AMCA News and Discussions

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 13 Feb 2013 21:32

Singha wrote:wrt to the AMCA, if the intake does not have moveable constricting surface inside (like mig29/F15), will it be able to beat the Mach1.8 top speed limit even with a pair of souped up 414 EPE + diamond shaped "black widow" wings?

or does the diamond shape wings help in merely raising the supercruise speed higher?

It enhances supercruise at same or lower thrust and able to increase the margin. at the sametime it also good at transonic regime....

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 13 Feb 2013 21:36

chiru wrote:
NRao wrote:The AMCA has been rather well cloaked yet seems to be well thought through. Do we know what their thinking is on an engine? They should have an idea by now - not a speculated one.
a senior scientist at the ADA stall said that the team is not worried as to which engine they are going to use, he specifically said ANY engine with 90kn of thrust would suffice.

shiv wrote:Sounds like a development of Kaveri to me

They seems to have learned their lesson well!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Feb 2013 21:51

sometime back they had suggested a tailless for MCA with no horizontal stabs. with tvc in, both pakfa and raptor/jsf has opted for the tail elevators. similarly, both pakfa and raptor does not have a big gap between the tail and wing sections like in migs or lesser to an extent in su-30. dunno why AMCA chose to have such a gap in the model. any adv/disadvantage?

negi · Post by **negi** » 13 Feb 2013 23:48

Kanson wrote:
Singha wrote:wrt to the AMCA, if the intake does not have moveable constricting surface inside (like mig29/F15), will it be able to beat the Mach1.8 top speed limit even with a pair of souped up 414 EPE + diamond shaped "black widow" wings?

or does the diamond shape wings help in merely raising the supercruise speed higher?
It enhances supercruise at same or lower thrust and able to increase the margin. at the sametime it also good at transonic regime....

The diamond shape is primarily for stealth they in fact are not good for high speed ; the F-22 wing's leading edge has a higher sweep angle than it's trailing edge it's not a diamond unlike the black widow basically it's more closer to the contemporary designs .

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 14 Feb 2013 00:08

negi wrote: The diamond shape is primarily for stealth they in fact are not good for high speed ; the F-22 wing's leading edge has a higher sweep angle than it's trailing edge it's not a diamond unlike the black widow basically it's more closer to the contemporary designs .

Actually the YF-23 was slightly faster than the YF-22. YF-22 scored in agility though. Both aircraft used the same engines.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Feb 2013 00:48

well super tomcat did mach 2.3ish on its swept wings and so did our mig floggers or sukhois., but the foxbat/hound mig 31 reached >= mach 3. sr 71 did not have a diamond and was supposed to gone mach 3+.

negi · Post by **negi** » 14 Feb 2013 00:54

Well couple of things; my point was only about wing sweep and it's effect on high speed. The effective speed of the platform itself depends on the drag and available thrust, YF-23 had at least 2 lesser surfaces than the YF-22 and we don't even know aerofoil thickness on the two. YF-23's recorded speed for supercruise on F119 engines is Mach 1.43 the F-22 has been reported to supercruise at a higher speed than that (again there we don't know at what altitude).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Feb 2013 01:26

the tail design can induce a lot of drag was my point/understanding earlier.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Feb 2013 02:02

CROSS POST:

BREAKING NEWS

GTRE's next engine (from tender to Design & Development of three stage blisk fan)

Design and development of three stage 5:1 pressure ratio all Blisk fan for 75/110 kN thrust class engine. The broad design specifications and constraints are defined as below.

Code: Select all

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|               Design specifications: ISA-SLS - P1=101.325kPa ; T1=288.16K                             |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Parameter             | Value        | Constraint                | Remark                             |
|-----------------------|--------------|---------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Mass flow rate        | 85-87 kg/s   |                           | ~5% growth potential should be     |
|-----------------------|--------------|---------------------------| available. GTRE would like to      |
| Pressure Ratio        | 4.8-5.0      |                           | participate in the design process. | 
|-----------------------|--------------|---------------------------| The mode of participation will be  |
| Isentropic efficiency | 83-84%       | Minimum 83%               | deliberated later.                 |
|-----------------------|--------------|---------------------------|                                    |
| Surge margin          | ~22%         | Part speed margin should  |                                    | 
|                       |              | be more than 25%          |                                    |
|-----------------------|--------------|---------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Max inlet diameter    | As needed by | ~780 mm                   | Selection of material will dictate |         
|                       | the designer |                           | maximum rotational speed.          |
|-----------------------|--------------|---------------------------|                                    |
| Rotational speed      | As needed by | Nil                       |                                    |
|                       | the designer |                           |                                    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time frame for the above activities up to component level aerodynamic testing, aeromechanical testing for generating performance map, structural testing relating to life and safety is approximately five years (60 months). It also includes manufacture of five sets of hardware for testing and evaluation of above tests.

SCOPE OF WORK: The scope of work includes Design of Fan, CAD/CAE Simulations & Analysis, Prototype Development, Performance & Functional Testing and Proving of the Fan. This includes certification level tests as per MIL 5007-E .Further, it also includes transfer of production technology to GTRE which is inclusive of setting up of infrastructure, training and assistance in manufacturing of blisks.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Feb 2013 07:56

http://aeroindiaseminar.in/admin/techni ... ar2013.pdf
check out the last page

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Feb 2013 08:04

found something on the tube

nash · Post by **nash** » 14 Feb 2013 08:30

so it seem like GTRE might find its foreign partner of kaveri, though it didn't mention engine name, of AMCA.

and this 75/110 in 5-6 years, and TVC, 2020 timeline of AMCA first flight, are all dots of unfinished picture.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Feb 2013 09:45

Austin wrote:I agree if ADA is happy working with GE and has developed a working relationship with it for F-404 and later F-414 program for Tejas , F414EPE is a logical choice for AMCA and it should be pursued accordingly , May be AMCA mark 1 can use the same engine at Tejas Mk2 and then for Mark 2 model go for higher thrust EPE version

Austin, I have a question. Why does the AMCA need a 120kN class engine like the F-414EPE? The AMCA’s weight specifications put it in the MiG-29, Rafale class, not the Super Hornet, so why saddle it with a heavier than necessary engine with higher than necessary thrust? A combined total of 240kN thrust is a lot, nearly 40kN more than the F-35C variant which has a MTOW of 70,000 lbs ( 31,800 kgs). The AMCA is supposed to be in the 25,000 kg MTOW class, so IMO it doesn’t really require 24,000 kgs of thrust..unless you want a nearly fully loaded AMCA to have a thrust/weight ratio of 1.

The existing F-414INS6 at 98kN is sufficient, but the EJ-200 is smaller and more compact as is the M-88.

I will be practical in this case and say that what matters to the IAF is a fully functional AMCA, not a hampered one with a lower thrust Kaveri derivative. Otherwise, the payload will be compromised and that will lead to a lot of acrimony between the IAF and DRDO. Going by previous experiences, they may not even accept it that way. Tying the AMCA to the Kaveri may well spell the end of the former due to the latter’s issues.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Feb 2013 09:57

shiv wrote:Let me formally place a bet on here.

I bet AMCA will fly ONLY with an Indian engine.

What're the odds you're offering Shivji ?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Feb 2013 10:22

I think the odds would be like 100:1 (K:Import) after 10+ years from now. I am sure, AMCA will need at least 10 years for the newer technologies to develop.. but can ramp up if many of the LCA components can get in. Going by the good news reports on GTRE seeking firang partner (hopefully someone will be given).

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Feb 2013 11:30

Kartik wrote:
shiv wrote:Let me formally place a bet on here.

I bet AMCA will fly ONLY with an Indian engine.
What're the odds you're offering Shivji ?

3 to 1 currently

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 14 Feb 2013 13:47

Shivji and Kartik;

Both please send me the bet amount ...I will act as escrow.

I will pay it out when the AMCA flies.

I humbly volunteer. Paypal , Credit card accepted. Cheques too.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 14 Feb 2013 15:17

Shivji and Kartik;

Both please send me the bet amount ...I will act as escrow.

I will pay it out when the AMCA flies.

I humbly volunteer. Paypal , Credit card accepted. Cheques too.

Given the long timeframe, what rate of interest is the pot accumulating at???

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 14 Feb 2013 15:24

I do agree with Shiv on AMCA having a desi engine, at least the IAF is very insistent on it. As far as 110 KN goes, looks like it is an attempt to future-proof the aircraft for MLUs POV. That does give you the freedom of putting in more powerful electronics and radars.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Feb 2013 15:59

I am at a loss to understand why we appear to be isolating the AMCA from the FGFA and other programmes.I understand the case with the FGFA,that it was already designed by Russia and we have jumped onto the same bandwagon,where our participation is mostly "post-design".So we want to go it alone with the AMCA where no one can stifle our desire to be totally self-sufficient.But we have already paid for total TOT if I'm right,and if we want to leverage the tech being transferred,why not see what components of that programme can be useful/essential to us.Why reinvent the wheel? It is this go-it-alone syndrome that has delayed and stifled the LCA programme.

Kartik and some others have mentioned using the RD-33 (?) on variants of MIG-29s,instead of the larger Saturn/Lyulka engines on the MKI as an option for the AMCA's engine,at least for initial prototypes,options that should be examined.Both are supposedly being built at home too,readily available,+ whatever engine tech we are getting with the Rafale, why not ?

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 14 Feb 2013 16:04

Question is, what exactly is covered in total TOT? We have seen in the past what happened with a total TOT of engines in the SU program. Did it help us in any way in our engine program?

Only and only go-it-alone (with some help maybe) will help us stand on our feet as far as critical tech is concerned (read engines, stealth, radar). Nobody will part with their crown jewels at any cost.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Feb 2013 16:47

True,its why I've often in the past advocated that the DM/GOI set up a comprehensive engine R&D centre for all types of aero-engines,from turboprops to jets,ramjets,scramjets,whatever.Tyring to perfect just one engine-Kaveri isn't going to help us in the many programmes we have ,it isn't a magic bullet.The Chinese are experts at first reverse engineering firang wares and then improving upon them,using theft of tech to achieve the same.It is a well-planned systematic operation.WE should follow their example in achieving self-sufficiciency by more honourable methods,with JVs with those willing to assist.If we can develop an SSBN nuclear reactor with Russian help,why not aero-engines too? Opening up the entire aero-engine market to pvt. players too will shorten the time frame for results.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 14 Feb 2013 16:56

My understanding is that the TOT is very narrowly defined and can only be used to manufacture the product for which it was transferred and in approved numbers only. It is the reason that GTRE is floating tenders for collaborative effort on critical sections of the engine, even when the Russian tech is being used to produce the Russian engines in India under TOT.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 14 Feb 2013 17:40

ToT is a waste of time - buy stuff outright and in the meantime start building desi products from scratch and start the long slow climb up the learning curve, will get to destination faster in the long run...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Feb 2013 18:11

If I have a great business selling samosas with a special delicious seasoning, the survival of my business is dependent on selling samosas and keeping the formula secret. If I teach everyone the recipe and techniques I use, I will soon lose my business. The west is no longer dominant in manufacturing of anything other than a few niche high tech products. Aero engines is one of them - Aero engines is their special samosa. ToT will never_ever part with what we really need.

I find it so discomforting to even think of the idea that some babu is going to call for tenders for import of a 90-100kN engine for AMCA that I am going to be talking about this with every high and mighty (if retired) person I know and I do know at least two retired advisers to MoD among others.

How silly that would look after we failed to develop HJE 2500 for HF 24 and scrambled for F 404 and then F 4141 for LCA, Ardiden-Shakti for ALH, Larzac and later Saturn for IJT.

Everyone I speak to says that Kaveri is now a working engine even if LCA will never enter service with it. I have had a standing invite to GTRE for the last 5-6 years and maybe I need to use that invite now.

The GTRE tenders is for something different as far as I can tell - they are looking for someone who will manufacture Blisks for them This is the time for Tatas, Mahindras, Reliance, Infosys etc to come out and show how good they are at Blisk making.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 14 Feb 2013 18:21

Philip wrote:But we have already paid for total TOT if I'm right,and if we want to leverage the tech being transferred,why not see what components of that programme can be useful/essential to us.Why reinvent the wheel? It is this go-it-alone syndrome that has delayed and stifled the LCA programme.

Forget for a moment what has been reported in the press and the utterances of the GOI/MOD babus, ministers. Does it not strike you as odd that the "co-developers" are "Sukhoi-HAL" and not "Sukhoi-ADA". If this was a co-development effort, why wasn't our main design agency (ADA) nominated instead of our main production agency (HAL)? Especially when ADA is working on an indigenous 5th gen fighter that is supposed to benefit from this co-development? At least they could have made it a "Sukhoi-ADA-HAL" project.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Feb 2013 18:22

Maybe wrong thread, but here is an image of a Rolls Royce made Blisk for F-35

I have also learned a new word - Linfric - linear friction welding - used for a blisk in this page
http://www.linfric.com/appli.htm

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 14 Feb 2013 19:05

shiv wrote:The GTRE tenders is for something different as far as I can tell - they are looking for someone who will manufacture Blisks for them This is the time for Tatas, Mahindras, Reliance, Infosys etc to come out and show how good they are at Blisk making.

Saar, I think they are looking for both design and manufacturing help for the Blisk fan which seems to be part of the engine. From the tender document.

GTRE would like to participate in the design process.

The scope of work includes Design of Fan, CAD/CAE Simulations & Analysis, Prototype Development, Performance & Functional Testing and Proving of the Fan. This includes certification level tests as per MIL 5007-E .Further, it also includes transfer of production technology to GTRE which is inclusive of setting up of infrastructure, training and assistance in manufacturing of blisks.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 14 Feb 2013 19:17

Kartik wrote:
Austin wrote:I agree if ADA is happy working with GE and has developed a working relationship with it for F-404 and later F-414 program for Tejas , F414EPE is a logical choice for AMCA and it should be pursued accordingly , May be AMCA mark 1 can use the same engine at Tejas Mk2 and then for Mark 2 model go for higher thrust EPE version
Austin, I have a question. Why does the AMCA need a 120kN class engine like the F-414EPE? The AMCA’s weight specifications put it in the MiG-29, Rafale class, not the Super Hornet, so why saddle it with a heavier than necessary engine with higher than necessary thrust? A combined total of 240kN thrust is a lot, nearly 40kN more than the F-35C variant which has a MTOW of 70,000 lbs ( 31,800 kgs). The AMCA is supposed to be in the 25,000 kg MTOW class, so IMO it doesn’t really require 24,000 kgs of thrust..unless you want a nearly fully loaded AMCA to have a thrust/weight ratio of 1.

The existing F-414INS6 at 98kN is sufficient, but the EJ-200 is smaller and more compact as is the M-88.

I will be practical in this case and say that what matters to the IAF is a fully functional AMCA, not a hampered one with a lower thrust Kaveri derivative. Otherwise, the payload will be compromised and that will lead to a lot of acrimony between the IAF and DRDO. Going by previous experiences, they may not even accept it that way. Tying the AMCA to the Kaveri may well spell the end of the former due to the latter’s issues.

I think with the new CMCs in moving parts, the weight of the F414EPE/INS6 should be lower than the EJ. They have a nice working relationship with GE and by the time AMCA comes online, we'd be making these engines at home at a furious rate and the savng due to engine commnality with LCA would be enormous.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Feb 2013 19:29

shiv wrote:If I have a great business selling samosas with a special delicious seasoning,
The GTRE tenders is for something different as far as I can tell - they are looking for someone who will manufacture Blisks for them This is the time for Tatas, Mahindras, Reliance, Infosys etc to come out and show how good they are at Blisk making.

They should have already matured technology available for them to sell their wares or knowledge. AFAIK, zilch on the public domain. They have to prove, research papers, jigs, engineering artifacts, technology, management skills, resources and expertise, and not but least the technical quality of the product/work to meet the challenge would be science and art combines. It is a joint SDRE+TFTA aspect that they should have.

none will import you this.

--
besides GTRE thinks they can buy out IPR artifacts, technology and designs, and most importantly metrics and data collected from companies who have kept them as the only survival for their existence and stock market value.

It would be really interesting who is going to surrender. GTRE or Firangs. Former has already shown their style and capability. GTRE should accept their management disaster and surrender for a reorg rather spoil AMCA and LCA project that requires these engines.

salute to those who have done Kaveri pride, but that would not be cherished unless it gets into the fighter jet and used by IAF.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 14 Feb 2013 19:48

I think this is a great move by GTRE. Bring the private companies in for BLISKs and you can see how well they fare. Am sure they will get it done in 2 years and all private company lovers on BRF would have something to be happy. Until now it has been "bring the mahindra demand" now that it has been accepted we can see how well they fare

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Feb 2013 20:16

re. mahindra: that would be like giving a contract to build a home for you to an electrician.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Feb 2013 20:23

not when you consider Mahindra has a tieup with BAE systems under whom 1000s of small vendors are linked.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Feb 2013 20:42

Eureka - I found it!

Our controversial friend Prof Prodyut Das has a great article in Vayu, but more to the point here is his comment on the AMCA model at Aero India

http://idrw.org/?p=18444

For the AMCA display model to have been built it must have gone up several layers of “top” management. The pity is that no one bothered to see and check the glaring errors in the configuration. The fin shape – particularly the leading edge sweep is all wrong – perhaps not fit for a propellor driven trainer let alone a stealth aircraft.

And what are those deep boundary layer diverters doing on a apparently fifth generation combat aircraft? Even the “Wang Lu laundry and Chop suey” aircraft companies – very respected incidentally for their track record -are using diverterless intakes. The Western Aviation companies must be laughing up their sleeves because if this is the best ADA can do then AMCA like Dilli is “dur ast”. A unsuitable configuration -if translated into a prototype can be the devil to develop- witness the LCA.

What ADA needs is more seriousness at the Project engineering level. Unfortunately in India “Good manager ” has always outweighed “Good Engineer” in the promotion sweepstakes and when the troops come up with a model that is suitable for Bankipore Fair there is no one there to make the simple corrections!

In fact I did think the AMCA fin looked stupid, but I could not say what was wrong. Click on image to enlarge.

India has virtually no scale model industry and we make among the worst models I have seen. Last week at a party in Sanjay Simha's house I saw a model of Mahindra's NM 5 made by HAL or someone. That is the ugliest model I have seen in my life - besides it would not stand on its three wheels and toppled tail down.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Feb 2013 21:02

singha ji, tie ups especially in these type of precision industry is extremely difficult where mahindra would not be better than behaving like consultants to arrange meetings, take status report, time sheets etc. regular management control possibility.

BAE will be hijacked by massan laws.

John · Post by **John** » 14 Feb 2013 21:26

shiv wrote:India has virtually no scale model industry and we make among the worst models I have seen. Last week at a party in Sanjay Simha's house I saw a model of Mahindra's NM 5 made by HAL or someone. That is the ugliest model I have seen in my life - besides it would not stand on its three wheels and toppled tail down.

Considering these days very detailed models can be pumped out by 3D Printers i think this is more of actually spending $$ to promote the product rather than issue of having the capability to devolop such models.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Feb 2013 21:39

the airline travel agents get gifted liveried models of civilian aircraft to keep on their tables. seems to be much better quality than the ones in HAL museum for sure.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 14 Feb 2013 21:47

shiv wrote:
Eureka - I found it!

Our controversial friend Prof Prodyut Das has a great article in Vayu, but more to the point here is his comment on the AMCA model at Aero India
http://idrw.org/?p=18444

I was wondering how Prodyut Das is keeping his silence just few days back. Dang, here he is now!

shiv wrote:In fact I did think the AMCA fin looked stupid, but I could not say what was wrong. Click on image to enlarge.

If you look at previous scale model, the fin looked more like F-18. And here it is kind of 'different' if i can say that.

Check this, http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... craft1.jpg

Warining: Hi-res image.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Feb 2013 21:50

Is the AMCA team facing the same issues as the Kaveri team faced? Lack of R&D and no proper facilities?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Feb 2013 21:50

the only 'fighters' with such tails of long depth is the SR71....