AMCA News and Discussions

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Feb 2013 23:14

indranil.. i agree:

livefist.

Bharadwaj · Post by **Bharadwaj** » 05 Feb 2013 23:18

SaiK wrote:indranil.. i agree:

livefist.

Google for snaps of yf-23s and asymmetrical effects are plenty. The angle of the foto combined with the shaping of the main body/wing result in the wings "looking" different. Here's one at http://www.aircraftinformation.info/Images/YF-23_03.jpg

nash · Post by **nash** » 05 Feb 2013 23:21

i think no country either US or Russia or china shows their 5 gen fighter until I flight, only we are showing all these stuffs, i guess this is still not the final design, we only know what it will be when AMCA fly.

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 05 Feb 2013 23:39

No harm in keeping the Jingos happy. It is all about piskological bum bar ee. They can keep changing the design till the very end easily. To me it looks more the YF23 than the F22 design philosophy, except they are not attempting the 360 degree stealth.

And we do have countries showing off their 'stealth fighter bum bar' - Akhmedhineejhad has just inaugrated one!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Feb 2013 23:49

Bharadwaj ji,

If you think that vertical stablizer's leading and trailing edge match with those of the wing or the horizontal tail, I don't have anything to say.

I hope with the FGFA experience, they absorb the TOT for the all moving vertical stabilizer, before they freeze the design.

Bharadwaj · Post by **Bharadwaj** » 05 Feb 2013 23:55

indranilroy wrote:Bharadwaj ji,

If you think that vertical stablizer's leading and trailing edge match with those of the wing or the horizontal tail, I don't have anything to say.

I hope with the FGFA experience, they absorb the TOT for the all moving vertical stabilizer, before they freeze the design.

Sorry, was thinking you meant some asymmetrical error in the model itself. Or maybe you did- maybe my cold medication is dulling my perception- good night

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Feb 2013 01:56

Furthermore, if you look at the above AMCA model, and compare it with any of the russkie or khanic versions, you would not a see a big gap between the wings and the tails.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 06 Feb 2013 03:52

My biggest concern is not the shape. I am sure they will get it right. My biggest concern is will they apply the lessons they learn on LCA to AMCA?

1. Please do away with this ADA-HAL tamasha. Get the guys working for AMCA moved under one umbrella. Give them a free hand and do away with the bureaucracy. For example, since LCH/LUH/IMRH are being developed by HAL, the can easily adapt the lessons learnt on the ALH seamlessly.

2. Are the users and the designers under the same roof? Again going by the rotary aircraft example. HAL has recruited dedicated world class test pilots to guide their LCH/LUH/IMRH development. For LCH and LUH, the IAF/IA are onboard from day 1. IMRH, there seems to have been some errors done again. IN and IAF/IA submitted different ASRs without consulting the designers who had already done a lot of study. But it is good that they are losing 2 years now rather than 10 years as in the case of LCA where IAF joined the party only by 2005 and all niggling facts came to fore.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Feb 2013 04:05

Vina,AWST has that to say about the JSF and not the F-22.It does not say that the JSF cannot launch missiles at various A-o-As,the tale is that with high A-o-As,stealth performance decreases.

AMCA:One only hopes that it does not follow the LCA path to production.That episode is a perfect lesson as to "how not to design and develop a military aircraft".The priority should be first the engine and airframe to get the bird into the air and test its aerodynamics/stealth,etc..The exotic tech later.

Karnad's views on performance by the PSUs on the sub issue are as relevant here,worth a read again.Just read AMCA instead of sub.However,unless we have huge investments into establishing a scientific base in the country and defence related R&D,we will never develop cutting edge tech and will still be dependent upon foreign tech.The European nations have not been able to individually develop weapon systems alone and have adopted the consortium/merger approach.Barring the US and Russia,no one else has the ability to go it alone totally.

As commendable is the Navy’s role in driving the country’s agenda for self-sufficiency in armaments in the teeth of sustained efforts over the years by the bumbling Indian government with the defence ministry and its department of defence production (DPP) to undermine it. The DPP conceives its remit as only ensuring custom for defence public sector units while trying to trip up the private sector whose built-up capacity and capability can more quickly and substantively attain for the country the goal of self-reliance, which has so far only remained rhetoric. The Navy is the only service to have had a main weapon design directorate, generating designs for 43 of the 45 warships under construction in the country. The Navy, moreover, has prevented indigenous projects such as the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft programme from sinking, by investing in the development of a navalised variant, managing a technical consultancy with US Navy’s aviation experts to iron out design kinks and shepherding this aircraft to the prototype stage.

The services have to accept the fact that the Mark-I of any locally produced weapons-platform will not be as good as the best available in the market, but by the time the Mark-III version rolls out it will be world-class. This much grace the military will have to allow the indigenous efforts if Indian industry is to at all have a chance. Ultimately, this is a political decision the government has to make. What’s in collision are two philosophies — the nuclear visionary Homi Bhabha’s “learn as you make” thinking versus “import when you can” attitude of the military encouraged by venal politicians, a short-sighted government, and a DPP covering up for the inefficient defence public sector that has proved itself incapable of sustained technology absorption or innovation via offsets or any other route. The fatal reliance on imported armaments only underlines India’s second-rate military status.
..... Instead of just talking self-reliance, defence minister A.K. Antony can, for a change, do something about it by ensuring these steps are immediately taken.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Feb 2013 05:15

If they can follow the IGDMP model of having young guns (A5/Sagarika, etc), should give them enough ideas. I think HAL and ADA to an extent focus more on Integrations, and leave the sub-components to smaller and young India. They can also engage the younger gen for integration work. Young team did India proud in the missile department, and I am sure they will do the same elsewhere too.

But, there should be a small driver team at helm, which architects and design the system from top to down. Conduct feasibility and run simulations to real time analysis of everything.. this is going to be a massive effort, but the building blocks should be part of the major design plan. We don't want the LCA radar type problem given to HAL.

HAL should focus on production engineering R&D rather, and work on to increase quality in manufacturing by collaborating with private consultants and workers.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Feb 2013 18:47

ACM Browne has in a statement,quoted elsewhere, said how speeding up of aero projects cab be done by taking in the end user (IAF) into the whole process right from start and penalising organisations responsible for delays.Were that to happen they would be a sea change in indigenisation.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Feb 2013 19:08

No doubt about it!! without a user, what good a product is. He needs a chocolate Browne to reassert methods, processes and the whole business of indigenous development. No massan r&d ops is without mil inputs. PERIOD... if that driver is of any importance.. just projecting power is by no means would give you the power can be reproduced. It requires great deal of planning and execution.

I think they are doing that, and that is what is being reflected in many articles.. But quite often DDM route is taken priority over individual opinions and drivers which is just junta ke liye and half brained babooze.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 06 Feb 2013 21:20

Philip wrote:ACM Browne has in a statement,quoted elsewhere, said how speeding up of aero projects cab be done by taking in the end user (IAF) into the whole process right from start and penalising organisations responsible for delays.Were that to happen they would be a sea change in indigenisation.

Services would get penalized the most, perhaps barring the IN.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 06 Feb 2013 21:35

End user IAF did want to take charge but the idea was shot down. They literally have to live or die by their performance, a concept that is not compatible with boasting and making models, embarassing ones at that.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 06 Feb 2013 21:47

nash wrote:i think no country either US or Russia or china shows their 5 gen fighter until I flight, only we are showing all these stuffs, i guess this is still not the final design, we only know what it will be when AMCA fly.

Bingo, ghanta we will come to know how AMCA looks till it's first flight and even after that changes will be done till production design is fixed so all in all by 2030 we will finally know how AMCA looks. Sorry if I unintentionally burst some jingo bubbles.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 06 Feb 2013 23:18

Official ADA AMCA vid(?)

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Feb 2013 23:19

Taking charge of it is a bad idea for IAF. IAF should not be R&Ding or producing defense equipments. However, they must participate in drafting the requirements, and ensuring V&V is done per their requirements.

Bharadwaj · Post by **Bharadwaj** » 06 Feb 2013 23:29

abhik wrote:Official ADA AMCA vid(?)

Great find. The shape does look to be the current official one. It is being slated across many a fora for the rear design but the aero guys at ADA probably know better. There is no doubt that it goes against conventional wisdom that is available in the public space.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 06 Feb 2013 23:37

Video seems to suggest 6x MR-AAM or 2x MR- AAM + 2 bombs in the belly weapons bay, no hint of any side bays.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 07 Feb 2013 00:06

the enemy fighter destroyed in that video is also interesting.

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 07 Feb 2013 00:17

abhik wrote:Video seems to suggest 6x MR-AAM or 2x MR- AAM + 2 bombs in the belly weapons bay, no hint of any side bays.

nice video.. by the voice and video flavour looks official only.

In older graphics they have shown side bays. http://livefist.blogspot.in/2010/06/ste ... edium.html

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 07 Feb 2013 00:19

Sagar G wrote:
nash wrote:i think no country either US or Russia or china shows their 5 gen fighter until I flight, only we are showing all these stuffs, i guess this is still not the final design, we only know what it will be when AMCA fly.
Bingo, ghanta we will come to know how AMCA looks till it's first flight and even after that changes will be done till production design is fixed so all in all by 2030 we will finally know how AMCA looks. Sorry if I unintentionally burst some jingo bubbles.

and you are bursting balloons based on information from where? your guess work is as open for doubts as anyone else's!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Feb 2013 00:39

I think that is a good measure.. a stealthy super hornet is what we want as medium combat a/c.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 07 Feb 2013 00:41

Boreas wrote:and you are bursting balloons based on information from where? your guess work is as open for doubts as anyone else's!

You think an organization which is known for keeping secrets will give you a sneak peak into it's 5th gen aircraft and that too the actual shape !!!!

I am not thrusting my opinion on anyone you or anybody else here is free to doubt or question it.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 07 Feb 2013 02:06

Except for the 80s programs, when concept/designs like Tacit Blue and F117 were kept under wraps to surprise the Soviet's SAM budgets/plans, most of the world class stealth programs have been above board. B2 was (sort of) unveiled at rollout. But ATF (which led to F22/YF23 airframes), as well as JSF programs have been pretty open about concepts being considered, right from early stages. Same for PAK FA.

Only panda still goes for late stage flourishes in these things, because the target of their designs is internal.

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 07 Feb 2013 02:07

Sagar G wrote:
Boreas wrote:and you are bursting balloons based on information from where? your guess work is as open for doubts as anyone else's!
You think an organization which is known for keeping secrets will give you a sneak peak into it's 5th gen aircraft and that too the actual shape !!!!

I think when "an organisation" "which is known for keeping secrets" releases presentations filled with technical details, followed by brochures, product images, CAD design graphics, videos and even scale models of any product.. by common sense one can infer that it do not wish to keep the project secret.

I also think when the development agency (ADA) itself displays something as a scale model, the final product will be inline with it give or take minor changes. Without a doubt it will be "the actual shape" of the plane.

Lastly, you appear to be in a hurry to say just anything.. put some sense in ur words!!!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Feb 2013 02:53

AMCA to arrive in 2030! Well,I wonder how many of us ancients will be alive to see it fly.This 1st decade design of the 21st century will by then have been overtaken by new radical designs.The AMCA looks like a contemporary 5th-gen stealth design,which if it flies around 2015 and achieves IOC by 2020+ would be ideal.F-22 production has ended,the JSF in a few years time will (hopefully) enter production,as will the FGFA,and the dragon's two beauties-which are flying in prototype form, will certainly see induction by the end of the decade.

As said before,given that the aircraft comes with reasonable stealth,and is more agile than the JSF,the amount of weaponry that it can carry internally is the key factor.Anything externally carried will be defeating stealth.One thought though,that like the JSF,a STOVL version is developed for the IN's future carriers.Cats,EMAL,are prohibitively expensive,adding a few billions to the carriers cost-why even the RN cannot afford it and has plumped for the STOVL version of the JSF,dumping the earlier decision to buy the tailhook version.When airbases can be targeted by the long range missiles of today,and attacks make runways inoperational,STOVL aircraft can still operate ,especially from our island territories,where small clearings and short roads can be used for STOVL fighters,as British Harriers so did in Germany during the Cold War.

The "Super Sukhoi",with a large internal weapons bay between the two large intakes,and equipped with new LR AAMs and ASMs,has some promise as a partially stealthy heavyweight,leading upto the FGFA.This is the Russian plan,to incorporate on the existing Flanker platform several 5th-gen developments,perhaps 360 degree conformal radar ,new avionics,etc. One can similarly use the same platform to test out technologies which will appear in the final AMCA design.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Feb 2013 03:23

Philip sahab,

You will have a long life. I actually have a secret wish. We have always sparred online about DPSU products. I want to sit down with you in person and discuss AMCA. Your grey will surely provide a lot of reality checks on my enthusiasm. I am just hoping that the DPSUs give me some proper fodder to contest with you by then. And though I don't drink (alcohol), I hope we can say cheers to a lot of privatization by then.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 07 Feb 2013 06:49

India to Use Russian Avionics For Future Fighter - UAC Boss

BANGALORE (India), February 6 (RIA Novosti) - India is to equip its Perspective Multirole Fighter (PMF) variant of the Russian T-50 fifth-generation combat aircraft with avionics similar to Russia’s version of the plane, United Aircraft Corporation President Mikhail Pogosyan said on Wednesday.

“The future plane (PMF) will have not only the same airframe, but also an integrated system of onboard equipment,” Pogosyan said, stressing this was a requirement of the Indian Air Force.

Details of the PMF design will be specified after the relevant contracts with India are signed, he said.

The PMF will have such advanced features as stealth, supersonic cruise speed, high maneuverability, an integrated set of avionics, and an advanced threat-warning system, according to Sukhoi.

The fighter is being developed on the basis of the Russian perspective aviation complex (PAK FA), of which T-50 is a prototype, to India's stringent technical requirements. Further development of the program envisages design and development of a two-seat variant and integration of an advanced engine with increased thrust. The two sides are supposed to cooperate in joint marketing of the aircraft in other countries.

Analysts say India's choice of Russian avionics is a logical step and in line with previous joint programs.

“It would be reasonable to assume that the model adopted for India’s Su-30MKI [fighter jet purchase from Russia] would be continued with regard to its purchase of Russia’s fifth-generation fighter, based on the Sukhoi T-50 prototype," said Douglas Barrie, air warfare analyst at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

"The Indian Su-30MKI has some non Russian-standard avionics systems, but the baseline platform, propulsion and sensors are very much Russian, with final assembly of the aircraft in India. The PMF will, I suspect, be to all intents the production standard of the T-50, again perhaps with some non-Russian avionics and systems,” he added.

The PMF project began following a Russian-Indian agreement on cooperation in the development and production of perspective multirole fighter, signed on October 18, 2007. In December 2010 Russian arms sales agency Rosoboronexport, India's Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and aircraft maker Sukhoi Company signed a preliminary design development contract for the new aircraft.
:
:
:

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Feb 2013 07:25

I thought they will have common components between AMCA and FGFA.. sounds like not an ADA decision. If this is MKI-- level of engineering, might as well buy it out of russian factory for number and strategy purposes. They must list out technology participation.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 07 Feb 2013 07:31

Yes, could someone elaborate on the need for a single-seater Russian avionics-equipped PMF over and above the single-seater Russian avionics-equipped PAKFA apart from the need for additional bank transfers?

Keep in the mind that the Su-30MKI Super would already handle the air-launched Brahmos.

PMF money should go to the AMCA project.

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Feb 2013 08:28

That article heading is not exactly correct. Read the article and you'll see that it only mentions PMF will have "similar avionics to the Russian version of the plane." This does not mean it is Russian made avionics.

member_23360 · Post by **member_23360** » 07 Feb 2013 08:31

In Dr. Saraswat's interview, he mentioned regarding electrical integration that we would like to proceed from copper wire, fiber optic cable to complete photonics interconnect to reduce the weight, volume as well as vulnerability to Electronic warfare.

so it seems we are talking ahead of FBL, this is definitely 5+ generational capability, not sure that we will achieve but we are thinking about is also a big deal.

srin · Post by **srin** » 07 Feb 2013 08:46

I really hope we test all the new technologies (VLO, supercruise, FBL) on LCA and only then put it on AMCA. Otherwise, there are too many new variables - and all with uncertain timelines - that may risk the entire AMCA project.

Maybe even have a line of VLO LCA Mk 3 before we jump to AMCA.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Feb 2013 10:23

imo the twin tails of the AMCA might become smaller , more tilted out and move forward in pakfa/raptor style..thats the route most planes are going. and fully moveable tailplane and elevators to use the entire surface for control would maybe generate better high alt performance in thin air?

current AMCA model has a 5th gen front end and a 4th gen tail....in cheen style it looks great from the front but not the back

vic · Post by **vic** » 07 Feb 2013 13:07

I think that they should start using old platforms of LCA or better get some old Mig-29s to realize technologies of AMCA where ever feasible

vic · Post by **vic** » 07 Feb 2013 13:14

I think we should go in for LCA Mark-3, then semi stealth LCA Mark-4 and then full stealth LCA Mark 5

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 07 Feb 2013 18:36

Boreas wrote:I think when "an organisation" "which is known for keeping secrets" releases presentations filled with technical details, followed by brochures, product images, CAD design graphics, videos and even scale models of any product.. by common sense one can infer that it do not wish to keep the project secret.

You think that because some CAD images, brochures, "technical details", videos and "scaled models" are available you know everything that is to be known about the AMCA !!!! Well if you do then congratulations I have nothing more to add.

Boreas wrote:I also think when the development agency (ADA) itself displays something as a scale model, the final product will be inline with it give or take minor changes. Without a doubt it will be "the actual shape" of the plane.

Yeah the LCA Mk1 and Mk.2 have "the actual shape" which was seen on TDs. Got it.

Boreas wrote:Lastly, you appear to be in a hurry to say just anything.. put some sense in ur words!!!

And yours are oozing from that only. I am very impressed, congratulations.

manum · Post by **manum** » 07 Feb 2013 19:05

Singha wrote:imo the twin tails of the AMCA might become smaller , more tilted out and move forward in pakfa/raptor style..thats the route most planes are going. and fully moveable tailplane and elevators to use the entire surface for control would maybe generate better high alt performance in thin air?

current AMCA model has a 5th gen front end and a 4th gen tail....in cheen style it looks great from the front but not the back

They might be being less ambitious on engine front...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Feb 2013 19:51

first, how are our wind tunnel accuracy and precision setup?