AMCA News and Discussions

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Feb 2013 06:41

that is where the whole thing is asprinzl. the jet engine technology is so precision and critical, that modifying means doing it everything from scratch. There is nothing that can be modified (i hope you didn't mean modify!?) and worked up, rather the only they can do is copy it.

For example blades, compressors, etc.. and even the core pressure chamber, that a small precision is enough to lose the thrust. a small deflection of the vanes will direct the air flow differently, will lose thrust. fuel-air mixtures required as jet engines behave differently at altitude (true air speed) so need a digital controls to correct the mixture for optimal burn, and timing is another aspect where FADEC can't miss, where feed back control loop should ensure corrections within specified milliseconds.

lot of precisions tech, and what you want to modify that is so guarded secret. we have to go by first principles.. for that we need to invest a lot., especially in test facilities. we need to also invest heavily into managing these projects. there are lot of capabilities that we need to establish., that is just not technology alone.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Feb 2013 06:53

Tarmak007: India's AMCA will be studded with new-age technologies

The AMCA scaled-down (1:8) model to be displayed at Aero India.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Feb 2013 07:04

I am blown away! that single canopy front looks is killing and terrorizing.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Feb 2013 07:13

Making such a canopy to spec is again something new for us. I read the eurofighter canopy involved good amt of hard work.
Note the rectangular pakfa style intakes.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Feb 2013 07:22

~~The scale model and the CAD drawing does not match the on the vertical walls of the inlet. On the 1:8 model, they are fairly straight, while on the drawing they are slanted.~~

~~I think it would be great if the trailing edge of the vertical stabilizer was inline with the trailing edge of the wings/horizontal stabilizer and the vertical wall of the inlet.~~

Got undone by the projection by the fact that the "vertical" wall of the inlet is not vertical

. People please get a lot of pictures of this beauty from AI'13.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Feb 2013 08:03

would not that tarmak's frontal pic tell that?

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 01 Feb 2013 08:05

what a beauty it is and let us please leave out Advanced/Light words out of our future crafts, another question the model doesnt show air speed detectors(pitot tubes?) are they out of vogue?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Feb 2013 08:07

one more - there might be changes in the inlet shapes though, mostly front.

Gurinder P · Post by **Gurinder P** » 01 Feb 2013 08:18

Hmm, the nozzles should be flattened to reduce IR and RCS signatures. But, round is fine if the nozzles are going to offer 3d thrust vectoring.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Feb 2013 09:03

That is the reason, FGFA/pakfa has rearward small sized AESA, to know enemy is behind you to fire a heat seeker. [hopefully the enemy is not a raptor or pakfa itself]. WVR on IR is a challenge anyway, but can be countered by other jamming measures like Ef2k does with retractable jammers.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Feb 2013 09:06

Once again the AMCA will be held hostage to the engine development.We learnt nothing from the HF-24,which sadly never realised its true potential thanks to a myopic vision. We are now suffering in trying to succeed with thee LCA,where MK-I,not even in regular production has an underpowered engine.

Therefore,the first task of the AMCA programme should be identification of an engine-first versions will have to use a foreign engine as there is nothing in the GTRE's cupboard and if I hear talk of Kaveri again,one would puke! I can't see why we can't draw upon the FGFA JV for the engine tech too,in saving money and time.

The second point is,how much is being earmarked for dev. costs? We already have a huge amount to set aside on the FGFA programme and are still running development for the LCA! No other nation on the planet is going to have three major fighter types under devlopment/production,not to mention the Rafale too.The human resources required for working on these projects is going to be enormous,scientists are leaving the DRDO in droves,from offical reports,and when you add the trainer projects,IJT,AJT,basic trainer and existing fighter upgrades to M-2000s,Jaguars and MIG-27s and 29s,the sheer scale of the size and complexity of the task beggars the imagination.

PS:..and we aren't mentioning the helo projects too!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Feb 2013 09:10

quite research, that is the only way to go about.

However, what a wonderful world it would have been if there were an Indian engine too. But it should not really matter. The world of defense is a lot more integrated today and as such not too many should be able to hold India hostage in a decade or so. Or at least that is my expectations.

Yes, get plenty of picture for sure, BUT PLEASE from a variety of angles too. A walk-around of sorts from various planes please. And, focus on the plane .................... And, TIA.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Feb 2013 09:11

the AMCA will need a foreign engine to fly by end of decade. they I am sure are pragmatic this time and depending on size the M88-4 or 414EPE will be chosen with some +ve excess thrust margin to account for target weight not being met (seen in all pgms) we cannot afford again a underpowered cheetah that needs a engine update right after tranche1 - go big on this .

rafale and pakfa are production contracts and will not tie up indian scientific manpower as we are not contributing any r&d to it.

tejas mk2 will need some manpower but maybe not in many areas which are already proven. word on street is they are abandoning the more radical ideas like make the fuselage longer which would change CoG and need extensive retests of the FCS.

AMCA can take up the bulk of tejas design team.

helo projects are not under ADA or NAL but under HAL helicopter div which has its own teams.

IJT - maybe RIP ?

AJT - not approved, not on the cards

basic trainer - not even proposed

srin · Post by **srin** » 01 Feb 2013 09:19

indranilroy wrote:Tarmak007: India's AMCA will be studded with new-age technologies

The AMCA scaled-down (1:8) model to be displayed at Aero India.

This is beautiful ... maybe it is the angle of looking but the front fuselage and cockpit seems flatter, way better looking than a 'froggy' F-35.

You know - reminds me of Su-34. Given that they have emphasized strike capabilities and the flatter look, wondering if they are thinking of side-by-side seating arrangement.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Feb 2013 09:24

hopefully no delays in building the proto of this beast. we cannot afford delays because cheen j35ski is already flying and will both be produced in nos well before AMCA (given the decade long head start and bags of cash they are willing to throw) and be exported to TSP as their next high end jet.http://chinesemilitaryreview.blogspot.i ... 0-5th.html

thats the competition.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Feb 2013 09:28

hopefully no delays in building the proto of this beast

You mean the beauty.

Big time OT, but Cheen is busy - still - trying to steal (check today's news). I for one find it very, very hard to believe what they will do in another 5-10 years when they run out of stolen information. Even what they have built so far, I really do not know what is packed inside - sensors, etc. IMVVVVHO, ALL need to fight through this small window when Cheen Inc barks loudly - sends ships, planes, and fishermen all around. Meh. Sleep well.

vina · Post by **vina** » 01 Feb 2013 09:46

asprinzl wrote: It is not something to be ashamed off because it is not easy to catch up almost 80 years of development experience in a decade or two.

Avram, you can and will leapfrog tech generations. As we speak, my assessment is that Kaveri is roughly 20 years behind compared to it's western analogs (GE414,M88 and EJ200) and that is due to materials primarily and of course lack of experience from having built previous versions and having the "been there /done that " kind of mojo/experience.

What will happen is this, typically as in all game theories with mature technologies (hate to say this, Gas Turbines are mature, the incremental gains are painful and very hard to squeeze out), and the followers have an easier learning curve than the pioneers. While the leaders will find marginal improvements very difficult, a follower like GTRE will see big jumps (just like the leaders did earlier when they were there)from tech gains (single crystal, blisks, thermal barrier coatings etc, when the tech developed and put in production and fielded) and the gap will close.

This is sort of like what happened with airframe. With the LCA, India closed the design gap of 40 years which the west had on us, with the AMCA we will be pretty much on par with what the best out there is.. ie, in two generations, with a painful 1st gen LCA and hopefully a less painful and long drawn 2nd gen, the AMCA.

The process with Gas Turbines will be somewhat similar, most probably even tougher, given the massive under investment that field has seen in India (dont blame them, we hardly had enough to eat, still don't as a country, we couldn't have fielded multiple programs and invested in massive R&D infrastructure in the 60s/70s.. maybe in 25 years from now, yes.. not not 25 years ago).

A foreign engined AMCA should not be seen as a disappointment.

Absolutely , India should give up the 100% indigenous fetish for locally engineering products, while considering 100% license built and assembled from foreign subsystems and materials equipments as indigenous.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Feb 2013 09:48

take the flaw of averages into considerations always in estimating beauty and un-managed time.

i think, having the core engine tech is a requirement and not a fetish. what is wrong in writing a spec for making it 100% indigenous. leave the failures apart, where the learning always is there. how many times isro has failed. so, we need to scope it correct. stage it right, and graduate the product.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Feb 2013 10:02

Philip wrote: Therefore,the first task of the AMCA programme should be identification of an engine-first versions will have to use a foreign engine as there is nothing in the GTRE's cupboard and if I hear talk of Kaveri again,one would puke! I can't see why we can't draw upon the FGFA JV for the engine tech too,in saving money and time.

Philip saab, I understand and share your frustration. But what engine in the 100-120kN power range does Russia have in its cupboard?

Philip wrote: The second point is,how much is being earmarked for dev. costs? We already have a huge amount to set aside on the FGFA programme and are still running development for the LCA! No other nation on the planet is going to have three major fighter types under devlopment/production,not to mention the Rafale too.The human resources required for working on these projects is going to be enormous,scientists are leaving the DRDO in droves,from offical reports,and when you add the trainer projects,IJT,AJT,basic trainer and existing fighter upgrades to M-2000s,Jaguars and MIG-27s and 29s,the sheer scale of the size and complexity of the task beggars the imagination.

PS:..and we aren't mentioning the helo projects too!

You forgot our neighbor to the east. FGFA and AMCA cannot replace LCA, IJT, AJT, basic trainer or the helos, so we have to develop them too.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 01 Feb 2013 11:27

srin wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Tarmak007: India's AMCA will be studded with new-age technologies

The AMCA scaled-down (1:8) model to be displayed at Aero India.

i don't know if someone noticed that but the visibility for pilot is very good .

the whole theater is visible for the pilot in this design, which shows that from the start they are thinking abt the navy version which would need proper visibility of AC for landing.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Feb 2013 11:39

>> But what engine in the 100-120kN power range does Russia have in its cupboard?

a slightly derated (EDE) AL31FM2 or 117S could do it.

the AMCA by now has lost all pretention of being "medium" and is firmly in the heavy category of the F-18SH. let us not be shy of opening the fly of pants for dharmic reasons. if its heavy its going to need a 125kNx2 engine to retain a good perf in A2A regime.
better to have a slightly bigger engine than slightly smaller - gives a cushion against weight creep and addition of more stuff in cracks and corners later. also safeguards against sudden breakthroughs in cheen engine tech for the J31 and J20. opens gate to 2D TVC as well.

M88 in any form is out and the french are not planning anything bigger.
Ej200 again falls well short.

we need the engine shipped to us in 3 yrs time to mate with the first proto and ground test rigs.

AL31/117S and the F414 are two choices. the F100/F110 family on the F16/F15 is another one

a huge base of F16/F15/su27/su30 are going to be in service until 2040 for sure. so spares etc will not be an issue for any of these.
saturn, UT and GE are "national champions" and will be fed all they need to keep humming.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Feb 2013 13:05

srin wrote:... wondering if they are thinking of side-by-side seating arrangement.

A question for the gurus here.

Isn't the AMCA envisaged to fly with a two-man crew? If so this scale model seems, to my untrained eye, as having space for only one pilot. Since they are displaying this model as 1:8 scale model, presumably the design specs have been finalised. So what gives?

nits · Post by **nits** » 01 Feb 2013 13:25

Philip saab, I understand and share your frustration. But what engine in the 100-120kN power range does Russia have in its cupboard?

Just wondering did India ever thought of having a joint Engine development with Russia or taking Russian help for Kaveri...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Feb 2013 13:34

with the advent of glonass and other guided weapons and highly automated defensive suites the 2 seater concept is going out - no 2 seaters or even trainers were built for PAKFA, JSF and F22 and the J31/J20 will likely follow suit.

future is either 1-seater or 0-seater(UCAV)

certain niche roles like Growler are still 2 seater, but can no doubt be replaced by stealth UCAVs within a decade

http://www.defesaaereanaval.com.br/wp-c ... rowler.jpg

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Feb 2013 19:12

Singha has taken the words out of my pen/mouse! It is better to be overpowered than underpowered,and a derated Russian engine that powers its Flankers or the variants being sized up for the FGFA,would suffice.The AMCA is certainly going to be larger than the Rafale if it is to have concealed weapons bays with 4+2 AAMs.

I have one big Q.Why have the French been so silent on their own stealth fighter programme-if they seriously consider one,or if they firmly believe in unmanned strike aircraft for tomorrow? I am sure that a stealth version based upon the Rafale is not without their grasp and has probably been worked upon.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Feb 2013 20:00

for single seat need: we need to automate all that weapons afsar does - missile cuing, HMS, advanced sensor inputs to dash, man-machine interface top notch with least interference or most mission enabling, rearward radars (pakfaish), 3D TVC, advanced electroptic/IR feed for rear view or auto focus on alerts on situational awareness screen/panel etc,.

being overpower or underpowered means not optimal op.. so rightly powered is important to be highly fuel efficient and enable deep strike DEAD and SEAD. Engine selection is like having heart for this puppy. GE414 IN version is fine, but it all depends on the tech transfer deal we just signed up with unkill. This is the first tech transfer (whatever that means with unkill).. you never know, he might just prove to be so good in terms of keeping up with spirit of the documents, less legal fine prints.

We still have our options open.. on EJ200 if GEs are backing off from LCA mk2, and Snecma folks are ever chewing mentality.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 01 Feb 2013 20:23

indranilroy wrote:Tarmak007: India's AMCA will be studded with new-age technologies

The AMCA scaled-down (1:8) model to be displayed at Aero India.

Wowii this is some deep $#!T.

I hope this BEAUTI becomes reality very soon.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 01 Feb 2013 20:28

SaiK wrote:for single seat need: we need to automate all that weapons afsar does - missile cuing, HMS, advanced sensor inputs to dash, man-machine interface top notch with least interference or most mission enabling, rearward radars (pakfaish), 3D TVC, advanced electroptic/IR feed for rear view or auto focus on alerts on situational awareness screen/panel etc,.

being overpower or underpowered means not optimal op.. so rightly powered is important to be highly fuel efficient and enable deep strike DEAD and SEAD. Engine selection is like having heart for this puppy. GE414 IN version is fine, but it all depends on the tech transfer deal we just signed up with unkill. This is the first tech transfer (whatever that means with unkill).. you never know, he might just prove to be so good in terms of keeping up with spirit of the documents, less legal fine prints.

We still have our options open.. on EJ200 if GEs are backing off from LCA mk2, and Snecma folks are ever chewing mentality.

There is no Tech transfer or even local assembly, its all US manufactured 414's. Unkil thinks that itself is a favour to India without the Nuke liability clause.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Feb 2013 20:52

http://www.geaviation.com/press/militar ... 01001.html John Flannery, President & CEO, GE India said, "The LCA selection is a big step forward for GE and demonstrates our strong commitment to India. GE Aviation will supply the initial batch of F414-GE-INS6 engines and the rest will be manufactured in India under transfer of technology arrangement."

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 01 Feb 2013 20:58

Question to gurus,

Will it be a good strategy to build AMCA based on the same engines that are going to power PAKFA/FGFA? After all India is going to have need for at least 2-3000 engines in the life time of FGFA and adding AMCA would make it economical to have a parallel manufacturing plant in India proper?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Feb 2013 21:03

the pakfa will have the 117 engine of around 40,000lb wet thrust each. AMCA it needs a 120kn type engine it is claimed. this is less than the 125kn of the AL31FP in MKI.

so all three would end up being different. not sure how much commonality.

we could use the 117 engine but if the AMCA is smaller than PAKFA its overkill.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Feb 2013 21:09

I think 117s is ruled out due to sizes mismatch and >140kn is no use. 120kN is a great achievement for GE414 IN version... but I think they will settle for 98kN wala.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 01 Feb 2013 21:18

GD/Saik garus,

You gotta understand that you are talking to armchair generals. I cannot easily translate Kn to Lbs. Was that confusion intentional?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 01 Feb 2013 21:30

Waaaaoow, this is sheer gorgeousness!

I think we need an engine that is not only powerful but is thrust vectored enabled. De-rated 117S -> 117SIN. And make that doubly sinful..

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Feb 2013 21:39

ramyanullah garu, any chacha point could get you the conversion: example: http://calculator-converter.com/convert ... ulator.php

nothing intentional, but is easier to type 120 than a heavy weight pounder!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Feb 2013 21:45

Singhaji/Philipji,

Why would anybody use a derated engine? You would be paying the price of volume without getting the power (forget the TWR of the engine).

I am not in favour of holding AMCA hostage to Kaveri development. But using a derated engine in next gen aircraft is certainly not a good idea. Russia unfortunately has not been developing any future engines for its Mig-29 class of aircraft. Otherwise, they would have been contenders. Currently, I don't see other contenders other than EJ200 and GE414 advanced variants.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Feb 2013 21:49

wrong choice of words on my part...some kind of downsized 117 engine fitted to the AMCA engine bay and air flow - ie 5th gen materials and engine temp but a kind of mini Ipad if you will - every bit a hellhound as its big brother. size it such that AMCA has a equivalent T:W to the PAKFA - ie second only to the raptor.

spread some fear and loathing in the community. push the envelope - give it mach2.2 top speed to match the eagle and m2k...why stop at mach1.8...give it the moving surfaces inside intake needed to squeeze the airflow needed to get past the mach1.8 dharmic limit.

M88/EJ200 are a lost cause - too small, too little funding, zero interest in mother nations to upsize them.

khan F110/F100 is long in tooth. F414 is good but we will likely get a better deal with 117S first for protos and later the 117 mini.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Feb 2013 21:53

Aditya V, note the word "Arrangement" and not "Agreement" - the clever khans!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Feb 2013 21:58

Singha wrote:wrong choice of words on my part...some kind of downsized 117 engine fitted to the AMCA engine bay and air flow - ie 5th gen materials and engine temp but a kind of mini Ipad if you will - every bit a hellhound as its big brother. size it such that AMCA has a equivalent T:W to the PAKFA - ie second only to the raptor.

spread some fear and loathing in the community. push the envelope - give it mach2.2 top speed to match the eagle and m2k...why stop at mach1.8...give it the moving surfaces inside intake needed to squeeze the airflow needed to get past the mach1.8 dharmic limit.

M88/EJ200 are a lost cause - too small, too little funding, zero interest in mother nations to upsize them.

khan F110/F100 is long in tooth. F414 is good but we will likely get a better deal with 117S first for protos and later the 117 mini.

It is not easy to downsize the engines just like that.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Feb 2013 22:03

the AL31FP (MKI) is closest to the value of 120kn. perhaps fitting with 5th gen materials will improve its fuel burn and durabilty with retaining the same thrust...coupled with AMCA being a lot smaller than MKI, it might work out ... without a totally new engine which as you say is not a simple effort.

we also get tvc for free.