AMCA News and Discussions

astal · Post by **astal** » 19 Feb 2015 12:40

Austin, I don't think anyone is going to provide complete information on making jet engines no matter how much we are willing to pay. The only way to get our own engines is to stick with an indigenous program like Kaveri. Even AMCA may need a partially imported engine before India can get its gas turbine engines up to speed. I don't think we want to hold AMCA hostage to an Indian engine. Let the plane come first, the engine is going to take time. (These is no such thing as TOT. Only Transfer of Manufacturing with critical components imported. We have seen this even with the generous terms of the Su30 MKI and the T-90 barrel)

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 19 Feb 2015 13:01

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 10m10 minutes ago

AMCA deadline is 10 years from now. First flight in 2020. IOC by 2024.

I expect FOC to be by 2030 i.e 10 year from First flight to FOC.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Feb 2015 13:11

First flight in 2020? That's in 5 years' time..doesn't seem likely at all, considering that the PDP phase hasn't been completed as yet.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 19 Feb 2015 21:32

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 2m2 minutes ago Bengaluru, Karnataka

AMCA is doable in the stipulated time frame because the emphasis is on avionics, signature management and not on uber aerodynamics.

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 2m2 minutes ago Bengaluru, Karnataka

According to Dr Tamilmani the tech base for the AMCA pretty much exists in the country today. So there will be no repeat of Tejas delays.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Feb 2015 22:05

DRDO in talks with foreign cos for advanced fighter jet engine

AMCA would be a medium fifth-generation fighter aircraft, Tamilmani said, adding that the first four prototypes are expected in 2019

The basic design configuration has been frozen after wind- tunnel testing and there are three critical technologies to be developed -- stealth, thrust vectoring and super cruise, he said.

For thrust vectoring, DRDO is partnering with Russia, which is known for its capabilities on the Sukhoi aircraft, he said.

The senior DRDO official said that super cruise requires a high-capacity engine of 110KN and hence talks are on with international engine manufacturers like GE and others.

There are 90KN engines available in the market which can be upgraded and DRDO is likely to zero in on a partner within six months, he said.

Engine manufacturing is a specialised sector which only a handful of countries have mastered. Even the Tejas is powered by a GE engine.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 19 Feb 2015 22:19

Kartik wrote:First flight in 2020? That's in 5 years' time..doesn't seem likely at all, considering that the PDP phase hasn't been completed as yet.

Well, please take whatever Mr. Tamilmani says with bagful of salt. He has himself given multiple timelines for the project with a span of 12 months. it has gone from 2018 to 2020-21 and 2019 and now back to 2020.

Considering that they're yet to even finalize the vendor, all these timelines are only for PPTgiri!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Feb 2015 23:11

I wish these guys realize the damage they are doing to their own objectives when they give out such unrealistic timelines. They have not even been fully funded yet and are busy declaring timelines. Now every year a new timeline will come, further damaging their own claims.
Best they give an realistic timeline, and stick to that, instead of giving over optimistic ones, not meeting those and making themselves an easy target.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 19 Feb 2015 23:19

brar_w wrote:^^ “We have asked for their proposals [and will go ahead with] whoever has a better offer, time frame and cost," he said. The goal is to integrate the new engine into the aircraft by 2020-21.

Thats less than 5 years for development and testing to when it should fly assuming they firm something up in the next 12 months or so. It would have to be based on existing engine families and they would have to look at relatively low hanging fruit to get the performance since there isn't a whole lot of time there to develop something and then extensively test and certify it before it could fly by 2020-21.

As far as GE is concerned they have had plans to boost the thrust to 120KN (26+K lb) but they obviously need a customer or customers to fund this as I doubt that the USN would come good on their promise to fund some of this around FY2017

http://www.geaviation.com/engines/docs/ ... hanced.pdf

You know that we/DRDO have this fetish for 'best of breed' right? High T/W from US, thrust vectoring from Russia and super cruise from RR etc. Add to this the 'MKI' factor and you're looking at 10 years and a gazillion dollars by which time we can begin the 6th generation fighter project study and negotiations with vendors.

Normal companies driven by the fear of cash flow would pick a freaking engine, build the airframe around it and iterate (Block 1 to Block n).

Watching the moves on the AMCA gives me the feeling I'm still in the Groundhog day movie.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 19 Feb 2015 23:24

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 29m29 minutes ago Bengaluru, Karnataka

GE may be getting ready to set up an engine manufacturing facility at its existing Pune facility. TOT is likely.

* The aggressive timelines for the AMCA are on account of relaxed requirements on the aerodynamic side. HAL will be the lead integrator.
* A modularized approach for the AMCA is also being pursued. Will write an article on that later.
* As per the MMRCA RFP, while HAL will manufacture the airframe, be lead integrator, provide system check out and delivery.
* The foreign OEM can nominate other Indian production agencies for aggregates.
* AMCA prototypes are likely to fly with the F-414 only.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Feb 2015 23:49

What relaxed requirements saar.. I would like to see those.. they are still talking of TVC etc on the AMCA. Doesn't sound too relaxed to me.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 20 Feb 2015 00:01

He did mention that he will provide a writeup sometime later. Lets see. My own sense is that we will not see it in service before 2030.

One things that might help is if the Rafale module suppliers are roped in for similar work on the AMCA right at the outset. That should help with the timelines, quality and ramp-up when moving from development to production. This is were the Rafale TOT/Production tech. will truly come into play.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Feb 2015 00:42

If the TV requirement survives through the various design phases ( TVC is not an absolute must for high end maneuverability requirements as was evident from the YF-22 and YF23), i expect from a delivery perspective it would be a relatively moderate risk solution if GE is chosen. They have worked on and off on that for well over a decade and have even offered it for export with this particular engine family in the past. The only challenge that would/could consume time would be incorporating it into the FCS and actually testing the TV equipped F414 derivative. Going in for a proven engine family (regardless of whether that is GE's or any other OEM's solution) is a huge de-risking effort and should cut some serious time in the testing phase of the program.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Feb 2015 07:41

I guess any proj manager with a clue would seriously avoid TVC at this stage(not to speak of integrating russian TVC with a american engine given the state of relations between the two def-ind complexes even in pre-ukraine times). it may not be even needed given the wide azimuths of weapons, radars and the long range MAWS/defensive aids solns now coming online enabling earlier defensive actions.

while avionics and even the engine can keep on changing or gaps filled in, the airframe design is more or less fixed and gates the potential performance ... so they better come up with a good airframe asap and make it fly to stand any chance of first flight in 2020, IOC by 2025 and FOC by 2028. a new airframe, a new FCS is no joke for anyone. the J20 and J31 should both be getting IOC around 2018 and FOC perhaps by 2020. so we are already 10 yrs behind

hopefully they will avoid the 'smallest n lightest' fetish

the Tejas could have been 1m longer _today_ and have much better internal fuel and room for avionics extras than having unsightly bulges and tumours on its body even before FOC. these bulges are usually seen in 2nd half of a airframes lifetime as the F-16 started these after around Block40...so the A4 Skyhawk also gained a hump. the F-15 still looks very clean with CFTs. size matters, respect size.

the EF is a better airframe overall than the F18. its only the $$ that US has thrown at it that makes the F18 a much better rounded platform at the current day and the EF is dying on the vine due to lack of funding for upgrades and orders.

there is no prize for a 'best of breed' soln that is 15 yrs late. its the whole 'scientist' vs 'product engr' thing. open ended science projects have their place in futuristic tech development like say a OTH radars but not when we need a product and are 10 yrs behind our next door rivals

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Feb 2015 07:52

Singha wrote:I guess any proj manager with a clue would seriously avoid TVC at this stage(not to speak of integrating russian TVC with a american engine given the state of relations between the two def-ind complexes even in pre-ukraine times). it may not be even needed given the wide azimuths of weapons, radars and the long range MAWS/defensive aids solns now coming online enabling earlier defensive actions.

while avionics and even the engine can keep on changing or gaps filled in, the airframe design is more or less fixed and gates the potential performance ... so they better come up with a good airframe asap and make it fly to stand any chance of first flight in 2020, IOC by 2025 and FOC by 2028. a new airframe, a new FCS is no joke for anyone. the J20 and J31 should both be getting IOC around 2018 and FOC perhaps by 2020. so we are already 10 yrs behind

hopefully they will avoid the 'smallest n lightest' fetish the Tejas could have been 1m longer _today_ and have much better internal fuel and room for avionics extras than having unsightly bulges and tumours on its body even before FOC. these bulges are usually seen in 2nd half of a airframes lifetime as the F-16 started these after around Block40...so the A4 Skyhawk also gained a hump. the F-15 still looks very clean with CFTs. size matters, respect size.

the EF is a better airframe overall than the F18. its only the $$ that US has thrown at it that makes the F18 a much better rounded platform at the current day and the EF is dying on the vine due to lack of funding for upgrades and orders.

there is no prize for a 'best of breed' soln that is 15 yrs late.

There is no need to seek to marry a Russian TV solution to a GE engine. GE offered SAAB/VOLVO a scaled version of their Axisymmetric Vectoring Exhaust Nozzle more than a decade ago. Given the nozzle was thoroughly tested on the F110 20+ years ago it should be a relatively low-risk development and testing program for the 404/414 family as long as someone is interested and willing to pay for it. The challenging bit would be to do it quickly and then to integrated it with the FCS. Those things may be time-consuming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt3neRLquDI

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Feb 2015 08:01

yes the task of testing the FCS on the basic new airframe alone is huge. TVC just complicates it. it is best left for tranche2 once the FCS team has done the work for IOC and become free...things like high AOA and G-limits are probably far more important.

I get your point about the 'no need' , but they might just go the other way and seek a customized TVC from russia for GE414 claiming that is more proven in service

I can see GE and Saturn engineers all happy and backslapping basis in some JV here

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Feb 2015 08:06

Singha wrote:yes the task of testing the FCS on the basic new airframe alone is huge. TVC just complicates it. it is best left for tranche2 once the FCS team has done the work for IOC and become free...things like high AOA and G-limits are probably far more important.

Yes, The YF-22 and YF 23 both managed to meet ATF requirements without the need for TVC. In fact the internal lockheed joke about TV was that thrust vectoring couldn't manage the trust vectoring with the program management. Therefore Lockheed designed the control surfaces of the YF-22 (and subsequently the F-22) as such that the ATF KPP's for all major criteria could be met without the use of TVC (at the expense of design weight). The F-35 meets it high AOA limit (50 degrees) without thrust vectoring as well. If super-maneuverability (first define that in terms of hard numbers at payload/altitude/fuel state etc) is a requirement then there are multiple ways to skin that cat.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Feb 2015 08:33

More in detail later,but from reading lines,between lines of those involved with the prog.,first prototypes will arrive only around 2020 and after a few years of testing say around 2025 will prod. begin.The search is on for the engine.The EJ crew are pushing their engine,and given the LCA underpowered MK-1,designers are wary of selecting an engine that does not have sufficient reserve power in case of weight issues. AMCA is not going to derail the FGFA prog.,where the GOI wants the aircraft inducted faster,around 2020. How we are going to afford the Rafale (the air chief said today that the SU-30 cannot be a replacement for the Rafale,"both are needed"),with deep upgrades of all the MKIs in service (200+),making them BMos capable,AESA radar (?),etc.,and two 5th-gen programmes is anyone's guess.The % of the budget earmarked for defence has to substantially go up for the same.It cannot hover between 1.5- 2%.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Feb 2015 09:43

I think its about time we also started work in parallel to AMCA on a LR stealth bomber of say the size of RAF Vulcan ... if we dont start it now, it will never happen. it will probably have to be a delta or flying wing design and hence different from amca. it should have a rotary bomb bay with a multi purpose launcher capable of handling n types of weapons, similar to a B1 (which has 2 bays).
here we see 5 different weapons inside the B1 http://media.dma.mil/2011/Apr/11/200026 ... 16-103.JPG

way things are shaping up we need a cruise missile / standoff weapon high subsonic VLO delivery truck ... cheen already is producing as many H6 as they need and the J20 is being pushed along...perhaps other classified projects also.

else the PAKDA is going to cost us heavy , not meet all our needs and do nothing for domestic industry...in 2030.

the UCAV india is working on would barely deliver 2-4 heavy weapons from internal store, a purely tactical in-and-out mission.

member_28640 · Post by **member_28640** » 20 Feb 2015 14:03

pankajs wrote:
Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 2m2 minutes ago Bengaluru, Karnataka

AMCA is doable in the stipulated time frame because the emphasis is on avionics, signature management and not on uber aerodynamics.
Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 2m2 minutes ago Bengaluru, Karnataka

According to Dr Tamilmani the tech base for the AMCA pretty much exists in the country today. So there will be no repeat of Tejas delays.

First Tweet: If so LRDE should be given Staff Requirements from the IAF for a follow on for the Uttam that has LPI and better range and greater processing power, Since it is being considered as a Jaguar Replacement it should have high internal payload, Automatic Terrain following mode, Nap of the earth flight configuration, (and probably to give me a wet dream hyperspectral sensors

) T-50 esque moulded antennas built into the body with T/R modules. If work on identifying all this hasnt yet started the AMCA is behind schedule.

Second Tweet: FCS laws stipulation is going to be a headache for a non-convetional flying shape like the AMCA, hope the good doctor knows what he is talking about, till i get my info I take these words , as rohitvats says, with a large spoon of salt

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 20 Feb 2015 14:57

A few additional observations on AMCA ...

* AMCA starts with a lot of facilities that were built up during the LCA's struggles. To that extent AMCA starts on a much better footing.
* A lot of tech. had to be developed for the first time for LCA and that too without any research/tech. base. AMCA has these research/tech./project/products to start with as base.
* Same with all the CFD models that have been built and fine tuned during the development of LCA will help crunch time.
* Same with flight control laws. What was the base when LCA started? The team will start on AMCA with one successful iteration behind. That to me is quite a qualitative difference.

Plus the engine for the prototype/development is decided and the vendor/supplier base is already in place. If the models/research/tech./project/products are not directly applicable the experience in researching/building/making the models/research/tech./project/products will speed up development.

If the project management lessons have been learnt we might just get AMCA into service in 15 years i.e 2030. It will also require a lot of co-ordination between ADA/HAL/IAF and backing by the central government and adequate funding. Looks daunting but I am optimistic.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Feb 2015 15:00

AMCA is a many levels beyond the LCA. so you can imagine the US with its F-16/F-15 exp still had to slog like hell and pull its pants up for the F-22/JSF/F117/B2

sooraj · Post by **sooraj** » 20 Feb 2015 18:46

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 20 Feb 2015 19:41

Extensive watermarking has ruined it.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 20 Feb 2015 19:43

sooraj wrote:

Aah, fatback design, they will point the engines upwards to prevent reflecting radar through the inlets AND create enough room in the underbelly for internal weapons storage. Smart.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 20 Feb 2015 20:06

@Singha ^^^: "hopefully they will avoid the 'smallest n lightest' fetish

the Tejas could have been 1m longer _today_ and have much better internal fuel and room for avionics extras than having unsightly bulges and tumours on its body even before FOC."

Amen. This whole lightest/smallest is leftover from the Folland Gnat mindset. I read somewhere that LCA MK2 has only 45% commonality with MK1—this just to make it suitable for the 414 plus perhaps the NLCA. That means 55% is for a new plane. Hopefully some of that 55% helps with the AMCA.

Here's a thought. If the AMCA is going to get FOC in 2030, maybe what ought to do is continue to iterate the MK2 into a twin engine with Silent Eagle/Hornet 'stealth' mods. IOW, stretch the platform incrementally much like car manufacturers do. In 15 years, when can have three iterations beyond MK2 with the final one at least fully networkable with the AMCA and with a 45% commonality.

But wait that makes too much sense,

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Feb 2015 20:35

^^ This is easier said then done. Such an extensive modification (such as going form a single engine to a twin) has design and ultimately testing implications that would be very similar to a clean sheet design. Its better to just stick with he AMCA as the twin and keep the LCA Mk1 and 2 as is. Both the Silent Eagle and Advanced Hornet had incremental modifications that required minimum recertification ( the SE a bit more but the Saudi Arabian FBW cert took care of most of the time-consuming testing) and extensive testing. That would not be the case when you seek to radically change the LCA from what it is.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 20 Feb 2015 22:22

^^^ It's over 15 years. Also, if the MK2 only has 45% commonality with Mk1, then Mk2 is half a clean sheet. Iterating the LCA over 15 years into a twin (or even highly capable single engined) is going to be a lot easier than an AMCA which will seek to integrate a lot of bleeding edge stuff.

It's also insurance. If AMCA is 5 years overdue, you will at least have some modern fighters to turn to.

arijitkm · Post by **arijitkm** » 20 Feb 2015 22:25

NRao wrote:DRDO in talks with foreign cos for advanced fighter jet engine

......

The project, which is for a single-engine, twin-seater aircraft, is on track and the design configuration has been frozen, K Tamilmani, Chief Controller R&D (Aero) of DRDO, said here on the sidelines of the Aero India air show.
.......

^^^ DDM or typo mistake !!!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Feb 2015 23:04

From that picture the AMCA seems to have grown some and the diamond shape is even more pronounced!!!!! -23ji

Nice. All it needs is a Pelikan tail.

Shame that a better picture could not have been take.

On 2020 and such dates, I am hopeful. Seems to me that they are not trying to hit a sixer. A quality run or two would do.

They have been at it since late 90s - with hidden funds, meager as they may be. So, they should have the fundas in place.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Feb 2015 23:13

poor audio sourced by aroor saab, perhaps a better version one can source from drdo.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Mar 2015 08:18

Subscription:

Design Of India’s AMCA Fighter Fixed, Budget Next

India is lining up three aircraft to replace its aging fighter fleet in the next decade. One is Russian, one is French and one, the Defense Ministry’s technologists hope, will be Indian. The designers have now frozen the configuration of a proposed medium-weight Indian fighter that they expect to fly early in the 2020s. General Electric is the preferred supplier of propulsion for the twin-engine, stealthy Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), but the defense organization that is ...

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 01 Mar 2015 09:48

If India budgeted Rs 500-600 crores for LCA in 1979- 1983, then comparing the GDP we should budget Rs 20,000 to 30,000 cores for first phase of AMCA.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Mar 2015 00:47

Rolls-Royce to offer Eurojet EJ200 engine to power India’s AMCA

KumarA · Post by **KumarA** » 03 Mar 2015 12:20

Indian government is ready to allot USD $3 billion for Rafale as the "signing amount" this year if the deal materialises. It will spend 25-30 billion over next decade on this aircraft purchase. But, a one time sanction of USD $2 billion for AMCA and USD $1 billion to GTRE for its engine, seems unimaginable. Somehow, the understanding is that Indian Air force should get the best planes but they should not be developed in India, only imported ones are allowed at humungous cost. Indian aircraft designers should design their aircraft on empty stomach !!!

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 03 Mar 2015 14:02

KumarA wrote:Indian government is ready to allot USD $3 billion for Rafale as the "signing amount" this year if the deal materialises. It will spend 25-30 billion over next decade on this aircraft purchase. But, a one time sanction of USD $2 billion for AMCA and USD $1 billion to GTRE for its engine, seems unimaginable. Somehow, the understanding is that Indian Air force should get the best planes but they should not be developed in India, only imported ones are allowed at humungous cost. Indian aircraft designers should design their aircraft on empty stomach !!!

And, your point being? What do you propose is good solution?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 03 Mar 2015 15:00

Kumar, please read a bit on the funding provided for the AMCA. For a project that is still essentially on the drawing board. The level of funding is sufficient for the moment.

It is important to understand that R&D projects are not just a function of money. They are primary a function of Human resources and lab capacity. If your labs have the capacity to conduct x number of projects / activities. Throwing more money at them is not suddenly going to increase your bandwidth to conduct y number of projects / activities. Primarily because of a lack of trained man power.

We are in this position today not because of the absence of money. But because of our lack of willingness to build a domestic design capacity in the 50s,60s, 70s & 80s.

The LCA built up the capacity to do things in the country. The AMCA is the followup stage to it.

Money is not and was never a problem.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Mar 2015 09:43

If you read the good Prof.Pradyut Das in the latest VAYU ,with a large feature on the LCA,a candid examination of it in comparison with other aircraft,stats,tables,wing shape/design,weight,etc. explained in layman's langauage,he says that the LCA MK-1 is not "15%" better than the MIG-21 (I presume he is talking about the Bison),the incremental fig. expected of a new aircraft of capability from its predecessor. It does have its good points too and should be built in large number ideal for supporting ground troops,etc.,says he,the task that the IAF is most called upon to deliver. The excessive weight factor is the primary problem with the LCA,other than design tweaking of the wing to improve performance. Interestingly,he gives the weight factor for earlier legacy aircraft and finds that even with composites,the MK-1 is obese. Accrding to the good Prof.,because the Mk-1 is inferior to a MIG-21 the IAF is reluctant to acquire more of the same,wanting an improved bird.

Therefore if even the Mk-2 will give us only a limited capability "X" times of improvement over the MK-1,I don't see why the AMCA programme is not accelerated. With the MK-2 expected to fly "latter half of 2018" ,according to its project director in another aero-show report,a lengthened fuselage,reducing 500kg,other design modifications,etc. will take another few years of flight testing before it enters series production. At this pace there is simply no way that the LCAs MK-1 and 2 will make any major contribution to the IAF's future challenges.They may be too little and of lesser capability than other modern and newer designs which will arrive by 2015. Therefore leveraging the tech developed for the LCA thus far,composites,AESA radar dev.,avionics and some indigenous weaponry,and if the AMCA programme is started later this year,certainly by 2020 prototypes could fly and with another 5 years of testing,by 2015 hopefully production could begin. The T-50/FGFA is to enter service with Russia the latest by 2016 and if that deal is signed on in full the IAF could also get its first sqd. by 2019-2020. The GOI/MOD should weigh in the balance pursuing the Mk-2 which even when perfected will bring with it an inferior performance to other contemporary aircraft and certainly the AMCA. If the AMCA programme is to start only after the MK-2 arrives,then we are looking at 2030+!

By then the skies would've been filled with a new generation of UCAVs that would be challenging development of manned combat aircraft. The news that we are acquiring 50 UAVs/UCAVs shows where our thinking is also heading.

What are our thoughts on the issue?

member_28640 · Post by **member_28640** » 04 Mar 2015 10:46

Philip wrote:If you read the good Prof.Pradyut Das in the latest VAYU ,with a large feature on the LCA,a candid examination of it in comparison with other aircraft,stats,tables,wing shape/design,weight,etc. explained in layman's langauage,he says that the LCA MK-1 is not "15%" better than the MIG-21 (I presume he is talking about the Bison),the incremental fig. expected of a new aircraft of capability from its predecessor. It does have its good points too and should be built in large number ideal for supporting ground troops,etc.,says he,the task that the IAF is most called upon to deliver. The excessive weight factor is the primary problem with the LCA,other than design tweaking of the wing to improve performance. Interestingly,he gives the weight factor for earlier legacy aircraft and finds that even with composites,the MK-1 is obese. Accrding to the good Prof.,because the Mk-1 is inferior to a MIG-21 the IAF is reluctant to acquire more of the same,wanting an improved bird.

Therefore if even the Mk-2 will give us only a limited capability "X" times of improvement over the MK-1,I don't see why the AMCA programme is not accelerated. With the MK-2 expected to fly "latter half of 2018" ,according to its project director in another aero-show report,a lengthened fuselage,reducing 500kg,other design modifications,etc. will take another few years of flight testing before it enters series production. At this pace there is simply no way that the LCAs MK-1 and 2 will make any major contribution to the IAF's future challenges.They may be too little and of lesser capability than other modern and newer designs which will arrive by 2015. Therefore leveraging the tech developed for the LCA thus far,composites,AESA radar dev.,avionics and some indigenous weaponry,and if the AMCA programme is started later this year,certainly by 2020 prototypes could fly and with another 5 years of testing,by 2015 hopefully production could begin. The T-50/FGFA is to enter service with Russia the latest by 2016 and if that deal is signed on in full the IAF could also get its first sqd. by 2019-2020. The GOI/MOD should weigh in the balance pursuing the Mk-2 which even when perfected will bring with it an inferior performance to other contemporary aircraft and certainly the AMCA. If the AMCA programme is to start only after the MK-2 arrives,then we are looking at 2030+!

By then the skies would've been filled with a new generation of UCAVs that would be challenging development of manned combat aircraft. The news that we are acquiring 50 UAVs/UCAVs shows where our thinking is also heading.

What are our thoughts on the issue?

<OT>Is it possible to put a metric on operation efficacy of an airplane? probably the good professor was referring to some aerodynamic metrics.The Tejas can engage BVR targets has more intrinsic attack and defend modes and was built from ground up to face more complex challenges than the MiG-21.. In most respects its a quantum leap from the venerable Mig<\OT>
The AMCA is a different beast all together.. Many process accelerators (Like HAL's composite design software) were developed during the R&D phase of the tejas, many aerodynamic dead ends were discovered, and as Raveen pointed out in a post above (fat back design) ADA is leveraging its experience as well as its manpower for the AMCA. This would reduce development lifecycle for the AMCA, but not its testing lifecycle. So I would see it safe to stick to the timelines provided by SJha and sadly that about late 2020's

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 Mar 2015 17:27

Considerable test points are added due to Low observability, Internal weapons bays, sensor-fusion and advanced communication suites. The F-18E/F had about 35K test points, the F-22 around 46K and the F-35 has 56+K test points.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Mar 2015 17:42

So I would see it safe to stick to the timelines provided by SJha and sadly that about late 2020's

IMO, two factors will help out this project: Funds (that stuff?) and the support from the user, especially very, very early support. The IAF can force a timeline. IF they are early adopters then the tipping point of the AMCA will come earlier. Else it could be a very long wait (for us).