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

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.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 29 Oct 2019 09:57

fanne wrote:My criticism of AMCA is around the engine -110 kn engine which no other country makes ( and we do not have the wherewithal to make one in the first attempt- even if we could from risk angle it is not the right strategy). Either we descope and plan around a lesser powerful engine(f414) from a known house or scale up with a larger power engine with known engine house. If we develop engine ourselves great else there is a backup plan.


It is certainly of concern, but I think the delinking from AMCA mk1 and probably concrete steps we may take in the next few months will help shape the future of the engine for our own platforms. Even if we don't make a complete engine ourselves, setting up the infrastructure to test an engine and then powering a prototype with it will propel us into the future.

Hoping we sign the agreement with Safran for a

1. INFRA 100 (60/100KN) and
2. INFRA 115 (70/115KN) engines.

That will ensure that LCA Mk2 and AMCA Mk1 and Mk2 will forever be independent. IMO, it is ok for now to not produce the most critical 15% hot zone of the engine.

In another 10-20 years post making 85% of the engine, perhaps we can have our engine if we continue to invest into our own R&D heavily.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

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

Postby Singha » 29 Oct 2019 10:23

F414-EPE
"Enhanced Performance Engine" or "EPE", includes a new core and a redesigned fan and compressor. Offers up to a 20 percent thrust boost, increasing it to 26,400 pounds (120 kN), giving an almost 11:1 thrust/weight ratio.[16]

^^ the tech for the above is on the shelf with GE but USN did not fund production.
we can fund it to completion and also sign a deal to make most of the parts here barring any critical IP guarded by laws.
they dont have much to lose because F135 and new AETP are already their future engine and F414 is one behind.
we need to ask to use that design as the base for our 110lb future engine.

south korea may also be willing to join in and jointly fund the EPE as payload and mission eqpt keeps on increasing

we should aim for a tri corner deal that will guarantee volume.

in parallel we need to work with Safran to get first a kaveri sized engine operational and into service in Tejas Mk2 some tranches , UCAVs ....

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 560
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

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

Postby ashishvikas » 29 Oct 2019 12:24

With respect to the AMCA project:
1. It seems the Air Force has indeed agreed to accept some aircraft even with the F-414 INS6 engine.
2. The rest (much larger order) will be with a new 110 KN engine developed through foreign collaboration.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/118 ... 07552?s=19


According to former DRDO DG Aero, Dr Tamilmani, even with the F-414 INS6, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) design will be able to sustain supersonic speeds on minimum-afterburner. Obviously, there is a detection penalty when compared to 'true' supercruise capability.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/118 ... 54720?s=19

Rsatchi
BRFite
Posts: 892
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

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

Postby Rsatchi » 29 Oct 2019 12:37

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 798166.cms
Just a noob pooch
What would be required squadrons
What role for AMCA in future combat scenarios and what will it replace from the existing inventory
Will they be able to deliver the 'Phool' for special puja!!!

LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 283
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

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

Postby LakshmanPST » 29 Oct 2019 13:01

Rsatchi wrote:Just a noob pooch
What would be required squadrons
What role for AMCA in future combat scenarios and what will it replace from the existing inventory
Will they be able to deliver the 'Phool' for special puja!!!


I don't think AMCA will be 'replacing' anything specifically...
But by the time AMCA comes, our Mirage 2000s, MIG 29s, remaining Jaguars and few Su30 MKIs will be up for retirement...
-
And our entire Su30 MKI fleet will be ready for retirement in another decade after that... So, once AMCA design is done, they'll probably move towards a 6th Gen fighter design or a heavy fighter design, based on operational requirements of the time...

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4050
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 29 Oct 2019 14:27

“The design work on AMCA began in 2009. By 2014-2015, the fighter’s configuration, in tune with IAF requirements, had been worked out. But the problem was that there was no engine,” said a scientist.


This is being diplomatic. The reality is IAF was not interested in either LCA or AMCA, until GoI dropped IAF Rafale dream to only 36 in 2016.

Nothing stopped us from funding a prototype, using 414 engine in 2015 itself.

Two things: It required a LCA TP to be become IAF Chief for MoD to seek FSED sanction from GoI.

And let's note down 2020. Because in 2025, when AMCA will be flying, we will be told, "it has been in development for the past 16 years and not yet inducted." Just like LCA- 1983.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 29 Oct 2019 15:40

^^^ There is is very little chance that anything would be flying in 2025. I desperately hope I am wrong. The "no engine" comment sounds like an excuse being set up already.

There is no sign that there is anything being made.

I follow the KFX development, you can see progress with parts shown like the bulkhead to the airframe and a full sized mockup. Nothing like that for the AMCA.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3546
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 29 Oct 2019 16:13

For a AMCA to super cruise it needs 120 kn engine, not the f414. No one is making one yet, and we have to we one very lucky in orders of magnitude over our new clear and space capability to pull this off. AMCA as planned now is DOA. Perhaps the establishment (including the iaf one) will wait for the current chief to retire.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9256
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 29 Oct 2019 17:17

fanne wrote:For a AMCA to super cruise it needs 120 kn engine, not the f414. No one is making one yet, and we have to we one very lucky in orders of magnitude over our new clear and space capability to pull this off.


Supercruise is a function of dry thrust and drag so one cannot simply come up with a thrust number and call it a day. The F-22A blew past the original ATF supercruise targets by quite a margin but that was at the back of a very successful F-119 engine which was able to generate about as much thrust dry as the F-414 does with full AB. What must have also helped was the combat radius reduction in the requirements which occurred post FSU collapse as that made achieving the targets a little simpler. So if supercruise is an important design driver, and the overall thrust or engine technology available is limited one has to look at the other aspect and optimize the internal fuel levels, drag and the IWB size and flexibility to get to a desired end state. The more rigid one is with those parameters the more one needs in terms of performance from the engine. For example, had the F-22A had the F-35A' requirements for a 2000 lb. class bomb in its IWB, and had the supercruise requirement remain unchanged..then P&W and GE would have their worked cut out for them and the same with designers trying to manage overall drag..

agupta wrote:
fanne wrote:Wether/when that's made available for foreign sales is a different question


The M in AMCA stands for "Medium". A twin F-135 set up would probably make it one of the largest fighters in the world by size. In fact, it is possible that the B-21 bomber will be equipped with a twin F-135 set up. You simply cannot hold design parameters (size, weight, fuel capacity, range, payload etc) constant and go from a 100-120 kN class engine to a 180+ kN class engine. Choosing a thrust and engine performance level has second and third order consequences on design and performance.
Last edited by brar_w on 29 Oct 2019 17:57, edited 1 time in total.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 29 Oct 2019 17:31

Even the "Built" from Raw material Al 31 FP produces 123Kn wet and about 75Kn dry thrust, But I doubt due size and other requirements it or Al 41 series of 117S is goign to go into the AMCA.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9256
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 29 Oct 2019 17:38

Anything beyond the F-414 class engines requires a commitment to build a "heavy" aircraft that then begins to approach the Su-57 and F-22 class in terms of weight and size. There is a reason that both the AMCA and the KF-X, for example, went with that class of engine. It is also not going to be possible to first deliver a couple of squadrons with the F-414, and then switch to the AL-31 or AL-41.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4050
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 29 Oct 2019 17:52

chola wrote:
I follow the KFX development, you can see progress with parts shown like the bulkhead to the airframe and a full sized mockup. Nothing like that for the AMCA.


What engine are they using? I am pretty sure the Koreans would be very interested in a 120KN F414.. if we can pool together.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3546
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 29 Oct 2019 17:56

The case that I am making is simple. ADA did it research and came back with AMCA (with it's theoretical size, internal fuel, internal weapon carrying capacity, lift, drag etc.) and decided that they needed 2 119 KN engines. That is IMVVHO (in my very very humble opinion) a wrong path to take. There is no 119 KN engine, neither anyone is making (the link of F414 EP looks promising). Even if we succeed at everything else about AMCA (even budgeted weight, we have been failing that in LCA), the engine choice will kill us. I would be very skeptical if we were to pull of 119 KN engine by the time AMCA is ready. And there is no other engine.
If given the choice that we have, plan for a bigger engine (smaller engine and smaller AMCA will kill the whole project), preferably a thrust with 5%-10% variation that is available from multiple players. Change AMCA design accordingly (air intakes and some kind of magic that engines can be relatively easily switched if the need arises - Jags have gone through multiple engines, many others have) keep the rest constant - range, internal fuel, weapon capacity etc. A engine that is little less advanced, but gives the same performance (less advance = more weight, size, volume, more sfc etc.) - hint Russian engine should also be considered.
I would design around that, get the engine that is out there, get the best one (perhaps US, they would be more willing and less sanction prone as an equivalent Russian engine is lurking around the corner) and build AMCA. For testing and other stuff, f-414 is fine, but planning a 119 KN thrust engine that miraculously HAL/GTRE will manufacture or a foreign partner will develop for us is unpractical and very bad planning.
In all of these, the need for domestically developing the said engine does not go away. Instead of 119 KN engine, perhaps we will develop 130 KN engine.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9256
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 29 Oct 2019 18:05

fanne wrote:The case that I am making is simple. ADA did it research and came back with AMCA (with it's theoretical size, internal fuel, internal weapon carrying capacity, lift, drag etc.) and decided that they needed 2 119 KN engines. That is IMVVHO (in my very very humble opinion) a wrong path to take..


The problem is not unique to ADA. The Koreans, looking to design something very similar and pretty much in the same size/performance ballpark, derived to the very same thing when it came to overall engine performance required. In fact, it isn't too far fetched to think that you'd need 220-250 kN of total thrust for a Medium sized 5th gen. supercruiser. The thrust requirement for more flexible, MR end of that design is probably closer to 250 kN. Now is it a problem that no engines exist in that sphere at the moment? Yes. But there are only a limited number of ways you can skin a cat. So in the short term, both will likely start off with the standard configuration of the F-414. In the medium term, I bet both will consider moving to the Enhanced F-414 which should be funded and developed by the US Navy sometime in the 2020's. Beyond, can the AMCA get an indigenous engine that is equal or better than the enhanced F-414 within a reasonable timeframe? I do not know, but that should be the goal regardless. Had those working on ATF, for example, been constrained with only the option of choosing a 4th generation figther engine and upgrading it, they too would have had to make some difficult decisions and live with some performance shortfalls. This is just a fact..not having the level of tech. of a clean sheet 5th generation engine option is a limiting factor. A medium class aircraft with that sort of performance requirement will lead you down that propulsion requirement and you'll pretty much end up in the same ballpark as both the Koreans and ADA have.

Image

https://www.geaviation.com/sites/defaul ... hanced.pdf
Last edited by brar_w on 29 Oct 2019 18:10, edited 1 time in total.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3546
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 29 Oct 2019 18:08

the other thing that is killing AMCA is the drip and stop and start funding of AMCA/engine. At least the core technologies should be in constant funding, if not the FSED. In case of AMCA that could be shaping for LO, material, coating for LO, data fusion, Serpentine intake and engine performance intake, flushed and embeded radar, maybe L band radar on wing tips, multiple optical sensors...….
Engine - SC blades with whatever coating and cooling channels (can we not jump out of this rat race and perhaps build engine blades out of composites, instead of metals?)

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4050
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 29 Oct 2019 18:22

If we plan to built our own 120KN, it is not going to be in the same weight, dimension and air flow as F414.

AMCA Mk2 will be for all practical purpose a different design.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9256
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 29 Oct 2019 18:46

Where did the 120Kn number come from? The article from TOI linked on the previous page refers to an indegenous 110 kN class engine. That is totally doable within the design constraints of the F-414 so that design changes on the MWF and the AMCA are minimal.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 29 Oct 2019 19:21

Can some one explain what are the main reasons something like AL 41 cant be used in AMCA

1) Weight each Al 31/ AL 41 weights 1600KG - for 2 ~3210KG, each F414 1111KG, for thats 2222KG

2) Length of AL 31/41 is around 494 CM's by 93CM vs F414 is 391 CM by 89 CM-

3) American engine has Fadec and more reliable?

The 4 CM Diameter issue does not seem insurmountable but I guess the extra length- 1 tonne weight with more fuel consumption will push the Aircraft into the heavy category- is that the reason?

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 945
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 29 Oct 2019 19:51

2sq of AMCA mk1 in 2029 onward can easily be raised to 4 sq and 6sq MMRCA 2 .0 can easily be replaced by 2 aditional sq of Rafale and 4sq of AMCA mk1.
Good news.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9256
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 29 Oct 2019 20:04

Aditya_V wrote:Can some one explain what are the main reasons something like AL 41 cant be used in AMCA

1) Weight each Al 31/ AL 41 weights 1600KG - for 2 ~3210KG, each F414 1111KG, for thats 2222KG

2) Length of AL 31/41 is around 494 CM's by 93CM vs F414 is 391 CM by 89 CM-

3) American engine has Fadec and more reliable?

The 4 CM Diameter issue does not seem insurmountable but I guess the extra length- 1 tonne weight with more fuel consumption will push the Aircraft into the heavy category- is that the reason?


This has been mentioned a number of times here and elsewhere but to summarize - Larger, heavier engines add to the design weight beyond just their extra weight and size. As weight grows, because of the engine weight and because of other structural changes, you need more thrust and that influences fuel burn. To compensate for a higher fuel burn, you need more fuel (or sacrifice range/payload). Adding more internal fuel requires larger internal fuel tanks which adds both weight and size and leads to a weight increase that is beyond just the weight of added fuel capacity. Similarly, more room for fuel will push against the requirements for IWB capacity, size and flexibility. If one is not traded for the other then this will lead to a further increase in size to keep IWB capacity unchanged which will then lead to further increase in weight.

So in that way, a simple decision to seek larger diameter, longer and heavier engines that produce higher thrust, and burn more fuel, triggers a cycle of size and weight growth. Before you know it, you are really looking at a heavy fighter which will no longer classify as an "AMCA".

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7534
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Postby Prasad » 29 Oct 2019 20:10

The Japanese project has an engine analogies to the F16 engine and produced 110KN at first run. It is bigger than the f414.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3546
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 29 Oct 2019 20:17

Thanks Brar ji, I would imagine (and that is ignorant me) - efficiency, performance and reliability also comes in play (for a LO platform that will super cruise), it maybe deal breaker. Apart from weight penalty, to give the same thrust perhaps it will use more fuel (efficiency) - reducing range or weapon carried or whatever, may not perform at peak for longer time (again reducing speed and range) or when pushed to the limit may break more often than not or maybe half time it is a hanger queen. The final SU-57 engine may answer some of these concerns, but that is for AHCA.
Perhaps then way forward is choices of few western engines in the regime that we want. If there are two choices at least, so much better and then lets build AMCA around that (with same/similar goal), rather than build an AMCA and then discover the engine needed for that (which may not exist).
Between the choice of building a super duper design of AMCA that is efficient and LO and all that Jazz and then look for an engine.....Take a similar class engine (120-140 KN), If from two players, great, build a AMCA around it, maybe it will not be 100% of what we want, but if it is say 95% we should be fine. Things like LO, Super cruise, Avionics, autonomous performance etc etc. would be same. At worst compromise if any will be on range, weight, weapon capacity etc. If these are within acceptable parameters (and not 100% optimized, which a blank sheet AMCA design will give), that would be more prudent approach.
Imagine, we developed LCA and Kaveri was it's engine, but then we ended up in a regime, where no engine out there would have fitted, LCA would be dead. Thanks God, there was F404 and F414 with similar form factor and similar to better performance.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 522
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby dinesh_kimar » 29 Oct 2019 20:25

Aditya_V wrote:Even the "Built" from Raw material Al 31 FP produces 123Kn wet and about 75Kn dry thrust...


Oh, this is brilliant ! Congrats Aditya Saab, I never realised it myself until I saw your post.

Actually it's simple. Why are we scratching and struggling for an AMCA engine when we build the AL 31 inhouse?

We spent many thousand crores on it, and are at comfortable technical levels presently.

Just continur the indigenous content, extend the licensed agreement with Russia, and do some small development programmes for things like de-rate thrust to 110-115 KN, reduce noise levels, match the inlet to the serpentine air intakes, a new FBW system and KADECU controller, etc.

It will make more sense for us in a variety of ways, and we can restrict GE to the LCA.

We will certainly learn more know how here than with the GE F-414.

Risk mitigation by using proven AL 31 as a base.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9256
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 29 Oct 2019 20:30

I think the US DOD, the US Navy and GE can be convinced to go ahead and fund or co-fund the 116 kN variant of the GE F-414 if there is enough on the table for the contractor and the US Navy to pursue it. Let's say 100 fighters - that's a 200 engine order. Perhaps 50 or so for retrofitting on MWF and before you know it that's probably the largest export engine order any western OEM can realistically hope to secure for a non native (to the engine OEM) platform. But to do something like that requires a fairly substantial CAPEX and getting ahead of the demand and putting an offer out there. As far as I can tell, even the MK2 99 F-414 order has yet to be signed so in a way HAL is still catching up to demand which was established nearly a decade ago (99 F414 order for MK2) so there is quite a bit of work to make the ends meet. It may just end up being the case that USN's need to fund the enhancements comes to fruition before any movement is made to seek something that is more powerful than the baseline F-414.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4050
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 29 Oct 2019 20:56

I am pretty sure, India, SK & Turkey will go for F414 EPE version. Even at 100 jets each, that is 600 engines. And i know it will be more than 100 jets each.

All the 3 programs have similar timelines. So they would require the engines at the same time.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2033
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

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

Postby srin » 29 Oct 2019 21:03

What I don't understand is we're talking about 110KN wet thrust (so, you need a F414++, or a derated F110 / AL31 engine) whereas supercruise is staying supersonic (if not going supersonic) on dry thrust.

So, the question is not what wet thrust engine power is required for supercruise, but what the dry thrust power should be. And I'm not seeing the dry thrust being discussed in the article at all.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3045
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

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

Postby Vips » 29 Oct 2019 21:05

^^ Take out Turkey from the equation, it is itching for Chinese/Russian love and will only get 2nd rate engine Junk.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3546
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 29 Oct 2019 21:08

ya super cruise is on dry thrust...Is the 119 KN engine has ~ 80 KN dry thrust *2 = 160 KN dry thrust to power 17 KG empty and 29 KG full upweight AMCA (Wikipedia numbers) to super cruise? What is the math that people are doing?

What is strange is F-22 is also 18 KG empty and 29 KG all up weight powered by 2* 116 KN dry thrust engines.

I think we have AMCA numbers wrong. AMCA will be lot less heavier

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9256
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 29 Oct 2019 21:15

nam wrote:I am pretty sure, India, SK & Turkey will go for F414 EPE version. Even at 100 jets each, that is 600 engines. And i know it will be more than 100 jets each.

All the 3 programs have similar timelines. So they would require the engines at the same time.


South Korea has chosen to go for a standard F-414 for now. Turkey has not chosen the F-414 and whatever their choice has been is up in the air. Basically, I don't expect that program to go anywhere anytime soon.

I don't think the export market supports an aggregated order for 600 jets. The article linked on the last page describes just 2 GE equipped squadrons. That's about 100 engines. If you stretch out for a few more years then again about 100 additional engines. The biggest and most secure market for the enhanced engine (from GE's perspective) is a US Navy order given the sheer size of the F-18 and EA-18 fleets, the fact that those fleets are still growing, and the fact that they are in the process of doing a phased upgrade to the fleet. Similarly, the US Navy is currently conducting an Analysis of Alternatives of a family of NG systems that it needs to support future needs (including a next gen. fighter). It isn't too far fetched that some components of that FOS will be equipped with the GE F404/414 family, just as the MQ-25 is now. Same with the RQ-180. Who knows, prehaps it is being powered by a single or two F-414's. Unless something drastic happens, the schedule for the enhanced engine is likely to be influenced by the USN's decision. It isn't like the USN is doing nothing. There is money in their FY20 budget towards that end.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7534
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Postby Prasad » 29 Oct 2019 21:48

Don't think this was posted here.
Mihir & Nilesh's rebuttal of mud slinging against the AMCA project (first of many I'm sure)
http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/10/2 ... t-project/

VickyAvinash
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 37
Joined: 02 Oct 2017 07:31

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

Postby VickyAvinash » 29 Oct 2019 22:25

Thanks DDR for hosting and authors for writing. Very informative for mango abdul like me.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 29 Oct 2019 22:49

fanne wrote:For a AMCA to super cruise it needs 120 kn engine, not the f414. No one is making one yet, and we have to we one very lucky in orders of magnitude over our new clear and space capability to pull this off. AMCA as planned now is DOA. Perhaps the establishment (including the iaf one) will wait for the current chief to retire.


120 KN? Where are we getting these requirements from? Has IAF/designers stated this?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8100
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 29 Oct 2019 22:56

Cybaru wrote:120 KN? Where are we getting these requirements from? Has IAF/designers stated this?

Not to my knowledge. But BRF designers, with their vast and unmatched experience in designing fighter jets in their own minds have decreed it.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

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

Postby abhik » 29 Oct 2019 23:02

^^^
+1, are people just pulling numbers out of their mush?

@brar_w, is there an estimate from GE on how much it will cost to productionalize the EPE engine? Honestly, I don't see any other options, Indo-French engine is just a pipedream, EPE is the easiest way to get there. We can come to an agreement with GE (maybe spread the cost across USN, SoKo etc) in exchange for deep screwdriver-giri. Keep in mind we a paying the French over a billion euros for "customizations" - surely we can spend some for 200+ Mk2 plus whatever number of AMCAs.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9256
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 29 Oct 2019 23:07

There is no publicly available costing data though once you factor in the engineering changes, the test and validation effort you are looking at mid to high hundreds of millions at least. More if some of the improvements that have happened at GE since they defined the EPE years ago are to be incorporated.

Yeah the 120 KN is not coming from anywhere official. The link that started the current series of posts and discussions itself speaks of 110 kN only with no reference to 120 Kn at all.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3546
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 29 Oct 2019 23:07

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 798166.cms

The article says DRDO/ADA is angling for 110 KN engine (my bad, I do not know from where 119 came about, perhaps I was suggesting to go for an available engine that has a required thrust, rather than 110 KN engine, there exist none, apologies) -

"Consequently, the decision has now been taken to go in for two squadrons of AMCA Mark-I with the “available” General Electric-414 afterburning turbofan engine in the 98 Kilonewton thrust class.

“The next five to six squadrons of AMCA Mark-II will have a more powerful 110 Kilonewton engine, which will be developed indigenously with foreign collaboration parallelly. The super cruise of Mark-I will be slightly limited due to the older engine but it will be upgraded in Mark-II,” said a source."

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 29 Oct 2019 23:10

fanne wrote:https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/defence-ministry-to-seek-cabinet-nod-for-prototype-of-desi-stealth-jet/articleshow/71798166.cms

The article says DRDO/ADA is angling for 110 KN engine (my bad, I do not know from where 119 came about, perhaps I was suggesting to go for an available engine that has a required thrust, rather than 110 KN engine, there exist none, apologies) -


Got it.. your note was lost in there.. Highlighting it, to stop further discussion on mythical 120KN engines.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3546
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 29 Oct 2019 23:22

I think it was a typo from 110 to 119 (9 and 0 being side by side).

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 29 Oct 2019 23:57

Brar_W Please resist making every thread a US military technology thread.

India is not going to fight USAF.
So no need for the best of thee best and become denuded in that quest.

Until ACM R.Bahaduria took over that mentality of seeking the best with out the alliance paraphernalia caused under equipment.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4554
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 30 Oct 2019 00:57

ramana wrote:Brar_W Please resist making every thread a US military technology thread.

India is not going to fight USAF.
So no need for the best of thee best and become denuded in that quest.

Until ACM R.Bahaduria took over that mentality of seeking the best with out the alliance paraphernalia caused under equipment.

With respect, ramana saar, you are being a bit unfair to brar_w i feel. His is the only sane posts in last two pages among the below par discussion otherwise. And he has not gone off topic too.

F414 is not best by any standard. Even F414EE still doesn't quite reach a level that F119 has in terms of technology. And arguably F119 isn't the best that is out there at all.

Posters need to spend less time on thinking aloud here and do a bit of google and thinking before posting. That would really help everyone to learn something out of the discussions. I am particularly frastrated because this discussion related to F414 and its higher thrust varient has happened countless many times and similarly why AL31 class engines are unsuitable for even LCA let alone AMCA. Its tiring to see same cycle of noisy posts bereft of common sense going on again and again. Especially from senior posters who must have already seen all the arguments. There is barely any sensible or new content in last 20-30 posts. Perhaps we need to ban all re-engining related posts on BRF.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anupamd, MeshaVishwas, ravikr, Vidur and 39 guests