AMCA News and Discussions

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 25 Aug 2013 10:33

Until 2006 MMRCA used to be a 6 billion deal in media/press, by '08 it became 8 billion deal, by 2010 it was "10 billion deal MMRCA", By 13 now its claimed to be 20 billion dollars.

Now FGFA has started with 30 billion dollar investment figure, I'm sure by 2025 it'll be a 60 billion dollar deal.

For what? For 144 fighters?

And what we'll get besides 144 single seater fighters (which IAF wanted double seater from beginning) ?

Are we going to make the engine inhouse 100%? Nope!

Are we going to make the radar or OLS 50 IRST here 100% ? Nyet !

Hrrrmmp Radar? Don't know!

This is even bigger stupidity then T-90 deal.

With 60 billion dollars we can do wonders for AMCA. Even if we buy or take certain techs or pay consultancy fee on certain things.

SOMEBODY WAKE UP SHRI ANTONY & GET US OUT OF FGFA SCAM. PLEASE !!!

Gurinder P · Post by **Gurinder P** » 25 Aug 2013 10:50

Dhananjay wrote:Until 2006 MMRCA used to be a 6 billion deal in media/press, by '08 it became 8 billion deal, by 2010 it was "10 billion deal MMRCA", By 13 now its claimed to be 20 billion dollars.

Now FGFA has started with 30 billion dollar investment figure, I'm sure by 2025 it'll be a 60 billion dollar deal.

For what? For 144 fighters?

And what we'll get besides 144 single seater fighters (which IAF wanted double seater from beginning) ?

Are we going to make the engine inhouse 100%? Nope!

Are we going to make the radar or OLS 50 IRST here 100% ? Nyet !

Hrrrmmp Radar? Don't know!

This is even bigger stupidity then T-90 deal.

With 60 billion dollars we can do wonders for AMCA. Even if we buy or take certain techs or pay consultancy fee on certain things.

SOMEBODY WAKE UP SHRI ANTONY & GET US OUT OF FGFA SCAM. PLEASE !!!

Your points are valid, but you have to take into account the R&D phase for the Tejas. It took way too long for a 4th gen fighter to be built in house, and its engine is an Amerikanski one. The engine for the AMCA will be tough to build, and going with the track record of the Kaveri engine, a 5th gen engine is a bit beyond the GTRE's threshold. Now, you have to take into account for the IAF's fleet attrition, and the MMCA was created because of the Tejas being behind schedule and the FGFA is needed because the IAF needs to counter the PLAAF and its 5th gen fighter. Bleeding Edge Tech costs money, and the defense industry is a capitalist organization. Since the PAK FA/FGFA is still on the drawing board, prices will go up based on the project hiccups, inflation, material costs/lack of materials.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Aug 2013 11:17

Pak-FA/T-50 prototypes are flying,we are going to get our first prototype says the air chief next year.

Wishing for the AMCA, FMCA is great,if one could be confident about the capability of Indian aviation industry for the same.Just read the headline report in today's Ind.Exp. posted in two other threads,on the shoddy engine and components in MIG engines built by HAL Korpaut accounting for "40% being returned " by the IAF as being defective and mainly responsible for the several MIG series crashes.It is illuminating. When Dassault too express doubts about the capability of HAL "to assemble" Rafales,wanting two separate contracts for French built and Indian built aircraft,we dither and decline the same.Why? They say that HAL does not have the capacity for the same.Our DPSUs want to run before they can walk and fly before they can run.

As I've always maintained,let's put in max. effort in making the LCA a success.That is the first major milestone that has to be met for Indian desi aviation industry.We cannot "leapfrog" the LCA.We nedd 200 at least of the same.We have several reports about their being a shortage of manpower on key projects.The LCA must meet its latest (revised umpteen times) deadlines for FOC,so that the IAF can get it into service fast and operate it so that we can iron out any operational/maintenance problems.That will give us a measure of indigenous capability,local support,never mind if the engine and radar is imported now,future avatars can increase the indigenous content.Since Mk-2 will feature some redesign to accommodate a larger engine, it offers the opportunity of increasing capabillty with more advanced systems that are being developed in the labs for the AMCA whatever.By incremental development a Mk-3 could appear with "stealth/partial stealth",to validate the advanced tech on an existing platform.Thus by incremental manner we can achieve whatever we want in the future,an AMCA ,etc.We aren't the richest nation in the world and have to use our resources judiciously in acquiring from abroad ,preferably in JVs,what we can't make at home and what we can comfortably achieve.

I am glad that the new DRDO chief is spot on when he says that unmanned systems will dominate future warfare,why the classified UCAV/AURA project should be given a higher priority than the AMCA.By 2020,the USN will be regularly operataing UCAVs from their carriers.UCAVs are the weapon of choice for the future,manned aircraft will be less attractive come 2030.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Aug 2013 11:40

And you think that unmanned is easier than manned? If you are scared of IAF returning engines for manned aircrafts, buddy you better jump of a cliff if the same bottoms make them for the unmanned.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Aug 2013 11:41

Just btw, the DRDO chief also stated that he would like to aim for the 6th gen. It should scare all of us that those efforts would be falling out of the shy all the time.

Some foresight.

Or he he has a lot more faith in the industry. Unlike ....

Gurinder P · Post by **Gurinder P** » 25 Aug 2013 12:00

Unmanned aircraft are great, but ensuring signal integrity with the jets from a location will be a challenge. What makes me a doubter of Unmanned aircraft replacing manned aircraft is that, enemy counter signals can intercept transmissions to allied unmanned aircraft and knock it out of the fight, or even worse, turn it against the user.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Aug 2013 12:22

I am not sure why AMCA *must* have the 5th gen engine Rus is developing. the 414EDE or the AL31FM2 will do just fine sure it might not have bleeding edge specs for 2020 but it will do and 100s of plans like flankers and hornets will be using these until 2040 for sure. same goes for GE engines on silent eagle...not 5th gen but good enough.

if we deploy the AMCA in numbers and make it a success, people will be happy to sell engines to us even if kaveri never works out..

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Aug 2013 13:01

UCAVs are the weapon of choice for the future,manned aircraft will be less attractive come 2030.

All the more India listens to the DRDO chief, cancels the FGFA and saves billions.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 25 Aug 2013 13:03

We want better engines don't we, instead of another run of the mill when better will be available onwards.

FGFA/PAK-FA will be available to India in future too.

=====
The best bet is of course Kaveri - with the present characteristics looking great too.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 25 Aug 2013 21:07

Gurinder P wrote: The engine for the AMCA will be tough to build, and going with the track record of the Kaveri engine, a 5th gen engine is a bit beyond the GTRE's threshold.

Gurinder ji you're right it should not get us in a situation like we're right now and have to buy mmrca.

I'm also not against buying a 150-200 FGFAs for buffer sake. Ok at the 100 million dollars per plain we get 200 FGFAs for 20 billion dollars. But right now with this JV scam we're going to end up paying 60 billion dollars by 2025 - 2030.

No authentic ToT on IRST, engines radars or GaE or GaN chips. Nothing. Just like Tatra truck we'll have another foreign item doing gymnastics in the air.

I'm against JV and these 60 billion dollars going in corrupt stomachs.

As for engine:

NRao wrote: AMCA (proposed):
Powerplant: 2 × GTRE GTX 35 VS Kaveri NG turbofans
Dry thrust: 54 kN (12,130 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 90 kN (20,230 lbf) each

Kaveri (latest):
Military thrust (throttled): 11,687 lbf (52.0 kN)
Full afterburner: 18,210 lbf (81.0 kN)

As NRao mentions Kaveri is just '2 Kn' short in Dry thrust and '9 Kn' short in Wet thrust. And we have 10 years to improve.

Also best would be to have Nes Kaveri AMCA version be made in same dimensions as GE f414 bought for Tejas Mk. 2 to have as a back up.

GE f414
Dry : 63 Kn
Wet : 98 Kn

Much in access for what our specification. Or even have a look at EPE version which
has 120 Kn

thrust and some green techs for much better mileage.

NRao wrote: AMCA (proposed):
Powerplant: 2 × GTRE GTX 35 VS Kaveri NG turbofans
Dry thrust: 54 kN (12,130 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 90 kN (20,230 lbf) each

Kaveri (latest):
Military thrust (throttled): 11,687 lbf (52.0 kN)
Full afterburner: 18,210 lbf (81.0 kN)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Oct 2013 07:22

DRDO to export sonars to Myanmar soon

The ambitious Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), he said, was on the drawing board and the basic configuration was being finalised at the moment.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Oct 2013 07:59

Yes,cancel the FGFA and fight the Chinese stealth fighters with the ADA/ HAL's paper planes! By 2020,we would have all the MIG-21 legacy fighters and MIG-27s retired,a few hundred of them. Even from today's report,the IAF will start getting series production LCAs at the great rate of 8 per yr. from 2014 end/early 2015.That will mean that the first 40 MK-1s will be delivered only by 2020.Where is the shortfall of at least 200+ fighters of the current fleet strength going to come from (not to mention that the Bisons will also be retired from 2020 onwards,adding another shortfall of 120 to the list) and the IAF's plan to raise the sqd. numbers to 42? Given a 15 yr. development plan for a new aircraft,even if launched today,the AMCA will arrive only post 2025,closer towards 2030.This gap is meant to be filled with the MMRCA.All existing types that can be upgraded are already in the process ,barring the Jaguars-yet to start.As the CoAS said,there is no "Plan B",the MMRCA is vital for the IAF.

Somewhere,the GOI/MOD has to bite the bullet.Even buying "more of the same",Sukhois,if the Rafale deal falls through ,the cost will be around only 10-15% cheaper if at all,given that the Flankers we have are all two-seaters,additional costs incurred due to the extra pilot right from training to pensions. The late visionary Air Cmde.Jasjit Singh proposed way back in 2006,anticipating the situ as it exists today,with delays on all fronts and rising costs,that extra MIG-29s and M-2000s were the interim solution.He foresaw that the evaluation and acquisition of the MMRCA would take about 10/11 years before the aircraft entered service with the IAF ,that gives us 2016/17 as is being understood/expected today.That advice still holds good if we consider a batch of MIG-29UGs/35s to replace the hundreds of MIG-21s being pensioned off as a cost-effective solution. They will complement the LCAs being manufactured.Once LCA series manufacture matures and the aircraft's capabilities put to the test,acquisitions from abroad can be reduced accordingly. A pity that the M-2000 is niot in production anymore but it would be far more expensive as the upgrade costs for 50 M-2000s are $2,5B,compared with just $950 for 60+ MIG-29s.

There is a piece by Sweetman in AWST about the SoKos choking on their future fighter acquisition and how the decision has actually been delayed to next yr.,where contestants will face off, mano-a-mano,cost and capability wise.It has a bearing upon JSF costs if the JSF fails.Will post elsewhere.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Oct 2013 08:05

Bet the Chinese have a paper plane too. Besides neither the Chinese nor the Russians are designing a gung ho 5th Gen plane. The PAK-FA is better than what India has, but hardly that great to plunk $35 billion (could be less with 144 planes).

India will be taking a risk for sure, but it just may be worth taking.

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 25 Oct 2013 08:53

We do not need a stealth airplane to counter Chinese stealth capability.
eg you can counter a knife attack without having a knife. A stick might help

That is not to say we do not need a stealth aircraft, but the reasons being put forward for one, are incorrect to say the least.

There is a very strong possibility that in the next decade stealth aircraft will loose there sheen (Like Charlie did)

The future is Unmanned platforms mass produced and cheap.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Oct 2013 20:11

Here is what I would propose:

1) Cancel the FGFA (for sure)
2) Reduce the Rafale to about 3 squadrons or may be even cancel that
3) Resource from LM/Boeing certain technologies
4) Borrow an engine - no one will give that technology
5) Perhaps a radar - again, no one will part with that technology

6) See if Israel is interested in partnering on this puppy
7) Take the funds from FGFA and MMRCA and build a AMCA

Now is the time to beg/borrow/steal for the AMCA - they need to know what subsystems they have to contribute to this puppy.

vic · Post by **vic** » 26 Oct 2013 20:58

AMCA may have new speculated 110kn engine of GTRE

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Oct 2013 21:19

AMCA needs Higher Dry Thrust Engine for Super Cruise ....so higher after burner thrust is not really important considering what we have seen so far are fixed geometry intakes limiting it likely to M 1.8

Although Engine thrust is really a factor of many things , we can have a 90Kn engine and can still have great T:W ratio for the aircraft if the NTOW/MTOW are kept low due to use of composites and Aerodynamically you can fine tune for optimum performance.

vic · Post by **vic** » 28 Oct 2013 17:06

We should try to use Kaveri for LCA-AJT and UCAV, this will help us move on to next step.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Oct 2013 17:22

Unfortunately with respect,NR has more trust in our local ability to deliver cutting edge aircraft than the IAF,which wants the MMRCA and FGFA.Let's learn to first "fly before we do aerobatics" and get the LCA into smooth series production ,at a healthy prod. rate too.It's perhaps why the AMCA has been shelved for the moment.The debate is on whether a MK-2 should be developed without undergoing a peer review and instead incrementally improve the Mk-1 as a "MK-1A/B" whatever.There are also too many "moving parts" that need to be assembled ,acquisition and integration of tech we don't have from outside sources,before we can think of developing an AMCA.The first and key component is the engine.Identifying it and acquiring it.The next is the radar/radars,sensors and weaponry,avionics,smart helmet,FBL,composites,etc.It is perhaps in the software domain that we are best off.This is going to be a very demanding exercise that will take a min. of 15 years to develop from scratch even for advanced nations.Just a cursory look at the LCA and its foreign content will give us an idea as to how far we have to travel. To save time we need to develop in phases some of the tech at home and install it in existing programmes like the LCA MK-2 whatever ,or even on the Rafale if and when it enters local production.There are also the MKIs being upgraded which can also serve as test platforms for the same.The Russians are using their SU-35 for the same purpose.No harm in us cutting down AMCA development time adopting the same route.

Nevertheless,15years for it to arrive is unacceptable (as replacements) in view of the hundreds of aircraft being retired.If we cancel the Rafale,FGFA,etc.,the IAF's fleet strength may fall even below that of Pak! The AMCA could be targeted to replace the legacy medium sized aircraft we have like M-2000s,MIG-29s,Jaguars,from 2030 onwards.The upgrades are reportedly giving them at least 20+ years of extra life.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Oct 2013 16:43

Is Partnering with SoKo on 5th Gen Fighter Project Possible ?

KAI Proposes Smaller KF-X Design

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Oct 2013 17:40

^that should be exactly what LCA Mk-3 should look like.. actually Mk-2.

and a twin engined one makes it baseline AMCA.

btw, SoKo does not need medium-heavy class fighters.. their ops requirements are different, and their security challenges are different.

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 30 Oct 2013 20:54

Austin wrote:Is Partnering with SoKo on 5th Gen Fighter Project Possible ?

KAI Proposes Smaller KF-X Design

It would be smart to team up with other countries, but S. Korea and the KFX is a difficult issue. They are changing their requirement as often as we do in our fighter programs and it's not clear if they want a fully fledged 5th gen fighter with internal weapon bays, or just a stealthy shaped fighter with external weapon carriage.
When you look at our requirements, Brazil would be the best country to team up with, since they are the only other country in the world, that aims to get new CATOBAR aircraft carriers, but has no stealth fighters to operate on them other than a F35C. Logically, joint carrier and carrier fighter developments would reduce costs, increase numbers and ease developments, not to mention that a modified version for both air forces would increase numbers even more.
Last time the Brazilian defence minister visited India, they proposed such co-developments, but we wasn't that interested. Let's hope that the hold on AMCA, gets decision makers thinking to look beyond what ADA and DRDO wants.

SaiK wrote:^that should be exactly what LCA Mk-3 should look like.. actually Mk-2.

Then how could you still call it LCA, when it has a complete different external and internal design, would use either a single heavy class engine, or 2 light class engines, so is a complete new fighter?
The biggest problem of LCA is, that we tend to make more out of it than it should be. If we would have done the project much simpler, it would be a propper 4th gen fighter and inducted in numbers by now and we wouldn't need MMRCA! But ADA and DRDO wanted too much and made the same mistake again with AMCA again, while ignoring the real need of our forces, or our threat perception. Whenever they learn to make things simple, we will see progress in the Indian aero industry!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Oct 2013 21:27

Last time the Brazilian defence minister visited India, they proposed such co-developments, but we wasn't that interested. Let's hope that the hold on AMCA, gets decision makers thinking to look beyond what ADA and DRDO wants.

I think it is a terrible idea. Co-development with anyone is not good, certainly not with Brazil.

The Indian effort is very unique and it is certainly at a point where it cannot or should I say should not invite a reboot of this effort. I understand that ADA and DRDO have their limits, but they are not limited in the design of such an air craft.

A co-development with engines? Perhaps. Sensors? Air craft health systems - and there are perhaps a few others mentioned by Chander. But a co-development at this stage would be ruinous.

And, why would India part with the techs she has invested in?

DRDO to export sonars to Myanmar soon

The ambitious Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), he said, was on the drawing board and the basic configuration was being finalised at the moment.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 30 Oct 2013 22:15

But we have heard the design was finalised and similar to yf23.

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 30 Oct 2013 22:19

We should be partnering with the Japanese for the AMCA, Engine tech only.
They have the material sciences base for conducting this type of project, and we have the numbers that will be ordered.
With their constitution , is it possible? Is there political will on either side? The need is there for both countries.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Nov 2013 08:29

Yes,the KISS formula works (Keep It Simple Stupid)!

The Japanese unfortunately also swing from nationalism to pacifism in the space of one monsoon.Collaborating with India is a tough job because of their avowed anti-nuclear stance and India's need to defend itself from 2 nuclear neighbours who are jointly conspiring against us. Japan's requirements also have their own parameters based upon their territorial requirements,whereas we have a far greater air space to defend and longer range targets to strike at.Let's first see whether the amphibian aircraft offer goes through.It is more of a political decision than one based upon capability,as there are superior alternatives.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 03 Nov 2013 10:00

Marten wrote:OT: vic, what is the LCA-AJT project? Any links?
I think your post and mine belong to a different thread.

I think he is referring to DRDO proposed LIFT (Lead in Fighter Trainer ) AJT some years back , which was trimmed down variant of LCA . but that Proposal and even that of Hal's AJT was rejected by IAF long back

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Nov 2013 07:12

karan_mc wrote:
Marten wrote:OT: vic, what is the LCA-AJT project? Any links?
I think your post and mine belong to a different thread.
I think he is referring to DRDO proposed LIFT (Lead in Fighter Trainer ) AJT some years back , which was trimmed down variant of LCA . but that Proposal and even that of Hal's AJT was rejected by IAF long back

It is very likely the LCA-LIFT concept will be resurrected once the LCA becomes a mature platform. Other than early feasibility studies ADA doesn't have the resources to pursue it further at this time. Majority of current LCA efforts are focused on getting the LCA Mk.1 IOC by end-2013 and FOC by end-2014 including production and post-induction support. Any remaining resources are being put into developing the LCA Mk.2 by 2018.

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 09 Nov 2013 12:06

NRao wrote: I think it is a terrible idea. Co-development with anyone is not good, certainly not with Brazil.

Because? Embraer for example would be experienced partners in the aero sector, which are even ahead of our industry. The work on DRDO AWACS with them turned out to simple and easy as it seems. And as I said, they have common requirements, which is one of the most important points for a partnership!

NRao wrote: I understand that ADA and DRDO have their limits, but they are not limited in the design of such an air craft.

Based on the fact that nearly all of our aircraft developments suffer from design flaws, that's clearly overoptimistic. We might have gained good knowledge in materials and avionics, but aircraft design is a weakpoint in our industry.

NRao wrote:And, why would India part with the techs she has invested in?

Where do we have invested in any techs for AMCA? We have invested in Kaveri engine for LCA, which failed and needs new investments, to be suitable for AMCA in future. We have invested in an MMR for LCA, which still is not ready yet and apart from DRDO claims, nobody believes that MK2s AESA will be ready anytime soon (ADA and HAL officials stated doubts). And these are the "only" techs that actually could be named as common and funded yet.
The ADA/DRDO AMCA proposal is largely a complete new development (which is the main mistake anyway) and is not more than in pre-design stages (not even based on the real needs of our forces), which makes the integration of partners that support the developments more than possible, especially when it can ease developments and reduce costs.

Narayana Rao wrote:But we have heard the design was finalised and similar to yf23.

Not even close, these claims came up because the wings have a similar design, but apart from that, there is nothing that similar, or even comparable.

Philip wrote:whereas we have a far greater air space to defend and longer range targets to strike at

Which is exactly what FGFA covers and the AURA UCAV is meant for, AMCA for IAF would not have such requirements, but should be a more cost-effective alternative, that might be used in higher numbers (the same requirements that LCA for example had too) which makes clear why IAF is not really interested in it. With LCA, MMRCA, MKI it already will get three 4.5th gen fighters to cover all kind of roles in the coming 2 to 3 decades. On top of them they will get FGFA and AURA, which basically leaves nothing for AMCA to do.
On the other side, IN has only 4th gen fighters so far and has no prospect for a stealth UCAV anytime soon. If you then add that they might face bigger Chinese carriers with more capable fighters, the necessity of a stealth carrier fighter at least for IAC2 should be obvious, but ADA/DRDO went completely the wrong way and now have nothing.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Nov 2013 19:22

Because? Embraer for example would be experienced partners in the aero sector, which are even ahead of our industry. The work on DRDO AWACS with them turned out to simple and easy as it seems. And as I said, they have common requirements, which is one of the most important points for a partnership!

Plenty of reasons.

* Embraer has experience in a nitch market - I am not aware of them designing a fighter air craft. Have they (google did not produce anything)
* Brazil is buying off-the-shelf for their own F-X2 program, so, why would India partner with a nation that is buying from others?
* India is WAY ahead in designing. Especially with the AMCA (see posts in this thread)
* The AMCA is the only air craft (that I know of) that has the Fly by Light - I very much doubt that Brazil has even thought of this in ANY of her air crafts
* The AMCA is nearly there - design wise (posted above)
* AMCA team had requested for $2 billion for the next step- which was nearly granted, but it should restart when LCA gets IOC (expected 2013 year end)
* There is really nothing common between Indian and Brazilian requirements (that I know of). Heck there seems to be huge difference between russian and Indian requirements (PAK-FA and FGFA). If you knwo of commonality between India and Brazil please let me know (I owuld be very intersted)
* I think (have not studied it) India has far more experience in fighters than Brazil. Comments?
* Hate "partnering" at this stage - it necessarily means restarting from ground up - see FGFA progress. Not worth it for AMCA - it will push it back a decade at the very least and then perhaps produce a cross between what India wants and what brazil wants - just not worth it

Based on the fact that nearly all of our aircraft developments suffer from design flaws, that's clearly overoptimistic. We might have gained good knowledge in materials and avionics, but aircraft design is a weakpoint in our industry.

Could you expand on that please? I am not aware of it being a weak point, but then I may not be properly educated.

However, following the various designs for the AMCA I am inclined to believe that the Indians know what they are doing, perhaps it is not the very best solution out there, but I do not see it as a weak point. And the designs seem - to the best of my knowledge - based on sound methods. But I am open to discussion - learn along the way.

Where do we have invested in any techs for AMCA?

For that you will have to read up. I will grant you that there is not too much out there, but what is there is tantalizing. As an example, who has Fly by light out there? Check out the cockpit of the AMCA - granted proposed.

The way I see it the AMCA is a quantum leap over the LCA. All that based on open sources.

Open to comments though.

I have been very, very bullish on the AMCA. My feel is that it will be a great product. My only suggestion is to make it bigger - or perhaps have different models based on size.

Partnering with anyone would only push it off the shelf. US, Russia, perhaps Euro ............... OK, may be. Brazil, France, Japan, SoKo ........... no thanks. Brazil, etc ................... LCA Mk4 onwards. Not AMCA.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 09 Nov 2013 19:44

NRao wrote:* Embraer has experience in a nitch market - I am not aware of them designing a fighter air craft. Have they (google did not produce anything)

They did develop an attack aircraft with Italy. AMX International.

Partnering with anyone would only push it off the shelf. US, Russia, perhaps Euro ............... OK, may be. Brazil, France, Japan, SoKo ........... no thanks. Brazil, etc ................... LCA Mk4 onwards. Not AMCA.

Why not South Korea? Both countries have similar ambitions, similar requirements and given the similarity between the Tejas & TA-50, similar tech bases. With the US & Russia you're likely to get technical consultancy but not actual participation (they'd prefer to stick to their national programs). In the case of Europe, Germany & Italy are rapidly scaling back their militaries while UK and France can't seem to afford their current commitments (EF/Rafale) and are slow pedaling in-development projects (Taranis/Neuron).

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 09 Nov 2013 19:48

Japanese seem to be upgrading their defensive posture so Japan may be a good partner especially in production tech.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Nov 2013 19:50

Nrao ji, they did have a subsonic strike fighter, AMX but the main work was done by italian firms.

Sancho, we have been through these arguments before. embraer is very good at what it does -- designing passenger jets and assembling them economically from sub-systems sourced from around the world. none of these directly translate to competence in developing fighters, least of all 5gen ones.

edit. I see others have already mentioned about AMX.

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 10 Nov 2013 00:34

The way to go for AMCA is partnership and consultancy
We are getting there in design (and we will have learnt a lot fm LCA I & II) ,
However the grunts on the ground(who maintain the aircraft) have to have vital input in the design phase as do the fly boys.

we lag in testing and production.
By the time LCA II reaches FOC the testing sequence will be streamlined so Production will be our weak point.

To get our production standards to western ones we need a) numbers b) experience/ skill in production maagement.
c) private sector participation
The numbers that we will require are adequate to amortrise the development and production cycle

The countries with the best production standards/techniques that we would be comfortable with are Japan and to a lesser extent S.Korea

We are also weak in basic research and material research

Again Japan (for the sake of this discourse am margnilising the US, for the reason that our countries still have a trust deficiet) stands out

Avonics and turbine development
Japan is a world ledar in hardwear (we in softwear) and they have the material tech base to take turbine tech where we need it.
Same with chip manafacture

So when we say Japan the ducks line up well.

What will be the stumbling block will be politics and babudom( Both sides)

On consultancy We should not have one entity as the LM/LCA saga with flight control laws proved
Get the European and Isrealis (+US) into Niche areas and if not happy get rid of the entity not performing.
Keep the consultancy contracts back loaded ie the money shows up after results materlise.
We are maturing now as a nation and a Defence industry also we have the green stuff
We have to learn to look after our interests.
Our contract negoating teams are out of their league.
We need some private participation in this area too.

Thats MY take on it, Constructive disagreement is welcome.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Nov 2013 02:21

Multiple things to cover, but ..................... in short .................

1. Areas in which India needs help no one will ever provide help in those areas (engine, testing, radar, material sciences, and the like) - so forget "consultancy", "partnership", etc.

2. In other areas India is either mature or close to being mature and therefore does not need "consultancy", etc.

WRT the AMCA, where exactly does India need partnering or consultancy? What areas and which nation brings what to the table? Trying to understand.

I would suggest that we make a simple table: country, what they bring to the table and where does India stand on that topic specifically WRT the AMCA.

I just do not think there is much with nations in my 2nd list.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Dec 2013 03:37

http://bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=20631
For the next round of indigenous 20-tonne category medium combat aircraft project, India "will go for some technology partnership to develop some new engine of that class of aircraft," said the DRDO chief.

again wrong steps.. huh! why not they learn such techs are never sold? it is amazing our people think they can make all tech owners to throw away their inventions.

even partnerships will not give away intellectual property rights.. it is high time we really think about calling DRDO chief, with some high level commission, and give them some 101 education in managing their projects.

we need to invest in turbine tech, like we did in kaveri.. get it rolling for the next set of requirement, actually should have started long time back. if GTRE can't do it.. sell them to private.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 16 Dec 2013 04:59

No matter how much money or how soon they initiate a program to build a new engine, India can never produce an engine that would come close to the F135/F136 or AL-41F in time for the AMCA program. They will have to either significantly fund the Russian engine program for the PAK FA/FGFA hoping to get some technology transfer out of it or once again resort to buying engines off the shelf.

The only way India can compete with the massive Chinese military industrial base and their deep pockets is if it receives help from either the US or someplace else. Once the Chinese perfect turbofan engines, their numerical superiority and their technological superiority will leave the IAF in a very sorry position.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Dec 2013 05:54

The AMCA show must go on.

It should not wait for anything, if by itself if it is complete.

The engines should be a set of parallel, independent efforts.

kuldipchager · Post by **kuldipchager** » 16 Dec 2013 07:06

We don't have to remake al31 engine which we are producing anyway. Even we can use al31 for amc fighter for testing. So with time we can replace with our new engine.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Dec 2013 07:10

I disagree Brando.. it just needs a reorg that is all.. we can do it.