V_Raman wrote:Since when did Mk2 need a new engine - I thought it was being designed with F414-GE-INS6 as the engine. Is that not correct?
GE F414 was always the plan
V_Raman wrote:Since when did Mk2 need a new engine - I thought it was being designed with F414-GE-INS6 as the engine. Is that not correct?
+1000Rakesh wrote:...
We have to understand what Air HQ is looking for in the MRFA purchase. Peel away the layers that Air HQ loves phoren fighters (and they do!), that Air HQ is staffed with fighter jocks (which it is) that love hot rods, that Air HQ has little to no faith (which is true) in HAL to deliver a quality product....what is left? ...
So what Air HQ wants no OEM on Planet Earth can provide. They will decide on orders based on how capable the platform is and on the production rate. But they will take *ZERO* ownership on developing the platform. They want a ready-made solution just delivered to them in a tricolour bow. If they want X capability, then they have to partner with said agency to develop that capability. This zero ownership attitude that Air HQ has is why local platforms never succeed (or reach their full potential) in the IAF.
...
And that commitment needs to be made TODAY, so the platform can become a reality in the high triple digits that it needs to be inducted in. This is why the PMO needs to step in. This is now an issue that goes beyond the Ministry of Defence or even the Defence Minister himself. Air HQ's vacillation over the Tejas Mk2 is not a strategy that the PMO can rely on. Like I said earlier....the IAF will lose 10 squadrons (MiG-29s, Jaguars and MiG-29s) over the next two decades. And there is already a 10 - 12 squadron shortage as of today. Therefore, sufficient room is there for the induction of imported and local aircraft. Heck, there is even room for additional Mk1A units.
...
And what of things that we dont know of like maintenance requirements and cost to operate? What ADA has delivered is in line with what IAF has asked for. As we have seen with ATAGS, applying their "own thinking" and over-delivering is no guarantee Indian designers will have a product that is readily accepted.ldev wrote:The engine for the Mk2 should have at the outset been an outsized engine capable of supporting future growth in power hungry systems, besides providing higher payload capacity and better thrust to weight resulting in faster acceleration. Instead of the GE-414 with ~60KN dry thrust and ~ 100KN with afterburning, what should have been chosen is the GE-110-132 with ~85KN dry thrust and 145KN with afterburning. This would have given the Mk2 a better thrust to weight ratio than the F-16 (this engine powers the UAE F-16 Block 60) and made the IAF jockeys happy with the resulting hot-rod!! The GE-110 is 181 inches long and with a diameter of 46 inches vs the GE-414 at 154 inches length and a diameter of 35 inches. An LCA Mk 2 powered by the GE-110-132 with an AESA radar, a comprehensive EW suite and a state of the art IRST and FLIR to combat PLAAF 5th gen LO fighters is all that the IAF needs on the domestic front. It would be a single engine fighter and hence low on maintenance and yet with an engine with power to spare.
This is completely mistaken. The AMCA design will remain viable for several decades to come as most of today and tomorrow's fighters rely on radars, especially X-Band FCR for long range acquisition and targeting. As long as that is the case, AMCA remains highly viable. For instance, if it were to hit fairly conservative 0.3 sq mtr targets (as that report stated for the J-20), radar range would be reduced by a whopping 40% against it vis a vis a "small MiG-21" class fighter. In reality its RCS will likely be far lower & it will have EW too. Future variants will allow it to control UAVs and UCAVs, and optional pilots are being talked of. In short, it is a highly viable design that can be and will be leveraged heavily for more variants.The AMCA is effectively redundant because technology and changes in warfighting are advancing so fast that the AMCA as envisaged currently will be obsolete by the time it is ready for production.
The video linked below gives some cost per hour figures for IAF fighters in USD converted at the prevailing exchange rate when the video was made ~@Rs 73 to the USD:Karan M wrote: And what of things that we dont know of like maintenance requirements and cost to operate? What ADA has delivered is in line with what IAF has asked for. As we have seen with ATAGS, applying their "own thinking" and over-delivering is no guarantee Indian designers will have a product that is readily accepted.
The issue with Indian fighter aircraft development is the time scale from inception to delivery as compared to what India's primary foes are doing is inordinately long. As you would have noticed in that J-20 article the Chinese have taken great pains to reduce the time lag between introduction of a fighter by the US and the first flight of a fighter with comparable technology by China e.g. they compared the F-16s first flight in 1974 and the J-10 in 2003.....they were 29 years behind the US for a basic 3rd generation fighter, both fighters in their later iterations were upgraded into the 4th generation. Therefore they made a lot of effort to reduce this technology gap with the US for the 5th generation i.e. F-22 first flight in 1997 vs the J-20s first flight in 2011.....14 years later. Now one can argue convincingly that the J-20 is a pale imitation of the F-22 but credit the Chinese with getting at least the fundamentals of stealth shaping reasonably right in what is their first attempt. Their second effort the J-35 is a work in process, in fact photographs have emerged of the J-35s first flight a couple of weeks ago. As you are well aware the US is already in an active test program of deploying laser pods on F-16s as test beds, initially as defensive aids to disable AAMs and SAMs targeting the fighter. The effort is on for later versions with more power to be used as offensive weapons. The first pods have been delivered to the US Airforce.This is completely mistaken. The AMCA design will remain viable for several decades to come as most of today and tomorrow's fighters rely on radars, especially X-Band FCR for long range acquisition and targeting. As long as that is the case, AMCA remains highly viable. For instance, if it were to hit fairly conservative 0.3 sq mtr targets (as that report stated for the J-20), radar range would be reduced by a whopping 40% against it vis a vis a "small MiG-21" class fighter. In reality its RCS will likely be far lower & it will have EW too. Future variants will allow it to control UAVs and UCAVs, and optional pilots are being talked of. In short, it is a highly viable design that can be and will be leveraged heavily for more variants.
Thanks for sourcing your numbers but TBH, very skeptical of a lot of these YT video guys given they pick up stuff from twitter, forums etc and run rumors into fact. I'll check the numbers on my own and revert.ldev wrote:The video linked below gives some cost per hour figures for IAF fighters in USD converted at the prevailing exchange rate when the video was made ~@Rs 73 to the USD:
SU-30MKI 10,000
Mirage 2000: 2700-3700
Mig 29: 6500
LCA: 4000 (presumably Mk1)
Rafale: 16,000
It's not merely that. It is the fact India plans to set up M&O facilities for GE engines in India as part of the LCA program (we dropped making the engines on account of cost) and hence a new engine would cost significantly more to maintain in India.The engine in question the GE-110 132 is used to power the F-16 and the F-16 in US Airforce service has a cost per hour of USD 8000. Since the rest of the aircraft will be largely of Indian origin the cost per hour in IAF service for a GE-110 132 powered Mk2 should not exceed USD 8000, in fact it should be lower as manpower costs as well as consumable stores should be priced lower. As far as IAF acceptance is concerned, one attribute of such a fighter which the the IAF should love will be it's thrust to weight ratio which will be greater than either the F-16 or the Rafale. That in itself again is no guarantee of acceptance....but the IAF fighter jockeys should love it!!
This can all be addressed provided we deliver a reasonably modern aircraft to the IAF by the time it appears and that reasonably modern aircraft can handle the threats as IAF envisages then, based on futuristic specifications set and that we achieve then. The fact is today's Tejas Mk1 avionics wise is ahead of whatever PAF has in service in several respects. Yet, we are going for a Mk1A because we want to "future proof" our investment.The issue with Indian fighter aircraft development is the time scale from inception to delivery as compared to what India's primary foes are doing is inordinately long. As you would have noticed in that J-20 article the Chinese have taken great pains to reduce the time lag between introduction of a fighter by the US and the first flight of a fighter with comparable technology by China e.g. they compared the F-16s first flight in 1974 and the J-10 in 2003.....they were 29 years behind the US for a basic 3rd generation fighter, both fighters in their later iterations were upgraded into the 4th generation. Therefore they made a lot of effort to reduce this technology gap with the US for the 5th generation i.e. F-22 first flight in 1997 vs the J-20s first flight in 2011.....14 years later. Now one can argue convincingly that the J-20 is a pale imitation of the F-22 but credit the Chinese with getting at least the fundamentals of stealth shaping reasonably right in what is their first attempt. Their second effort the J-35 is a work in process, in fact photographs have emerged of the J-35s first flight a couple of weeks ago. As you are well aware the US is already in an active test program of deploying laser pods on F-16s as test beds, initially as defensive aids to disable AAMs and SAMs targeting the fighter. The effort is on for later versions with more power to be used as offensive weapons. The first pods have been delivered to the US Airforce.
So in the last line you see if the Rafale can manage with a clean RCS of 0.3 mtr square and then adds weapons, spiking its RCS, yet with Spectra etc is seen by the IAF as capable of taking on the J-20, S-400 etc, then an AMCA which is clean at 0.3 mtr square (carries its weapons internally) and also has a Spectra type EW suite planned, should be fairly sufficient. And this is assuming we are at 0.3 mtr square alone and don't overhaul that target.As far as rcs goes, the detection range between an rcs of 0.1m^2 and .001m^2 is immense e.g. Almaz-Antey, the Russian manufacturer of S-400 claims that its S-band 91N6E which is the primary search radar can detect a 4 m^2 target from 390 km while the X-band 92N6E targeting radar can track a 4 m^2 target from 250 km at altitude i.e. curvature of the earth is not an issue. Based on this the search radar will detect a 0.1m^2 target at 155 km but will only detect a .001m^2 target at 49 km. The difference between the two is the ability to come within launch range of an anti radiation missile or not. Reducing rcs does help no doubt but IMO it has to be or an order of magnitude to be meaningful i.e. Dassault claims that the Rafale has 1/10th the rcs of the Mirage 2000. The Mirage 2000 is widely believed to have an rcs of 3.00m^2-3.30m^2. The Rafale should therefore have an rcs of ~0.3m^2 which coupled with it's Spectra self protection EW suite will help it evade detection closer to it's target. And these rcs figures are for fighters in operation as of today. Who knows what lurks behind classified walls and is on the drawing boards of aerospace manufacturers globally?
AMCA has a ways to go, but labeling it obsolete when we don't even know what the classified specs its driving towards is a bit much.All of this means that the AMCA has a hill to climb if it is to be relevant 20 years from now. Just as the Chinese are clocking their efforts in number of years that they are behind the US, I think India has to do the same. The J-20 first flew in 2011, first deliveries to the PLAAF in limited numbers in 2017, with 3 regiments operating the J-20 in 2022.
Are Tejas and AMCA capable of flying NOE profiles? (I'm not looking for any classified info here).Karan M wrote: ...which will be flying NOE profiles.
So obvious and yet we will be having these same discussions 5-7 years from now with nothing having changed. Do we actually expect MRFA to deliver a single bird (if it were to go ahead) this side of 2030? No moves have been made to even order additional Rafale squadrons and that alone is a 5 year process (~2 years of cost negotiations + 3 years for first deliveries). The only difference between now and 5 years time will the first 1-2 SQNs of LCA MK1A will be in service but absolutely no other changes in force strength will have occurred for the better- that is 100% assured now.Rakesh wrote:We have to understand what Air HQ is looking for in the MRFA purchase. Peel away the layers that Air HQ loves phoren fighters (and they do!), that Air HQ is staffed with fighter jocks (which it is) that love hot rods, that Air HQ has little to no faith (which is true) in HAL to deliver a quality product....what is left?
.......
So lets see.
https://twitter.com/Defencematrix1/stat ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> Tejas Mk2 or Super Sukhoi? What you think sir?Rakesh wrote:Video in first link below....
https://twitter.com/Kuntal__biswas/stat ... NVCfY9mzCw --->
+- 30 degree rotation of UTTAM MK-2 AESA radar
https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> BIG: LRDE is looking at Uttam Mk2 antenna with a repositioner with up to +-90 degree and +-20 degree slewability in azimuth and elevation respectively. That is state of the art!
https://twitter.com/Indrani1_Roy/status ... NVCfY9mzCw ---> As you know Uttam Mk2 has better capability than Mk1 with reduced size. LRDE and ADA have also worked out how to place the antenna closer to the radome. This results in reduction in nose cone diameter by 18%. This reduces drag and opens up space behind the radar for IRST.
Fairly good chance Mk2 will roll out before Aug 15 or end of this month.PRASHANT BHADORIA
@HTT40PRASHANT
Replying to
@Sandeep_Mave
@amcaji
and 6 others
You will be positively surprised shortly
hoping for an awesome independence day.sivab wrote: https://twitter.com/HTT40PRASHANT/statu ... i2mpcrAAAA
Fairly good chance Mk2 will roll out before Aug 15 or end of this month.
Won't that be awesome?sivab wrote:https://twitter.com/HTT40PRASHANT/statu ... i2mpcrAAAA
Fairly good chance Mk2 will roll out before Aug 15 or end of this month.PRASHANT BHADORIA
@HTT40PRASHANT
Replying to
@Sandeep_Mave
@amcaji
and 6 others
You will be positively surprised shortly
If it rolls out by the end of the month. It will fly before the end of the year. The Indian aviation industry is mature enough for that.fanne wrote:An mk2 rolled out by say Aug 15, that cannot yet fly (say fly by next year)will still be a great morale booster
Based on any inside sources or whatever you've been reading on Twitter?sivab wrote:https://twitter.com/HTT40PRASHANT/statu ... i2mpcrAAAA
Fairly good chance Mk2 will roll out before Aug 15 or end of this month.PRASHANT BHADORIA
@HTT40PRASHANT
Replying to
@Sandeep_Mave
@amcaji
and 6 others
You will be positively surprised shortly
Not necessarily. The LCA prototype TD1 was rolled out for the PM but it required a lot of work to be done for it's first flight.Pratyush wrote:If it rolls out by the end of the month. It will fly before the end of the year. The Indian aviation industry is mature enough for that.fanne wrote:An mk2 rolled out by say Aug 15, that cannot yet fly (say fly by next year)will still be a great morale booster
From what I could see it all started from one cryptic tweet by Sriram from DDR that something was about to happen where he didn't even mention the Mk2 but everyone speculated anyway. This was followed by the usual random "Defence Update" handles all coming out with tweets one after the other saying the Mk2 rollout was imminent citing unknown "sources". This is just business as usual on Twitter.Kartik wrote: Based on any inside sources or whatever you've been reading on Twitter?
Prashant Singh Bhadoria, whom I quoted, is a Deputy GM of HAL, was in charge of HTT40 team from start to finish and is now part of HAL AMCA team. Just google his name, Indranil & JayS can vouch for him. Seems his account has been deactivated in past 24 hrs.nachiket wrote:From what I could see it all started from one cryptic tweet by Sriram from DDR that something was about to happen where he didn't even mention the Mk2 but everyone speculated anyway. This was followed by the usual random "Defence Update" handles all coming out with tweets one after the other saying the Mk2 rollout was imminent citing unknown "sources". This is just business as usual on Twitter.Kartik wrote: Based on any inside sources or whatever you've been reading on Twitter?
No I wasn't talking about him. I did see his account got deleted after he posted the AMCA pics. I meant the multiple defense related twitter and YT accounts that have mushroomed recently which provide defence "updates" who have all been speculating about the Mk2 in the past few days because of an unrelated tweet. Anyway, lets wait to see what happens. Nothing would make me happier than the Mk2 prototype being revealed.sivab wrote: Prashant Singh Bhadoria, whom I quoted, is a Deputy GM of HAL, was in charge of HTT40 team from start to finish and is now part of HAL AMCA team. Just google his name, Indranil & JayS can vouch for him. Seems his account has been deactivated in past 24 hrs.
I checked with Sriram and his tweet was not related to the Mk2. So if his tweet is the source of all this, then we're all in for a massive disappointment.nachiket wrote:From what I could see it all started from one cryptic tweet by Sriram from DDR that something was about to happen where he didn't even mention the Mk2 but everyone speculated anyway. This was followed by the usual random "Defence Update" handles all coming out with tweets one after the other saying the Mk2 rollout was imminent citing unknown "sources". This is just business as usual on Twitter.Kartik wrote: Based on any inside sources or whatever you've been reading on Twitter?
Wonder what the source might have been.Pratyush wrote:The IRDW report a few days ago stated that the rollout of the Mk2 was originally scheduled for December but has now been preponed for Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav. But it had no comments on the date of first flight.
PMO is cracking down...Rakesh wrote:HVT's account also has been deleted.
Since when did you last look at weight and T/W ratio of MWF ?V_Raman wrote:Since when did Mk2 need a new engine - I thought it was being designed with F414-GE-INS6 as the engine. Is that not correct?
Air Force and make in india at inflection point, hence all options kept open wrt engine independence wrt needs of MWF, AMCA, TEDBF & ORCA that runs into 1500 to 2000 इंजनV_Raman wrote:It might do wonders to it - that might be true - but was trying to understand if the new higher thrust engine is part of the base specification or a good to have.
Nope it's about bigger MWF/Tejas mk2, AMCA, TEDBF, ORCA that are not yet design finalized.ks_sachin wrote:But first an engine that could fit into the LCA MK1 yes?