Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 19 Dec 2019 21:33

JayS wrote:
tsarkar wrote:
I am very worried about this part. No fighter in the world meets its design specifications and design weight is always exceeded 90% of projects. So without the appropriate engine there will be performance deficiencies.

There is a better option - the GE F110 that starts at 125 kN and goes up to 144 kN.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F110

It is also license assembled by South Korea and Turkey, so assembling at Koraput wont be a challenge.

The best part? Its offered as a part of the US F-21 proposal to India. Though I would gladly take the engine and leave the close to obsolete plane
First we need ascertain if the said thing is accurate or not. I dont think it is, as of now.

Second, please don't just look at the Thrust value. If it was possible to make 5th Gen Fighter using F110, the Americans would have happily used that one itself instead of spending tens of billions of USD in development of F119. The Russians would have stopped at Al41F, without having to go for I-30. F110 is longer, much larger in diameter, and heavier than F414. Though its comparable in these parameter with F119, but what this means is the airframe needed to accomodate these two large engines could not be mere 12T empty weight. It would have to be much larger. And then F110 would be grossly inadequate for that large airframe. That airframe would never supercruise even in its dreams. It would be one hell of a short legged aircraft due to excessive fuel comsuption.

Given the IAF requirements, the AMCA is expected to replace the Su-30MKI 2030-35 onward. So the design will definitely need to grow beyond 12T empty weight.

The Su-30MKI filled the gap of Canberra that was a light bomber. No 106 that last flew Canberra now flies Su-30MKI.

Supercruise isnt an essential requirement. However, the engine powers the F-15 Eagle and heavier versions of the F-16 with reasonable payload and range. The F110 is derived from F101 whose technology went into CFM engines powering highly economical civil airliners.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 19 Dec 2019 22:34

fwiw - From http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/11/1 ... elopments/

The AMCA MkII is expected to be produced in greater numbers than the MkI and will be equipped with new engines in the 110 Kilonewton (KN) class that will allow the entire performance envelope of the AMCA baseline design to be achieved. For instance, the AMCA baseline airframe will not be able to supercruise with F414 INS6 engines. The IAF desires supercruise capability from its FGFA at a certain altitude and that can only be achieved with a higher thrust engine.

nam · Post by **nam** » 20 Dec 2019 00:58

Given the IAF requirements, the AMCA is expected to replace the Su-30MKI 2030-35 onward

I have to disagree on this one. Two many variables against this. AMCA will be a addition to the fleet.

1.AMCA cannot replace Su30's bomb truck role. Pointless using a stealth jet, if you want a bomb truck.
2. The first upgraded Su30 probably will not arrive before 2025. Within 10 years, will we be start replacing it?
3. Cannot replace 64M $ Su30 with AMCA costing 150M
4. 280 Su30+ 315 LCA/MWF + 36 Rafale: 640 jets. If we start replacing Su30 with AMCA.. when will we reach 42 sqd target?
5. With AMCA & LCA/MWF...IAF will fundamentally become a light/medium force... They will miss Su30's on station time and loadout...

I will tell you what Su30 will be replaced with: The twin engine deck based fighter....

Logistically common with LCA, so cheaper to acquire and maintain, single pilot, twin engine, heavy loadout, .. It will be too perfect for IAF, not to consider it..

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 20 Dec 2019 04:22

We have a never ending MoUs with Japan to manufacture US-2s.

I think we should really join hands with them on the XF9 program.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 22 Dec 2019 03:27

VEM Technologies is making the full scale model of AMCA and it will be sent to DRDO for testing the stealth features per a Defence AV. It will have capacity to carry 1.5 tons in internal bay (stealth mode) and 6.5 tons overall in non stealth mode.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 09 Jan 2020 09:14

Indian Air Force: IAF to add clause on local engines for AMCA fighters

https://m.economictimes.com/news/defenc ... 162616.cms

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 10 Jan 2020 07:13

Next step would be the demand that the desi engine should have performance 10% better than the proposed F414 Enhanced

Definitely the 'kill pill' unless we are ready to compromise a bit. We should start with Indica to reach Harrier in due course.

chola · Post by **chola** » 10 Jan 2020 11:39

Dileep wrote:Next step would be the demand that the desi engine should have performance 10% better than the proposed F414 Enhanced

Definitely the 'kill pill' unless we are ready to compromise a bit. We should start with Indica to reach Harrier in due course.

The 110kN medium engine was a red flag when I first heard it. Yes, it would be the kill pill if the IAF insists on it. The local engine should be accepted even if it were 10% lower than the F414 base not 10% higher than the enhanced variant. Indigenous products should be given a buffer to develop the industry not a higher bar that keeps them from ever getting off the ground.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Jan 2020 11:39

^^^
On a shoe-string budget!

Where the flying test beds for Kaveri?

chola · Post by **chola** » 10 Jan 2020 11:48

srai wrote:^^^
On a shoe-string budget!

Where the flying test beds for Kaveri?

Yes even more so. But even if money were no issue, we will not create a better engine than the amreekis in the next decade for the AMCA. The idea is either fatally optimistic or deliberately cynical. Either way it can put the AMCA in danger if tied to it.

I want an Indian engine but if the Tejas were tied to the Kaveri it would not be in production today.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 10 Jan 2020 12:06

We did go overboard optimistic and aggressive on specing out LCA (against the wishes of the Prodyuts and Matheswarans) and we managed to pull it off. But engine is a different story altogether.

chola · Post by **chola** » 10 Jan 2020 12:29

Dileep wrote:We did go overboard optimistic and aggressive on specing out LCA (against the wishes of the Prodyuts and Matheswarans) and we managed to pull it off. But engine is a different story altogether.

We went overboard with the engine too. We never developed even a piston for our planes when we decided in the 1980s to go for a turbofan with specs matching the amreekis and russkies.

We maybe should have had a backup project with an actual MiG-21 replacement -- a turbojet powered fighter. It might have gotten us into producing production engines a little easier. The material science in a turbofan is orders of magnitude greater than a turbojet.

Anyhoo, there was a clear path for the Tejas only after we separated the LCA project from the Kaveri.

nam · Post by **nam** » 10 Jan 2020 14:40

Dileep wrote:We did go overboard optimistic and aggressive on specing out LCA (against the wishes of the Prodyuts and Matheswarans) and we managed to pull it off. But engine is a different story altogether.

Actually, i like the fact our objectives are aggressive, as long as we do whatever it takes to achieve it. People may laugh, critize, need to be cold hearted, with single focus and provide the required funding.

The lesson from LCA: keep doing it, even if it is called Late come aircraft or 3 legged cheetah..

LCA at 1.3billion development cost. Arjun 120M cost. Kaveri 500M got 75KN on a DS blade in F404 form factor. Not to talk of AESA tech, which was the shining star in Cope India 2004 scandal! Frankly we got a lot with peanuts..

We should lay down aggressive roadmaps and do what it takes to achieve it. A bit of pragmatic review if a certain tech level is good enough, we would be doing well.

Barath · Post by **Barath** » 10 Jan 2020 17:55

Agree. The problem comes when the vision is aggressive, but the reality and resources and readiness is a far cry from it.

Also, you need really good program management review - to figure when to look at backup and parallel/alternate plans etc ...

But, if they use this the right way, and get the right support, this could be a shot in the arm. Let's face it, the Kaveri was going nowhere for the last several years. No drum beat,desultory planning, no push behind it... no concrete plans and demands. Engine development is super tough, but this has a chance of resulting in new capabilities. And hopefully, new infrastructure, and a new development model

I would rather have had concrete plans for engine development starting with a less technically demanding high risk program than a bleeding edge fighter. (eg develop a jaguar replacement engine several years ago, drones, transport aircraft etc). But if this is the route, so, be it. The AMCA is already de-risked a bit from the engine.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Jan 2020 09:40

Since we are buying so many, why not license produce the F404 or the F414 till Kaveri NG is ready?
If the Swedes can get it the US should have no trouble offering the same to their tier 1 partner or whatever adjective they have come up with.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Jan 2020 10:13

Rahul M wrote:Since we are buying so many, why not license produce the F404 or the F414 till Kaveri NG is ready?
.

Many years ago their was talk of the MOD negotiating a large engine order with GE with some level of local assembly etc. It has been years and nothing ever came of it. GE likely moved on and has since signed a deal with South Korea to supply a yet to be designated GE-414 variant for them with offsets iirc. It would be easier to start where the last contract negotiations left off and go from there..instead of piecemeal orders. What’s HALs backlog for F404/414 firm orders? The 100+ additional Block 3 Super Hornet order by the USN is going to keep GE busy at full rate production on the engine as the MQ-25 will also be using it as would the T-7A (that is a 500+ orders minimum). There are rumors doing the round that following the block 3 Super Hornet, the US Navy may order 80-100 block II Growlers (new) so GE is going to have sustained sales for quite a while. The MOD/HAL had much more leverage back then as production was expected to taper off..but still better to try to get that deal back on track.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 03 Feb 2020 20:30

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12241 ... 97857?s=20 ---> F-35 is a great aircraft, which can be bought from abroad. We tried a joint program with Sukhoi for Su-57 & rejected it based on low work-share/Indian content in the aircraft. F-35 will have zero content and also close AMCA program forever. Can't say if that's where we want to go.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12241 ... 11136?s=20 ---> F-35 will not enter a competition. If our choice is F-35, we have to go for direct G-to-G purchase. But that'll also close many other doors as well. National will & military strategy have to align to figure out if we're "polarising with one block" & forsaking everything else.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12241 ... 04193?s=20 ---> What i mean is, we've to develop our own fighter aircraft. Because we can & we've proven it. What we need from imports, is other military assets. Certainly not fighter aircraft (anymore). For ex - we may need to import engines for some time. Maybe some sensors. Not much else.

^^^^ That last tweet is amazing. This from a former IAF pilot. See the confidence. Kudos to all who reached India this far.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Feb 2020 21:13

The AMCA is going to be a 15+ year effort. It is a substantial design and industrial capability/capacity lift. To be completely non export reliant (besides additional Rafale's and MKI's) during that time-frame the MWF has to deliver by 2030 (In-service date for the first operational squadron) which a challenge though not an insurmountable one. I think if the MWF can be that 80% Rafale solution at half its cost the IAF will be more than willing to spend this entire decade investing in the AMCA. Otherwise, they may look at importing a 5FGA 5-8 years down the road (and comments like "we'll consider PAKFA later if required" point to that).

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 03 Feb 2020 21:36

I disagree with HVTIAF ji on this. If we need any plane at this point, we don't need MMCRA (MWF will be there, plus the plane will be no better than 36 Rafale and 270 SU3OMKI - unupgraded and upgraded). Plus it will drain our resources like anything. In meantime, China marches with 5th gen technology (which is lousy right now, but who knows where it will be 5-10 years from now). These planes may not be stopped with our best - Rafale/SU30MKI.
We need a 5th gen fighter. We wont get F-22, SU-57 is neither here not there (little LO), F-35 can be had. They are getting distributed like candy and more than DOZEN (20 or so) air forces will have it in next 20 years. We can have it as well without giving up on other sovereign choices (S-400, SU 57 if suitable etc.). Money wise MMCRA money can go there. We don't have to buy 114 of these, maybe 30-40 and price wise it maybe cheaper than the 4th/4.5th gen planes. That will help us retain air force edge over both the adversaries.
The number shortage, we fill with LCA MK1A, MWF, ORCA etc.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 03 Feb 2020 21:37

the engine to power the AMCA will be a bigger challenge?? or we will opt for videshi engine??

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Feb 2020 21:44

fanne wrote:We need a 5th gen fighter. We wont get F-22, SU-57 is neither here not there (little LO), F-35 can be had. They are getting distributed like candy and more than DOZEN (20 or so) air forces will have it in next 20 years. We can have it as well without giving up on other sovereign choices (S-400, SU 57 if suitable etc.). Money wise MMCRA money can go there. We don't have to buy 114 of these, maybe 30-40 and price wise it maybe cheaper than the 4th/4.5th gen planes. That will help us retain air force edge over both the adversaries.

F-35 is not a realistic option for several reasons, most notable being the S-400 purchase. COTUS just kicked out a partner (a partner with industrial involvement not just a customer) with a 80-100 order size which is among the highest any non US operator is likely to get. If it were a realistic option, that would have been Lockheed's bid and not an F-16 V.

I think the current "wait and see" approach is the most preferable option. The Russians will likely take a decade to fully develop the SU-57 and get a sizable fleet (60-80 aircraft) into service so that it can be iteratively made better. That gives the IAF some room to field the current planned acquisitions, perform upgrades and see how the MWF pans out. If the MWF pans out as expected, or better, and industrial capacity can be created to mass produce it then they'll likely be willing to give some more breathing room to the AMCA team because that program is going to take a long time to field an operational 5th generation fighter. If these things do not pan out they can probably re-calibrate their strategy around the 2028 time-frame and see what options are available. By that time more clarity regarding the qualitative and quantitative make up of the Chinese 5th gen. fighter force will also become clearer and most importantly, some idea about S-400 clone coming from their internal efforts will be known as well.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 04 Feb 2020 00:35

JayS wrote:Shukla ji's report mentions

However, this engine is not powerful enough for super-cruising in all configurations. “Each F-414 engine generates a maximum thrust of 98 KiloNewtons (KN), and in Indian climatic conditions that effectively reduces to 90 KN. We have calculated that an AMCA, with the configuration the IAF has specified, requires a thrust of about 220 KN (in Indian conditions) for super-cruising. That means we need twin engines, each generating 110 KN thrust in Indian conditions,” says Deodhare

I simply do not understand this statement. All those values mentioned are thrust with full afterburners. How do they even matter for Supercruise? Shouldn't he be mentioning the dry thrust that will be needed to make the AMCA supercruise?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Feb 2020 05:14

Power required 65 kN /110 kN

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 04 Feb 2020 05:31

Indranil wrote:Power required 65 kN /110 kN

The RSTV Security Scan discussion mentioned 75kN (which IMHO might be a bridge too far for an engine of the size of the F414). The current F414 produces 57.9kN dry. Increasing it to 65kN as you are suggesting on the other hand might very well be achievable. I hope that is true.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 04 Feb 2020 05:38

Are the ej200 specs fake? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurojet_E ... ns_(EJ200)
They seem to indicate growth up to 72 in / 120 kn ..

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 Feb 2020 06:46

There are going to be limits at supersonic cruise performance (dry) without range/payload compromises (IWB design and capacity) unless one is going to be using technology and performance half a generation to a generation ahead of what the F-404/M88 can deliver even with upgrades. Better to focus on RCS, stealth materials, design, operational expereince and range/payload and allow for engine tech to mature and perhaps aim for a dedicated Next Gen. engine (indian) that is a generational leap over F-404/414 to come in much later once the aircraft is fielded. I recall an quote from an YF-22/F-22 engineer in one of the ATF books which went something like " we'd be nowhere without Pratt delivering on the F-119". Propulsion is going to be an important differentiator in advanced 4th and 5th gen. aircraft..East or West..

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 05 Feb 2020 02:59

https://twitter.com/HarshalPal5/status/ ... 69473?s=20 ---> Indian 5th generation aircraft: AMCA

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 05 Feb 2020 05:06

In love!!Thank you Admiral sahab!

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 05 Feb 2020 06:36

Did GE reveal what the dry thrust of F414 EPE is going to be? Wet is advertised as 116kn.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 05 Feb 2020 06:57

abhik wrote:Did GE reveal what the dry thrust of F414 EPE is going to be? Wet is advertised as 116kn.

EPE was a proposed a long time ago. Its focus was primarily on efficiency but there were performance offshoots which GE also offered to other clients. USN showed some interest in an enhanced performance engine a couple of years ago and may introduce some funding this year or in the near term. Since EPE/EDE changes were proposed a lot has happened within GE and within the broader propulsion technological space in general. The USN is unlikely to be wedded to what was proposed in the early to mid 2000's. There are obviously limits given the basic F404/414 is quite old but from what I'm hearing GE's has offered a fairly good technical roadmap to the USN. Let's see if they invest in it in the short term.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 05 Feb 2020 07:11

that AMCA with all those things hanging will not be LO or super cruising. We need better presentation.

Bharadwaj · Post by **Bharadwaj** » 05 Feb 2020 10:10

AMCA could fly undetected during dangerous missions

http://english.manoramaonline.com/news/ ... ssion=true

The intake design looks different or am I imagining things.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 05 Feb 2020 10:17

That intake design is indeed different. Looks like F-35.

Anantha Krishnan is not one to make up stuff, so I will leave it to the Gurus to answer this one.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 05 Feb 2020 10:18

fanne wrote:that AMCA with all those things hanging will not be LO or super cruising. We need better presentation.

Just a fanboy rendering. Not official. Maaf Karo.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Feb 2020 11:27

Rakesh wrote:That intake design is indeed different. Looks like F-35.

Anantha Krishnan is not one to make up stuff, so I will leave it to the Gurus to answer this one.

Those renders are from ADA. Once you go for DSI, the intakes have to be shaped like that. The lip will be swept forward.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 05 Feb 2020 11:30

Unless m forgeting something, this is the first remder we are seeing of AMCA with DSI. With it comes the swept forward intake to put the lip near the shock produced bubthe DSI bump to capture air in optimal fashion. Exactly like how F35 has it. Looks like one of the study model. May not be the final config overall. The blending near the cockpit looks weird and low resolution.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 05 Feb 2020 11:44

Bharadwaj wrote:AMCA could fly undetected during dangerous missions

http://english.manoramaonline.com/news/ ... ssion=true

The intake design looks different or am I imagining things.

from the article

The aircraft that can be operated in manned, unmanned, stealth and non-stealth modes carries many advance technologies making it lethal and apt for dangerous missions.

AMCA can become a UCAV?

For Fanne, even F-35 plans to carry external weapons when stealth does not become the key requirement for a misson.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 05 Feb 2020 11:58

Bharadwaj wrote:AMCA could fly undetected during dangerous missions

http://english.manoramaonline.com/news/ ... ssion=true

The intake design looks different or am I imagining things.

from the link

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 05 Feb 2020 15:29

Yes, it has changed perhaps due to DSI intake.
Copied straight from F35

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Feb 2020 20:34

Why copied sir?

As jay and I have said, there is no other alternative. It has to be like that to work.