Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

khan · Post by **khan** » 05 Sep 2019 20:47

Agree with Jay, but they need to work their “butts off”, this lack of resources for AMCA so people can work on LCA is deeply concerning.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 05 Sep 2019 21:19

I guess we have a huge disconnect. We can absolutely never be at a tactical/strategic disadvantage so that indigenous effort can catch up. What if you loose the war and territory? These are not coming back even if you catch up at a later date. We are many times stronger than AF, BD today but cannot get back the land of our ancestors. If we (Indics/Sanathana) were strong on Aug 15 1947, BD would be ours, if we were strog around 1000 AD, AF will be ours.
Sorry...

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Sep 2019 21:31

They need to first fund the engine that can power Tejas and amca , engine is the Achilles heel for our aircraft program , no matter how good we make Tejas or Amca the foreign power can strangle is any time and replacing it with another engine is no small task.

Before GOI funds amca they need to fund indigenous engine at double fast speed , just buy of M88-3 if possible proven engine with full tot and no ips attached.

It will be damn costly but will be worth every penny and reengine Tejas and amca with it

khan · Post by **khan** » 05 Sep 2019 21:59

My understanding is engines are like microchips - very hard to build cutting edge versions of these, but the cutting edge is available in the open market.

The real value add comes with using these engines/microchips in the final product - i.e. the integration & customization part of it.

If there is a concern about availability, then buy 30 years of spares, this is not unheard of.

It would be nice to have the ability to design & manufacture cutting edge engines & microchips, but it is not a necessary pre-requisite to building a cutting edge fighter.

IMO the big value add will be to be able to design & build formidable planes with proprietary capabilities, this will give breathing room to sink 2-3 billion a year to catch up in engine technology.

This is something that China doesn’t have, they will never get western engines & have to rely on dodgy Russian engines or roll their own.

IMO, this is AMCA’s moment. If they throw everything at it & don’t have hangups about engine tech, India can have a formidable fighter fleet that will secure India from 2030-2050 giving breathing room to develop engine & other next- gen tech w/o imports.

However, I fear they are screwing it up.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Sep 2019 22:30

Guys - these "I feel", "you feel" posts don't add any value to the thread. If you all have something relevant to the AMCA post it please. I will be deleting any further posts on these lines. Without a LCA, there will be no AMCA in service as AMCA uses much of the tech developed for LCA Mk1/Mk1A/Mk2 so enough please.

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 06 Sep 2019 01:15

Philip wrote:The twin tails also look extra large and would certainly increase its signature unless canted outwards even more.

1. Any idea on what is the percentage benefit of converting to all moving tailfins ?
2.How difficult is it to achieve an all moving tail fin. Could this one of the low hanging fruits achieved for AMCA ?

3. Can the belly be fattened enough to keep 2 stacks of 4 weapons in the bay ?

4. Why not have a bigger nose cone to accommodate a bigger radar (in future) plus extra hardware for F35ish EOTS which adds more flexibility without compromising the stealth mode (in comparison of using an extra external hardpoint for the targetting pod) ?

5. What about air brakes ? All managed via Ailerons and Elevators ?

6. Conformal hard points to minimise RCS and drag in non stealth mode ?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 06 Sep 2019 02:38

Lisa wrote:Somebody, please, what does NGTD stand for. Thank you.

Next Generation Technology Demonstrator?

Just taking a shot in the dark here....

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 20 Sep 2019 02:13

https://twitter.com/Leopard212/status/1 ... 9575309312 ---> Rajnath Singh meets the AMCA scale model.

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 29 Sep 2019 03:13

Avinandan wrote:
Philip wrote:The twin tails also look extra large and would certainly increase its signature unless canted outwards even more.
1. Any idea on what is the percentage benefit of converting to all moving tailfins ?
2.How difficult is it to achieve an all moving tail fin. Could this one of the low hanging fruits achieved for AMCA ?

3. Can the belly be fattened enough to keep 2 stacks of 4 weapons in the bay ?

4. Why not have a bigger nose cone to accommodate a bigger radar (in future) plus extra hardware for F35ish EOTS which adds more flexibility without compromising the stealth mode (in comparison of using an extra external hardpoint for the targetting pod) ?

5. What about air brakes ? All managed via Ailerons and Elevators ?

6. Conformal hard points to minimise RCS and drag in non stealth mode ?

7. What happened to Black Widow like wings ? It had some merit to it, that is why the early designs had this wing structure.

Nalla Baalu · Post by **Nalla Baalu** » 29 Sep 2019 04:01

Them, twin hexagons on the spine, refuelling receptacle doors? Dont recall seeing them in AI2019 images of Aam-Kha

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/Leopard212/status/1 ... 9575309312 ---> Rajnath Singh meets the AMCA scale model.

kit · Post by **kit** » 29 Sep 2019 06:23

What is the square black shape on starboard behind canopy?

Nalla Baalu wrote:Them, twin hexagons on the spine, refuelling receptacle doors? Dont recall seeing them in AI2019 images of Aam-Kha

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/Leopard212/status/1 ... 9575309312 ---> Rajnath Singh meets the AMCA scale model.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 29 Sep 2019 12:12

Probably some sort of antenna, F-35 has a very distinct lighter colored hexagon that is reportedly a GPS antenna.

Nalla Baalu · Post by **Nalla Baalu** » 29 Sep 2019 22:02

Apparently edges of any accessible panel could potentially act as reflective edge on low frequncy radars, so practice is to line them up similar to main angles of the jet.

abhik wrote:Probably some sort of antenna, F-35 has a very distinct lighter colored hexagon that is reportedly a GPS antenna.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Oct 2019 23:22

IAF strongly pitches for desi fighters, from Tejas to 5 generation jets
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 445334.cms

nam · Post by **nam** » 07 Oct 2019 18:49

Example of challenges of 5G airframe.

F22:
https://the-drive.imgix.net/https%3A%2F ... 5d8b689523

F35
https://media.defense.gov/2014/Jan/03/2 ... 58-508.JPG

J20
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGI4uUMUEAA ... name=large

F22 is rivets all over. F35 better build. Chinese have done well with their J20. The airframe that we need to build should have least amount of rivets and at the same time be maintaince easy!

I am now thinking F22 must be a huge maintenance hog.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Oct 2019 19:30

They used a non-mission-capable F-22 for a demo and that blew the blogosphere up (as if the need to keep demo team's aircraft full mission capable is a wise use of $$). But the F-22's RAM applique and treatments are extensive, partly because they spend a fairly significant amount of their training time while supersonic and the Mach 1.8 supercruise capability, while great from a tactical capability, does come at a cost of O&S as those treatments need to be applied frequently and maintained over time and reapplied, sometime at different frequency that varies from fighter to fighter and even location to location (different for aircraft deployed at Tyndall vs those at Alaska for example). This is not atypical for stealth aircraft. Each B-2 is maintained slightly differently from another. At the end of the day, RCS management is an acquired competency which comes with experience of field operating fleets of LO aircraft. The tactical advantage obtained can always be traded away if the cost appears to be not worth it but I have yet to meet someone who does not want the lowest possible RCS and claims that it provides no tactical advantage. This is true for other stuff well hence we do not see subsonic fighters with little to no electronic or mission systems ( those will be the easier from an O&S perspective). Even 4th gen non VLO community has adopted things like Have Glass to squeeze out whatever they can in terms of RCS reduction.

The F-35 traded much of that supersonic (supercruise) envelope so that it stayed within affordability limits and it also was able to leverage Fiber Mat, which, incidentally, was initially developed for follow on F-22 derived aircraft had that production continued to a B, C , D block like the F-15.

Besides RAM, higher design tolerances, lower threshold to declare NMC, and IWB related O&S work, VLO aircraft will always consume more maintaince than non VLO aircraft. What has to be struck is a balance between the various performance parameters and an acceptable procurement and sustainment cost. This has to happen at the time of framing requirements. You can’t demand the lowest signature, the most flexible weapons bay, best in class performance (sustained G's, Mach, and Endurance) an extensive sensor suite and then also demand parity or superiority in affordability compared to legacy fleets. It just doesn’t work that way and this is worth repeating sometime as cost, performance, survivability and lethality should all be part of a trade space when framing effective requirements for a potential weapons system.

As a man much wiser than myself wrote -

Military and the manufacturers need to work together to develop requirements that make sense. In other words, the acquisition philosophy has become “What can we afford?”, or what capabilities can we get for the money we have. As a result, it is necessary to perform performance, schedule, number, and cost trades against a specified “Cost as an Independent Variable.” Developing requirements against a target cost requires deciding which feature to cut if the baseline aircraft design costs more than the cost target or which feature to add if the baseline aircraft design costs less than the cost target. For example, a given survivability requirement against SAM threats can be met at low speed with a stealthy, maneuverable aircraft, or at higher speed with a less stealthy and less maneuverable aircraft. In performing trades on these parameters, if costs must be cut by a particular amount, the question becomes, should the speed, maneuverability, or stealth be reduced? Conversely, if costs can be increased by a particular amount, the question is should speed, maneuverability, or stealth be increased?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 08 Oct 2019 07:33

Beautiful post,VLO aircraft need to open the door and there will be a role for 4+4.5 gen aircraft to provide sortie rates while stealth drone, smarter missiles all play a part. BDA will probably be fast high flying VLO drones along with satellites freeing up airframes

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 08 Oct 2019 17:09

Excellent post. Trade off factors are integral to any aerospace design efforts. Typically key parameters have defined trade-off factors so any impact on one parameter, positive or negative can be easily translated to rest of the parameters so one can find balance in various parameters depending on specified requirements. The second plot shows the Trade of factors for example.

brar_w wrote:They used a non-mission-capable F-22 for a demo and that blew the blogosphere up (as if the need to keep demo team's aircraft full mission capable is a wise use of $$). But the F-22's RAM applique and treatments are extensive, partly because they spend a fairly significant amount of their training time while supersonic and the Mach 1.8 supercruise capability, while great from a tactical capability, does come at a cost of O&S as those treatments need to be applied frequently and maintained over time and reapplied, sometime at different frequency that varies from fighter to fighter and even location to location (different for aircraft deployed at Tyndall vs those at Alaska for example). This is not atypical for stealth aircraft. Each B-2 is maintained slightly differently from another. At the end of the day, RCS management is an acquired competency which comes with experience of field operating fleets of LO aircraft. The tactical advantage obtained can always be traded away if the cost appears to be not worth it but I have yet to meet someone who does not want the lowest possible RCS and claims that it provides no tactical advantage. This is true for other stuff well hence we do not see subsonic fighters with little to no electronic or mission systems ( those will be the easier from an O&S perspective). Even 4th gen non VLO community has adopted things like Have Glass to squeeze out whatever they can in terms of RCS reduction.

The F-35 traded much of that supersonic (supercruise) envelope so that it stayed within affordability limits and it also was able to leverage Fiber Mat, which, incidentally, was initially developed for follow on F-22 derived aircraft had that production continued to a B, C , D block like the F-15.

Besides RAM, higher design tolerances, lower threshold to declare NMC, and IWB related O&S work, VLO aircraft will always consume more maintaince than non VLO aircraft. What has to be struck is a balance between the various performance parameters and an acceptable procurement and sustainment cost. This has to happen at the time of framing requirements. You can’t demand the lowest signature, the most flexible weapons bay, best in class performance (sustained G's, Mach, and Endurance) an extensive sensor suite and then also demand parity or superiority in affordability compared to legacy fleets. It just doesn’t work that way and this is worth repeating sometime as cost, performance, survivability and lethality should all be part of a trade space when framing effective requirements for a potential weapons system.

As a man much wiser than myself wrote -

Military and the manufacturers need to work together to develop requirements that make sense. In other words, the acquisition philosophy has become “What can we afford?”, or what capabilities can we get for the money we have. As a result, it is necessary to perform performance, schedule, number, and cost trades against a specified “Cost as an Independent Variable.” Developing requirements against a target cost requires deciding which feature to cut if the baseline aircraft design costs more than the cost target or which feature to add if the baseline aircraft design costs less than the cost target. For example, a given survivability requirement against SAM threats can be met at low speed with a stealthy, maneuverable aircraft, or at higher speed with a less stealthy and less maneuverable aircraft. In performing trades on these parameters, if costs must be cut by a particular amount, the question becomes, should the speed, maneuverability, or stealth be reduced? Conversely, if costs can be increased by a particular amount, the question is should speed, maneuverability, or stealth be increased?

LakshmanPST · Post by **LakshmanPST** » 14 Oct 2019 12:14

Another puke worthy article by Abhijit Iyer Mithra...
After spreading vitriol on Su30 MKI, Tejas, "standards" of Indian Pilots etc., this guy wants us to shutdown development of AMCA altogether...

https://theprint.in/opinion/air-chief-r ... ssion=true

AIM is currently having a meltdown on Twitter (abusing HVT & others) after this article is panned widely...

chola · Post by **chola** » 14 Oct 2019 12:32

LakshmanPST wrote:Another puke worthy article by Abhijit Iyer Mithra...
After spreading vitriol on Su30 MKI, Tejas, "standards" of Indian Pilots etc., this guy wants us to shutdown development of AMCA altogether...

https://theprint.in/opinion/air-chief-r ... ssion=true

AIM is currently having a meltdown on Twitter (abusing HVT & others) after this article is panned widely...

I really like reading The Print but this AIM guy is touching on the treasonous when one thinks of the demographics of the readership. Completely against the grain regarding indigenous projects.

With people like that we will always remain the world's top arms importer. Maybe that is something that these people take pride in

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 14 Oct 2019 12:46

Not Pride in but feed of the commissions in such deals

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 14 Oct 2019 12:49

LakshmanPST wrote:Another puke worthy article by Abhijit Iyer Mithra...
After spreading vitriol on Su30 MKI, Tejas, "standards" of Indian Pilots etc., this guy wants us to shutdown development of AMCA altogether...

https://theprint.in/opinion/air-chief-r ... ssion=true

AIM is currently having a meltdown on Twitter (abusing HVT & others) after this article is panned widely...

He is a smart guy and right on many things, but absolutely clueless on weapons platforms. Also, I get the impression that he is beholden to the US mil-ind complex and tends to shill for them, for whatever reason.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Oct 2019 15:14

chola wrote:
LakshmanPST wrote:Another puke worthy article by Abhijit Iyer Mithra...
After spreading vitriol on Su30 MKI, Tejas, "standards" of Indian Pilots etc., this guy wants us to shutdown development of AMCA altogether...

https://theprint.in/opinion/air-chief-r ... ssion=true

AIM is currently having a meltdown on Twitter (abusing HVT & others) after this article is panned widely...
I really like reading The Print but this AIM guy is touching on the treasonous when one thinks of the demographics of the readership. Completely against the grain regarding indigenous projects.

I hope you have considered a possibility that it was actually The Print which was hunting for articles with specific narratives and was asking people who could give them what they want to right articles..? I think this article and the one on shitting on MWF was part of co-ordinated efforts run by The Print itself. Some idiots are either playing the ball for personal benefits or just being convenient fools here. Just saying.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Oct 2019 15:24

The US has already begun work on a 6th-gen fighter concept to enter service post 2030 replacing F-22s and F-35s.Brainstorming is going on to work out what exotic tech. is required and the sensors and weapon systems required.Britain and France ard also working on their 5+ concepts.When and where our AMCA will slot in is the
$B Q. Will it be dated upon arrival as 5th-gen fighters of 3 nations are flying as of now.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Oct 2019 17:12

Philip wrote:The US has already begun work on a 6th-gen fighter concept to enter service post 2030 replacing F-22s and F-35s.Brainstorming is going on to work out what exotic tech. is required and the sensors and weapon systems required.Britain and France ard also working on their 5+ concepts.When and where our AMCA will slot in is the
$B Q. Will it be dated upon arrival as 5th-gen fighters of 3 nations are flying as of now.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&p=2387408#p2387408

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Oct 2019 20:11

LakshmanPST wrote:Another puke worthy article by Abhijit Iyer Mithra...
After spreading vitriol on Su30 MKI, Tejas, "standards" of Indian Pilots etc., this guy wants us to shutdown development of AMCA altogether...

https://theprint.in/opinion/air-chief-r ... ssion=true

AIM is currently having a meltdown on Twitter (abusing HVT & others) after this article is panned widely...

What a joker?! And he asks HVT what's on the line. The dude is putting his life on a line on a daily basis. He is an experimental test pilot!!!!

What has Mitra on the line?

FACEPALM!!!

SRajesh · Post by **SRajesh** » 14 Oct 2019 20:34

Indranil wrote:
LakshmanPST wrote:Another puke worthy article by Abhijit Iyer Mithra...
After spreading vitriol on Su30 MKI, Tejas, "standards" of Indian Pilots etc., this guy wants us to shutdown development of AMCA altogether...

https://theprint.in/opinion/air-chief-r ... ssion=true

AIM is currently having a meltdown on Twitter (abusing HVT & others) after this article is panned widely...

What a joker?! And he asks HVT what's on the line. The dude is putting his life on a line on a daily basis. He is an experimental test pilot!!!!

What has Mitra on the line?

FACEPALM!!![/quote]

Indranilji
Problem with people who are 'pushed-up' the grease-pole, feel they are infallible and develop 'Mahatma complex'
And then they start believing that anything/everything coming out of their every orifice is the 'Whole Truth/Nothing but the Truth/Gospel Truth'

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 15 Oct 2019 00:59

chola wrote:
LakshmanPST wrote:Another puke worthy article by Abhijit Iyer Mithra...
After spreading vitriol on Su30 MKI, Tejas, "standards" of Indian Pilots etc., this guy wants us to shutdown development of AMCA altogether...

https://theprint.in/opinion/air-chief-r ... ssion=true

AIM is currently having a meltdown on Twitter (abusing HVT & others) after this article is panned widely...
I really like reading The Print but this AIM guy is touching on the treasonous when one thinks of the demographics of the readership. Completely against the grain regarding indigenous projects.

With people like that we will always remain the world's top arms importer. Maybe that is something that these people take pride in

he thinks he with all his training in product design, testing and fighter flying (which is basically zero) is more knowledgeable than actual Test Pilots like ACM Bhadauria that have shaped products that are in service. Just look at the ego on the fellow! He is basically the very definition of an "armchair general". Zero real world experience, but reads a lot of journals maybe and thinks that he has the right to pontificate as a result.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 15 Oct 2019 01:18

Philip wrote:The US has already begun work on a 6th-gen fighter concept ......

When and where our AMCA will slot in is the
$B Q. Will it be dated upon arrival as 5th-gen fighters of 3 nations are flying as of now.

Did you ever question pakfa? Didn't usa field f22 from 90s while pakfa will enter in Putin's SLOT in 7 or 8 years?

Why you and shiv wrote article that Mig 21 should be replaced only with Mig 21? Where was your Generation Wisdom then?

Stop worrying about slots for Tejas and AMCA worry about pakfa

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 15 Oct 2019 01:18

correct me guys, but isn't this chap, supposedly a RW, abused Naveen Patnaik, and some anti-Orrissa rant (till this point nothing wrong), got jailed for a month. The whole RW world rallied for him, and then after being released, suddenly became an air force expert (I can count at least 100 people at BRF who have more knowledge than him) and starts dishing out IAF and indigenous products? What is the reason of his turnaround, cannot handle his post jail fame?
Or I have the person wrong

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 15 Oct 2019 01:37

fanne wrote:correct me guys, but isn't this chap, supposedly a RW, abused Naveen Patnaik, and some anti-Orrissa rant (till this point nothing wrong), got jailed for a month. The whole RW world rallied for him, and then after being released, suddenly became an air force expert (I can count at least 100 people at BRF who have more knowledge than him) and starts dishing out IAF and indigenous products? What is the reason of his turnaround, cannot handle his post jail fame?
Or I have the person wrong

OT ..but yes..his reason was not just for being anti orrisa but also for not being straight and pointing something on konark soorya mandir...him and Yusuf unnjhawala seem to be good buddies and seem to be singing a different tune for last few weeks...

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Oct 2019 01:44

Bhai, he doesn't have the ability to measure the prowess of anything that flies, including his high flying impression of himself.

He reminds of crabs. CAn't do anything for themselves and pull down people who are trying. He should be shown his place.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Oct 2019 02:48

KaranM and JayS,
I thought there is a good rebuttal of AIM tirade on AMCA.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 15 Oct 2019 02:56

Indranil wrote: He should be shown his place.

By all means!!

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 15 Oct 2019 16:06

Harsh Vardhan Thakur
@hvtiaf
Replying to
@prajprakprakash
and
@drdo
LCA Mk-2 cockpit will be ahead of F-35. Avionics will be similar and hopefully at par with F-35. Sensor fusion is a design driver.

AMCA is aiming a little ahead of F-35. We've to demonstrate that. Automation is the bedrock. Intelligence is a design driver.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 15 Oct 2019 16:51

hanumadu wrote:
Harsh Vardhan Thakur
@hvtiaf
Replying to
@prajprakprakash
and
@drdo
LCA Mk-2 cockpit will be ahead of F-35. Avionics will be similar and hopefully at par with F-35. Sensor fusion is a design driver.

AMCA is aiming a little ahead of F-35. We've to demonstrate that. Automation is the bedrock. Intelligence is a design driver.

I am sure about the other aspects of the design that they will be met. But I am concerned about the engine development.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Oct 2019 17:00

In what aspects will the LCA Mk2 cockpit be ahead of the F-35?

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 15 Oct 2019 18:54

brar_w wrote:In what aspects will the LCA Mk2 cockpit be ahead of the F-35?

Do look at his SPORT video.. I think same cockpit (that was adapted for SPORT, probably from HALBIT) will be carried over to Tejas Mk2 MWF....
In that video he also mentions a long range ALCM being developed.. the pictures of this ALCM (looks like a SAAW, but with an air intake) was seen on brochures/pictures of Jaguar-MAX, models of Tejas Mk2 MWF....

So I assume a lot of things talked about and/or shown in the SPORT mockup will make it to Tejas Mk2 MWF...

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Oct 2019 19:05

rakall wrote:
brar_w wrote:In what aspects will the LCA Mk2 cockpit be ahead of the F-35?
Do look at his SPORT video.. I think same cockpit (that was adapted for SPORT, probably from HALBIT) will be carried over to Tejas Mk2 MWF....
In that video he also mentions a long range ALCM being developed.. the pictures of this ALCM (looks like a SAAW, but with an air intake) was seen on brochures/pictures of Jaguar-MAX, models of Tejas Mk2 MWF....

So I assume a lot of things talked about and/or shown in the SPORT mockup will make it to Tejas Mk2 MWF...

I did see the video, but again exactly how is the SPORT mockup of the cockpit more advanced than the F-35s cockpit ..what aspects are being measured ?

sajaym · Post by **sajaym** » 15 Oct 2019 19:33

I'm not an engineer so kindly excuse my ignorance. Sometime ago, on Discovery
Channel I watched a programme about the manufacturing of some thing...don't know whether it was a car or an airliner. In one of the scenes, there was an engineer wearing virtual reality goggles and gloves, and he was holding one of the parts of the car/jet in virtual reality.

If we use the same technology and use all the data accumulated during the LCA program -- right from its design, manufacturing and flight testing. Is it possible to build a working prototype of the AMCA in virtual reality so that Test pilots and maintainence staff can experience the jet even before the physical prototype is built?