Dileep wrote:
Snip....
We have afsars who complained that "LCA can't fly without telemetry".
Wtf, if true.
Dileep wrote:
Snip....
We have afsars who complained that "LCA can't fly without telemetry".
Stupid question: What is the basis for them making such assumptions?Dileep wrote: We have afsars who complained that "LCA can't fly without telemetry".
Dileep wrote:The comment appeared in one of the DDM articles, and was discussed on the LCA thread.
It is true that all the aircraft except the SPs are highly instrumented for data collection and telemetry. This is standard practice. Without which, how will you know what went wrong if something happens? I am pretty sure that the SPs have instrumentation, but may not have real time transmission to ground.
The shiny new imported maal will not obviously have the instrumentation visible to the pilots you see? The point is, the "user" never appreciates the "in development" status of the products.
They don't have much in the way of options.chola wrote: 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.
And which of those countries is the aggressor there.KrishnaK wrote:They don't have much in the way of options.chola wrote: 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.
SaiK wrote:I was thinking such an inlet design but now LM stole it from my thoughts. Any inlet experts on this specifically vortex
True. Why would someone use that kind of intakes anyway, with Boundary layer and vortical structures from the chin going inside the intake...? Looks cool for video games though.brar_w wrote:SaiK wrote:I was thinking such an inlet design but now LM stole it from my thoughts. Any inlet experts on this specifically vortex
Because Miss Feb. has been doing the rounds in their marketing for the last few years, we can safely rule it out as something that will come to light. Neither them or he other two OEMs working on future systems in the US will share anything that looks like what they think might be an option for future work. Besides, designs are based on requirements furnished by the operator. The Penetrating Counter Air program with the USAF is just getting started and won't reach the requirements space till a few years time.
Unkil had attacked and regime-changed many nations. Including attempts on Cheen. Taiwan and CIA was launching clandestine operations up until 1960s. CIA was operating from India soil against Cheen lest we forget. And Unkil was involved in two bloody wars in failed regime changing on chinis' border -- NoKo and N Vietnam.Aditya_V wrote:And which of those countries is the aggressor there.KrishnaK wrote: They don't have much in the way of options.
1. Japan is being pacifist
2. Taiwan will not attack China
3. Vietnam will not attack China
4. Russia will not attack China
5. USA will not attack China
6. India will not attack China.
China knows that unless it starts a war nobody will attack it. Whereas for us both China and Pakis are like jackals, if there is some weakness they fully exploit it.
How is it a mistake when we do not have an engine any where near ready yet? The kaveri was always a moonshot. We never made the foundational steps needed to build such an engine. We don't have a turbojet. We don't have a turboprop. Hell, we don't even have a goddam piston engine for our Rustom drone and instead used a Lycoming. We had little chance then and now with the specs of a world class turbofan coming from that technical base. Ambition is a good thing but so is realism and living within means.Austin wrote:https://twitter.com/vkthakur/status/910736128465969152
Vijainder K Thakur @vkthakur
Powering the AMCA with a foreign engine won't be the biggest mistake India makes, it will be the biggest mistake India makes a second time!
True. An aircraft is usually designed with the engine right from the start. If we don't have a working engine, even a lower powered one with ability to scale up, how can one wait for an indigenous engine? Even Pratt & Whitney, which is one of the big 3 of aircraft engine makers in the world is struggling with its geared engines for Airbus A320 family. Its two years after the first aircraft was delivered and they are still trying to iron out the issues. And P&W is also late on the engine with F35 with multiple problems associated with it. And this with manufacturers who have more than five decades experience in designing and building engine.chola wrote:By all means, continue with kaveri. Make it work. But do not tie any project entirely to it. Have it as plan B.
Yep, not a mistake, just sad.chola wrote:How is it a mistake when we do not have an engine any where near ready yet? The kaveri was always a moonshot. We never made the foundational steps needed to build such an engine. We don't have a turbojet. We don't have a turboprop. Hell, we don't even have a goddam piston engine for our Rustom drone and instead used a Lycoming. We had little chance then and now with the specs of a world class turbofan coming from that technical base. Ambition is a good thing but so is realism and living within means.Austin wrote:https://twitter.com/vkthakur/status/910736128465969152
Vijainder K Thakur @vkthakur
Powering the AMCA with a foreign engine won't be the biggest mistake India makes, it will be the biggest mistake India makes a second time!
Divorce the airframe from the engine otherwise we'll be waiting forever. The LCA survived to reach induction today after delinking from the Kaveri and settling on the F404 in 2008 onlee.
It is the Babus job to be frugal after all they are the bean counter and there isn't anyone else doing the job. They are not supposed to be experts in product development. The nameless babu is an easy target.Dileep wrote:The babus will NEVER sanction two projects because their job description is 'economy at any cost'.
I have a question for VK Thakur, what do you do ?Austin wrote:https://twitter.com/vkthakur/status/910736128465969152
Vijainder K Thakur @vkthakur
Powering the AMCA with a foreign engine won't be the biggest mistake India makes, it will be the biggest mistake India makes a second time!
Since we are at the could have, should have point in this thread, let me throw in my two cents.
1. Scrap IAF version of Mk2. Develop only one version the Naval version of Mk2 and make it work for both. We don't have manpower for both. The IN version will add both payload and an extra 22-30 minutes to the sorties.
2. Agree with brar! Start with AMCA instead of modding the CLAW when you change from 4.5 gen to 5th gen even if takes more time. Thats the right way forward. This way the amount of fuel, internal structures and all are designed for stealth from day one. Redoing a non stealth to stealth will add another 10 years.
3. COMPLETELY SCRAP AMCA for NAVY. I will get burned for this, but I really think thats the right thing to do. Ignore Naval requirements at the moment. IAF has requirement of over 200/250, whereas naval requirement after the 57 fighter RFI might be to exercise more options of the same type (FA-18/F35BC/Rafale). Naval requirement may be very limited for AMCA platform if the above RFI goes through and if LCA Mk2 is completed. LCA will pick up any remaining requirement for the next 30-40 years. Plus if they pull off F35B/C it will have stealth and be valid for next 40 years.
Navy will have 45 Mig 29Ks + 57 New type (+options) + 40 LCA Mk2 (+options) = 150-160 in total.
This will give us enough time and experience to create a naval version of AMCA after the IAF version makes it to production line if there is appetite and demand for it. But for now lets give this a pass.
4. Explore Ghatak for IN. Make that work. That will be easier to absorb and deploy and will be a game changer for IN.
There are those that claim that the tail wags the dog!!!Granted the US aviation industry is much more mature but designs and prototypes are pitched by firms/bureaus without funding from the center.
NRao sahab, those 230 Cr rupees are given for some basic 5th gen technology RnD such as serpentine intake, may be SW development for aero-electromagnetic shaping, RAM coating and things like that which are essential for AMCA and Ghatak and is only a small starting. You were talking of prototypes for AMCA. I don't have to tell you that in 230Cr one probably could make only a wooden prototype for RCS testing, do I..?? That's all it is enough for. And may be a scaled flying UAV for some basic aero characteristics. AMCA PV will need 3000-4000Cr funding at the bare minimum.NRao wrote:The original post was in the AMCA thread. I just researched the story and here are the quotes:JayS wrote: When? Where? How much? Last time I checked FSED is still pending approval.
Sept 24, 2017 :: https://twitter.com/ashishat763/status/ ... 5451339777 ::
Sept 25, 2017 :: https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/912335455005286406 ::@SJha1618 Hey, one question: I have read somewhere that MoD has approved full R&D funding for AMCA? Is that correct?
Which is what I was going by. In my research could not find any other source to back it up. So, ???????????. Do not know if I should back out of my position on this funding topic.At the moment, only Rs 231 crores have been sanctioned for a lead-in project for both Ghatak UCAV & AMCA together.
As per ADA Annual report 2015-16 Navy was yet to finalise their SQRs for NAMCA.NRao wrote:I *think* the NAMCA will get a nod once the INS Vishal is approved.
Seems like ADA was still waiting for permission to move forward with AMCA at the time of the report.Way Forward:
Permission may be given to initiate next phase of activities. In-principle approval for submission of CCS papers and Lead-in project has been sought.