AMCA News and Discussions

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 01 Feb 2012 18:13

Singha wrote:Saras is ample proof that working in isolation even on relatively simple projects is hard.
we are playing catch up to PRC here and development time has its own value, else we'd never have invested so much in the pakfa.

Quite agree that development time has its own value. And indeed for some cases , it makes sense to partner/do COTS/get consultancy.
For Dhruv vibration, we did have the some Brit consultancy working on dampeners no? It is not that this stuff is hard to develop - but, as you said, development time of the main project is more important for this particular case.

The point I want to make is that bringing in partners has its own agreement issues - and it starts right from the specs. I fully understand that Brazil has , with its Embraer programme ,far more experience with aircraft development. Yes they can bring in value but at hte same time,it does not have much experience with fighter aircraft development. So what can they bring to the table for the AMCA programme in particular. ? Does their spec requirements match ours.

Tough one this! But , unless they bring in something significant or fund joint development ( their defence budget has been hiked by 50%) , I doubt if Indian planners would go that way. All _my_ opnion onlee.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Feb 2012 21:38

if not in AMCA atleast I hope we dump the indo-rus MTA and license make the EMB MTA. HAL will have no design role in the Rus MTA for sure, all they want is work and they will get work, instead of spinning their wheels forever on this.

so far I have seen no reliable report that india has any design inputs to make on the Rus MTA.

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 01 Feb 2012 22:06

Singha wrote:I hope we dump the indo-rus MTA and license make the EMB MTA.

Amen to that.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Feb 2012 22:24

Back to AMCA, all jingoes should strongly urge a public need to demonstrate multiple wind tunnel models of AMCA of 1/3rd size or 1/4th the size of the intended actual. Spending money there is worth for ADA/HAL. They should consider pak-fa/raptor aspects while entirely looking at aerodynamics as priority, and look towards internal stealth characteristics. There should be a huge gap for others after AMCA is done. The khans should look with eye brows raised after AMCA goes first flight.

Ganesh_S · Post by **Ganesh_S** » 02 Feb 2012 02:15

MTA with russia seems to be more feasible in terms of economies of scale. As regards AMCA no harm in seeking partnership

I dont think AMCA would be 100 percent indigenous either, so why dont we seek reliable partners rather than outsourcing.

As regards technology development, IMO only an innovator has the advantage of taking his own time and still be assured of market feasibility. we still have a long way to climb the learning curve.

I think learning is at its best when there is a strong mutual co-operation. so no harm in seeking a few partners, provided there is ample freedom for technical expertise to move within the cluster.

All this if we wish to see an operational AMCA with minimal budget overruns.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Feb 2012 04:15

I hope we dump the indo-rus MTA and license make the EMB MTA

There is some chatter that the Russians are more inclined to support an much earlier version of an AN plane (IIRC it was the AN-178???). Whatever, the Ukrainians have much more experience in such matters and are likely to drive a project like this. More than the Russians.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Feb 2012 04:18

WRT the AMCA, India will do it alone like the LCA. It is only when we start comparing efforts like the AMCA (or even the LCA) to other efforts we run into issues. The AMCA should be a lot more viable and arrive mature under budget(?), etc.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Feb 2012 06:20

Badar wrote:
Singha wrote:I hope we dump the indo-rus MTA and license make the EMB MTA.
Amen to that.

+1

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Feb 2012 09:59

yup.. the kc390 is a nice thing to go with, but BAE holds many things in it inside.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 02 Feb 2012 11:07

WRT the AMCA, India will do it alone like the LCA. It is only when we start comparing efforts like the AMCA (or even the LCA) to other efforts we run into issues. The AMCA should be a lot more viable and arrive mature under budget(?), etc.

They might take the quickest approach. Althogh IAF has reiterated multiple times that they need an indigenous engine and radar on the MCA. IMHO, the speed at which J-20 gets inducted by China would play a crucial role. Believe me there would already be a less capable clone being designed for Pakistan.

If AMCA's stealth design is perfected, they should sacrifice some power in Mk1 and go with the now tested K-9. Get 2-3 TDs airborne in another 5 years. It could form the testbed for different component systems, may end up over weight and underpowered, but importantly it will be flying. Iteratively, we could bring down the weight and upgrade sub-systems.

Engine is the weak link here. We don't have a date by which the snecma consultation produces results. So a foreign engine must be considered as reserve. Considering our level of advancement, radar might just be available sooner than the K-10 engine is.

mikehurst · Post by **mikehurst** » 02 Feb 2012 11:17

Badar wrote:
Singha wrote:I hope we dump the indo-rus MTA and license make the EMB MTA.
Amen to that.

I am assuming that it is being mooted that the MTA be given the boot and KC-390 be adopted due to service induction timelines. However, would this not affect the learning curve and related benefits for the Indian industry.

However if we do go for this, or even think about it, then it would be worthwhile to look at the attendant benefits for India. With India joining the KC-390 family, this plane would be catapulted into the international league with bonafide certificates of quality. In such a case, me might try to get out pound of flesh; a quid pro quo arrangement, wherein Brazil, Argentina, the present partners might be convinced to purchase Dhruv, the LCH or the LOH or Brahmos, or training simulators, or even if we dare imagine the Arjun, [Tejas is not a possible export option to Brazil or anywhere at the moment].

Similar arrangements where mooted by France and Sweden when they were trying to sell their jets to Brazil.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Feb 2012 16:22

> However, would this not affect the learning curve and related benefits for the Indian industry.

we will get to license make it here, same as the Rus proposal. Rus has the design ready but unwilling to commit. the EMB design is too far gone for us to contribute. so induction time is what differentiates them now.

your other proposals are good. EMB could easily sell us around 150 airframes of this and they could buy some stuff like dhruv from us.

actually we should sell argentina the anti-ship version of brahmos on a no-profit basis ...

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 02 Feb 2012 16:25

Brazilian Minister heads to India to Improve Defense Ties

Brazil is keen on expanding its own defense industry and its military purchases to upgrade its air and naval forces are conditioned on technology transfer and construction in this country.
Amorim was expected to discuss naval cooperation with his Indian counterparts, particularly plans to build aircraft carriers and Scorpene-class submarines, in addition to expand exchanges between military academies of the two countries.

Nothing special on aircraft here though.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 02 Feb 2012 16:34

Everyone wants to come to india now

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Feb 2012 19:57

a M88-4 engine could presumably be the fallback option if the snecma-kaveri does not mature in time. it could even be a interim engine to get the test program going.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 03 Feb 2012 00:29

Singha wrote:a M88-4 engine could presumably be the fallback option if the snecma-kaveri does not mature in time. it could even be a interim engine to get the test program going.

The M88-4E I believe has the same thrust rating as the M88-2. The M88-4 program is only going to improve the service life and the MTBO for engine components. It would leave the AMCA too underpowered. If an interim engine is necessary for the AMCA (I hope not!) it would have to be the GE-F414INS6.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Feb 2012 06:31

Seriously, I think we missed a golden chance to tie up with EJ200s. That one piece in the Ef2K was a nice meat.

kuldipchager · Post by **kuldipchager** » 03 Feb 2012 21:12

The M88-4E I believe has the same thrust rating as the M88-2. The M88-4 program is only going to improve the service life and the MTBO for engine components. It would leave the AMCA too underpowered. If an interim engine is necessary for the AMCA (I hope not!) it would have to be the GE-F414INS6

I am getting sick listening underpower-underpower then why we don't go with SU 30 engine.I don't thing french will go for heavy fighter.So don't waiste any time.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 03 Feb 2012 21:51

AMCA defiantly will require an interim engine , i am pretty sure it will be GE F-414 engines , Kaveri-10 or what ever it will be called is still to take off there has been only talks and no work and if AMCA does come out in 2017 , i don't think new engine will be certified and tested enough to be integrated with first AMCA TD-1 .

koti · Post by **koti** » 19 Mar 2012 12:44

X post

Singha wrote:in strike role:4 x 1000lb/8 x 1000lb/ 2 x ALCM cruise missiles2 x wvr aamupto 4 bvr aam (though none or only 2 may be carried to save weight & fuel burn)

That is a lot to ask IMO.
Even the current non stealth AC seldom employ such a config.

And again, though the capability parity will exist as stated between JSFish and J20ish planes, they are not to be compared IMO. This will again be a question of operating a fleet of MKI's against a fleet of MKI and Rafale.
They can comfortably sit in their respective roles.

MCA IMO should be capable enough for handling point defense against AC in Raptor/J20/PakFA Category.
Should be good enough to accompany or pre-perform SEAD/DEAD for MKI's or Rafales to do the rest of the cleaning.

That may not place MCA in a very good one to one position against J20 or F22 but definitely will be a lot better positioned when adjacent to PAKFA or MKI.

vic · Post by **vic** » 01 Jun 2012 12:04

I thought that I will "up" this thread to discuss if we can apply any lessons learnt from LCA delay to better manage AMCA programme? My take is that it should have a realistic budget like US$ 15 Billion something equivalent to PAKFA

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 01 Jun 2012 18:51

When has India ever given a realistic budget for a conventional weapon system? The GOI will pay $10 million for a toy plane from Switzerland and allocate $75 million for Kaveri and then have DDM complain when there are "cost overruns."

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Jun 2012 19:03

the problem is not the gov, but the tech people, and techno-industrialist issues. expert groups do not project correct risks, and do detailed job of things. the so called tech people are not lobbyst or management cadre, and even if they are, come from old school thoughts.

babooze! after all are worser than aam minds. how do you expect them to know about project estimates?

divide and rule.. build sub systems.. that are more manageable, and then integrated it. use LCA as the baseline platform to test all tech. all desi Kaveri is a must!

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 01 Jun 2012 19:25

vic wrote:I thought that I will "up" this thread to discuss if we can apply any lessons learnt from LCA delay to better manage AMCA programme? My take is that it should have a realistic budget like US$ 15 Billion something equivalent to PAKFA

Budget is not a problem. Overcoming technical hurdles is the problem. Limited design capability and R&D capability is the problem.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Jun 2012 20:23

bottom line, we have the whats, but not the hows.

Will · Post by **Will** » 02 Jun 2012 00:28

What is needed is at least two each of design, production and engine houses instead of just ADA/HAL/GTRE. Competition brings out the best.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 02 Jun 2012 00:54

Will wrote:What is needed is at least two each of design, production and engine houses instead of just ADA/HAL/GTRE. Competition brings out the best.

At present the India Inc is not well equipped either with tech or resources(funds) to start parallel research or development comparative to MOD agencies.

They might be able to lure talent with good perks, but the infrastructure they need for R&D then they have to approach the very same MOD organizations.

MOD idea of provision of 80% of R&D for the two shortlisted vendors is a good idea to start with, but the red tapism and bureaucracy need to change.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Jun 2012 02:01

going by what we have achieved and looking ahead in terms of confidence level of our GTRE men, GE 414 India version has secured billions of $$$ already.. I am pretty sure that Snecma-Kaveri will not happen this century.

If some bright idea flicks, and God opens eyes of few brilliant men, then Kaveri++ will get the funding, and we have to do it all by ourselves. that is where long term success lies.

many of us many not be alive when it arrives.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 07 Jun 2012 00:22

A engine with 60-65kN dry thrust will probably suffice for AMCA. It won't carry any more than 3000-4000 pounds of AG munitions in its internal bay, about 500-600 pounds in AA missiles and about 10000 pounds of fuel. It will pretty much be in the same weight class as the Rafale, with better engines and more stealth.

Primary purpose would be to be a stealthy bomb truck to replace all those 23/27/jags. Sure you could load it to its max capacity of 12-14K pounds of bombs, but that won't allow it to be stealthy. I also personally think that most missions require somewhere in the tune of 4 to 5K pounds of munition at max. If you look at pictures on any of the websites like Reuters during Iraq war 1/2 or another theater, you will see most planes taking off with lots of fuel, 2 LGB/jdam type and two wing tip aa missile. That's it, most missions are 2 hour long and each pilot gets one nice juicy target to hit and he has to do his homework on getting there safely and back and making sure he hits the correct target.

I think those missions which may require 15/16K pounds of munitions to be dumped on it are few and far between. If there are such requirements then it perhaps will be a whole flotilla that will hit the place with support platforms like awacs / dedicated jammers / AA dedicated escorts and in such cases will thrust to weight or how powerful a engine is really matter?

I do think we need to stop worrying about meeting all bells/whistle etc on the first iteration. If the Kaveri-Snecma deal produces a engine to the tune of 60-65kN dry and 90-95kN wet thrust, it would be super awesome. Target achieved. F117 had a 48kN engine and it worked quite well for that aerodynamically challenged piece of brick.

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Jun 2012 06:55

^^^

True.

If one looks at the internal bay in the CAD image of an AMCA, it is designed to carry the following in a typical mission load out:

Air Defense -> 4 x LR-AAMs w/ 2 x SR-AAMs = 2,500lb (500lb x 4 + 250lb x 2) total weight
Air Strike -> 2 x 1,000lb LGBs w/ 2 x SR-AAMs = 2,500lb (1,000lb x 2 + 250lb x 2) total weight

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 07 Jun 2012 07:54

I think a blockwise approach should be chosen here at least with user input from the very beginning but alas they are already talking of delivering something with 6th gen technology, whatever that is.

Heck if they can just manage conformal carriage (not even internal bays) for 6-8 AAMs, it'll be a good start. Widely spaced engines allowing for 2-4 AAMs in the center with 2-4 along the intakes ala Typhoon would be excellent.

Proper shaping - edge alignment etc. along with an exceptional TWR, wingloading and flight characteristics would be a good start. What I'd like to see initially:

1) Conformal A2A weapons carriage
2) v.high internal fuel volume
3) decent TWR
4) Shaping, edge alignment etc
5) Plenty of space between intakes for future internal carriage.
6) AESA radar
7) Lex/levcons + large wing area

IRST
9) Internal EW suite
10) HMS
11) S-curved ducts or blocker etc.

In block 2 internal weapons carriage can be stressed upon, TVC, conformal arrays, higher thrust engines. Development of stealth munitions

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Jun 2012 08:05

http://www.scribd.com/rohitk_178/d/4883 ... ABLISHMENT

sounds like we have done some basic 70% of the facilities and we need to catch up with the rest 30%.. it would be a shame to ask for firang help, or drop the development like hot potato.

kaveri must go on to help amca

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jun 2012 09:16

the AMCA form factor will have all the disadvantages of the JSF when smallish a/c go the vLO route with internal bays. its T:W will not be so great unless very powerful and compact engines are fitted, its internal bay as we can see will take 2 x 1000lb only, with a bare minimum 2xSRAM for self protection...this is half the typical strike load of the Jaguar-IS and 1/3 that of the Mirage2000.

and its sure to be quite costly given all the new techs, local manufacture...north of $100 mil for sure. certainly costlier than unit price of MRCA.

we need to be clear what we are trying to do here.
[a] we can never afford enough airframes as Khan will to try and solve the problem with more numbers vs less numbers of M2K/Jag
we are unlikely to have the ultra sophisticated PGMs khan will roll out to make the JSF relevant with smaller munitions like SDB3 and so on....should we import these in bulk?
[c] given its boxy shape , it might not be as nimble as a conventional fighter....so in WVR whats the strategy - decline combat? in BVR can we arrange for a competitive long range AESA set based off whatever the Tejas will get ? where is the Tejas going to get aesa from - a derivative of RBE2AA ?

one role can be use VLO mode only in first few days in long range missions and then use 4 wing pylons with addl payload for less risk missions ..... but in a indo-china situation the risk will never really decline so steeply. plus it needs a very good range to have an impact inside Tibet.

I feel we ought to upsize the AMCA design to be effective vs china....arrange for more fuel, a bigger internal bay, a bigger radar...not J20 size but somewhere near the PAKFA size.
use the AL31FM2 engine if we cannot build one on our own.

else we will end up with a stealth jaguar in 2030. decisions about its intended warfighting role need to be clear and taken early as it drives the overall platform design and choice of engines and radar.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 07 Jun 2012 10:08

Singha wrote:
I feel we ought to upsize the AMCA design to be effective vs china....arrange for more fuel, a bigger internal bay, a bigger radar...not J20 size but somewhere near the PAKFA size.
use the AL31FM2 engine if we cannot build one on our own.

else we will end up with a stealth jaguar in 2030. decisions about its intended warfighting role need to be clear and taken early as it drives the overall platform design and choice of engines and radar.

Won't this niche be filled by PAKFA ? Why have two different planes for the same niche ?

You are going to compromise payload for stealth that is given. Neither the JSF nor the F-22 remain stealthy with payloads hanging off them, but they are extremely effective tools to take out hardened sites, radars, sam sites early in the fight. That is what we will probably hope to achieve as well. Once the initial wave has done its task, stealth may not be a high priority.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jun 2012 10:39

Would a subsonic ( M 0.8 - 0.9 ) but bigger aircraft ( wider bay ) with much bigger internal payload would suffice for AMCA ?

I was thinking of subsonic since it would consume much less fuel and would have loitering capability with stealth.

Even F-117 and the much bigger B-2 are subsonic only ...which it affords better payload and range and stealth .......considering the distance in our neighbourhood even counting China in larger persistance will pay off .

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jun 2012 11:39

+1 to that. we need a mini-B2 not a smallish JSF. PAKFA is fine for the SEAD/tactical stealth bomber role.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 07 Jun 2012 11:40

Austin, what you are describing is basically a stealth bomb truck. Not a multi-role fighter which the AMCA is supposed to be. I doubt the IAF would be interested in something like this.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jun 2012 11:54

nachiket wrote:Austin, what you are describing is basically a stealth bomb truck. Not a multi-role fighter which the AMCA is supposed to be. I doubt the IAF would be interested in something like this.

No what i am looking at is dedicated ground attack aircraft with air superiority capability.

I could be way off the mark here but here is what i understand , correct me if i am wrong

From what i understand is most WVR combat takes place only at subsonic speed that probably applies to even ground attack role , supersonic speed is to dash from x to y location to engage or to disengage or run away after bombing mission.

Having a subsonic aircraft with larger internal payload and greater persistence with stealth means you could loiter over an area and afford discretion , thats what most new gen UCAV is all it suppose to do , AMCA will have a man in there with ability to make it unmanned in future.

Supersonic aircraft has its own impact on the use of materials at aircraft dashing at high supersonic speed tend to heat and needs better and heavier material infact most areas that generate highest temperature tend to use titanium alloys. Plus once you engage the burner you end up sipping up fuel no matter how effecient you engine is.

Supersonic basicly adds up to complications in many aspect of engineering , Having a Subsonic Aircraft with greater internal payload and wider internal bays with a top speed of M 0,9 and cruising speed of M 0,6 - 08 and 9G capability to engage in close combat with netcentricity and all bells whistles of PAK-FA with 3D TVC etc , it would be easier to get AMCA off the ground quickly and to induction

Would that be a good idea ? we have supersonic aircraft in LCA, FGFA ,MKI and Rafale ,How about subsonic AMCA with other qualities.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 07 Jun 2012 12:01

Austin, as per your argument a subsonic aircraft will require less fuel and hence have a greater loiter time. That is a wrong assumption. In order to reduce fuel consumption, your aircraft will need to have less powerful and more fuel efficient engines, which will also reduce it's T:W ratio. That is bad for WVR combat. And if you make such an aircraft larger to carry more weapons and fuel, it'll fly like a brick. Even a Jaguar would fly rings around it. Like I said, it'll be a bomb truck.

The basic question is what will you do to restrict the aircraft to subsonic speeds. Increase drag? Reduce thrust? Increase size and weight? All of them are bad for WVR combat.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jun 2012 12:24

Well the simple rule is higher the thrust higher the fuel consumption , if its after burner then fuel consumption goes up by 3x times.

Why is subsonic speed bad if most WVR takes place at subsonic speed , even Su-30MKI and all the 3D stuff in combat works at subsonic speed only , flankers rarely go supersonic and that too for short time.

All i am saying is a modern fuel efficient engine at subsonic speed will afford you greater persistance over an area and greater loiter time and that is what is being advertised for UCAV.

Most aircraft in their combat today fly only at subsonic speed most of times , it goes only supersonic speed for few minutes as it has to engage after burner.

What you need is an engine that can do between M 0.6 - 0.9 with internal payload keeping fuel consumption to the lowest , I understand at M 0.9 the aircraft might get draggy due to being close to supersonic speed but at 0.6 -.0,7 M cruise speed it wont be draggy

If the UCAV being advertised today and which will see combat for the next 2 decade are subsonic design , has greater persistance and if required can engage enemy aircraft and remain stealthy why is subsonic AMCA with same qualities with a man in cockpit is a bad idea ?