. Ratio and not teh raw numbers is the focus.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 16 Aug 2017 06:11

LCA-AF Mk.2 Can Still Become A Reality. Here's How

First time seeing an Indian open source (OS) with AMCA -> F414-INS6 link.

Interestingly, the IAF has mandated that IF the fifth-generation AMCA is to be indigenously developed by ADA, then use must be made of F414-GE-INS6 turbofans for that portion of the flight-test regime that is dedicated to the optimisation of the medium-weight AMCA’s airframe (the Su-57 FGFA on the other hand is a heavyweight fifth-generation MRCA), flight-control logic and the digital fly-by-wire flight control system.


A Mark Pearson (GE) presentation, during AI17, had one slide that connects the two - which was the first ref I came across.
Last edited by NRao on 16 Aug 2017 06:24, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5893
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 16 Aug 2017 06:19

You aren't going to be truly cruising (mig-25/31, Sr-71 type) at high speed with these aircraft. F-22's KPP required 100 nm ingress (super cruise) and a 100nm egress. Sure it could do more..but if you are going supersonic, even on max military power you are still using up significant amount of fuel and your overall radius shrinks. So you mix it up..XXX nm total radius with YYY of that supersonic.

If one were to just measure the supersonic range of the F-22 it will be greater than 200nm but that is not how services frame requirements..They require a mission radius based on mission profiles (fuel state, fuel reserve, weapons carriage, time on station /combat etc) and hold the program accountable to it. A 100 nm supercruise at engerds and another 100 nm at egress roughly amounts to a total of 18 minutes at mach 1 or even less at the F-22's maximum demonstrated super cruise speed. Of course in an actual conflict it will be used in largely an offensive mission and will jettison tanks and take a sip before entering a threat environment. The only reason to demand supersonic performance outside of the threat area is if you are requiring higher sortie generation rates and are fighting at great distances..

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 16 Aug 2017 06:30

which makes sense. I have not been able to find that article yet. IAF *was not* (in 2008ish) expecting to use SC to fight "at greater distances". Which also may explain why they propose to use some AB. SC - for the IAF - may not be a must feature. But, I doubt that they have agreed to take it off the table either.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35358
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 15 Sep 2017 09:16

X-posting from intl airspace dhaaga

U.S. Air Force Cadets 'Invented' a Stealth Fighter

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... hter-22281

Gaur
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 2013
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Gaur » 15 Sep 2017 10:38

^^
Impressive! Encouraging such R&D projects in IAF & IA would, at the very least, go a long way in minimizing mental disconnect between Armed Forces and DRDO,HAL etc. IMVHO, half the problems in most indigenous programs is because of this disconnect.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17598
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 15 Sep 2017 11:03

I have been saying this from the yr. 2000,that the GOI must establish a new aero-engine development centre and dump/absorb the GTRE.We are still stuck wiothout our Kaveri engine,meant to have powered the LCA two decades on,and not even the maritime version or UCAV version have materialised during the last 20 yrs!This is a ridiculous situ which must be rectified asap.Look at China,where it was 20 yrs. ago and now,where it has developed by hook and by crook,a variety of aero-engines,large transports,large helos,stealth fighters,etc.,etc. It has left us behind in style.

This centre must be one where the entire range of aero-engines for fxd. and rotary wing aircraft are designed and developed.,right from turbo-props to jets.Assistance can be obtained from any source,both east and west.Allied to this centre must be one for development of mettalurgy .Whether Midhani has the req. facilities for bleedin' edge R&D apart from production is the Q.Anyway,whatever the centre requires,should be provided.The goal should be to within 25 yrs. to be totally self-reliant.The major engine OEMs will be most cagy about giving us advanced tech,but even if they provide us with a major leg up,it will be a start.

The LCA has suffered the same fate as the HF-24,requiring a firang import,which is still underpowered for the bird, and the "great brown hope",the heavier MK-2 will get another variant of the same. I now some have pointedly sneered at the Gripen's "Swedish" composition,with so many firang/US parts,but what about our desi LCA too? These days,no one nation barring the US and Russia..and to an extent China,make everything in-house,but the core of any successful aircraft is its engine.The AMCA cannot be held back for want of a suitable engine,or have strings tied to a firang one.
Last edited by Philip on 15 Sep 2017 11:15, edited 1 time in total.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1665
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby chola » 15 Sep 2017 11:07

Gaur wrote:^^
Impressive! Encouraging such R&D projects in IAF & IA would, at the very least, go a long way in minimizing mental disconnect between Armed Forces and DRDO,HAL etc. IMVHO, half the problems in most indigenous programs is because of this disconnect.


No, it is far more apparent than any unquantifiable "mental disconnect" between armed forces and those state entities.

It is the simple lack of a sufficient industrial base and eco-system to actually build modern chit. The PSUs have failed at this when they struggle to build even 8 LCAs 15 years after first flight. We need the private sector to come in.

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 Sep 2017 11:23

chola wrote:
Gaur wrote:^^
Impressive! Encouraging such R&D projects in IAF & IA would, at the very least, go a long way in minimizing mental disconnect between Armed Forces and DRDO,HAL etc. IMVHO, half the problems in most indigenous programs is because of this disconnect.


No, it is far more apparent than any unquantifiable "mental disconnect" between armed forces and those state entities.

It is the simple lack of a sufficient industrial base and eco-system to actually build modern chit. The PSUs have failed at this when they struggle to build even 8 LCAs 15 years after first flight. We need the private sector to come in.

Perhaps you are unaware of how standards of production and testing cycles operate, but please desist from spreading more gyan on this topic.

The US Air Force Academy is not your NDA -- it has a FOUR year course, with several majors (including aeronautical engineering, mech engg and so on).
AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

In the aeronautical engineering major, studies in aerodynamics, flight mechanics, propulsion, aircraft structures and experimental methods prepare cadets to succeed in either of the two-course design sequences, aircraft design or aircraft engine design. Cadets will work on real-world design problems in our cutting-edge aeronautics laboratory, featuring several wind tunnels and jet engines. Many opportunities exist for cadets to participate in summer research at various universities and companies across the country.

To compare the Indian ecosystem with this, and then make up different scenarios which are patently false can be avoided. Please reduce the rhetoric and make your point with data.

Gaur
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 2013
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Gaur » 15 Sep 2017 11:34

Chola Ji
I didn't mean to start the service vs psu debate! Some portion of the problem lies with all stakeholders and all this has been debated multiple times to death. Won't dare to touch this topic with a bargepole! :mrgreen:

Just meant that a user with some design experience (Like Navy) would be able to better collaborate with R&D agencies. Helps form realistic ASRs, expectations, better user input etc. This would help regardless of the competency of PSU, Pvt Sector, Defence Babus etc.

So, in hindsight, it was a rather generic and obvious statement. Let me run back to my foxhole hoping that thread doesn't get derailed :D

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1665
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby chola » 15 Sep 2017 11:59

Phillip wrote:
Look at China,where it was 20 yrs. ago and now,where it has developed by hook and by crook,a variety of aero-engines,large transports,large helos,stealth fighters,etc.,etc. It has left us behind in style.



Actually, since becoming a chini mil watcher I'm more impressed their small stuff than their big fanboi wank material like the "large" items you mentioned above.

It is stuff like this that shows the depth and breadth of their industrial base:
Image

That is the Y-12. It is just a shitty little transport with crappy chini built WJ-9 turboprops. Won't be flown by anyone but turd worlders. But the world is majority turd world so it is actually exported to 28 countries.

Image

The Sudanese FTC 2000. Basically a reworked MiG-21 with cloned descendents of the Tumansky turbojets that powered the original MiG-21s from the 1960s.

Both of those aircraft and their engines are well within HAL's power to make. They are not flashy like J-20 or the LCA for that matter but these and other small aircraft and engines formed the base of an industry that doesn't necessarily need signature projects like a J-20 or MKI to survive.

We have the Saras and IJT equivalents of the above but they were more ambitious (and therefore requiring foreign tech) and were not supported all the way through. The chini projects above were left deliberately primitive so to take advantage of their local industrial base. It means they have projects they can finish, experiment with and build off of. It also means that primitive or not, they have a product to sell.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9213
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Aditya_V » 15 Sep 2017 12:02

The FTC 2000 looks very similair to the JF-17, I guess engine will be the main difference. and I guess the JF-17 dimensions and avioncs are bit different, but the design elements are very similair.
Last edited by Aditya_V on 15 Sep 2017 12:25, edited 1 time in total.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1665
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby chola » 15 Sep 2017 12:25

^^^ I wrote in the Kaveri thread that maybe we should have started with a simple turbojet like Tumansky 25 instead of shooting for the moon with a high spec turbofan -- in the 1990s no less when even the Russians were still teething theirs!

The FTC 2000 (also known as the JL-9 in PLAAF service) was indicative of the chini mindset to build and use what their industry was capable of -- at thr time it was cloning MiG-21s. The JF-17 was a more ambitious rework of the MiG-21/J-7 but still far less ambitious than the LCA. They didn't attempt their own engine with the JF-17 at the beginning. It was not FBW. And it didn't have much composite. But again they worked within their industry and had something they could build (and for TSP to assemble) in numbers.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 902
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Gyan » 15 Sep 2017 17:23

1. Obsession with High Tech in Jarnails, is not only with aircrafts but with each and every item, right up to pistols.

2. HAL cannot manufacture or reverse engineer anything including Mig-21 as its only a glorified screwdriver assembly agency

3. Ecosystem created by genuine R&D is evident in our Agni, INSAS, Akash missile programmes.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9213
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Aditya_V » 15 Sep 2017 18:07

Gyan wrote:1. Obsession with High Tech in Jarnails, is not only with aircrafts but with each and every item, right up to pistols.

2. HAL cannot manufacture or reverse engineer anything including Mig-21 as its only a glorified screwdriver assembly agency

3. Ecosystem created by genuine R&D is evident in our Agni, INSAS, Akash missile programmes.


Oh please lets leave this reverse engineering, its a propaganda myth. Reverse Engieering for complicated systems is nothing but Licensed Manufacture with critical components and inputs from Vendor country with H&D name.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3324
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Cosmo_R » 15 Sep 2017 18:17

NRao wrote:...
..though it will be shaped for stealth, a non-stealthy version has also been planned.


Now this is smart. The concept of stealth in the mid 2020s will be a moving target. Better to get a platform that has everything else for a 5G a/c and then worry about stealth as it will be 10 years from now. Else you get scope creep and it's the once and future AMCA

samirdiw
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 18 Jul 2017 22:00

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby samirdiw » 15 Sep 2017 20:49

We have to get past this single path approach for our projects which lead us to constantly being disappointed with the outcome. Let us visit both the paths and try to understand the armed forces asking for foreign stuff.

Option 1. Product with Limited goals and existing tech - The customer is worried that on the paper itself the product is at best matching existing stuff in the market for which they have to now wait many years to indigenize. He is going to be fighting for his life and others over the next few years! Why invest in something that doesn't assure superiority?

Option 2. Product Out in the future stuff - High risk of failure, constantly moving goal posts to still be ahead of the game and past experience of delayed delivery. Better to "hedge" the bets by buying stuff externally and the cycle continues.

Many of the BRF posters also had the same concerns.

How to mitigate this is by -
1. Starting multiple initiatives in parallel (MCA and AMCA)
2. Ask the IAF for acceptable, desired and exceed parameters.
3. Try to have 'some' commonality between both in terms of size and few other parameters.
4. As soon as a reasonably good and safe MCA gets out - start setting up squadrons with those. Every two years a new model and a new squadron.
IAF has always been asking for 60+ squadrons anyways so these 'less capable' fighters can be the second line to fill up the numbers from 33 instead of constantly dreaming about 60 and never getting there. The earlier models can always be upgraded later once the desired capabilities are reached in most cases
5. Go with desi component for everything if there is a lower but reasonably good component that exists. Improve these components later
6. Ask DRDO to come up with a plan for multiple blocks along different parameters (for both initiatives) where the initial versions could be less than acceptable, the desired is somewhere in the middle and the exceeded is later (something that IAF may not have even asked for). Incremental doesn't mean Common Minimum Program. The next version doesn't have to be better in all parameters just some parameters.
Say IAF says acceptable speed is mach 1.6 and desirable is 1.8. ADA/DRDO/IAF come out with a plan that block 1 could be 1.5, block 3 could be 1.6, block 7 could be 1.8 block 12 could be mach 2.0. In this way by the time the IAF expectations are exceeded there are already multiple squadrons out there and the project is successful.

What about the cost?
Gov has been asked for $2 Billion for 2 TD's and 7 prototypes for AMCA. Let's say cost escalations etc and supporting above approach - $5 Billion i.e 2.5 times what ADA asked for
For MCA similarly maybe $1.5 x 2 = $3 Billion
For MCA engines (i.e complete Kaveri) = additional $0.5 Billion
For AMCA engines = $1.5 Billion
Total research amount= $10 Billion

Guestimate each MCA cost = $80 - $100 million (2 - 2.5 times LCA)
numbers approx (all versions) = 200
Total = $16 - 20 Billion

Guestimate each AMCA cost = $120 - $150 (1.5 times MCA)
numbers approx (all version) = 200
Total = $24 Billion - $30 Billion


So for a grand sum of around $10 Billion and parallel initiatives we have all paths covered and assured delivery of reasonably good twin engine 4.5 desi fighters with the possibility of 5th Generation. Isn't this worth it?

Compare the above to utter confusion in our approach today vacillating between import, desi, and type of plane (Rafale/FGFA/AMCA/possibly F-35). And what about the costs?

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5078
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Dileep » 16 Sep 2017 09:16

Oh.. We believe in the hero shooting the noose cut at the right moment the horse is made to bolt. One shot that works every time onlee.

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 » 16 Sep 2017 12:33

Dileep wrote:Oh.. We believe in the hero shooting the noose cut at the right moment the horse is made to bolt. One shot that works every time onlee.

+1 -- we are unable to authorize funding for Mk2/Mk1a/p and AMCA all at the same time, but will fund multiple programs for MMRCA.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 503
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby nam » 16 Sep 2017 20:19

Here is my two cents, which most of you here will dislike.

My opinion, we have missed the 5th Gen manned jet ..bus. AMCA entering service in 2030-2035 gives us no advantage, other than being the 4/5/6th country capable of making stealth jet.

So drop AMCA :shock: , and put all the resources in un-manned stealth jet(subsonic Ghatak & supersonic), which we can put to service in around 2030.

We are doing T57 MKI or get 300 F-35 with some parts build in India instead of F-16. Don't know why we are playing with F-18 & F16 instead of doing a large 300 F35 deal with local build. Something what Turkey is doing.

We will meet our objective of having a 5 gen in service quickly and a 6th gen by 2030.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ajacob, brar_w, prahaar and 26 guests