AMCA News and Discussions

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 25 Apr 2014 06:54

Thrice bitten!.....HF-24,IJT,LCA. Not to mention the HAL trainer that kept on crashing due to engine problems.

If the Raffy deal gets stuck,then AMCA development should be fast-tracked along with the LCA MK-2/3 whatever.new alternative engines could be tested on LCA prototypes so that we have a "chosen one",plus alternatives as insurance.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 30 Apr 2014 03:45

I like the boeing idea.. furthermore it looks tailless in a sense.

the big idea is having both UCAV and CAV in one design, and take the common components to support two type of interface. one with human, and the other a remote human.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Cosmo_R » 30 Apr 2014 03:59

tushar_m wrote:Japan’s indigenous stealth jet prototype ‘to fly this year’

Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera has reaffirmed the nation’s plan for a 2014 first flight of the Advanced Technology Demonstrator-X (ATD-X) fighter: a prototype for a future fighter to replace the Japan Air Self-Defence Force’s Mitsubishi F-2.


Such rapid development :!: :!: :!:


The engine is the key. @11K wet thrust, seems like a Hyundai Sonata. If they can get a F-119/F-135 class engine then it's credible. Else, this is just angling for the F-22.

And if they do get an engine of that class, we should be all over them to use in AMCA

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 30 Apr 2014 05:31

A few interesting items, about the ATD-X:

2010 :: Japan seeks foreign engines for stealth fighter prototypes

Japan is interested in engines in the 10,000-20,000lb thrust class (44-89kN), and has a long-list of candidates on which it is seeking information, the sources say.

These include the General Electric F404 used to power the Boeing F/A-18 Hornet, Snecma's M88-2 for the Dassault Rafale and Volvo Aero's RM12, integrated with the Saab Gripen. Its search even contains the Gas Turbine Research Establishment GTX-35VS Kaveri, still in development for India's Aeronautical Development Agency Tejas light combat aircraft.


Considering it has two engines, essentially doubles the thrust, while the 135 is a single engine. For what that is worth.

Also, the ATD-X is *also* a fly-by-optic plane ............................. like the tada............................ AMCA.

And, if that was not enough, how about:

What is *that*?

Image

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Cosmo_R » 30 Apr 2014 05:56

If the Japanese don't have engine technology, the 'ATD-X' is DOA. The JASDF needs a F-22 class not a F-35 class fighter against the PRC.

The US is not going to allow any competitors to the F-35 which Japan does not want and is not suitable for them. It's part of the 'security umbrella' cost.

But no F-22s

Abe can only game it for the F-22s by saying that Japan is not afraid of this and intends to take all steps to defend itself including reversing its nuclear weapons stance. Too many PRC funded peaceniks for that to happen.

No 35K thrust class x 2, no 'ATD-X' --- AMCA collaboration

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby TSJones » 30 Apr 2014 08:07

NRao wrote:A few interesting items, about the ATD-X:

2010 :: Japan seeks foreign engines for stealth fighter prototypes

Japan is interested in engines in the 10,000-20,000lb thrust class (44-89kN), and has a long-list of candidates on which it is seeking information, the sources say.

These include the General Electric F404 used to power the Boeing F/A-18 Hornet, Snecma's M88-2 for the Dassault Rafale and Volvo Aero's RM12, integrated with the Saab Gripen. Its search even contains the Gas Turbine Research Establishment GTX-35VS Kaveri, still in development for India's Aeronautical Development Agency Tejas light combat aircraft.


Considering it has two engines, essentially doubles the thrust, while the 135 is a single engine. For what that is worth.

Also, the ATD-X is *also* a fly-by-optic plane ............................. like the tada............................ AMCA.

And, if that was not enough, how about:

What is *that*?

Image



THAT is a model of a short, stubby aircraft with small wings that cannot outfly a piss ant nor carry enough weapons to defend itself. In short a miserable failure that is destined to become Pak-Fa food. Ain't that right, Fowler?

saje
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 08 Oct 2010 16:28
Location: Bangalore

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby saje » 30 Apr 2014 22:57

Slightly OT -- I was recently watching the movie 'Elysium', and once again I was facinated by the concept of flying machines that fly effortlessly from Earth to Space using the same engine!! As aeronautical engineers try to become more futuristic (some of the fighter designs above already resemble previously imagined spaceships!) and rocket scientists try to become more cost effective, eventually the two fields will meet and become one. With the success that ISRO & DRDO has achieved in rocket & missile engines, we need to look encourage these same agencies to come up with a solution to our jet propulsion problems. In this hope I can't help but thinking that somewhere in the designs of the current ISRO rocket engines lies hidden our 6th Gen engine! So alongwith expecting the GTRE folks to work up to the current jet engine technology, we need to encourage ISRO to work down to the future jet engine technology.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby TSJones » 01 May 2014 03:37

The US is working on a design of a two stage engine where in order to take off and land a regular jet engine is used but when going hyper a scram jet takes over.

Here is one design that used a rocket booster, then a scramjet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-51

[quote]On 1 May 2013, the X-51 performed its first fully successful flight test on its fourth test flight. The X-51 and booster detached from a B-52H and was powered to Mach 4.8 (3,200 mph; 5,100 km/h) by a booster rocket. It then separated cleanly from the booster and ignited its own engine. The test aircraft then accelerated to Mach 5.1 (3,400 mph; 5,400 km/h) and flew for 210 seconds until running out of fuel and plunging into the Pacific Ocean off Point Mugu for over six minutes of total flight time; this test was the longest air-breathing hypersonic flight. Researchers collected telemetry data for 370 seconds of flight. The test signified the completion of the program.[37][38][39] The Air Force Research Laboratory believes the successful flight will serve as research for practical applications of hypersonic flight, such as a missile, reconnaissance, transport, and air-breathing first stage for a space system.[/quote]

This is highly off topic and probably should be on the International Aerospace thread. So no more from me.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Manish_Sharma » 14 Aug 2014 07:39

Just was going through specifications of AMCA & Rafale:

AMCA

General characteristics

Crew: 1 (pilot)
Length: 13.20 m (43 ft 4 in) |15.27 m (50.1 ft)
Wingspan: 8.20 m (26 ft 11 in) |10.80 m (35.4 ft)
Height: 4.40 m (14 ft 9 in) |5.34 m (17.5 ft)
Wing area: 38.4 m² (413 ft²) |45.7 m² (492 ft²)
Empty weight: 16-18 tons ()
Max. takeoff weight: 22-24 tons two tonnes of internal weapons and four tonnes of internal fuel ()
Powerplant: 2 × new GTRE engine GTRE GTX 35 VS Kaveri NG with vectored nozzles turbofans
Dry thrust: 54 kN (12,130 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 90 kN (20,230 lbf) each

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 1.8+ at altitude of 11 km.
Service ceiling: 15,000 m (49,200 ft)

---------------------------

Rafale

Crew: 1–2
Length: 15.27 m (50.1 ft)
Wingspan: 10.80 m (35.4 ft)
Height: 5.34 m (17.5 ft)
Wing area: 45.7 m² (492 ft²)
Empty weight:
C: 9,500 kilograms (20,900 lb)
B: 9,770 kilograms (21,540 lb)
M: 10,196 kilograms (22,480 lb[193])
Loaded weight: 14,016 kg (30,900 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 24,500 kg (C/D), 22,200 kg (M) (54,000 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Snecma M88-2 turbofans
Dry thrust: 50.04 kN (11,250 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 75.62 kN (17,000 lbf) each
Fuel capacity: 4,700 kg (10,360 lb) internal

Performance

Maximum speed:
High altitude: Mach 1.8 (1,912 km/h, 1,032 knots)
Low altitude: Mach 1.1 (1,390 km/h, 750 knots)
Range: 3,700+ km (2,000+ nmi) with 3 drop tanks
Combat radius: 1,852+ km (1,000+ nmi) on penetration mission
Service ceiling: 15,235 m (50,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 304.8+ m/s (60,000+ ft/min)
Wing loading: 306 kg/m² (62.8 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.988 (100% fuel, 2 EM A2A missile, 2 IR A2A missile) version M
Maximum g-load: +9/–3.2 g


I see that maximum take off for both AMCA and Rafale comes almost same to 24 tons, while Rafale is much longer and higher aircraft.

Could it be possible that as we'll be mfrg. Rafale by 2022 that HAL uses the whole landing gear same as Rafale as for Tejas they've cautiously designed extra heavy landing gear.

Also why in empty weight inspite of being a lower and shorter plane AMCA is 18 tons compared to 9 tons of Rafale which is longer higher fighter? *whatever is more I have marked as red in Rafale.
Last edited by Manish_Sharma on 14 Aug 2014 07:46, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9274
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 14 Aug 2014 07:45

BTW, before anyone lights a fire under me, google for "USAF wants F-22 Replacement by 2030" - Reuters has an article some time back. The Boeing effort is from a rec placed by the USN. These are not some pipe dreams, dreams of sorts for sure - at this point in time.


Good luck to boeing to sell this design to the USN. I can bet top money that this design will significantly change as the program goes into the RFP stage.

@ Dhanajay : Weight creep is a cost of doing business in 5th generation fighters. 5th generation demands internally carried weapons, large amount of internally carried fuel as most missions that require VLO are not compatible with EFT's. These things add drag both due to the weight (induced) but also due to the design of volumes bays (especially if one wants to have larger weapon compatibility) and to compensate for that one requires larger engines which add weight compared to less powerful ones. Add to all that the challenges of staying within the stealth design limits and still extracting performance, having all internal sensors (No pods - ideally) and what you get is a heavier weighing aircraft than what a similar sized 4th generation aircraft looks like.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Manish_Sharma » 14 Aug 2014 07:55

^ In case we increase the length of AMCA would it give a possibility to add longer more power engines, or the increase in length would offset it?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9274
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 14 Aug 2014 08:02

Engine designs have to be firmed up first of all. The engine availability determines the form, size and shape the aircraft eventually takes. No reasonable designer will design an aircraft (And a planner formalize requirements) without having a basic idea of what sort of propulsion capability is obtainable and with what associated risk (The risk directly effects the margin in things like weight).

A basic goal or guiding principle that most designers use is to design a plane to be the smallest possible size while still reaching the required performance specified by the customer and factoring in a reasonable margin (usually a function of the designer's own confidence in his/her ability to deliver). The reason for this is that historically aircraft cost (MAJOR METRICS IN formulating a program) correlate well with the size. The bean counters are quick to work calculations down to the cost per kg or pound. Although quite dated the cost that the US DOD used to use for fighters was 1500$ per pound, so every pound of weight increase (comes with size increase) had to be justified in terms of capability it provides, and the smartest designers looked at designing a product that could meet the performance goals at the lowest possible weight.

Another aspect of making the engines more powerful is that the fuel consumption goes up, thereby requiring more fuel to be carried. Designing aircrafts is all about tradeoffs, a point often forgotten when people compare a russian design fighter to a french or american designed fighter.
Last edited by brar_w on 14 Aug 2014 08:34, edited 2 times in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 14 Aug 2014 08:12

They are in the process of selecting an engine

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 14 Aug 2014 09:33

a empty weight of 16-18 tons IF TRUE is far larger than rafale/typhoon.
I think the specs are mistaken. if the models shown are true in relation to the cockpit canopy and seat size, the AMCA will have around the footprint of a typhoon albeit fatter fuselage due to internal bay.
the mighty strike eagle weighs in at 12.7t empty, the Su30 is 18.4t empty

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 946
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby sankum » 14 Aug 2014 14:42

AMCA can be expected to weight 10t empty and 25t MTOW.

Two engines of 1t weight and 11t thrust each. A single weapon bay of 4.5m length and 1.8m width capable of carrying 2*1000kg JDAM+ 2*BVR AAM as standard ground attack role or 5 BVR AAM for air defence role. Two SR aam will be carried on outer wing station just like in F 35.

All internal weapons of PAKFA can be expected to be carried in the internal bay of AMCA+ 2*BVR aam as width of internal bay of AMCA is 1.8m as compared to 1.1m of PAKFA.

The clean stealth weight can be expected of 16-18t with 10t empty weight, 4-5t internal fuel, 2t jdam, 400kg for 2*BVR AAM and rest 600KG for pilot internal cannon ammo, chaff/flare,etc

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Manish_Sharma » 14 Aug 2014 16:18

Singha wrote:a empty weight of 16-18 tons IF TRUE is far larger than rafale/typhoon.
I think the specs are mistaken. if the models shown are true in relation to the cockpit canopy and seat size, the AMCA will have around the footprint of a typhoon albeit fatter fuselage due to internal bay.
the mighty strike eagle weighs in at 12.7t empty, the Su30 is 18.4t empty


Singha ji, in case the fully loaded weights of AMCA and Rafale match at 24 tons, then is it possible that HAL can use up the landing gear on AMCA from Rafale, as we'll be mfrg. Rafale by then? It'd save lots of time and effort, plus no problem like the overweight landing gear of Tejas which was designsed too heavy out of caution.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9274
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 14 Aug 2014 18:08

Whats the big deal on the landing gear? Trying to scavenge parts is ok for a prototype but there is really no need to do this for full production aircraft especially when designing the landing gear is the least of worries given that the IAF expects the AMCA to be its backbone with a very substantial force presence (Hopefully 500+) in the future. If it were a custom build aircraft, hand made effort then it would make some sense, in the case of the AMCA though they'd have no problem designing a gear for the aircraft.

Like I said MTOW and empty weight is dictated by the engine which in turn dictates the physical size of the aircraft as per the combat radius requirements. The boys designing the bird would have charted out a roadmap for propulsion capability into the future for engines like the Kaveri, F414, Eurojet etc..they'd know what is available with what level of risk and cost.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 14 Aug 2014 18:44

brar_w wrote:Whats the big deal on the landing gear? Trying to scavenge parts is ok for a prototype but there is really no need to do this for full production aircraft especially when designing the landing gear is the least of worries given that the IAF expects the AMCA to be its backbone with a very substantial force presence (Hopefully 500+) in the future. If it were a custom build aircraft, hand made effort then it would make some sense, in the case of the AMCA though they'd have no problem designing a gear for the aircraft.

Like I said MTOW and empty weight is dictated by the engine which in turn dictates the physical size of the aircraft as per the combat radius requirements. The boys designing the bird would have charted out a roadmap for propulsion capability into the future for engines like the Kaveri, F414, Eurojet etc..they'd know what is available with what level of risk and cost.


As a FYI, some basic info, from a few months ago:

Chat with Shri Tamilmani of CEMILAC on Tarmak FB page. Excerpts related to AMCA:


AMCA -
We are in the initial stages of project definition of AMCA. Any program of this nature requires 10 years.
We are going to see the AMCA around 2020.
Concept study on AMCA is nearing completion. The project definition phase will be started shortly.
[use of kaveri in AMCa]may not be possible. Use of kaveri for AMCA as the thrust requiremnts are different. But kaveri has potential for other programs in India
AMCA being the higher weight category will have more weapon load carrying than Tejas. Details will be worked out along with the user.
We are in the process of identifying the suitable engine


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 14 Aug 2014 18:47

Also, IMHO, since the AMCA has been thought of since more than a decade, there is really not much that the Rafale can "pave the way" for, perhaps outside of some newer manufacturing processes that India currently does not have. For the AMCA to be a success it better be far ahead of the Rafale and the FGFA. Otherwise why even pursue it?

Multatuli
BRFite
Posts: 612
Joined: 06 Feb 2007 06:29
Location: The Netherlands

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Multatuli » 14 Aug 2014 21:27

NRao wrote:

Also, IMHO, since the AMCA has been thought of since more than a decade, there is really not much that the Rafale can "pave the way" for, perhaps outside of some newer manufacturing processes that India currently does not have. For the AMCA to be a success it better be far ahead of the Rafale and the FGFA. Otherwise why even pursue it?


I didn't expect such a comment from you!

Even if AMCA mk I's performance and capability is at the level as the Rafale it would still be a considerable achievement and make further purchases of the Rafale unnecessary.

For the IAF to expect/demand that AMCA mk I be superior to both the Rafale and the FGFA means inevitable delays, irritation, frustration and acrimony between the DRDO and the IAF.

First establish a baseline product, then take that forward through incremental improvement/innovation. Germans, the Dutch, all industrial powers are true believers in innovation, it's a constant process, this is how they maintain their lead over countries like India, were many consider the LCA to be a 'failure' and want to dump the project. Technology development, certainly strategic technologies, can't be fragmentary. But of course, you know all this.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9274
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 14 Aug 2014 21:34

NRao wrote:Also, IMHO, since the AMCA has been thought of since more than a decade, there is really not much that the Rafale can "pave the way" for, perhaps outside of some newer manufacturing processes that India currently does not have. For the AMCA to be a success it better be far ahead of the Rafale and the FGFA. Otherwise why even pursue it?


And it will be a step forward. With internal weapon bays and stealth as a fundamental design goal its RCS will be far superior to a modestly loaded Rafale let alone a strike kitted fighter. As the member before me has said, the path will most likely be that of a spiral capability addition but it needn't be something that necessarily is superior to the PAKFA/FGFA in certain aspects for it to be worthwhile. The F-35 is inferior to the F-22 in many aspects yet there is no doubt its need and contribution to the USAF is far greater than that of the F-22.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Victor » 14 Aug 2014 23:22

VLO is a moving target and someone will always be a step ahead. So while it's OK to aim for LO for the AMCA, we need to break out of the box and base on something else. If we are able to master sensor suites, data sharing and remote control techs, it would be great if we designed the AMCA as a system rather than just an aircraft. For example, it is possible today to use a single Apache Longbow to control multiple UAVs over a vast area and have each acquire, target and destroy multiple targets independently. This system would be extremely handy in a longer-range, jet-powered, LO version where a single AMCA "mothership" could unleash several UAV attack dogs from stand-off range. This is what Boeing is apparently thinking:
NRao wrote:Image

Even with rudimentary LO, such a system would be formidable.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9274
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 14 Aug 2014 23:53

What Boeing is thinking is basically what it has been "asked to think" :). This design looks totally opposite to the what the USN actually wants form an aircraft in terms of design risk and performance, and is most likely a back of the envelope design that was handed over to the PR machinery to push it through.The real juice of what they have proposed is lying within the program office that demanded the RFI and will likely not be shared for at least the next 5 years if not more. Manned-Unmanned operability/teaming is something that even basic 5th generations will be required to achieve so that goes without saying for the AMCA, and i expect the designers to have that capability somewhere in the pipeline for certain. All 5th generation aircraft to some extent or the other have taken a systems approach, and old hacks like the F-22 that were designed around the cold war era of a singular mission over eastern europe are being upgraded to enable them to be a part of the systems approach.
Last edited by brar_w on 15 Aug 2014 00:06, edited 2 times in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 14 Aug 2014 23:53

Multatuli,

Sorry for the friendly fire.

I am more concerned about expectations. FGFA and now the Rafale streams seem to think they *need* to exist for the AMCA to come into existence. For sure streams like that will help - collateral stuff. But in no way - IMHO - would a AMCA project plan have elements that are dependent on these two.

?????

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 28 Aug 2014 21:16

Interview with the Chief of DRDO, Avinash Chander -Part II

Saurav Jha: At the same time given that the Americans, have started preliminary studies on sixth generation fighters, and are producing their second fifth generation fighter, what is the status of the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) project?

Avinash Chander: AMCA is going to be a fifth plus generation aircraft. Once again, the design is getting completed. And we are making a detailed feasibility study which has to get accepted. Broad parameters and configuration have been generally agreed upon. We are looking to complete this part within a year or two and then move further.


^^^^ Some status and very high level capability.

Wish he had been more precise on what was meant by "5th Generation".

Also, note the generational difference between the two nations.

Saurav Jha: But Dr Chander don't you think the engine issue could become an impediment to quick progress on this program as well?

Avinash Chander: For the moment, we are planning to import the engine, either through a joint development or through an agreement. In any system today, it is impossible to have a zero foreign exchange component. What matters is the IP of the total aircraft, which is Indian. In that there will be components that you might be buying from elsewhere, because it is more cost effective. There are ICs that you will be buying anyway, but what you make with those ICs is ultimately your system, your design.


Interesting take on IP.

Saurav Jha: But in the defence domain there are operational security considerations...

Avinash Chander: Well, as far as the engine is concerned, yes. But then that is where you have to have a certain relationship, certain equations. And you have to see over a period of time, as to how to secure your supply line. It may be through purchase, it may be through setting up a parallel line, through some in house activities. But once you see the process... then the solutions also evolve


There is the high level answer to concerns about sanctions. The fear exists, but is mitigated through various means.

The plan is to import an engine. So, for the foreseeable future (10-20 years) they do not expect problems. I would extend that to 30-40 years (5-10 years ago I had said 2035-40).

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby member_23694 » 28 Aug 2014 21:32

Saurav Jha: At the same time given that the Americans, have started preliminary studies on sixth generation fighters, and are producing their second fifth generation fighter, what is the status of the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) project?

Avinash Chander: AMCA is going to be a fifth plus generation aircraft. Once again, the design is getting completed. And we are making a detailed feasibility study which has to get accepted. Broad parameters and configuration have been generally agreed upon. We are looking to complete this part within a year or two and then move further.


With whatever info is available in public domain , AMCA program needs a serious re-look if the country is really interested in an indigenous 5th gen fighter - proto rollout before 2025, FOC by 2030-32 and full scale induction by 2035.
From the above interview it seems detailed feasibility study to be complete by around 2016-17, Approval best cast 2018 followed by full scale development .

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 30 Aug 2014 04:09

IF anyone is in touch with G Jha, it would be nice ot get some answers for:

1) What is the expectation of the IAF in a "5th Gen" plane. May be start with the RCS, and
2) Whatever is happening with the FGFA. wonder why he never brought that up?

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Rien » 31 Aug 2014 18:14

I think it would be a good idea to bring in the Japanese and South Korea in a joint project on the AMCA. All three of us want to build an independent stealth fighter that is not reliant on the US, EU or Russia. A pooling together of resources and talent is necessary, because all 3 nations lack something that the others have. Japan and S.K are high cost. We are low cost. But we lack technology, and Japan has great composites ability and engine tech. S.K has other technical strengths. Our combination can be much stronger than what we can achieve alone.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9274
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 31 Aug 2014 18:37

I think it would be a good idea to bring in the Japanese and South Korea in a joint project on the AMCA


What makes you think that they want to partner with HAL? What leads you to believe that the South Koreans and the Japanese will partner up with on a project (and share their aerospace IP with each other)? Finally, what lets you assume that all three air forces (JASDF, IAF, and ROKAF) have the same requirements for a 5th generation aircraft?

All three of us want to build an independent stealth fighter that is not reliant on the US, EU or Russia


South Korea and Japan have both asked for assistance from US OEM's on their designs for the next generation projects. The scope of the assistance currently stands at transfer of technical evaluations and transfer of tunnel and operational testing data but this could easily expand further depending upon the size and scope of the ambitions of these projects. Where do you think the South Koreans will be getting an engine for their 5th generation project?


Japan and S.K are high cost. We are low cost


Both Japan and South Korea want to manufacture the aircraft at home not outsource production outside.

Samudragupta
BRFite
Posts: 625
Joined: 12 Nov 2010 23:49
Location: Some place in the sphere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Samudragupta » 02 Sep 2014 15:10

How about a joint effort with the Japs based upon their Mitsubishi ATDX

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9274
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 02 Sep 2014 15:44

There is a very small chance that such a venture may succeed. The roadblocks would be to get the Japanse side on board since they have been extremely secretive about the ATDX and their plans with this technology demonstrator. Secondly, they are ahead of the AMCA and actually have a tech bird that will be in the air soon. They have included a lot of "5th gen" information from Lockheed martin as part of the F-35 Ofsset deal and also have other long term threats they have to counter. For them partnering with HAL that is behind them in project maturity (HAL can best have a prototype up in the air by 2020) would be a tough sell. They are also going to try to get one foot in the door with the US project which incidentally has its AOA conclude around the same time the Japanese are slated to enter into the next phase of their NG fighter i.e. finish the ATDX and enter into development of a full scale aircraft.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 02 Sep 2014 17:33

japanese products have traditionally been unsustainably costly due to lack of exports. if indo-japan venture can add 300 to the order book, it would not harm them in any way.

same can said for cough cough the soryu.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 02 Sep 2014 18:07

If some of our scribes had asked the right questions perhaps we could have discussed some alternatives.

So, the original thought or proposal was for the AMCA to be FbL. IF that still stands, then there is not much collaboration one can think of.

So also what each participant would consider a viable RCS (as an example) and therefore the attendant technologies that need to be developed to support such expectations.

We have no clue what the Japanese expect out of their project, so how can we suggest some sort of a collaboration? We can perhaps suggest one with a totally different effort, other than a "AMCA". That could work.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9274
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 02 Sep 2014 22:02

The Japanese are on their way into 5th gen technologies with the scaled ATDX, beyond this they are still going to wait it out before making a call on what to do post this phase of the testing. They have a very clear relationship with the Pentagon and know what they will be getting (F-35 FACO) and what they are likely to get in the future. Based on all this they are going to decide before the end of the decade, whether to go all in and develop a new product for their next replacement cycle or try to join a US Next generation program while increasing the F-35 order to replacing yet more aging aircrafts in its inventory.

I do not see them collaborate with many players outside of the US companies and that too will be in specific areas. HAL has only just recently (like yesterday) been removed from the blacklist and they will not put a pause on the ATDX while they chart out a new strategy towards 5th generation for the future. As things stand they will begin assembly at their F-35 FACO around 2016-17 and Mitsubishi now has the government clearance to go out and start pitching for work for export customers (Things which they will be making in Japan for their own F-35's). The next generation program for the pentagon appears to be the FA-X which has its AOA conclude much before the Japanese decision timeline. If Japan decides to join into such a venture not only would the industrial base be large, but they would get a 6th generation aircraft around 2030-2035 which would only be 5-8 years later than what they could deliver with their own in house ATDX offshoots. If they decide to go all in, I expect a logical step for them to be to look for a consultant partner that has a boat load of 5th generation design experience and they will most likely choose out of the big 3 in the US to spread some of the design and execution risk out. Partnering with HAL makes little sense for them, and the opposite is also true. HAL would be better off partnering with a company like SAAB that has a lot of experience of creating a multi-role product and successfully executing cost and timelines in addition to internationally marketing it and being an integrator of systems sourced from various international providers (this of course assumes that HAL actually needs a partner in the first place).

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 02 Sep 2014 22:31

I do not see anyone agreeing to collaborate on the AMCA effort - too late for all that.

Perhaps on a totally different air craft, but not on the AMCA.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9274
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 02 Sep 2014 23:12

I don't think it has to be an aircraft as for that I see the Japanese armed forces looking towards the US since they will be important partners for it in the Pacific and the Peace eagle development will likely not be repeated (The Japanese F-15's and US F-15's could not share data). Where the Japanese have shown interest is in electronics and having their own systems and components being made available for export, be it incorporating their technology into the Patriot system or the Meteor missile seeker. Its early days for the Japanese arms industry as it opens up and ventures into partnerships and I expect them to start small.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 02 Sep 2014 23:13

NRao wrote:I do not see anyone agreeing to collaborate on the AMCA effort - too late for all that.

Perhaps on a totally different air craft, but not on the AMCA.

kahan se paisa?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 03 Sep 2014 00:08

SaiK wrote:
NRao wrote:I do not see anyone agreeing to collaborate on the AMCA effort - too late for all that.

Perhaps on a totally different air craft, but not on the AMCA.

kahan se paisa?


Thanks. At least a new plane and associated collab is not an issue.

Why that question? Indians should accommodate Indians while spending some $70 (and climbing) on foreign efforts. Is $70 billion a small amount? Cut the other two programs (not asking to kill them) and spread those funds across more efforts. India can no longer afford to neglect her own MIC - a *lot* of work is ahead.

Secondly, 75% of Indian economy is under ground - bring it up. India is not a poor nation, not by any stretch. Time to act - if you want to that is, else go back to sleep.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 03 Sep 2014 01:41

Going by "make in india" drive by the current gov, you can expect some vital movements for projects moving towards engaging India to create its own hub. However, when it comes to niche and defense technology, there are certain drivers that might fail that policy altogether how much ever red-carpet we have for firang gov controlled products and collaboration restrictions. even the best in the field have restrictions when it comes to ownership and IPRs. so, in the sense, there is only a very small window of opportunity when we are talking about joint IPR projects. Only countries that is also in similar boat (or willing to either shelve or partner with like minded country (perhaps Japan), might consider a deep drive technology agreement where IPR is shared in a manner acceptable to both countries.

We have not invested in AMCA technology, nor the design is frozen. The japanese one is like the LCA of 5th gen nature for japan. Both might have similar challenges where we can think about mergers, and joint program aspects.. again all depending on the project charter and how the japanese would like to view things. As Singha said, they put way too much money into unproven things.. their priorities, needs, risk agenda is different to ours. unless, both nations sees a common enemy, it is hard to get a common functionaly set as well.

still.. there may be sub component level participations.. especially japanese materials section for stealth. we still have lot of disconnects on the specifications. so,so much for it!

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Rien » 07 Sep 2014 18:57

brar_w wrote:What makes you think that they want to partner with HAL? What leads you to believe that the South Koreans and the Japanese will partner up with on a project (and share their aerospace IP with each other)? Finally, what lets you assume that all three air forces (JASDF, IAF, and ROKAF) have the same requirements for a 5th generation aircraft?


Japan and SK want a 5th gen fighter that can go toe to toe against the Chinese. So do we. Japan already has a great relationship with us. I refer you to Modi and Abe following each other on Twitter. A strong Nippon is bad for China, but great for us. Vice versa, a strong Bharat is already forcing China to tie down hundreds of thousands of troops on their border with us. That is great news for Japan. The stronger we are, the better it is for them.

The US-2 seaplane is part of the defence relationship we already have, Shinzo Abe is what leads me to think there is a glorious future. Far superior to any that could be obtained with the EU/US combo, for a start. Cost is a huge issue for 5th gen fighter projects. For Japan, and for South Korea, our participation would guarantee success in keeping costs down.Neither country could afford a JSF style disaster.


All three of us want to build an independent stealth fighter that is not reliant on the US, EU or Russia


brar_w wrote:South Korea and Japan have both asked for assistance from US OEM's on their designs for the next generation projects. The scope of the assistance currently stands at transfer of technical evaluations and transfer of tunnel and operational testing data but this could easily expand further depending upon the size and scope of the ambitions of these projects. Where do you think the South Koreans will be getting an engine for their 5th generation project?


I know Japan won't be getting an US engine. And South Korea has yet to decide whether it would prefer the EuroJet engine. You seem to be ignorant of history. Japan originally wanted the F-22, and was rejected. And South Korea is embarking on this program to get away from the US.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/busin ... d=all&_r=0

“They are frustrated with the restrictions and terms typically associated with U.S. defense imports, especially limitations on the transfer and resale of U.S. technologies,” Mr. Weitz said in a paper presented at the Korea Economic Institute, based in Washington, this month.

For many South Koreans, the KFX is an object of pride.

“We have been too dependent on the United States,” Mr. Cho said. “The top priority in the KFX program should be gaining independence in fighter jet technology from the United States.”



Japan and S.K are high cost. We are low cost

brar_w wrote:Both Japan and South Korea want to manufacture the aircraft at home not outsource production outside.


That's fairly weak. Neither Japan nor SK can afford to waste billions. Cost is our huge advantage, and their massive weakness. Both sides know this. Also, independence from the US is the primary objective. Bharat also doesn't want to rely on the US. We have a lot in common.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests