AMCA News and Discussions

Locked
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

Reading in between the lines (from those tweets), the new engine, for the AMCA seems to be ahead of schedule.

Prototypes can operate with the base GE F414 INS6.

The enhanced engine is derived from the INS6 and expected to deal with any excess weight - that was THE reason for the uprating.



First time hearing AMCA will not supercruise - though not sure what he means!!! Is it still part of the design, but will not for some reason or have they removed that element from the design.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by JayS »

NRao wrote:Reading in between the lines (from those tweets), the new engine, for the AMCA seems to be ahead of schedule.

Prototypes can operate with the base GE F414 INS6.

The enhanced engine is derived from the INS6 and expected to deal with any excess weight - that was THE reason for the uprating.



First time hearing AMCA will not supercruise - though not sure what he means!!! Is it still part of the design, but will not for some reason or have they removed that element from the design.
AMCA has dropped the requirement of super cruise for quite some time now. I remember to have read about it like a year ago or two. If it does, its good, but it will not be held back for that (hopefully).
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20772
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

where, supercruise AFAIK is still very much part of the requirements
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

This is good article to set base expectations (IMHO of course):

AWST :: Feb 23, 2017 :: India’s AMCA Fighter Targets Mid-2020s First Flight

Not too old or young enough. {The numbering is mine.}
(1)Preliminary design of India’s proposed Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) will begin in March, with a target of flying the aircraft in 2024 and making it ready for service as early as 2030.

As the defense ministry’s Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) (2)awaits approval for full-scale development, an upgraded version of the General Electric F414 has become the likely engine for the twin-engine indigenous fighter.

“We have completed the configurations and the feasibility study, and proposed users are happy with them,” says an official involved in the project at ADA. The agency, part of the ministry’s Defense Research and Development Organization, has until now been working on concept design of the AMCA, presented in the form of a model in 2015, by which time the general configuration was frozen.

The decision on whether to launch the program is with the office of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a defense ministry official says. Saab and Boeing have expressed interest in helping with development. The ADA official says preliminary design will begin in March.

ADA is allowing at least six years between flight testing and entry into service, in part because of its experience in developing the Tejas light fighter, which needed 14 years of flight testing. Experience in verifying Tejas systems will support the shorter period for the AMCA, the ADA official says.

But the schedule is elastic. Although the official says the fighter will fly in seven years and be ready as early as 2030, the clock cannot start running until the government approves program launch. Another program source points out that the duration of flight testing is hard to predict. Further, ADA has shown a timeline that envisions a first flight in 2025 and serial production from 2036. The Lockheed Martin F-35A needed nine years of flight testing before it became initially operational.

The engine will be chosen soon, the ADA official says, giving no specific date. The choices are the Eurojet EJ200 of the Eurofighter Typhoon, Safran M88 of the Dassault Rafale, and the GE F414, used in the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, KF-X, Saab JAS 39E/F Gripen and the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) Tejas Mk. 2.

ADA sees advantages in choosing the F414, the official says, without elaborating. Two are obvious: experience working with GE in the Tejas program and the F414’s thrust.

(3)ADA says the AMCA needs an engine of 110 kN (24,700 lb.), well above the ratings of the EJ200 and M88. The F414-404, installed in the Super Hornet, generates 22,000 lb. of thrust, but GE is offering an enhanced F414 that it says is in the 26,000-lb. class {That should be around 115 kN that Jha mentions. NOTE: "GE is offering"}. GE also has remarkably rich experience in integrating the F414 and its predecessor, the F404, in different airframes.

Like most modern fighters, the AMCA will be a multi-role aircraft. Although it will be shaped for stealth, a non-stealthy version has also been planned. Features will include a weapons bay, serpentine engine intakes, thrust vectoring, modular avionics, integrated aircraft health management, and a radar with an active electronically scanning array using gallium-nitride technology. (4)The aircraft is intended to fly supersonically without afterburning. {I find it hard to believe that they have left super cruise off the table. The AMCA was expected to do well with a 98 kN engine}

ADA proposes that AMCA will replace the Mirage 2000 fighter and Jaguar strike aircraft in Indian air force service. (5)A carrier-borne version is also proposed. (6)AMCA design work began informally in 2008 and became official in 2011.

The configuration has features that have become familiar on stealth fighters: apart from the weapon bay, these features (7)include fuselage faceting {hmmmm..... computed, ground-up stealth? If so, *very, very* impressive}, canted twin tail fins, edge alignment, and a forward-swept trailing edge of the main plane.

`“Everyone’s stealth fighter looks the same {IF one is computed, then they should be fairly similar, else by shear copying they will be similar},” says an engineer who is in charge of designing another.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by JayS »

I don't remember where exactly I read about it, but here is one reference. I am not sure if the finalised PSQR has included Super cruise or IAF agreed to ADA's proposal, or whether AMCA will be doing limited super cruise with 98kN engine in initial dev stage and with final 110kN it will be able to have true super cruise capability. ADA annual report doesn't say anything.

From 2015 by Sjha

https://swarajyamag.com/economy/indias- ... from-past/
For the AMCA, ADA is proposing a sustained speed of Mach 1.2 while using minimum after burner and expects that this would lead to a detection penalty of 5-7 km as compared to true supercruise.
Sjha reiterated the same thing a couple of days ago on Twitter - AMCA will not be able to supercruise with 110kN class engine.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Austin »

Even if they use minimum AB ( not sure of the throttle setting has multiple AB setting ) they would consume fuel much faster , Better to be subsonic and use AB only when entering combat.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by JayS »

Austin wrote:Even if they use minimum AB ( not sure of the throttle setting has multiple AB setting ) they would consume fuel much faster , Better to be subsonic and use AB only when entering combat.
Older engines would have 3-4 separate fuel lines and thus 3-4 discrete steps of AB depending on how many lines are open. With FADEC now I think they can do a continuous variation for recent engines.

It would be wise to keep it as a 'good to have' option but given very limited options of engines available and considering the future growth, it may not be a practical to keep super-cruise as a hard requirement. Say 110kN is bare min requirement for true supercruise, and we opt for F414 EE, there is no more growth margin remaining for the EE version beyond that. Unless of coarse we pay GE a few billion dollars to come up with CMC bases version (which is a long shot). There is no other engine currently available in this class. (Future for EF200 is blurry). And we don't know how Kaveri will pan out, unless GOI puts truckload of money in it. Its upto the IAF to decide whether they really need supercruise or not. And then evaluate it against the realistic possibility of getting it.

We do not know all the variables in the equation so this is all guesstimate only.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

Austin wrote:Even if they use minimum AB ( not sure of the throttle setting has multiple AB setting ) they would consume fuel much faster , Better to be subsonic and use AB only when entering combat.
Unable to find the quote, but around 2008ish IAF stated just that, but with a tweak. They said (actually one person) they wanted super cruise just for ingress and egress into combat situations.

Also, a very recent comment on the FGFA situation, an IAF person stated that India should at the very least get super cruise and stealth knowhow from the Russians. Will find and post this comment.

So, I doubt that SC is off the table for the AMCA. They probably are unable to resolve problem/s so have shelved it for the time being.

Also , not being highly technical in such matters, the engine being requested, for the AMCA, should be 80 kN dry and 110 kN wet (INS6 numbers: 68/98). So, for super cruise would it not be the dry number that counts?
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by JayS »

NRao wrote:
Austin wrote:Even if they use minimum AB ( not sure of the throttle setting has multiple AB setting ) they would consume fuel much faster , Better to be subsonic and use AB only when entering combat.
Unable to find the quote, but around 2008ish IAF stated just that, but with a tweak. They said (actually one person) they wanted super cruise just for ingress and egress into combat situations.

Also, a very recent comment on the FGFA situation, an IAF person stated that India should at the very least get super cruise and stealth knowhow from the Russians. Will find and post this comment.

So, I doubt that SC is off the table for the AMCA. They probably are unable to resolve problem/s so have shelved it for the time being.

Also , not being highly technical in such matters, the engine being requested, for the AMCA, should be 80 kN dry and 110 kN wet (INS6 numbers: 68/98). So, for super cruise would it not be the dry number that counts?
What else Supercruise is useful for..? :-?
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by JayS »

NRao wrote: Also , not being highly technical in such matters, the engine being requested, for the AMCA, should be 80 kN dry and 110 kN wet (INS6 numbers: 68/98). So, for super cruise would it not be the dry number that counts?
It must be 58/98 for F414.

There is no engine which can give 80/110kN thrust ratings. This ratio is way more than even what F119 can give. One needs to have very less By-pass ratio to get high dry thrust. And it penalises the fuel consumption across the board, while you get advantage in ingress/egress. So its a balance. Else everyone would have simply used powerful Turbojets instead of Turbofans and made almost any fighter supercruise.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by shiv »

the F-414 has been down selected for AMCA. That is the best news I have heard for AMCA. I had lost hope
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1769
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Khalsa »

shiv wrote:the F-414 has been down selected for AMCA. That is the best news I have heard for AMCA. I had lost hope
Saar

tell me more, you are elated because they were selecting a different engine or no engine had been selected and we were dragging our feet.
Any source ? clicky ?

Good Boost to the programme BTW (F-414)
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by shiv »

Khalsa wrote:
shiv wrote:the F-414 has been down selected for AMCA. That is the best news I have heard for AMCA. I had lost hope
Saar

tell me more, you are elated because they were selecting a different engine or no engine had been selected and we were dragging our feet.
Any source ? clicky ?

Good Boost to the programme BTW (F-414)
I thought that no engine had been selected. Which means that the program itself would be running on djinn power.
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1769
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Khalsa »

ah ... understood.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

JayS wrote:
NRao wrote:
Unable to find the quote, but around 2008ish IAF stated just that, but with a tweak. They said (actually one person) they wanted super cruise just for ingress and egress into combat situations.

Also, a very recent comment on the FGFA situation, an IAF person stated that India should at the very least get super cruise and stealth knowhow from the Russians. Will find and post this comment.

So, I doubt that SC is off the table for the AMCA. They probably are unable to resolve problem/s so have shelved it for the time being.

Also , not being highly technical in such matters, the engine being requested, for the AMCA, should be 80 kN dry and 110 kN wet (INS6 numbers: 68/98). So, for super cruise would it not be the dry number that counts?
What else Supercruise is useful for..? :-?
IIRC the IAF was expecting to use it in very short distances. So, unlike a F-22 which (I think) can go for 200 miles (or so) in SC, the IAF was expecting the AMCA to do it in 40 miles or so. Ratio and not teh raw numbers is the focus.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

LCA-AF Mk.2 Can Still Become A Reality. Here's How

First time seeing an Indian open source (OS) with AMCA -> F414-INS6 link.
Interestingly, the IAF has mandated that IF the fifth-generation AMCA is to be indigenously developed by ADA, then use must be made of F414-GE-INS6 turbofans for that portion of the flight-test regime that is dedicated to the optimisation of the medium-weight AMCA’s airframe (the Su-57 FGFA on the other hand is a heavyweight fifth-generation MRCA), flight-control logic and the digital fly-by-wire flight control system.
A Mark Pearson (GE) presentation, during AI17, had one slide that connects the two - which was the first ref I came across.
Last edited by NRao on 16 Aug 2017 06:24, edited 1 time in total.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

You aren't going to be truly cruising (mig-25/31, Sr-71 type) at high speed with these aircraft. F-22's KPP required 100 nm ingress (super cruise) and a 100nm egress. Sure it could do more..but if you are going supersonic, even on max military power you are still using up significant amount of fuel and your overall radius shrinks. So you mix it up..XXX nm total radius with YYY of that supersonic.

If one were to just measure the supersonic range of the F-22 it will be greater than 200nm but that is not how services frame requirements..They require a mission radius based on mission profiles (fuel state, fuel reserve, weapons carriage, time on station /combat etc) and hold the program accountable to it. A 100 nm supercruise at engerds and another 100 nm at egress roughly amounts to a total of 18 minutes at mach 1 or even less at the F-22's maximum demonstrated super cruise speed. Of course in an actual conflict it will be used in largely an offensive mission and will jettison tanks and take a sip before entering a threat environment. The only reason to demand supersonic performance outside of the threat area is if you are requiring higher sortie generation rates and are fighting at great distances..
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

which makes sense. I have not been able to find that article yet. IAF *was not* (in 2008ish) expecting to use SC to fight "at greater distances". Which also may explain why they propose to use some AB. SC - for the IAF - may not be a must feature. But, I doubt that they have agreed to take it off the table either.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

X-posting from intl airspace dhaaga

U.S. Air Force Cadets 'Invented' a Stealth Fighter

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... hter-22281
Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Gaur »

^^
Impressive! Encouraging such R&D projects in IAF & IA would, at the very least, go a long way in minimizing mental disconnect between Armed Forces and DRDO,HAL etc. IMVHO, half the problems in most indigenous programs is because of this disconnect.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Philip »

I have been saying this from the yr. 2000,that the GOI must establish a new aero-engine development centre and dump/absorb the GTRE.We are still stuck wiothout our Kaveri engine,meant to have powered the LCA two decades on,and not even the maritime version or UCAV version have materialised during the last 20 yrs!This is a ridiculous situ which must be rectified asap.Look at China,where it was 20 yrs. ago and now,where it has developed by hook and by crook,a variety of aero-engines,large transports,large helos,stealth fighters,etc.,etc. It has left us behind in style.

This centre must be one where the entire range of aero-engines for fxd. and rotary wing aircraft are designed and developed.,right from turbo-props to jets.Assistance can be obtained from any source,both east and west.Allied to this centre must be one for development of mettalurgy .Whether Midhani has the req. facilities for bleedin' edge R&D apart from production is the Q.Anyway,whatever the centre requires,should be provided.The goal should be to within 25 yrs. to be totally self-reliant.The major engine OEMs will be most cagy about giving us advanced tech,but even if they provide us with a major leg up,it will be a start.

The LCA has suffered the same fate as the HF-24,requiring a firang import,which is still underpowered for the bird, and the "great brown hope",the heavier MK-2 will get another variant of the same. I now some have pointedly sneered at the Gripen's "Swedish" composition,with so many firang/US parts,but what about our desi LCA too? These days,no one nation barring the US and Russia..and to an extent China,make everything in-house,but the core of any successful aircraft is its engine.The AMCA cannot be held back for want of a suitable engine,or have strings tied to a firang one.
Last edited by Philip on 15 Sep 2017 11:15, edited 1 time in total.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by chola »

Gaur wrote:^^
Impressive! Encouraging such R&D projects in IAF & IA would, at the very least, go a long way in minimizing mental disconnect between Armed Forces and DRDO,HAL etc. IMVHO, half the problems in most indigenous programs is because of this disconnect.
No, it is far more apparent than any unquantifiable "mental disconnect" between armed forces and those state entities.

It is the simple lack of a sufficient industrial base and eco-system to actually build modern chit. The PSUs have failed at this when they struggle to build even 8 LCAs 15 years after first flight. We need the private sector to come in.
Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Marten »

chola wrote:
Gaur wrote:^^
Impressive! Encouraging such R&D projects in IAF & IA would, at the very least, go a long way in minimizing mental disconnect between Armed Forces and DRDO,HAL etc. IMVHO, half the problems in most indigenous programs is because of this disconnect.
No, it is far more apparent than any unquantifiable "mental disconnect" between armed forces and those state entities.

It is the simple lack of a sufficient industrial base and eco-system to actually build modern chit. The PSUs have failed at this when they struggle to build even 8 LCAs 15 years after first flight. We need the private sector to come in.
Perhaps you are unaware of how standards of production and testing cycles operate, but please desist from spreading more gyan on this topic.

The US Air Force Academy is not your NDA -- it has a FOUR year course, with several majors (including aeronautical engineering, mech engg and so on).
AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

In the aeronautical engineering major, studies in aerodynamics, flight mechanics, propulsion, aircraft structures and experimental methods prepare cadets to succeed in either of the two-course design sequences, aircraft design or aircraft engine design. Cadets will work on real-world design problems in our cutting-edge aeronautics laboratory, featuring several wind tunnels and jet engines. Many opportunities exist for cadets to participate in summer research at various universities and companies across the country.
To compare the Indian ecosystem with this, and then make up different scenarios which are patently false can be avoided. Please reduce the rhetoric and make your point with data.
Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Gaur »

Chola Ji
I didn't mean to start the service vs psu debate! Some portion of the problem lies with all stakeholders and all this has been debated multiple times to death. Won't dare to touch this topic with a bargepole! :mrgreen:

Just meant that a user with some design experience (Like Navy) would be able to better collaborate with R&D agencies. Helps form realistic ASRs, expectations, better user input etc. This would help regardless of the competency of PSU, Pvt Sector, Defence Babus etc.

So, in hindsight, it was a rather generic and obvious statement. Let me run back to my foxhole hoping that thread doesn't get derailed :D
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by chola »

Phillip wrote:
Look at China,where it was 20 yrs. ago and now,where it has developed by hook and by crook,a variety of aero-engines,large transports,large helos,stealth fighters,etc.,etc. It has left us behind in style.
Actually, since becoming a chini mil watcher I'm more impressed their small stuff than their big fanboi wank material like the "large" items you mentioned above.

It is stuff like this that shows the depth and breadth of their industrial base:
Image

That is the Y-12. It is just a shitty little transport with crappy chini built WJ-9 turboprops. Won't be flown by anyone but turd worlders. But the world is majority turd world so it is actually exported to 28 countries.

Image

The Sudanese FTC 2000. Basically a reworked MiG-21 with cloned descendents of the Tumansky turbojets that powered the original MiG-21s from the 1960s.

Both of those aircraft and their engines are well within HAL's power to make. They are not flashy like J-20 or the LCA for that matter but these and other small aircraft and engines formed the base of an industry that doesn't necessarily need signature projects like a J-20 or MKI to survive.

We have the Saras and IJT equivalents of the above but they were more ambitious (and therefore requiring foreign tech) and were not supported all the way through. The chini projects above were left deliberately primitive so to take advantage of their local industrial base. It means they have projects they can finish, experiment with and build off of. It also means that primitive or not, they have a product to sell.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Aditya_V »

The FTC 2000 looks very similair to the JF-17, I guess engine will be the main difference. and I guess the JF-17 dimensions and avioncs are bit different, but the design elements are very similair.
Last edited by Aditya_V on 15 Sep 2017 12:25, edited 1 time in total.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by chola »

^^^ I wrote in the Kaveri thread that maybe we should have started with a simple turbojet like Tumansky 25 instead of shooting for the moon with a high spec turbofan -- in the 1990s no less when even the Russians were still teething theirs!

The FTC 2000 (also known as the JL-9 in PLAAF service) was indicative of the chini mindset to build and use what their industry was capable of -- at thr time it was cloning MiG-21s. The JF-17 was a more ambitious rework of the MiG-21/J-7 but still far less ambitious than the LCA. They didn't attempt their own engine with the JF-17 at the beginning. It was not FBW. And it didn't have much composite. But again they worked within their industry and had something they could build (and for TSP to assemble) in numbers.
Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1596
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Gyan »

1. Obsession with High Tech in Jarnails, is not only with aircrafts but with each and every item, right up to pistols.

2. HAL cannot manufacture or reverse engineer anything including Mig-21 as its only a glorified screwdriver assembly agency

3. Ecosystem created by genuine R&D is evident in our Agni, INSAS, Akash missile programmes.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Aditya_V »

Gyan wrote:1. Obsession with High Tech in Jarnails, is not only with aircrafts but with each and every item, right up to pistols.

2. HAL cannot manufacture or reverse engineer anything including Mig-21 as its only a glorified screwdriver assembly agency

3. Ecosystem created by genuine R&D is evident in our Agni, INSAS, Akash missile programmes.
Oh please lets leave this reverse engineering, its a propaganda myth. Reverse Engieering for complicated systems is nothing but Licensed Manufacture with critical components and inputs from Vendor country with H&D name.
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Cosmo_R »

NRao wrote:...
..though it will be shaped for stealth, a non-stealthy version has also been planned.
Now this is smart. The concept of stealth in the mid 2020s will be a moving target. Better to get a platform that has everything else for a 5G a/c and then worry about stealth as it will be 10 years from now. Else you get scope creep and it's the once and future AMCA
samirdiw
BRFite
Posts: 184
Joined: 18 Jul 2017 22:00

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by samirdiw »

We have to get past this single path approach for our projects which lead us to constantly being disappointed with the outcome. Let us visit both the paths and try to understand the armed forces asking for foreign stuff.

Option 1. Product with Limited goals and existing tech - The customer is worried that on the paper itself the product is at best matching existing stuff in the market for which they have to now wait many years to indigenize. He is going to be fighting for his life and others over the next few years! Why invest in something that doesn't assure superiority?

Option 2. Product Out in the future stuff - High risk of failure, constantly moving goal posts to still be ahead of the game and past experience of delayed delivery. Better to "hedge" the bets by buying stuff externally and the cycle continues.

Many of the BRF posters also had the same concerns.

How to mitigate this is by -
1. Starting multiple initiatives in parallel (MCA and AMCA)
2. Ask the IAF for acceptable, desired and exceed parameters.
3. Try to have 'some' commonality between both in terms of size and few other parameters.
4. As soon as a reasonably good and safe MCA gets out - start setting up squadrons with those. Every two years a new model and a new squadron.
IAF has always been asking for 60+ squadrons anyways so these 'less capable' fighters can be the second line to fill up the numbers from 33 instead of constantly dreaming about 60 and never getting there. The earlier models can always be upgraded later once the desired capabilities are reached in most cases
5. Go with desi component for everything if there is a lower but reasonably good component that exists. Improve these components later
6. Ask DRDO to come up with a plan for multiple blocks along different parameters (for both initiatives) where the initial versions could be less than acceptable, the desired is somewhere in the middle and the exceeded is later (something that IAF may not have even asked for). Incremental doesn't mean Common Minimum Program. The next version doesn't have to be better in all parameters just some parameters.
Say IAF says acceptable speed is mach 1.6 and desirable is 1.8. ADA/DRDO/IAF come out with a plan that block 1 could be 1.5, block 3 could be 1.6, block 7 could be 1.8 block 12 could be mach 2.0. In this way by the time the IAF expectations are exceeded there are already multiple squadrons out there and the project is successful.

What about the cost?
Gov has been asked for $2 Billion for 2 TD's and 7 prototypes for AMCA. Let's say cost escalations etc and supporting above approach - $5 Billion i.e 2.5 times what ADA asked for
For MCA similarly maybe $1.5 x 2 = $3 Billion
For MCA engines (i.e complete Kaveri) = additional $0.5 Billion
For AMCA engines = $1.5 Billion
Total research amount= $10 Billion

Guestimate each MCA cost = $80 - $100 million (2 - 2.5 times LCA)
numbers approx (all versions) = 200
Total = $16 - 20 Billion

Guestimate each AMCA cost = $120 - $150 (1.5 times MCA)
numbers approx (all version) = 200
Total = $24 Billion - $30 Billion


So for a grand sum of around $10 Billion and parallel initiatives we have all paths covered and assured delivery of reasonably good twin engine 4.5 desi fighters with the possibility of 5th Generation. Isn't this worth it?

Compare the above to utter confusion in our approach today vacillating between import, desi, and type of plane (Rafale/FGFA/AMCA/possibly F-35). And what about the costs?
Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5882
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Dileep »

Oh.. We believe in the hero shooting the noose cut at the right moment the horse is made to bolt. One shot that works every time onlee.
Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Marten »

Dileep wrote:Oh.. We believe in the hero shooting the noose cut at the right moment the horse is made to bolt. One shot that works every time onlee.
+1 -- we are unable to authorize funding for Mk2/Mk1a/p and AMCA all at the same time, but will fund multiple programs for MMRCA.
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4712
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by nam »

Here is my two cents, which most of you here will dislike.

My opinion, we have missed the 5th Gen manned jet ..bus. AMCA entering service in 2030-2035 gives us no advantage, other than being the 4/5/6th country capable of making stealth jet.

So drop AMCA :shock: , and put all the resources in un-manned stealth jet(subsonic Ghatak & supersonic), which we can put to service in around 2030.

We are doing T57 MKI or get 300 F-35 with some parts build in India instead of F-16. Don't know why we are playing with F-18 & F16 instead of doing a large 300 F35 deal with local build. Something what Turkey is doing.

We will meet our objective of having a 5 gen in service quickly and a 6th gen by 2030.
Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1596
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Gyan »

Frankly we should directly go for Star Ship Enterprise to save time.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Gagan »

India's defence forces, its senior officers, IAS Ministry of Defence Babus and Politicians don't want local R&D and local products.
They are still caught in a time warp of India is poor country and videsh is best onlee

Their actions have not allowed local defense industry to develop.

Until the Government and these guys don't take pride in Indian made equipment, this is not going to improve.
India's economic and political clout means that an all out war is not going to happen with anyone. If Pakistan dares to do mischief, there is enough maal already deployed to easily overwhelm them.
Against China, only a border skirmish is going to happen. The ITBP walas better brush up their Kung-Fu and Kabaddi skills, because that is the extent to which it will deteriorate. Neither China nor India plans on an all out war now.

So that being the case, why not make everything in India, let Indian defense industry first do R&D for indian forces, who will need to be forced to accept the supplied items, and then improve the products. And then export to other Third world nations.

An AMCA is needed, but an LCA with a Kaveri Engine, LDRE Doppler Radar, Desi AAMs, PGMs is also needed for exports to all over Africa, SE asia, South America.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by chola »

Gagan wrote:
Until the Government and these guys don't take pride in Indian made equipment, this is not going to improve.
India's economic and political clout means that an all out war is not going to happen with anyone. If Pakistan dares to do mischief, there is enough maal already deployed to easily overwhelm them.
Against China, only a border skirmish is going to happen. The ITBP walas better brush up their Kung-Fu and Kabaddi skills, because that is the extent to which it will deteriorate. Neither China nor India plans on an all out war now.
EXACTLY. This "we are under immediate seige by two super powerful enemies and need the best phoren maal here and now" way of thinking has done massive harm to the domestic industrial base.

We are colossus in one of the weakest military neighborhoods on earth. We have beaten Pakistan like a dog over and over again so we know we can handle that failure of a state with a small faction of what we have.

And if we can't get into a war with Cheen after two months of shrill screaming from the PRC, it is not going to happen. Cheen has not fought a war in 5 decades and Doka La shows me it won't for decades more.

And if we won't fight Cheen with all the advantages on the LAC right now -- hundreds of IAF planes from 30+ bases versus 34 J-10/11's from five PLAAF air strips -- then why bother buying all that phoren maal now?

Again take Cheen as an example, the PRC unlike India really is surrounded by major military powers -- US bases, Russia, Japan, Vietnam, SoKo, Taiwan, etc. And yet, they have enough confidence in themselves to stay the course with their own systems.

We have more than enough time to build up our industrial base if only we would start and support it. If Iran can learn from the J-85 turbojet and then plug it into a F-5 equivalent then we should be MORE than able to do the same with the Tumansky engine and the MiG-21 which we had built for ages. For starters.
samirdiw
BRFite
Posts: 184
Joined: 18 Jul 2017 22:00

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by samirdiw »

Gagan wrote:India's defence forces, its senior officers, IAS Ministry of Defence Babus and Politicians don't want local R&D and local products.
They are still caught in a time warp of India is poor country and videsh is best onlee
While this is true, somebody has to take the onus to come up with a long-term plan and structure to innovation.

The Defense Minister comes from a non-defense background and can only take people to task but cannot be expected to teach folks process. The defense folks are non-product background and only the end users who provide inputs or provide feedback. They are usually not creative people and can only think of what they have seen before hence the enthusiasm with brochures.

It really on DRDO and the like to put a structure in place, use proper product management practices, make proposals, come up with risk reduction alternatives and make it appealing to the ministry and defense heads. Its really on them to influence the rest.

Maybe the DRDO needs to give more responsibility on the different groups within it to be more proactive.

As a start for chrissake look at the links to the LCA, Kaveri to show their lackadaisical attitude. People on this site have created so much good material just on their own time. It will take a couple of hours to put some better content. The whole DRDO doesn't have time for that? This whole thing that we are not good in marketing just doesn't hold.

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/in ... pg=LCA.jsp

HAL for example just acts like an employment agency with more focus on 'order books' than understanding whats driving the armed forces and ministry to look at alternatives.

All the 3 are at fault but its really on the product manufacturer to bring along and influence the others - the investor and the user.
Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5882
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Dileep »

The primary problem is, the neta/babu/brass imagine that soldiers are born TFTA trained and ready to fight from some magic womb, basically because that is what they have seen from the import maal.

We have afsars who complained that "LCA can't fly without telemetry".
Locked