AMCA News and Discussions

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Sep 2012 21:33

Awesome Karan M, for the FSS news. Good going there.. and hopefully configurable to our requirements.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 12 Sep 2012 23:39

nakul wrote:Is that supposed to be AMCA or just a generic 5th gen fighter. The last time someone claimed that a poster from HAL depicting a plane was actually a redesigned AMCA when it was just a stock image of stealth fighter. Some went so far to claim that HAL is collaborating with Korea since it appeared to look similar to Korea's 5th gen project. Anyone knows whether NAL is developing military aircrafts? I thought that is the purview of ADA & DRDO...

how can it be a generic 5th gen fighter if NAL is the one doing the CFD analysis on it? Why'd they waste resources doing CFD analyses on a model that is just lifted from somewhere else? Aren't you aware that AMCA configuration studies have been on-going for more than a year now?

And who claimed that HAL (btw, it isn't HAL that is currently working on the AMCA, just to make it clear, its ADA and NAL) is collaborating with South Korea? I've never even heard such a rumour. NAL is routinely outsourced high end R&D work relating to military airplanes from both ADA and IAF as well.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 12 Sep 2012 23:44

You have missed the poster where HAL has displayed a 5th gen fighter and people were claiming it to be the AMCA. The plane was of course incorrect but that didn't help stem the rumors. Of course it was this http://www.livefist.blogspot.in/2012/03 ... fexpo.html

I take everything from aroor with a pinch of salt. So forgive me if it offended you

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 12 Sep 2012 23:44

SaiK wrote:Did they change the shape of radome?

Yes, rear stealth for least IR needs a lot of research.. The EF2K approach for rear retractable jammer imho, is ideal solution for the future, besides anything comes up to reduce thermal signature [h20 inducing is the most simplest and expensive approach].

Most IR seekers have reduced range [WVR++ onlee].. hence my thought.

SaiK, the radome will retain the chine in all the configurations they study- its just that the angle from which the CFD model's image was taken is such that it appears that the chine is missing. Hence leading to guesses as to whether the radome shape has changed.

IMO, it is basically an addition of LERXs to the configuration that we've already seen here. The wing shape is the same, just that there are new LERXs from the intake to the forward fuselage.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 12 Sep 2012 23:47

nakul wrote:You have missed the poster where HAL has displayed a 5th gen fighter and people were claiming it to be the AMCA. The plane was of course incorrect but that didn't help stem the rumors. Of course it was this http://www.livefist.blogspot.in/2012/03 ... fexpo.html

I take everything from aroor with a pinch of salt. So forgive me if it offended you

You're being smart in taking anything that Aroor says with a pinch of salt. But apply your own common sense and you'll see that when he posts such a crude image that is obviously just lifted from the net and suggests that is a "stubby AMCA", you need to take a fistful of salt and even then you won't be able to swallow his tripe. HAL is not the agency working on the definition phase of the AMCA. They've got their resources tied up on a host of other projects and the only 5th gen project they're currently working on is the FGFA.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 12 Sep 2012 23:50

HAL is not the agency working on the definition phase of the AMCA. They've got their resources tied up on a host of other projects and the only 5th gen project they're currently working on is the FGFA.

Thanks. So is it a project between NAL & DRDO? Perhaps ADA is also involved. GD mentioned NAL is playing the role of TsAgi in Russia. For the Su 27, it was the Sukhoi design bureau who cooked the design while TsAgi refined it further. Do we have a similar setup in India?

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 13 Sep 2012 02:45

Karan M wrote:That AMCA image is from the NAL directors report

A far more far reaching contributor to AMCA and other programs can be found here:
http://www.nal.res.in/pages/ipaug12.htm#three

Read from the bottom. Three different facilities and capabilities, each with substantial ramifications.

Karan M, could you check that link? It's not working for me. Thanks.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Sep 2012 03:42

Kartik wrote: SaiK, the radome will retain the chine in all the configurations they study- its just that the angle from which the CFD model's image was taken is such that it appears that the chine is missing. Hence leading to guesses as to whether the radome shape has changed.

IMO, it is basically an addition of LERXs to the configuration that we've already seen here. The wing shape is the same, just that there are new LERXs from the intake to the forward fuselage.

This is exactly what I feel. One more change is that the wingtips of the wings and the elevators have lost the curves on the leading edges. But aesthetically, I don't like those LERXs.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 13 Sep 2012 04:55

aesthetics aside, do such LERXs impact radar returns, since the edges are not aligned with the leading edge of the wings and elevators?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Sep 2012 06:36

Wouldn't that be directly proportional to the area of surface that returns? Plus, the return depends on how the radar wave gets scattered. The more it get scattered away from the source, the better the RCS becomes is my understanding.

Plus you have this:
http://www.jpier.org/PIERB/pierb38/15.11121601.pdf

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Sep 2012 06:48

afaik TsAgi came up with a basic form which sukhoi and mikoyan developed into the su27 and mig29. the famous "gromov flight test center" seems to be part of TsAgi.
http://www.tsagi.com/
http://www.tsagi.ru/eng/about/

HAL designed a/c wherein they are the prime mover imo are the Dhruv , Rudra, WSI and Sitara. any 12-t helo project or LOH are also their undertaking.

Tejas is ADA as lead, so is AMCA.

NAL only designed the Saras as a full plane in recent memory, but they provide guidance and test facilities to other agencies HAL/ADA/DRDO for sure.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Sep 2012 08:47

Kartik wrote:aesthetics aside, do such LERXs impact radar returns, since the edges are not aligned with the leading edge of the wings and elevators?

Yes. Also, the LERXs will most probably follow the chine which might not be completely faceted and/or inclined to the longitudinal axis.

However, I don't know whether an entire LERX can be made out of composite material.

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 13 Sep 2012 12:22

I think too much is being made of the LERXes - look at these models here - I'm betting that the so-called "LERXes" are just virtual representations of the fairings you see on the inlets of these scale models... I could be completely wrong, of course, but hey...

Old NAL Design Studies

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Sep 2012 16:53

I think 1/2 of AMCA work is done if we achieve the required Kaveri thrust in a few years from now, especially independently driven approach. [95-105kN or whatever the need that was/is being told to snecma]

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Sep 2012 07:36

indeed. the engine issue and fighter AESA radar are the two main roadblocks.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Sep 2012 10:14

Pl. read what retd. A.Cmde. Khokar wrote in Vayu 4/12 "Tejas and Beyond",on the LCA.ADA,etc.We have so many incomplete testing with the LCA and even LCA Mk-2 is not assured of success because of the undefined as of now,redesign [arameters to accomodate a larger more powerful engine,and have pretensions of designing an AMCA when even in the FGFA it it basically a Russian deisgn that it being developed.The delays in IOC and confusion emanating from the DM's statements are also mentioned.

We have yet to test The LCA so he says for a cold-engine restart in the air,the gearbox is so heavily loaded with other eqpt. that it will not be able to "permit the min. wind milling rpm mandatory to restart in the air" (no idea if this has been done).Other problems.no documentation to assist IAF pilots /technicians.It has been outsourced for "1.5 cr. within 3 years".
There are many other details perhaps they can be posted later.His summing up.He bemoans the IAF being kept out as leaders in aviation projects and raws a comparison with the IN ,as it looks after all yards in shipbuilding with much grater success.

"The govt. needs to take a call whether they want to pander to the egos of a certain strata of the public sector tr promote knowhow and efficiency in the aviation sector.where our industry sadly lacks domestic and international credibility.We the taxpayers need to have say in this."

When we cannot even perfect an LCA (3+ tech) and have little to contribute to the FGFA,it is ludicrous of the ADA to imagine that they will succeed where they have yet to succeed with the LCA!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Sep 2012 10:45

Philip saar,

So what should we do? We don't know how to build anything. So stop trying. Just continue financing Russia's design bureaus?

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 14 Sep 2012 11:35

Maybe we need to swallow the fact that we have missed the bus on 4th & 5th gen, drop the LCA, LCA2, FGFA and focus all our resources and everything we have learned on making AMCA a 6th gen warplane by 2025-30. Buy few sqdns PAKFA off the shelf and put $20-30 billion into Kaveri, AESA and PGMs. Anything short of that means we are p!ssing into a hurricane--it'll have no effect.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Sep 2012 11:57

Absolutely not! If you have kept track of the LCA's tortured development,in the thread not very long ago there was the official announcement that the IOC would be delayed ab another year (2013) and that the MOD had rejected the IAF's desire to head the project preferring instead the "time-tested" method in vogue as of now of finding a joker from the recruitment boards! What successes have the "time-tested" methods delivered? The ACmde. has recommended handing over the reins of uch projects toi the end-user,the IAF as has been done with naval projects if we truly want results.

Tejas IOC pushed back to 2013
Quote:
The initial operational clearance (IOC) for India’s locally designed Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) has been further delayed to mid-2013, postponing its active squadron service with the Indian Air Force (IAF) to 2015, if not beyond.

Officials said the LCA was expected to obtain full IOC after participating in the IAF’s ‘Iron Fist’ air exercises at Pokhran in the Rajasthan desert in February 2013.

“Tejas will display its capabilities during the exercise when its [weapon] lethality and precision will be tested,” Air Marshal Anjan Kumar Gogoi of South Western Command said on 24 August.

IAF officials estimate the single-engine LCA will eventually secure IOC by mid-2013, with final operational clearance (FOC) following in 2015.

This is what I wrote..

Nothing has changed.The nexus between the MOD,political bosses and PSUs has ensured mediocrity in Indian defence indigenisation,non-accountability for failure and inordinate delays and massive cost overruns,with "padma" awards being the punishment for such project heads and babus (not to mention the cream being skimmed off the massive DRDO budget) ! In Russia and elsewhere the heads are sacked for failure,but our political bosses treat such results and their godfathers as "sacred cows" ,with the scams behind them swept under the carpet for obvious reasons.

In the report (I think in the Ind. Exp.) saying that the IAF's wish had been rejected,and in the article by the A Cmde. in Vayu,the comparison is made with the IN who havehad the most success of the three servcies in indigenisation,because they run the shipyards! Here an inexperienced outfit called the ADA which as never developed any aircraft,runs the intensely complex LCA project,is decades overdue even for the underpowered Mk-1 version and has ambitions to develop an AMCA! IS the taxpayers good money being deliberately thrown down the drain to fund scamsters? In the LCA thread,one member said that CWG scamster Kalmadi allegedly had tried to get a bill passed to kill the LCA.

I repeat what my AM,former VCoAS said that the govt./we the people are the owners and stakeholders of the LCA an defence projects,and we must give these projects true support not lip service or indifference,allowing for unaccountability and medicority to flourish,but monitor them and hire and fire if need be if results are not forthcoming.In addition unless the end-user runs the projects there will always be a war between PSUs and babus and the armed forces.The MOD would like the status quo to continue where very little real success is achieved as its suits scamsters and firang arms lobyists.It is so clear that the "time-tested" method of running projects by the babus has failed us,therefopre it is past time to hand over our PSUs to the forces to lead with capable project managers picked for the task.This must also see Indian pvt. industry getting into the act.But can such a wimp of a regime be so bold and courageous to implement the findings of the various committees that have reported on the DRDO's failings?

PS:Victor,there is still time for us to focus on the Indian version of the FGFA,that is if we want changes from the basic Russian design (but will come at great cost).With FGFA 5th-gen experience,we can develop a concept for the AMCA.What gives me more hope is the little reported development of the UCAV AURA (reportedly being managed with the lessons of the LCA in mind),as more and more air forces worldwide are using UCAVs instead of manned aircrat in limited conflicts and anti-terror ops.The experience we've developed on the LCA can well be utilised in such UCAV projects.The big Q is,do we need another highly expensive manned AMCA in the future,ven before we have indcuted the 5th-gen FGFA first and seen the results? Older gen aircraft are still maiking their mark with the development of LR PGMs,which have given them a new lease of life.

I feel that we must not be too ambitious and first succeed with equally vital projects like the IJT and basic trainer which are the foundation for training our pilots.Reports have found that many of our crashes were due to inadequately trained pilots,nd the current training regie where actual time in the air has been drastically cut short is detrimental to the IAF.How do we expect an ill-trained pilot to cope when he is amde to jump from a few hours from the cockpit of a basic trainer ,then into an obsolete Kiran-hopefully a Hawk and then into a modern 4++ Rafale or SU-30MKI,leave alone the FGFA ?

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 14 Sep 2012 12:11

indranilroy wrote:Philip saar,

So what should we do? We don't know how to build anything. So stop trying. Just continue financing Russia's design bureaus?

Forget about LCA and LCA Mk2 and AMCA. That way lies LCA in 2015 (if we are lucky), LCA Mk2 in 2022 (if we are lucky) and AMCA in 2030 (again if we are lucky).

Timelines are important. Some years back I would have stoutly defended ADA/HAL on LCA timelines. Now the LCA is too late. IOC-2 in 2013 mid (willing to bet that will slip to end 2013) and FOC in 2014 end (willing to bet that will slip to 2015) makes it very late indeed. And that is just LCA Mk1. I think ADA/HAL are being waaaaay to ambitious in trying to get 3 different programs out of the door.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 14 Sep 2012 13:23

The entire reasoning behind a deadline , any deadline is to ensure that tasks are completed before or on it , we seem to have made it fashionable to push deadlines and extend them almost all the time and all spheres of Govt. work.

I understand the challenges that HAL/ADA faced with LCA and continues to face with AMCA , add to that the shifting of goal posts wrt ASQR cannot have helped their cause , hence the over ambitious specs for AMCA (at least in some spheres) . I for one would hope that HAL makes their own very conservative estimate for AMCA and sticks to it , regardless of pressure from those who know nothing about tech. development cycle , but once a deadline is given it should be solid and not subject to being pushed.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Sep 2012 10:47

The only good thing I can see coming out of this new J-31 design (which in some ways does remind me of the AMCA too!) is that it will really alarm the IAF. Since this is a much smaller fighter than the J-20, and equipped with two RD-93 size engines, it will be very likely that the PAF will be very interested in acquiring this type.

And seeing both the PAF and PLAAF likely to be equipped with this new type in another 10 years or so will give the IAF the necessary impetus and motivation to put all their backing into the AMCA project. Not the lack-luster support and wishing to heaven that the LCA just died and they could import a foreign bird type attitude that the IAF displayed in the initial stage of the LCA program. If the IAF intends to see the AMCA operational, they'll need to give sensible requirements in their ASR, rather than technology that is not present on even the PAK-FA or F-22/F-35. And the DRDO must not, at any cost, take the AMCA as a science project, rather as an urgent national project that has to be delivered on time without any excuses given. The initial AMCA may well be a Mk1, but the IAF must take it, not grudgingly but in the spirit of ensuring that the AMCA matures in time and eventually gets to the brochure specs that the IAF dreams of. And the DRDO must aim to deliver it on time, be hard nosed and pragmatic in ensuring that the timelines are met at any cost. If this program fails to deliver on time, there will be absolutely no excuse, only proof that they've not learnt the lessons from the Tejas program.

Which is why, when I see such never-before attempted technologies like the one's I've quoted, I feel that they're setting themselves up for too much to chew on..for instance, they're aping the F-35 which lacks the HUD and instead displays all data onto the HMD, even night vision data from fuselage mounted cameras.

But even on the F-35, the HMD has had technical issues that have been very difficult to sort out. The images are jittery, there are latency issues when the pilot moves his head and the short term solution they're looking at is to simply move the HMD's imagery onto one of the Head-Down Displays. Basically, costly fixes for solving a problem that should've never really arisen in the first place.

Now, what is the big benefit that ADA/DRDO or the IAF sees in eliminating the HUD? Why can't the IAF do with a wider FoV HUD that is frameless (ala Rafale or the PAK-FA)? We've now got to the level where CSIO, a DRDO lab can design and manufacture our very own HUD, so the aim must be to improve on its symbology visibility and readability specs and FoV, not on dumping it altogether just because some other program decided that HUD wasn't useful. We've got Samtel that can hopefully design a HMD in collaboration with Thales to improve on the TopOwl-F that the IN is getting for the MiG-29Ks. Improve iteratively on something that you have a base for, rather than just jumping onto the next bandwagon because someone said it was the next generation technology.

Or if the IAF (or DRDO) absolutely insists because they're more besotted with brochure specs than practical realities, then this be something that needs to be developed on a different schedule and be integrated with the AMCA whenever it is ready, say for the second or third batch or even the Mid-Life Update. I can bet the IAF's spanking new MRCAs won't feature no HUD even when they reach the end of their service lives. So why set such an unrealistic goal for the AMCA and handicap it right at the beginning to look like a research project destined to be in development for far too long?

I fervently hope that they look to prove out the more exotic sounding technologies that don't necessarily add too much in practical terms later in the program or dump them altogether. The initial goal must be to prove out only the critical technologies required for the AMCA and those that are within reach - and many of the technologies listed in the image are within reach too and should be pursued with vigour. Howver, cost will be a factor that should also never be forgotten. the IAF won't be able to afford too many $100 million+ AMCAs when they'd have spent tens of billions on the Rafale and the PAK-FA.

I can bet the J-20 and the J-31 don't feature ANY of the technologies that have been listed for the AMCA below. I just wish sane minds prevail in this matter.

Livefist- old article- official wishlist of AMCA

Finally, what the team wants is for the AMCA pilot to have a helmet-mounted display system that allows the jettisoning of a HUD from the AMCA cockpit altogether.
..
The envisaged changes begin at the very basic -- system architecture -- and look towards a triplex fly-by-light electro-optic architecture with fiber optic links for signal and data communications, unlike the electric links on the Tejas platform. And unlike centralized architecture on the Tejas, the AMCA proposes to sport a distributed architecture with smart sub-systems. Similarly, unlike the LCA's centralised digital flight control computer (DFCC), the AMCA could have a distributed system with smart remote units for data communication with sensors and actuators, a system that will necessitate much faster on-board processors.

Next come sensors. The mechanical gyros and accelerometers on the Tejas will need to evolve on the AMCA into fiber optic gyros, ring laser gyros and MEMS gyros. The pressure probes and vanes that make up the air-data sensors will evolve into an optical and flush air data system, and position sensors will be linear/rotary optical encoders. Significantly, actuators -- currently electro-hydraulic/direct drive -- could be electro-hydrostatic to accrue substantive weight savings on the AMCA. Sensor fusion for an overarching situation picture goes without saying.

The AMCA could feature highly evolved integrated control laws for flight, propulsion, braking, nose wheel steer and fuel management and adaptive neural networks for fault detection, identification and control law reconfiguration.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Sep 2012 19:09

All these technologies must be tried out on MK3 platform which should be a twin engined core - and must be indic one.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Sep 2012 19:24

Since this is a much smaller fighter than the J-20, and equipped with two RD-93 size engines, it will be very likely that the PAF will be very interested in acquiring this type.

the thought had crossed my mind the instant I saw the first pic. but being a sickular intellectual I didnt want to hurt minority sentiments by expressing that thought openly

I am sure certain web forums are already drawing up induction plans and paint schemes.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Sep 2012 22:55

Singha wrote:Since this is a much smaller fighter than the J-20, and equipped with two RD-93 size engines, it will be very likely that the PAF will be very interested in acquiring this type.

the thought had crossed my mind the instant I saw the first pic. but being a sickular intellectual I didnt want to hurt minority sentiments by expressing that thought openly I am sure certain web forums are already drawing up induction plans and paint schemes.

the RD-93 engines though seem to be just a temporary solution, looking at the gap between the engine nozzle and the panels above and below it. perhaps they plan a WS-13 or a higher thrust engine. Anyhow, the PAF and Paki fanboys will be fervently hoping that this is the cheap 5th gen fighter that they can acquire. Since J-20 is too large for them, F-35 too expensive and unlikely to be sold to them, they have no option but to hold out for this J-31, even if its a twin-engined fighter and the PAF has historically never flown twin engine fighters.

Raman · Post by **Raman** » 18 Sep 2012 23:01

And seeing both the PAF and PLAAF likely to be equipped with this new type in another 10 years or so will give the IAF the necessary impetus and motivation to put all their backing into the AMCA project.

That would be nice, but if Pakis get this airplane, the pessimist in me can see an upcoming FMS deal for F-35IN.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 18 Sep 2012 23:07

I say instead of getting new aircraft from US & France, it is better they get it from China. This way we get face the same aircraft on both fronts making easier to deal with them. Moreover, apart from pictures, China has nothing to show in terms of the progress made. The recent deal with France for updating JF 17 electronics that went sour showed that Chinese are not at the level of the West yet.

Meanwhile thanks to the FGFA, AMCA need not be in a competition to see who builds more indigenous fighters. We have seen that China has allowed large scale production without the rigorous testing that LCA has gone through. The extra time will allow AMCA to learn from others' experience (inc FGFA). Hope we get KAveri working then. BTW does China use its engines on any combat fighter yet??

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Sep 2012 23:10

IN is already facing embarrassment of allowing UNKILL inspections on INS Jalashwa for no simple reason under FMS route. It would be a national shame and anti-unilateral policies that should guide us to the path of getting offensive systems under FMS. Jee.. Raman, don't make us another condom for unkill. Of course he can use our market made KS etc., and that is his wish.

Either we buy on open bidding or none from unkill. FMS route is worse than condom.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 18 Sep 2012 23:15

That is unlikely considering that India can wait for Russia to develop something for their aircraft carriers. The PAK FA is going to have a naval variant for Russian ACs which could also be purchased by the IN. As a stop gap measure, they could just get a handful of Rafale - Ms since IAF is already ordering 126 similar crafts. In all probability, I think (Mig 29K + nLCA) will be replaced with (nPAK FA + AMCA)

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Sep 2012 00:22

nakul wrote:BTW does China use its engines on any combat fighter yet??

they have integrated the WS-10 on the reverse-engineered J-11B in place of the AL-31s on the J-11 and Su-30MKKs. Not sure if it has entered service as yet or not though.

asprinzl · Post by **asprinzl** » 19 Sep 2012 06:47

If Pakistan gets the Chinese stealth planes, it is good news for India. India can covertly offer the Paki pilot a lot of money and induce him to fly the machine to India. Or Indian spies can just steal the plane and fly it to India to learn its secret.

Shana Tovah
Avram

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 19 Sep 2012 06:58

Avram
Happy Rosh HashAnah
Welcome back

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Sep 2012 07:05

yeah but historically anything 4.5+ gen has never been cheap. a loaded 4.5gen tops out well north of $100 mil and the chinese are unwilling to grant huge free arms packages.
but let us see if chinese can break the cost curve and do something new on that front.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 19 Sep 2012 16:19

China has shown that it can replicate existing designs very fast. The difficult part is getting the first one right. That is where LCA & AMCA are focussing. HAL has been replicating (licensed production) existing designs for a long time. The LCA was the first (exc Marut) to be designed in India. AMCA is heading in a similar direction. With the infusion of new technologies, AMCA is going to be a very advanced fighter. Certainly better than what China is putting on show. The advantage China has (cheap labor) is shared by India as well. But they don't share the same access to cutting edge technology. That is why we have fighters in the IAF that could cost double of their Chinese counterparts. China has compensated by building more fighters but in reality the only way that would help is in a war of attrition. That is why we don't see the level of dhoti shivering in the IAF that some were expecting.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Sep 2012 19:51

happy new year sprinzl, what makes you think chinese would not do that to other countries? In fact they are the number steal masters and copy cats that go any extreme to copy.. it is definitely safe to assume the one helo stealth rotor on the OBL compound is already assimilated.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Sep 2012 05:50

SKrishna wrote:

New AMCA Design from NAL ... by Livefist....

just for comparison:-

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 20 Sep 2012 06:52

When will we see a prototype take to the skies?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Sep 2012 07:39

perhaps linked here earlier..
http://idrw.org/?p=14116#more-14116

National Aerospace Laboratory (NAL) which showed a Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) Image in their annual report , seems to be completely different from the previous images shown by Various DRDO agencies which are working on the Final Design configuration .

When idrw.org contacted it sources in various agencies we were told that Final Design configuration of India’s Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) will be ready soon and once wind tunnel tests are done , Indian air force will be getting a report on AMCA .

AMCA design shown by ADA and DRDO agencies in last Aero India 2011 , might change due to changes requested by Indian air force in the Air Staff Requirements (ASR) submitted to the Agencies , from a Semi-stealth fighter aircraft , current ASR requested fully capable Stealth 5th Generation fighter aircraft.

ASR for AMCA was issued by Indian air force in end of 2010 , and the images and models shown by Agencies in Aero India 2011 was based on preliminary design phase. it likely that new tweaked AMCA models and images will be shown in next Aero India which will be held in 2013

Sources also informed idrw.org that many Designs are in consideration ( 3 or 4 has told few times back) and final call will be taken soon and recent image is one of the Designs currently under going Wind tunnel and other Virtual testing for Stealth optimization and it is not final design configuration .

Idrw.org is hoping that current mystery will be solved in Aero India next year or in the coming months soon , DRDO is currently planning three Prototypes of AMCA which will carry out initial test flights .

some answers for you

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 20 Sep 2012 09:32

Notice no time frame is given. Can we wait 25 years for the AMCA?

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 20 Sep 2012 10:49

http://idrw.org/?p=14116#more-14116
Idrw.org is hoping that current mystery will be solved in Aero India next year or in the coming months soon , DRDO is currently planning three Prototypes of AMCA which will carry out initial test flights .

thats a good idea! Hope it is pursued.