AMCA News and Discussions

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 11 Jun 2012 03:33

I agree - Kaveri must fly. The SLV lead to GSLV and the Kaveri will lead to something great.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Jun 2012 04:00

Which Kaveri? Pure deshi? JV?

The prior is nearly impossible, due to a lack of R&D (which means time - NOT funds).

The latter, dunno.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 11 Jun 2012 04:26

If the JV spec can be accommodated into the AMCA, then the indigenous Kaveri would have a ready install base when it is ready, in addition to several hours of flight experience with everything but the core. Well worth it.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 11 Jun 2012 04:32

Get enough ToT on F-136 and merge the Kaveri knowledge base. Does not matter if you subsequently know how to build the rest from scratch. The GE knowledge base on engines is its main IP assets. If the F-136 for them is a a dead end, the marginal opportunity cost of ToT plus royalties is ~zilch.

At this point Kaveri is a learning project that has educated a number of specialist 'trades' in India. You CAN take those people and graft them/their capabilities onto the F-136 and build from there. Else, you'll always have an airframe capability ahead of the engine one and all that's good for is TDs.

Who knows, if you negotiate right, you can leverage the F-414IN orders into the F-136IN. All it takes is imagination IMHO

Not that it's a shoo-in but I wonder if anyone (MoD/DoD/Ge/RR) has thought to frame it in those terms where it's a win win.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 11 Jun 2012 04:36

And then get thrown out of the premises the next time you test a nuclear weapon after having paid for the opportunity to participate. Nice.

Knowing how to build it all from scratch is paramount.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 11 Jun 2012 05:03

Not being able to do it from scratch in time is even worse.

Besides, it may be obvious to some that that the same sanction risks apply to the GE 414. And who knows what happens if the Al-117F goes the Viky way or that the budding rapprochement between Putin and the PRC does not translate into a 'slowdown'? Cross check the Russian nyet on Ayni

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayni_Air_Base

As I said 'imagination' not tired retreads. Anybody seriously think Kaveri is going to be a 40K lbf engine in time for the FGFA/AMCA in a realistic time frame?

Getting it done while there is still time to achieve strategic goals is the most important thing for our brave men and women in the IAF.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 11 Jun 2012 05:13

It may also be obvious to some that when you order a bunch of engines, like the F414 and its spares, you get the shipment in large instalments and once they're in your warehouse, you can use them in any way as you seem fit. Strategic objectives like nuclear weapons tests can be scheduled accordingly. If the Indo-US relationship breaks down after a nuclear test, India can shred all the acronym law documents as well.

A co-development scenario with the US holds many strategic options hostage. JSF participants are learning some hard lessons.

The hostage scenario will cease to become a tired retread when the US learns to sign an unconditional contract, i.e. unconditional on anything that doesn't concern the manufacture and sale of a jet engine. The concept is alien to them. They see leverage in anything and everything and partnerships aren't really built that way.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Jun 2012 05:34

Indian nuclear and space efforts are what they are because of ground's-up, persistent, etc R&D. There is no substitute for such R&D efforts. (I do not think one should bring these two items into the discussion about the Kaveri/engines. Just MO.)

This engine cannot be an exception - IF the goal is to be self sufficient. I hope that a parallel R&D effort has started along with any other efforts.

At the same time other projects need to have engines delivered qualitatively and quantitatively - be they indigenous or otherwise. Other projects - like the MCA - cannot depend on a promised engine, it needs an engine as promised, without compromise.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 11 Jun 2012 05:50

It's all a matter of negotiations with a specific end goal in mind. If you don't know where exactly you want to go, any road will get you there.

Anytime you ask any one for anything you hold yourself hostage. That was the mantra of the import substitution era from 1950-1991 when we went broke.

Repeat. I am not suggesting 'co-development'. The GE/RR F-136 is a canceled project to provide a second source for the F-135 from P&W. I am talking outright purchase with all the existing knowledge base transferred to India along with unit 1 of the production. If the negotiations don't yield a satisfactory result, don't do it. It's all upfront.

Don't let's mix it up with US not sharing this and that with its own very trusted ABCA allies on the JSF, nuke explosions etc. Any vendor France, Russia, UK, US can make life difficult for the buyer.

But if you graft the Kaveri team and its KB onto the KB of the canceled F-136 I fail to understand what we lose. At the outset you are paying monies bu they are going into activities in India using Indian techies. The royalties if any (depending on the terms negotiated) come later.

Hey! it's all about asking for imagination, thinking differently, out of the box, and all the cliches one can muster.

I was appalled to learn that after what 40 years and and license to manufacture RR Adours for the Jaguar, to up-engine it we have plumped for the Honeywell F-125IN. Could we have not used the KB on the Adour to uprate it? If that's the track record do we really want to wind up with another great looking Ferrari-like FGFA/AMCA with a Fiat diesel engine while we wait for the 632HP V-12 (coming shortly)?

To address the nuke explosion issue, if we are worried about US's response, we'll have to pick our time. In the next 3-5 years, every P-5 will want a retest just like they did in 1996. That's the window.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 11 Jun 2012 05:52

I agree on the need for an engine that meets spec, without compromise. Whether Kaveri JV spec is sufficient or some F414 variant is necessary remains to be seen but the decision to leave the door open for both or not would've already been made because the design of the AMCA is underway and the minimum requirement would've already been incorporated into the design by now.

I disagree on the need for a 40k lbf engine. There is no way AMCA designers would design based on an engine only one supplier in the world can provide, that too from the US.

All India needs is the tech for creating a single crystal blade the size of my arm. Anyone willing to ToT that, at any price? Why be harsh on the US when even the Russians won't?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Jun 2012 06:39

One thing is for certain. Like nukes, engines for such applications carry a huge strategic weight. Which is why no one will part with key techs - like SCB. India needs to fight through it.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 11 Jun 2012 06:53

The AMCA is way beyond the FGFA. In the interim we are relying on a single source from Russia. Any F-136 reliance will be on suppliers in India.

We keep talking about SCB tech. Anybody at GE will tell you that the metallurgy was was only half the problem. The Knowledge Base (small things that bump in the night) is far more important. In the initial days, GE could not figure out why at assembly time, the SCB tested for every conceivable weakness and tolerance would suddenly show an unacceptable number of fractures. Much later they figured out that when the blisks were delivered, the guys would just dump them on the concrete floor, causing tiny fractures that amplified over time.

Case study at GE. Ask GE Aviation about 'KB' (pronounced Kaybe) and why that is their biggest selling point.

Anyway, the bigger point missed is seizing opportunities and exploring rather than nay saying because x, y z might happen or the sky could fall.

Being programmed to fail is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 11 Jun 2012 07:08

Sorry Cosmo_R, I'm way past marketing brochures from GE, anecdotes of the kind one reads in IEEE Spectrum, and life lessons of the kind Deepak Chopra is famous for.

Realpolitik meant that Soviet Union offered to help India with a nuclear submarine 4 decades ago and astuteness of the Indian PM meant that a check got her signature on it.

If the US was so keen on Indian strategic strength, the US would've proposed a partnership, actually a crash course, in the guise of a shared F-136 development program. Nothing of the sort is going to happen until something changes at the top.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Jun 2012 07:21

CR,

Certainly I am nowhere close to you in terms of knowing this field.

However, my feel is that no matter what, no nation will part with meaningful technologies that will make India strategically independent. No one.

With that in mind what will this proposal, you make, buy India?

(Just read what PD posted, I agree.)

srai · Post by **srai** » 11 Jun 2012 11:55

^^^

Kaveri is a working engine having been ground and flight tested. Current version is overweight and under performing when compared to its original specs. IMO, it is about 10-15 years away from being fully realized. In the meantime, Kaveri JV 90kN will be ready in 5-10 years. At this point, India should continue to slog it out having reached so close. As these technologies are not shared by countries who possess them, India cannot achieve mastery by only building partial engines with "black box" technologies from others.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jun 2012 12:05

many successful platforms have seen service worldwide with slightly underpowered but reliable engines. the jaguar, F-14, some of the F-16, F-18A/C , the mirage2K leaky turbojet which performs well onlee at high alt, ... nothing out there is sheer perfection and everyone makes a call at some point and keeps on improving things.

I think we should fix the reliability and MTBF issues as 1st focus and start building small lots of Tejas to test out further improvements until the final spec JV engine is realized. if possible even the basic kaveri should be plugged into a MKI test plane with gromov help and kept on improving or just buy a IL76 with flexible pod for engine testing from gromov. we will need such infra items for sure.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Jun 2012 20:06

^absolutely, in fact Kaveri 81kN must be accepted for few squadrons, and perhaps ask ADA to work on reducing further weight. Based on the light config, IAF can find mission profile. But, if they think they have no vision for light combats, then the SQRs must have drafted that in the first place.

If they have the vision half way thru to realize 100kN is what they want, then that should happen for future vision and not current unless the vision itself was short sighted. whatever, such a massive change in requirements means IAF is squarely to be blamed for their grave mistakes.

A doctor can't rescue a patient, if they find multiple blocks while during open heart surgery. They should have detected that much earlier.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Jun 2012 04:33

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=19060
"India's fifth-generation aircraft, which is being developed by DRDO, will have integrated condition monitoring systems covering important systems such as avionics, air-conditioning and pressure-regulating systems,"

I am more concerned at Kaveri.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 17 Jun 2012 06:18

PratikDas wrote:Sorry Cosmo_R, I'm way past marketing brochures from GE, anecdotes of the kind one reads in IEEE Spectrum, and life lessons of the kind Deepak Chopra is famous for.

Realpolitik meant that Soviet Union offered to help India with a nuclear submarine 4 decades ago and astuteness of the Indian PM meant that a check got her signature on it.

If the US was so keen on Indian strategic strength, the US would've proposed a partnership, actually a crash course, in the guise of a shared F-136 development program. Nothing of the sort is going to happen until something changes at the top.

No need to be sorry. You may agree, nobody is, or will be keen on anyone else's strategic strength. India needs to to seize opportunities that are real and in its own interests.

I don't believe in in the marketing brochures from Rosoboronexport, Saturn Lyulka, Sevmash or others of their ilk either. I won't even go into those of of domestic provenance. The Viky experience is another example of believing the 'astuteness' of people. Not part of any IEEE life lesson that they would use funds to first building the shipyard.

Agreed we don't believe in marketing brochures or Deepak. I am not trying convince you or to seek your assent. You have an inalienable right to your own view that somehow the rest of the world needs to come around to your terms on how to move things forward in a crash course manner.

If you've followed the F-135/-136 engine program, you may have realized, that it did not occur to any of them to propose it to India or anyone else. There's technology there that's worth having and there's no one else around who has the the money/need/and the standing (e.g. China does not) to make a play. Finally, the US may not even allow GE/RR to do a ToT with India.

But hey! let's stick with the old ways of doing things. They have done so well for us and eventually, they will come around to your view: All good things come those who wait.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 17 Jun 2012 07:13

You're entitled to believe that all India has to do is ask.

I am keen to know one thing though.

Cosmo_R wrote: If you've followed the F-135/-136 engine program, you may have realized, that it did not occur to any of them to propose it to India or anyone else. There's technology there that's worth having and there's no one else around who has the the money/need/and the standing (e.g. China does not) to make a play. Finally, the US may not even allow GE/RR to do a ToT with India.

How is the bold part in favour of your argument?

I know from recent history that when news of the JSF program floundering financially spread, the US was quick to invite India as a partner to the program, gate crashing the rigorous MMRCA proceedings, with "ToT" even, whatever that incorporated. Although I can only guess, my bet is that SCB technology wasn't on the menu.

Somehow the good sense was missing with respect to the F-136. Defies logic.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 17 Jun 2012 08:56

Singha wrote:many successful platforms have seen service worldwide with slightly underpowered but reliable engines. the jaguar, F-14, some of the F-16, F-18A/C , the mirage2K leaky turbojet which performs well onlee at high alt, ... nothing out there is sheer perfection and everyone makes a call at some point and keeps on improving things.

The Taiwanese F-CK-1 Ching-kuo and the Soviet IL-86 are also good examples of aircraft with engine problems but went on to become quite successful.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Jun 2012 09:46

and the chinese are having a rough time with their WS-10x whose MTBO is reported to be 30 hrs vs the early Mig21 engines which had 100 hrs.
the state of art engines have 1000s of hrs MTBO.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Jun 2012 20:01

A petition from engineering gurus and jingos must be done to drdo establishment to come out with a plan to strongly support kaveri variants, and especially establish multi-crore test facilities grumov++ here in desh. collaboration with GE 414 should bring in some production engineering know hows as well.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Jun 2012 03:11

PratikDas wrote:Y
I know from recent history that when news of the JSF program floundering financially spread, the US was quick to invite India as a partner to the program, gate crashing the rigorous MMRCA proceedings, with "ToT" even, whatever that incorporated. Although I can only guess, my bet is that SCB technology wasn't on the menu.

This was mostly show and it is usually the lobby group which tries to create hype more than substance.
Most of the Indian news (bought by lobby or arms group) carry such news to change the Indian public opinion and cannot be taken seriously

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 19 Jun 2012 06:11

Acharya wrote:
PratikDas wrote:Y
I know from recent history that when news of the JSF program floundering financially spread, the US was quick to invite India as a partner to the program, gate crashing the rigorous MMRCA proceedings, with "ToT" even, whatever that incorporated. Although I can only guess, my bet is that SCB technology wasn't on the menu.
This was mostly show and it is usually the lobby group which tries to create hype more than substance.
Most of the Indian news (bought by lobby or arms group) carry such news to change the Indian public opinion and cannot be taken seriously

I'm not entirely sure of that, Acharya ji.

Times of India: Pentagon awaits India's interest in fighter jets

WASHINGTON: The Pentagon is still interested in selling its fighter jets to India, which recently decided against it, and is seriously exploring the potential of co-development of military weapons systems with India.

In a nine-page report to the Congress yesterday, the Pentagon acknowledged that India's recent decision not to opt for America's F-16 and F-18 for its 126-fighter jets was a setback.

"Despite this setback, we believe US aircraft, such as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), to be the best in the world.

Should India indicate interest in the JSF, the United States would be prepared to provide information on the JSF and its requirements (infrastructure, security, etc.) to support India's future planning," the Pentagon informed the US congress.

Reuters: U.S. open to selling F-35 jet fighters to India

"The F-35 is something that we would be more than willing to talk to the government of India about should they request to find out more information about purchasing it," said Robert Scher, deputy assistant secretary of defence for South Asia.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Jun 2012 07:57

maybe we should change the AMCA to a 1 engine design and ask US if they will sell the F136 or F119 engine. heh heh/

kuldipchager · Post by **kuldipchager** » 19 Jun 2012 09:22

maybe we should change the AMCA to a 1 engine design and ask US if they will sell the F136 or F119 engine. heh heh/

Usa will never suply india 136/139 engine.So there is needs to waiste words to writing 136/139.
Even kevri do not produce enough thrust we shuold use own engine then replaced with more powerful engine when we have develop our own.Evearybody did this.
We do have eccess to AL 40 russian engine and other russian engine.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Jun 2012 10:15

I was just joking. 1 engine manned stealth plane will end up a bunder like the JSF.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Jun 2012 11:18

PratikDas wrote:
I'm not entirely sure of that, Acharya ji.

The Pentagon is still interested in selling its fighter jets to India, which recently decided against it, and is seriously exploring the potential of co-development of military weapons systems with India.

In a nine-page report to the Congress yesterday, the Pentagon acknowledged that India's recent decision not to opt for America's F-16 and F-18 for its 126-fighter jets was a setback.

"Despite this setback, we believe US aircraft, such as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), to be the best in the world.

Should India indicate interest in the JSF, the United States would be prepared to provide information on the JSF and its requirements (infrastructure, security, etc.) to support India's future planning," the Pentagon informed the US congress.

"The F-35 is something that we would be more than willing to talk to the government of India about should they request to find out more information about purchasing it," said Robert Scher, deputy assistant secretary of defence for South Asia.

This is after the MMRCA trials were done and selection process was further along. How can another plane come into this rigorous process which is working on many suppliers.

This kind of intervention is to satisfy the lobby group on both sides to show they have done their most to get this deal. This is not a serious offer of a supplier which wants to put this in the front with offset etc.
This is how it is played when suger coating is done. This news announcements cannot be taken as a official leads.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Jun 2012 13:29

Single Engine AMCA is not a bad idea if ones design it with Air Superiority/Multirole capablity in mind , JSF was designed as ground attack fighter which was later upgraded as air defence fighter.

It will keep the cost lower and reduce its maintenance foot print , Engine could be F136 or 117C or later 2nd stage of FGFA engine

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Jun 2012 19:18

what i fail to understand is there is not stronger urge in the labs to focus on the core engine technologies.. this is one strategic area, that we must advance.. else, there is no point even in putting AMCA on the design table.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 19 Jun 2012 20:11

What is the exact role that being envisaged for AMCA, thats a question which has been bothering me for quite some time. I have gone through the posts here, but would share my thoughts with all.

If we look at the programs currently running, we have :

1. PAK-FA / FGFA - Heavy stealth fighter. It has good size weapon bays & range. Can do both Air Superiority as well as deep interdiction if required.

2. AURA - Now as per the latest reports its a stealth long range bomb truck, capable of carrying 2 bombs. I guess this would be the one carrying on the legacy of Jaguar as a DPSA.

3. AMCA - Is it going to be a bomb truck, mainly for ground attack & interdiction or air superiority.

Let's see. Is AMCA is for Stealth attack inside enemy territory, then it carries the same bomb load as AURA, can we would be better served by AURA here. AURA would be smaller, hence naturally more stealthy. Plus keeps the pilot out of harms way. AURA I believe is a game changer & should bring in lot of changes in the way we think of doing deep interdiction & attack. If we need to destroy a critical bridge, send this in. Plus don't forget the we are going to field Nirbhay in the near future. So a lot of attack inside enemy teritory would be taken over by AURA & Nirbhay. These are the one who are going to be in the front during the initial phase of war, or as they say the first day attackers.

Hmm, so is AMCA for ground attack in and around the battle field. Then no point in carrying only 2 bombs, rather carry more. We need something carrying a lot of weapon load and loiter around. Hmm, so the stealth 2 bomb carrier wont do.

The heavy area is taken up by FGFA.

So is AMCA going to be stealth air superiority fighter. If so why not design it around a smaller bomb bay, one which is not sized out for 2 big bombs. Bomb diameters are generally much more than AAM diameters. So a much shallower bay for 4 long range AAM's & conformal place for 4 Short Range AAMs. If AMCA needs to haul bombs, well carry on pylons, because the places where stealthy bomb attacks would be required can be done using AURA.

What do the guru's think.

srai · Post by **srai** » 19 Jun 2012 23:05

^^^

IAF is building its combat aircraft fleet comprising of aircrafts in the 3 categories: light, medium, and heavy.

Light category will be fulfilled by the LCA, which are supposed to be cheap (both in procurement and life-cycle costs), and typically deployed to the forward bases as a quick reaction first line of defense. In the past, these were also for number-fillers (but still capable) like the MiG-21s.

Medium category are more capable in their performance and reach than the light category; as they can perform most tasks required of combat aircrafts, they can be considered the workhorse of the fleet. AMCA will replace around 12 squadrons of Jaguars, Mirage-2000s, and MiG-29s. So if you are asking about AMCA's design, it would be of those characteristics of the 3 aircraft types it is replacing. IAF's new acquisition Rafale (an "omni-role" concept) also fits in well here. They should be more cost effective to operate than the heavies.

Heavy category, in the past, were reserved for higher performance aircrafts in limited quantities as they were more expensive to procure and operate, but provided the punch necessary for dominance and strategic reach. However, due to acute shortages, IAF has had to order larger than originally planned fleet of Su-30MKIs. In the future (post 2030) when IAF reaches 45+ combat squadrons, PAK-FA/FGFA will eventually replace the MKIs.

As far as AURA goes, the whole UCAV concept is still a novel idea. There are a lot of ground-breaking technologies still to be realized for it to become a reality. These will fulfill the Medium category in a more specialized role of deep strike like those currently provided by the Jaguars.

The other thing to note regarding only two PGMs being carried internally by AMCA/AURA is that future of air-strike is precision strike, which requires far less (and much smaller) bombs to destroy a target. A typical fighter bomber is configured for striking one or two targets in a sortie, especially deep strike ones. So two accurate bombs is sufficient in most cases.

IMO, in a 45 combat squadron fleet an ideal breakdown between light, medium and heavy would be the following:

10 sqdn x light (~200 aircrafts)
25 sqdn x medium (~500 aircrafts)
10 sqdn x heavy (~200 aircrafts)

vic · Post by **vic** » 20 Jun 2012 11:18

For AMCA we have to prevent LCA Budget approach which has always been given piece meal. If you compare Indian Nominal GDP in rupees and budget allocated at different times then for AMCA budget should be around US$ 20 Billion

Nominal Indian GDP in 1980 in Rupees – 1.4Trillion
Nominal GDP in 1983 in Rupees -2.2T
Nominal GDP in 1993 in Rupees -8.6T
Nominal GDP in 2001 in Rupees -22.78T
Nominal GDP in 2003 in Rupees -24.54T
Nominal GDP in 2009 in Rupees -65.50T
Nominal GDP in 2012 in Rupees -104T estimated

1980 - Rs 100 Crores seed money given for LCA x 74 for present comparative value of GDP in 2012 = 7400
1983- Rs 560 Crores for LCA x 47 for present comparative value of GDP = 26320
Rs 100 Crores for radar x 47 for present comparative value of GDP=4700
Rs 150 Crores for engine x 47 for present comparative value of GDP=7050
1989- Rs 382 crores for engine x 18 for present comparative value of GDP=6876
1993- Rs 2188-560= Crores for LCA x 12 for present comparative value of GDP=19536
1996- Rs 166= Crores for LCA MMR x 8 for present comparative value of GDP=1328
2001- Rs 3302 Crores for LCA x 4.5 for present comparative value of GDP=14859
2003- Rs 1715 Crores for LCA x 4.3 for present comparative value of GDP=7374
2009- Rs 2432 for LCA +(LCA Mark-2=2475 + 1921)= Crores x 1.6 for present comparative
value of GDP=10924
Rs. 2839 Crores for engine= Crores x 1.6 for present comparative value of
GDP=4542

Therefore it is equivalent of giving around Rs 1, 10, 000 crores = USD 20 billion for around 26 LCA aircraft at present GDP value of India. Therefore AMCA should get around US$ 20 Billion in one stroke to cover TD, PV & LSP stages. I would suggest 4 IAF and 4 naval TD, 4 IAF and 4 naval PV, 4 IAF and 4 naval LSP = 24 aircraft with budget of US$ 20 Billion to cover development and manufacture of around 24 aircraft, labs, manufacturing line spanning 2012-2025 i.e. 13 years

The “present inflation adjusted” cost of Rafale is around US$ 190-210 million spread over 286 units. Estimating current production cost of Rafale at around US$ 90-110 million (from various reports) leaves us with estimate of around US$ 25 to 30 Billion for R&D cost involved in Rafale programme. The R&D costs of Eurofighter are estimated to be similar.

Similarly we are putting in half of PAKFA R&D costs estimated to be around US$ 10 to 15 Billion with engine & radar etc. The first tranche of funding is around Rs 1500 crores. While our own AMCA gets only US$ 2 Billion while first tranche of funding is around Rs. 100 crores only.

Similary F-35 has R&D costs estimated to be around US$ 35 to 50 Billion with engine & radar etc

Frankly with Indian economy growing much faster now then in 1980s we can assign around US$ 50 Billion in one for first 100 AMCA aircraft spanning a time period of 2012-2030

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 22 Jun 2012 10:52

Livefist has produced a cutout for AMCA. Don't know if it is an artist impression (because that air ducts curve too acutely). I think there will be side bays for more missiles and a cannon.

But I have to say, I LOVE the silhouette. It has to be the best looking bird out there. Clean and beautiful.

Click for larger view.

Will · Post by **Will** » 22 Jun 2012 14:17

They should figure out roadmap for the engine and radar first before even going down the design path. If not it will be another LCA saga.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Jun 2012 14:38

ABOVE ALL ELSE - make a plan for volume production of 1st tranche with existing or very-soon-to-exist engine rather than some pie in sky model. that means stuff like M88-4, GE414-EPE, AL31FP3 at most, not kaveri-snecma or AL41 or some new scam someone else will pull on us.

i.e. if we want a plane in service in reasonable timeframe. a product not a long running science project.

Will · Post by **Will** » 22 Jun 2012 15:58

Singha wrote:ABOVE ALL ELSE - make a plan for volume production of 1st tranche with existing or very-soon-to-exist engine rather than some pie in sky model. that means stuff like M88-4, GE414-EPE, AL31FP3 at most, not kaveri-snecma or AL41 or some new scam someone else will pull on us.

i.e. if we want a plane in service in reasonable timeframe. a product not a long running science project.

Sad to say but you are right. The LCA has turned into a science project. Maybe the person who proposed that the LCA should be turned into just a tech demonstrator wasnt so off the mark.By the time the LCA Mk-2 enters into production by the end of the decade the IAF will be fielding 5th Gen aircraft and looking forward. Dont think anyone will have any enthusiasm for the LCA then.

Having said that in no way should the capabilty built up for the LCA program be allowed to lapse. The AMCA should take off with proper funding and proper project management and timelines from day one to enhance those capabilities. The national jet engine project should taken off in parallel but delinked from the AMCA.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Jun 2012 17:53

All they have, for my most favorite project, is the LCA experience. Radar, engine, everything. So, unless something is "ToTed", we cannot expect too much for the AMCA (sadly). (Total lack of R&D is beginning to show.)

There was a slight ray of hope when they had mentioned that the AMCA would be FBL, have a real advanced cockpit, etc, etc, etc. Not too sure where all these gizmos stand, but I really hope they have made some progress on these fronts. Backing out of FBL itself would be a major rework, not to mention other techs.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Jun 2012 18:02

The punch is lost, if there is not even one liner in the mission statement to develop Kaveri for AMCA.

I shall keep posting this on a periodic basis.