AMCA News and Discussions

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 22 Jun 2012 19:48

The IAF would still require cheaper airplanes to fill in the numbers. LCA is going to be cheaper than FGFA/Su-30 MKI and the Rafale. So IAF will take it whenever it arrives unless their budget is massively increased to support larger numbers of the expensive aircraft or they agree (or are forced to) to lower squadron numbers.

Will · Post by **Will** » 22 Jun 2012 21:44

Unless Private Industry is roped in in a big way , with the govt putting up money upfront for R&D and by that I mean real money instead of just a few hundred crores,like they do for foreign imports, nothing much is going to change. We will be stuck at screwdriver technology.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jun 2012 01:39

The ship has sailed WRT R&D for the AMCA.

The idea was to rely on the LCA - as a base/foundation. Just that technology has moved much faster and that has created a gap of its own.

R&D investment is a must no matter what.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 23 Jun 2012 01:54

The amazing thing is when it comes to domestic R&D the GOI pleads poverty but then pays astronomical sums for foreign weapons thus directly subsidizing foreign R&D which is undoubtedly more expensive than what could be done in India.There can be only two explanations for this behavior. One, the belief that foreign is automatically better ( a benign explanation) or two, imports are an easy way to make money via bribes. I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that two is much more likely than one.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 23 Jun 2012 02:21

tejas wrote:The amazing thing is when it comes to domestic R&D the GOI pleads poverty but then pays astronomical sums for foreign weapons

However 'astronomical' the sums may seem, they are still cheaper than doing the R&D from scratch.

Buying off the shelf is cheaper, quicker and less risky. That doesn't necessarily mean it's sound policy to always do so, but it's not always wrong either.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Jun 2012 02:40

No less cheaper than buying it home grown, after a turning point (RoI).. in fact, it would be expensive once established to buy firangi ones.

The advantage of homegrown jet engines and stealth fighters are beyond comparison. But, there are other things like Arjun etc, where DRDO fights with the forces., who likes to continue buying TATRAs and Tin cans.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 23 Jun 2012 02:47

GeorgeWelch wrote:
tejas wrote:The amazing thing is when it comes to domestic R&D the GOI pleads poverty but then pays astronomical sums for foreign weapons
However 'astronomical' the sums may seem, they are still cheaper than doing the R&D from scratch.

Buying off the shelf is cheaper, quicker and less risky. That doesn't necessarily mean it's sound policy to always do so, but it's not always wrong either.

and thats why the US made sure AirBus didnt win.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jun 2012 03:45

The amazing thing is when it comes to domestic R&D the GOI pleads poverty but then pays astronomical sums for foreign weapons thus directly subsidizing foreign R&D which is undoubtedly more expensive than what could be done in India.

R&D has and needs two components: time and huge risks - failure is very important. India has neither the time nor the ability to take risks for R&D (not to be confused with time/risk for an end product like the LCA, which India has managed very well) when it comes to the AMCA (as of today).

If their product has to be leading-edge, and there is no scope of local value-add, then they have to absorb the cost of someone else's R&D - if need be - which necessarily means importing. They cannot avoid that.

We cannot compare funding R&D today with funding imports today. Funding imports is because R&D was not funded yesterday. Or funding R&D today could mean not importing tomorrow.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Jun 2012 08:07

there are ways to mitigate risks., and one can't blame on our work done with expertise not used. I simply can not agree that we are incapable of taking such risks. behind these risks, lies the rewards.

yes, if one considers risks alone, nothing can be really done.

Multatuli · Post by **Multatuli** » 23 Jun 2012 10:40

Will wrote:

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.

Even if the LCA ends up as a technology capability building exercise for India, it would still be worth every rupee spent, and more.
The LCA has moved much beyond capacity building/technology demonstration: it's a concrete 4+ generation fighter aircraft, the foundation for future fighter/bomber/UCAV aircraft development in India.

Why would the LCA Mk 2 be obsolete by 2020? Going by your arguement even the Rafale would be obsolete, since it too is only a 4++ generation aircraft and only semi-stealth. Did the F-22 make the F-16/F-15 in USAF service superfluous?

The national jet engine project should taken off in parallel but delinked from the AMCA.

This is something I completely agree with. In fact the AMCA should be so modular that we could use any engine with the required power output to power it. Same for the radar.

bmallick wrote:

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.

.....

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.

Neither the AURA nor the Nirbhay can replace a good attack aircraft.
And India will need lots of attack aircraft, which can also defeat the high-end paki fighers and paki air defense, to loiter in paki airspace to take out paki missile/missile launchers from the first day of the war. Don't forget that porki's always threathen India with nukes, so we need lots of aircraft 24/7 in paki airspace to spot and take out any missile before they have a chance to launch, of course, they could also take out other high value porki assets that show up.
Nothing can replace the flexibility, speed, and situational awareness of an attack aircraft.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jun 2012 10:48

http://livefist.blogspot.in/2010/11/exc ... st-of.html

this wishlist pretty much guarantees that AMCA will never enter service in time or on budget.

the killer ap is the HUDless cockpit JSF style which the americans are struggling with now.

here we go again....while the chinese crossed the CG drawing phase 10 yrs ago and quietly have got the J20 flying with existing engine and stuff borrowed from other progs/stolen/cloned/developed, we are in the phase of attending seminars and confs and releasing wishlists and CG drawings, with plastic models for aeroindia.

I will repeat my old mantra. the only thing 'new' about the AMCA should be the LO airframe and weapons bay. rest all of cockpit, sensors, hydraulics, landing gear , green paint, chinese manuals, avionics, weapons, ENGINE, must be proven ones from the Tejas / MRCA / SU30 / anywhere else in the market. thats the only way it will enter service and see some use. starting off with a JSF style "wishlist" when we are overall 30 yrs behind the JSF makers and that too on a tight schedule is a joke. sooner the IAF & ADA realizes it the better -- PMO needs to crack some heads together and impose achievable tranches and metrics.

there will surely be huge new problems with the greenfield stuff - the Euros have been talking up their AESA radars for a decade+ now. the captor-E is not in sight and the rbe2-AA is in testbed format...and the redoubleable gripen aesa is again not in service 10+ yrs after gripen entered service. meteor is still in "tests". the only things EU gets into service quickly are proven Khan stuff like aim9x and amraam and JDAM and F-solahs. and Khan is struggling with his own greenfield edge of envelope stuff.

srai · Post by **srai** » 27 Jun 2012 10:43

srai wrote:^^^

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)

Here is in picture (of the description above)

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 28 Jun 2012 00:11

The livefist list also mentions a triplex fly-by-light electro-optic architecture and electro-hydrostatic actuators.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Jun 2012 00:55

All that AMCA paper-ware must have a definitive component sets that is verified and validated on LCA baseline.. If they don't start working on that, then AMCA will sure end up as failure, considering the threshold and bar will be raised up now after LCA delivery.

They just can't keep saying, resources, finds, brain drain etc.. better get those straightened up now.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Jun 2012 04:23

Did not put your retirement papers early enough, eh?

I will repeat my old mantra. the only thing 'new' about the AMCA should be the LO airframe and weapons bay. rest all of cockpit, sensors, hydraulics, landing gear , green paint, chinese manuals, avionics, weapons, ENGINE, must be proven ones from the Tejas / MRCA / SU30 / anywhere else in the market. thats the only way it will enter service and see some use. starting off with a JSF style "wishlist" when we are overall 30 yrs behind the JSF makers and that too on a tight schedule is a joke. sooner the IAF & ADA realizes it the better -- PMO needs to crack some heads together and impose achievable tranches and metrics.

Not possible. Because?

The livefist list also mentions a triplex fly-by-light electro-optic architecture and electro-hydrostatic actuators.

You want them to back out of that? Unless they have already done it, it is not possible. You can mix-match FbL components with non-FbL, but at a huge cost - 1) weight, 2) then of course funds and 3) speed at which each component reacts to a much, much slower backbone. Computers, switches, actuators, .......... all have to be redesigned and rebuilt (as you suggested a LCA++++ is the best, which necessarily means

Yes, it is a huge risk, but, one I assume they have computed and are prepared for.

. Fun times.

But, I think they will make it outside of engine (of course, that was easy) and perhaps sensors (something needs to feed that high speed fiber network). The only thing that scares me is the scope creep, specially with fast moving techs, the IAF has to salivate.

My suggestions:
* Project Management!!! Someone needs to manage this project
* Do not scrounge on the engine. Get one that is better than required. No holds barred
* Go conformal. The smallish radome (relatively) will restrict the size of a radar
* IF possible increase the size, if possible. Let us get something that has meaning and not go for another world's smallest thingy. No use getting into a p*ssing contest on the size

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 28 Jun 2012 04:38

+1 to Singha's comment: the only thing to focus on for the AMCA should be stealth. In addition to LO airframe & internal weapons bay, I would add exhaust temperature IR reduction (even that is optional) --> all of which is about stealth. Everything else can wait. The last thing we should do is try to emulate F-22. AMCA should be a minimalistic project to achieve stealth, not a maximalistic one.

NRao: FBL seems like brochuritis. Is there any study that shows that FBW cannot handle the data volume? FBL is at best a consequence of scope creep in other areas - conformal antennas that measure the radar emitter's frequencies, classifies it and send confusing return signals etc etc. That's a very Khan-esque approach, which only he can afford or has the R&D know-how for. For our environment, stealth with a decent payload capability is a quantum jump over where we are.

Agree with you that the "M" in the AMCA needs to go (though its probably too late now). Go for a heavy fighter/bomber with a decent payload capability. That's at least one lesson from LCA.

My fear is that the FGFA will be the "stop-gap" solution which will enable AMCA to become a science project. And the stop-gap will become the permanent solution, if we dont have our priorities right.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Jun 2012 05:03

FBL seems like brochuritis

I agree. No two ways about that. I posted it was a risk (understatement of the year). THAT is NOT the issue.

The issue is once they decided on FbL, is there a no/low risk way to back out?

I have not seen ONE post that addresses that.

I can feel your fear and empathize with it too to some extent.

Let me put it this way: I just cannot see a conventional plane in the skin displayed at various air shows.

Furthermore, the models that went through wind tunnel testing AND the $2 billion allocated to this project (2 TDs and 7 prototypes) means that some thing is going right. I suspect/assume (big assumption) that they have done something in the right direction?

I think it too much to expect to back out of it at the current moment.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Jun 2012 05:13

My fear is that the FGFA will be the "stop-gap" solution which will enable AMCA to become a science project. And the stop-gap will become the permanent solution, if we dont have our priorities right.

I am very glad you mention the FGFA.

My gut feel is that India (HAL/DRDO/ADA/whatever)is totally ignorant WRT the testing phase - which is why the LCA is puttering through to get its IOC/FOC.

The ONLY thing IMVVVHO the FGFA provides is how to test a major/complex system like the FGFA.

Which is what would help in the AMCA.

My gut feel is that they have all buttoned down except for the engine and radar and are really waiting to see how to test it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jun 2012 07:40

other thah signature reduction in radar and IR bands , and the tech needed for internal bay weapons release, all the other high-tech stuff can easily be tested out on Tejas or MKI testbeds. I dont see a pressing need to go bleeding edge on every aspect of the program and increase the risk of delays by orders of magnitude. use stuff thats well understood like the tejas FBW and actuators.

the engine thing needs to be tied down early - whether RD93-evo, M88-4 or F414-EDE...all perfectly good engines for the size they are looking at.

the radar thing since EL2052 is denied to us, we need to sort ourselves or adapt the RBE2AA to it, upscaling the module count.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Jun 2012 08:31

see, moving over to fly by optics is simpler than doing fbw the first time.. well in this case, they have to ensure how they use the additional bandwidth, establish the deterministic real-time operations that goes over the optics, ensure the optic cables do not melt down on heat or fire, etc. do-able.. definitely. depends on the architecture, i guess optic cables may be an over kill.. as most control surfaces including FADEC signals do not need to respond anything lesser than 7ms periods. Again we need to confirm the distributed/embedded architecture they have planned to support the needs and wants... big list of things indeed., but not an impossible mission.

jmt..

what is more painful would be the engines and other niche areas like stealth.. just going by our expertise in these areas.

our people needs some high compression turbine pressure to get them going.

vic · Post by **vic** » 28 Jun 2012 10:47

I think that AMCA should have realistic budget and not peanuts as usual

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 28 Jun 2012 11:12

i felt optics is more to do with ECM than performance

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Jun 2012 16:19

On budgets, I think DRDO, et al have asked or plan on asking for $2 billion for 9 planes. Cannot find any ref to see if it has been allocated. The 2 is over 3 years.

Also:

Old design, cranked:

vs. New design, trep:

Has there been a change since about a year?

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 28 Jun 2012 16:24

i doubt this is even final ...they will keep changing it

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Jun 2012 17:52

That under the belly internal weapons bay itself is a bad projection drawing. If they can produce 3D projections from all the directions, top, bottom (we only have that), sides, front, rear, etc.. then we could feel some advancements in the paper works.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 28 Jun 2012 17:56

That looks like hand drawing

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Jun 2012 18:03

they should not waste their time in hand-drawings any more.. we have seen enough of that from HAL, ADA etc.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Jun 2012 21:42

They are not. One can already see tenders for ECUs for APUs of AMCA and the like

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Jun 2012 21:59

well, you may want to add an O as prefix to ECU etc - OECU.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 28 Jun 2012 22:58

O for Optical? Well the tender seemed to have nothing in it suggesting the same (Disclaimer: I went through it cursorily).

My personal opinion on the discussion in BR related to optical networking to be used in AMCA is as follows.
1. What appears challenging to reporters/laymen need not be challenges for scientists.
2. We have been worring about the feasibility of an optical network. ADA/DRDO does not need to worry about that as much. These are well solved problems.
3. I think, and this is a complete newbie hunch, the real challenge will be in creating the hardware for a fighter environment.
a. How does one make adapters wich work under 9Gs of strain, constant vibration, or sudden shock?
b. How to make it field repairable?

And I don't think they will produce these answers in public space anytime soon. So relax

.

P.S. I am a bit upset with HAL to have taken the HAL-Connect offline

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 28 Jun 2012 23:47

very dumb pooch(kartik/IR?)

instead of FBL or FBW why cant actuators have RF transceivers in it and all entities will communicate with each other based on a limited spread spectrum scheme( to reduce interference) and exchange data and commands? This will lead to very less wiring and associated weight reduction

The big problem is outside RF interference with the RF transceivers but this can be managed as follows
1. set up modular copper screen shield to block all wavelenghts from outside
2. insulate the RADome from the other components using the same modular copper screen
3. debugging issues would be easier as there are lesser mechanical components that could go bad

possibleissues
1. performance under fading, this shouldnt be a concern because all entities inside the airframe will experience the same fading and there will be no doppler between them
2. outside ECM to hack the system inside, but this can be done by shielding the wavelenghts in a broad range

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 29 Jun 2012 00:13

krishnan wrote:That looks like hand drawing

what hand drawing? both are derived from CAD models.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 29 Jun 2012 00:17

SaiK wrote:That under the belly internal weapons bay itself is a bad projection drawing. If they can produce 3D projections from all the directions, top, bottom (we only have that), sides, front, rear, etc.. then we could feel some advancements in the paper works.

What are you talking about ? Bad projection drawing ? What does that even mean? A CATIA model can be easily taken and cross-sectional views generated from it. just because you see one CAD image doesn't mean that those doing that work haven't analysed it in detail and looked at it from all angles. Really, you armchair folks should think before making such stupid comments. There is a reason why this is called a configuration study- it is meant to study various configurations and is then used for further CFD and FEM analyses before arriving at the final configuration.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Jun 2012 00:20

suryag are you sure, the high frequency waves from APG79s or what the raptor carries would not jam the very basic control laws? very risky option, even if it is doable.

however, we still have to use the mil std bus ~~1553~~1773fiber optic extension -
--

kartik, thanks for the correction. I will believe you that they did.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 29 Jun 2012 00:59

Surya ji,

I don't think your question is dumb. But my answer is dumb and entirely speculative.

My reading of your suggestion is this: sensors have transponders, actuators have receivers and the control unit have trancievers to listen to the sensors and provide commands to the actuators. You are suggesting a time divison multiplexing approach to avoid collisions. Am I right? For the sake of simplicity and just as a proof of concept, we are assuming that the radio communications are secure and tamper proof.

1. We don't know what is the percentage of wires used for the controls of the fighter. If that is not a sizeable percentage of the wires on the fighter, then there is not much use in what we are suggesting, as Amdahl would be smiling in his grave.
2. The FBW controls of a modern fighter is very data intensive. The throughput of the radio commuincations is not going to suffice. The control inputs and outputs are also very time sensitive. Control commands based on sensor input are extremely time sensitive. Latencies beyond the time allocated for a feedback loop is unacceptable and can lead to a complete departure from controlled flight.
3. The computing power on a fighter is quite exhaustively used, there might not be enough computation cycles left for real-time error detection, decryption for a radio system.

P.S. Rajeev Chandramohan, are you out there?! Your could provide much more informed guesses.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Jun 2012 06:07

Okay, now I get a better (aam look) block diagram from this pic.
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/237/amca2.jpg

sourced: /not sure if i can link them here. so, I have no idea if these are correct.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 29 Jun 2012 10:16

^^^ you can call that one a bad project drawing

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Jun 2012 12:18

the engine is way too small in that drawing for a start.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 29 Jun 2012 13:12

As per Astra Microwave's recent report, LCA's AESA T/R modules are already being tested; considering LCA mk-2 will be ready by 2014/15, we can safely say, the Mk-2 will already have an AESA. I think ith a little bit of creativity this radar can be made into a scalable radar which can easily be fitted on Mirages, Mig-29/k and larger aradr with more T/R modules on the MKI. Testing should continue at a good pace; we can certainly have a mk-2 version of that radar for the AMCA.

AMCA will need a lot of work in weapons as well, mini brahmos, Astra mk-3 with ramjet, home made LGBs, glide bombs and GPS bombs are a must.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2012 16:00

June, 2012 :: India Explores Low-Observable Aircraft Technologies

More long-term, Saraswat points to continuing work on the development of very low-observable stealth technology. That includes research on conformal antennas, active radar cross section control and even the use of plasma field generation to suppress an aircraft's radar signature.