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

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2618
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 30 Oct 2019 00:58

I think brar's contribution here to bring things back into perspective is very useful. How another airforce struggled with it is helpful to put things in context.

LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 282
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

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

Postby LakshmanPST » 30 Oct 2019 01:37

Cybaru wrote:120 KN? Where are we getting these requirements from? Has IAF/designers stated this?


Some posters mixed up F414 EPE's probable wet thrust, which is 120kN, with AMCA's Design requirement of 110kN class engine... :rotfl:

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3544
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 30 Oct 2019 01:56

sorry JayS, I still stand by the comments I made about the design parameters around AMCA and it's engine. Time is now to choose the right path (and I am not kidding myself that writing in BR forum would have much of an impact, but do see that many twitter handles have tweeted), I am all for AMCA, but around a engine that either exist now, or have a relatively sure future plan to exist, rather than build it around an engine that does not exist now, nor any known design house is planning to make. In either case, we can have our own effort.
LCA was prudent in that sense, it was around Kaveri, which was slightly souped up F404.(planned Kaveri was roughly 10% more in dry thrust and 3% more in afterburner than original F404). Thankfully for us GE ended up developing F404-ge-in20, that had better performance than planned Kaveri,~4% more). This stroke of luck saved LCA. If there was no F404-GE-IN20 and since Kaveri had failed, the vanilla F404 (with 48.9 KN dry thrust, 78.7 KN afterburner), IAF would have abandoned LCA as an underperforming plane. Remember LCA came about a ton overweight than planned.

We should learn from that experience and not go through the same for AMCA, built it around a known engine, or a guaranteed derivative from a foreign player (since we do not have a sure shot capability to built it ourselves). If it is 110KN, so be it, but then the time to get into an agreement with the foreign power is now, before we embark on AMCA. Least risky is to design around an existing engine (or a guaranteed planned future variant).

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 30 Oct 2019 01:57

JayS, I am looking at the sum total of the posts and not just this thread.

Anyway we have a US Military technology thread.

May be we post there and link here.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8095
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 30 Oct 2019 02:06

fanne wrote: I am all for AMCA, but around a engine that either exist now, or have a relatively sure future plan to exist, rather than build it around an engine that does not exist now, nor any known design house is planning to make. In either case, we can have our own effort.

This is the second time I am pointing this out to you. If you read the news report from the previous page, that is exactly what they are already doing. The first 2 AMCA squadrons are to fly with engines that exist today. Engines for which there is already an upgrade path to the required performance parameters laid out by the manufacturer only waiting on funding.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2618
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 30 Oct 2019 02:10

fanne wrote: If it is 110KN, so be it, but then the time to get into an agreement with the foreign power is now, before we embark on AMCA. Least risky is to design around an existing engine (or a guaranteed planned future variant).


That's kinda exactly what is happening.

Going with GE for first prototypes and first 40.
Second tranche with uprated 110 KN engine and our own effort to create it probably with safran.
Worse case - GE 116 KN engine may happen by then as a fall back position.

F117 used f404 engine for the 3 squadrons they made. It was the 2 * 47KN engine for MTOW of 53K pounds / 24K kgs . It served well for SEAD/DEAD roles.

AMCA in worse case will have 15KN more dry thrust. It will allow us to prototype and get things to production much faster. I really like this dual tranche approach.

added later: Nachiket already beat me to it! Sorry - same points.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 30 Oct 2019 04:25

How are we going to fund LCA Mk-2 , desi production of MRCA 2.0, MKI upgrades and AMCA? It hints at dumping the LCA Mk-2 whose roll out is tasked at the same timeframe of ambitious AMCA programme.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 30 Oct 2019 04:42

No sir, LCA Mk2 and AMCA are well supported by IAF now. MK2 or MWF design work is in very advanced stages. MWF and AMCA timelines are not the same at all. One will start squadron service before 2025 and the other is unlikely to get into the air before 2025. It will be atleast 2035, before AMCA gets clearance!

MRCA 2.0 is becoming more and more uncertain as time goes by. Gripen certainly has no chance.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3544
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 30 Oct 2019 05:27

I see what is going on.
ADA/DRDO is developing AMCA on a current available non-optimum engine (just like LCA was with F404) - which is a very sound strategy, they should start as fast as they can
They will like Kaveri develop a 110 KN engine, maybe with foreign collaboration (read Safran), more chance of success (Hopefully we get some reasonable ToT)
They will hope/pray/wish that F414 EPE gets funded and they have a back up plan just in case (like F404-GE-IN20 was - with 120 KN wet thrust, dry hopefully in the range we want)
So I take back that they have not planned (even though with lots of uncertainty, but not having own engine makes it tough). Isn't there a 130 KN engine out there already in existence? I would go with an engine with 10% more power than 110 KN, as there would be weight creep and other inefficiencies (also maybe more need for power for multiple radar - forward, chin based, rear, etc.).

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5346
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 30 Oct 2019 05:31

Indranil wrote:No sir, LCA Mk2 and AMCA are well supported by IAF now. MK2 or MWF design work is in very advanced stages. MWF and AMCA timelines are not the same at all. One will start squadron service before 2025 and the other is unlikely to get into the air before 2025. It will be atleast 2035, before AMCA gets clearance!

MRCA 2.0 is becoming more and more uncertain as time goes by. Gripen certainly has no chance.


Indranil, Squadron service for the MWF before 2025? How's that achievable when first flight is targeted for May 2023?

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2618
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 30 Oct 2019 05:34

fanne wrote:Isn't there a 130 KN engine out there already in existence? I would go with an engine with 10% more power than 110 KN


What Brar says makes sense about engine power and design changes that flow from it. Worth a reread.
The 110KN engine probably has margins built into it. So it is good to worry, but let's also keep it real.

Look at the AUW of FA-18EFG/Rafale/F117/F35 and the power available to them and what the two 414s bring to the table.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4619
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 30 Oct 2019 08:18

Indranil wrote:No sir, LCA Mk2 and AMCA are well supported by IAF now. MK2 or MWF design work is in very advanced stages. MWF and AMCA timelines are not the same at all. One will start squadron service before 2025 and the other is unlikely to get into the air before 2025. It will be atleast 2035, before AMCA gets clearance!
.

Where does the naval fighter fit in? IIRC the Navy was looking at a twin engined Desi design.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 30 Oct 2019 08:49

Kartik wrote:
Indranil wrote:No sir, LCA Mk2 and AMCA are well supported by IAF now. MK2 or MWF design work is in very advanced stages. MWF and AMCA timelines are not the same at all. One will start squadron service before 2025 and the other is unlikely to get into the air before 2025. It will be atleast 2035, before AMCA gets clearance!

MRCA 2.0 is becoming more and more uncertain as time goes by. Gripen certainly has no chance.


Indranil, Squadron service for the MWF before 2025? How's that achievable when first flight is targeted for May 2023?

I couple of years more may be.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4064
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 30 Oct 2019 09:44

Indranil wrote:
Kartik wrote:
Indranil, Squadron service for the MWF before 2025? How's that achievable when first flight is targeted for May 2023?

I couple of years more may be.


one gets the feeling that the ADA and associated labs are quite confident in producing the prototype in the time frame. God speed and good luck to them !

LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 282
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

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

Postby LakshmanPST » 30 Oct 2019 10:48

Have they even started building the first prototype for Tejas Mk2...??? Any news about it...???
Last I read, they were planning 4 prototypes, 2 IOC Configuration targeting 2023 & 2 FOC Configuration targeting 2025...
Last edited by LakshmanPST on 30 Oct 2019 10:57, edited 1 time in total.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12405
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 30 Oct 2019 10:53

fanne wrote:ya super cruise is on dry thrust...Is the 119 KN engine has ~ 80 KN dry thrust *2 = 160 KN dry thrust to power 17 KG empty and 29 KG full upweight AMCA (Wikipedia numbers) to super cruise? What is the math that people are doing?

What is strange is F-22 is also 18 KG empty and 29 KG all up weight powered by 2* 116 KN dry thrust engines.

I think we have AMCA numbers wrong. AMCA will be lot less heavier


Additionally, I dont think AMCA needs to Super cruise with all its external weapons and full payload, it needs to supercruise with max internal fuel, 4 AAMs and 2 strike weapons, say 2.5 tonne payload, if anyone thinks AMCA is going to supercruise carrying external CM's or in MAX strike package role, I dont think that will happen.

I am sure even the F-35 with external Tanks and weapons will struggle to supercruise. F-22 is aimed as a Air dominance fighter does not have too much A2G weaponry, it started carrying external fuel tanks and pylons only after entering service.

If the Russian FGFA is going to be dead, I think it is better we design a heavy fighter as well with 15-17 year time frame in limited numbers around a heavy engine like Al-41 and 117s, with Su-30MKI infrastructure and the overall weapons purchases we make from the Russians, I think they will supply these engines.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2719
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

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

Postby darshhan » 30 Oct 2019 11:56

Aditya_V wrote:Additionally, I dont think AMCA needs to Super cruise with all its external weapons and full payload, it needs to supercruise with max internal fuel, 4 AAMs and 2 strike weapons, say 2.5 tonne payload, if anyone thinks AMCA is going to supercruise carrying external CM's or in MAX strike package role, I dont think that will happen.

I am sure even the F-35 with external Tanks and weapons will struggle to supercruise. F-22 is aimed as a Air dominance fighter does not have too much A2G weaponry, it started carrying external fuel tanks and pylons only after entering service.

If the Russian FGFA is going to be dead, I think it is better we design a heavy fighter as well with 15-17 year time frame in limited numbers around a heavy engine like Al-41 and 117s, with Su-30MKI infrastructure and the overall weapons purchases we make from the Russians, I think they will supply these engines.


As far as I have heard or read, F-35 doesn't supercruise in any configuration. In other words even without external weapons or fuel tanks, it is unable to supercruise.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12405
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 30 Oct 2019 12:22

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx

The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.

"Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said.


I think that will be with only internal payload.

All the more reinforces the point, if we are aiming AMCA to be swing role aircraft, then expecting it to supercruise with full payload, especially when configured for heavy strike missions using external pylons would be unrealistic.

So Super cruise should not be tested with All up Weight rather with only internal weapons, 4 AAM and 2 strike weapons or 6 AAM config only.
Last edited by Aditya_V on 30 Oct 2019 12:24, edited 1 time in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 30 Oct 2019 12:23

A further Q.What armament will the AMCA carry in its internal weapon bays. I say this because the IAF has suddenly realised the virtue of larger platforms, where even transports can carry " swarms" of UCAVs to jnleash upon enemy targets.We havd been for a decade plus advocating the need gor a stratehic bomber that can carry both N and non- nuclear munitions esp. LR ALCMs.

The AMCA will have an inferior capability both in numbers and size of munitions compared to the SU-57, larger Chin stealth aircraft and the F-22. Just as we bought an aircraft with proven 4++ capability, the Rafale at excorbitant cost though, acquiring more cost-effective 4++ aircraft today and focussing on the success of the LCA Mk-2 , which being a redesign could incorporate sime degree of stealth, would be a wiser way to go.

AMCA , where we at the moment do not possess the critical indigenous components like the engine, radars/ IRST sensors, advanced cmposites, helmet, etc.will be a prisoner to whatever foreign tech. incorporated, liable to sanctions.AMCA should be a programme to leapfrog 5th-gen. fighters into 6th-gen realms.For the interim period of around 15 years acquiring the SU-57, F-35 would be adequate to deal with current threats.What is sorely required is raising sqd. to at least 40 sqds., having more birds in the hand than AMCA in the bush!

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4553
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 30 Oct 2019 12:36

fanne wrote:sorry JayS, I still stand by the comments I made about the design parameters around AMCA and it's engine. Time is now to choose the right path (and I am not kidding myself that writing in BR forum would have much of an impact, but do see that many twitter handles have tweeted), I am all for AMCA, but around a engine that either exist now, or have a relatively sure future plan to exist, rather than build it around an engine that does not exist now, nor any known design house is planning to make. In either case, we can have our own effort.
LCA was prudent in that sense, it was around Kaveri, which was slightly souped up F404.(planned Kaveri was roughly 10% more in dry thrust and 3% more in afterburner than original F404). Thankfully for us GE ended up developing F404-ge-in20, that had better performance than planned Kaveri,~4% more). This stroke of luck saved LCA. If there was no F404-GE-IN20 and since Kaveri had failed, the vanilla F404 (with 48.9 KN dry thrust, 78.7 KN afterburner), IAF would have abandoned LCA as an underperforming plane. Remember LCA came about a ton overweight than planned.

We should learn from that experience and not go through the same for AMCA, built it around a known engine, or a guaranteed derivative from a foreign player (since we do not have a sure shot capability to built it ourselves). If it is 110KN, so be it, but then the time to get into an agreement with the foreign power is now, before we embark on AMCA. Least risky is to design around an existing engine (or a guaranteed planned future variant).


You are simply shooting off the hip here and expecting others to provide you data, facts to correct whatever you are suggesting. Instead, you can spend the same time on internet and then post here a well thought out post. Then everyone learns. Had you done a bit of homework, you would yourself realized issues with your thinking. They are pretty obvious ones.

- AMCA is a 5th Gen Fighter with internally carried weapons and good emphasize on Stealth. Need of large internal volume, compromise on aero configuration for stealth et al necessarily force the designer to adopt aerodynamically sub-optimal solutions or in other words draggier airframe than what could have been possible otherwise.
- Stealthy features like S-duct, rectangular exhaust reduce effective installed thrust of given engine (rectangular exhaust can reduce effective thrust by 15-22% IIRC).
- Super cruise enforces a requirement of low bypass engine. Plus to reduce design creep you need as small size engine as possible with high TWR. Plus higher thrust than usually would have needed to compensate for sub-optimal intake and exhaust designs for stealth.
- For a 25T class aircraft no engine exists which fits the bill. F119 was specifically designed for F-22 and it is not available to us. The only available options are EJ200 and F414. The former has little growth potential or indeed any visibility on growth. F414 OTOH has demonstrated technology capability for 115kN thrust, albeit at reduced life. And it has the highest probability of getting funded for industrialization of that technology, as brar_w has pointed out many times. In fact the probability has only gone up with renewed push from USN on F/A-18 blk III. But we cannot dictate time line and that is the risk we have to take. USN will take its own sweet time to fund it and it is not looking in any particular hurry right now.
- ADA has no real choice here. In fact IMO their hands are tied due to the thrust capability of even the future F414EE version's dry thrust being limited, else they could have enlarged AMCA with two side bays for CCM by going couple of Ton higher in MTOW. It would have been well worth it and I'm pretty sure IAF would have loved to have that capability.
- In given constraints, ADA proposed to go with existing F414-INS6 and have only a partial super cruise capability for now. And side by side develop Desi 110kN engine. F414 EE, if and when available could be a back up. But its important to have a clean sheet 110kN engine with smaller BPR. It will also have a good 10-15% organic growth potential for future of AMCA. This was in 2012-13. IAF seems to have accepted this proposal. There have been talks of Kaveri -110kN version development since at least 2014 if not from earlier. That time we had about 20yrs to develop such engine. But GOI wasted 5-6 yrs in begging to France and wild goose chase with DITT, instead of funding our own people (need not be GTRE, we could have formed an institute like ADA for engines, including Pvt industry from outset). And now we have only wasted as many years and have not moved an inch from where we were.

If anyone wants to suggest alternate engines, look at the ratio of their dry thrust to wet thrust and TWR. Compare it to F119 as a benchmark and then you will see why options like AL-31 or F100 make no sense whatsoever. The engine that the Japanese are developing for their next-gen fighter matches well with F119 on these parameters, IIRC. We need similar engine.

Without critical thinking we just end up producing noise and a heap of posts with little value addition.

PS: Supercurise is always expected for max internal weapons load. Any external load and expecting the fighter to super cruise is unreasonable.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12405
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 30 Oct 2019 13:06

Therefore Supercruise cannot be expected with All Up weight but only Internal fuel and payload.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 30 Oct 2019 16:55

JayS wrote:.

- AMCA is a 5th Gen Fighter with internally carried weapons and good emphasize on Stealth. Need of large internal volume, compromise on aero configuration for stealth et al necessarily force the designer to adopt aerodynamically sub-optimal solutions or in other words draggier airframe than what could have been possible otherwise.
- Stealthy features like S-duct, rectangular exhaust reduce effective installed thrust of given engine (rectangular exhaust can reduce effective thrust by 15-22% IIRC).
- Super cruise enforces a requirement of low bypass engine. Plus to reduce design creep you need as small size engine as possible with high TWR. Plus higher thrust than usually would have needed to compensate for sub-optimal intake and exhaust designs for stealth.
- For a 25T class aircraft no engine exists which fits the bill. F119 was specifically designed for F-22 and it is not available to us. The only available options are EJ200 and F414. The former has little growth potential or indeed any visibility on growth. F414 OTOH has demonstrated technology capability for 115kN thrust, albeit at reduced life. And it has the highest probability of getting funded for industrialization of that technology, as brar_w has pointed out many times. In fact the probability has only gone up with renewed push from USN on F/A-18 blk III. But we cannot dictate time line and that is the risk we have to take. USN will take its own sweet time to fund it and it is not looking in any particular hurry right now.
- ADA has no real choice here. In fact IMO their hands are tied due to the thrust capability of even the future F414EE version's dry thrust being limited, else they could have enlarged AMCA with two side bays for CCM by going couple of Ton higher in MTOW. It would have been well worth it and I'm pretty sure IAF would have loved to have that capability.
- In given constraints, ADA proposed to go with existing F414-INS6 and have only a partial super cruise capability for now. And side by side develop Desi 110kN engine. F414 EE, if and when available could be a back up. But its important to have a clean sheet 110kN engine with smaller BPR. It will also have a good 10-15% organic growth potential for future of AMCA. This was in 2012-13. IAF seems to have accepted this proposal. There have been talks of Kaveri -110kN version development since at least 2014 if not from earlier. That time we had about 20yrs to develop such engine. But GOI wasted 5-6 yrs in begging to France and wild goose chase with DITT, instead of funding our own people (need not be GTRE, we could have formed an institute like ADA for engines, including Pvt industry from outset). And now we have only wasted as many years and have not moved an inch from where we were.

If anyone wants to suggest alternate engines, look at the ratio of their dry thrust to wet thrust and TWR. Compare it to F119 as a benchmark and then you will see why options like AL-31 or F100 make no sense whatsoever. The engine that the Japanese are developing for their next-gen fighter matches well with F119 on these parameters, IIRC. We need similar engine.

Without critical thinking we just end up producing noise and a heap of posts with little value addition.

PS: Supercurise is always expected for max internal weapons load. Any external load and expecting the fighter to super cruise is unreasonable.


Superb and concise explanation, Jay SAAR! That section on the Kaveri should be cross posted in the Kaveri engine thread.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5346
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 30 Oct 2019 23:35

Cybaru wrote:
fanne wrote:Isn't there a 130 KN engine out there already in existence? I would go with an engine with 10% more power than 110 KN


What Brar says makes sense about engine power and design changes that flow from it. Worth a reread.
The 110KN engine probably has margins built into it. So it is good to worry, but let's also keep it real.

Look at the AUW of FA-18EFG/Rafale/F117/F35 and the power available to them and what the two 414s bring to the table.


You must keep in mind that the internal fuel requirements (to keep RCS low while meeting range requirements) and the Internal Weapons Bay will mean a larger cross sectional area and possibly greater empty weight as a result. Drag penalty due to all the externally slung weapons may be lower for a stealthy 5th gen fighter than a F/A-18 E/Rafale/Typhoon, but every design is a compromise of some sorts. There is a reason why the F-35 appears so fat and bulky from certain angles and needs such a powerful engine.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9239
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 31 Oct 2019 00:46

Thrust and Drag go hand in hand and what comes into play is what missions a particular aircraft is serving. If is a swing role / Multi-role aircraft, does the AMCA need to have lower drag clean vs clean LCA or clean MiG-29? Does that matter? Most would argue is that the focus should be on the drag and performance in a representative configuration i.e. don't compare the drag of a 5GFA to a clean Eurofighter Typhoon or Rafale for example. Compare it to one that is configured to do waht the FGFA is supposed to do. On all those you are looking at some combination of EFT's, weapons, sensor pods and what not. If one digs through some of the older threads here, I and others have shared plenty of content here that covers relevant DI levels on known fighter aircraft under tactically useful configurations. Ultimately, that is the performance one is trying to match and exceed and this is the basis of all 5GFA design principles and approaches. You carry the IWB when empty so in theory, unless you trade something else you will always have a drag penalty when that IWB is not being utilized compared to another fighter that is totally clean. But, absence an air-show there is no use for a clean fighter jet. It is the "take to war" configuration that counts.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 31 Oct 2019 03:11

I think it matters. Also, I believe it is a strawman to say internal volume means compromised aerodynamics. The internal volume of Su-35/PAKFA/F-22 is more than that of a F-35, is there a compromise in aerodynamics? Yes stealth shaping comes with compromise, but that is not as big a detriment. In other words, F-22/F-35/PAKFA/J-20 would not become significantly less draggy if they smoothened out their contours.

May, I ask the questions:

1. If the decision is made to make F-22 multirole today, can the airframe take it? Is it a matter of avionics upgrades, testing and qualification? If the decision is taken and the F-22 is made multirole today, will it be at par to the 4th gen multirole aircrafts? I know the answer to the last question for sure. No. the F-22 will be a far superior in A2A than any 4th gen aircraft in A2A. And it can do the strike roles pretty well too.
2. 2035 onwards, Most top air forces will operate 5th generation aircraft. What will an air-to-air fight look like between two 5th gen aircrafts in 1v1, or 2v2, or 4v4? Will it be BVR and done? Will aerodynamics matter?
3. If LM engineers were given a singular mandate. Design a shore-based conventional TO/landing multirole aircraft, would the result be a F-35A?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 31 Oct 2019 03:15

I sometimes wonder if India, South Korea and Japan join hands to develop their fifth generation aircrafts. All three countries are aligned and all three have mediocre experience in designing aircrafts and engines. All three don't have the funds to do it alone, but joining forces may result in a great product. The timelines of these programs are also aligned.

I don't think anybody can argue that the F414 EE is the back up for all three aircrafts. I don't think there is any alternative today.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4041
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 31 Oct 2019 03:35

The issue is none of the countries, India, SK or Japan would like to take items off the shelf from other partners.

Example AESA radar. India will not be in a mood to take a off the shelf, Japan/SK produced AESA, despite the fact that we might get a top notch AESA from Japan.Nor SK or Japan be in a mood to hand over their tech to us. SK or Japan would not take a Indian produced AESA, given the high quality electronic industry they have!

SK & Japan would want American kit like Link 16, which we don't want etc..

Not to talk about our glacial decision making process..

If we really want to partner, it has to stuff like engine or specific sensors.
Last edited by nam on 31 Oct 2019 03:39, edited 1 time in total.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 31 Oct 2019 03:38

Fair enough. What about just the engines?

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4041
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 31 Oct 2019 03:40

Yeah, i just edited my comment.. we should partner for engines or specific sensors! That i agree.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8095
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 31 Oct 2019 03:45

Indranil wrote:Fair enough. What about just the engines?

What are the intended specifications of the X-2 (not the small demonstrator they have flying)? They seemed to be looking at something bigger than the AMCA or KF-X for the final variant I believe. More in the F-22 class. They will need bigger engines in that case. Being a close ally they might get the F119.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5346
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 31 Oct 2019 04:29

Indranil wrote:
Kartik wrote:
Indranil, Squadron service for the MWF before 2025? How's that achievable when first flight is targeted for May 2023?

I couple of years more may be.


I would take a ballpark 5 years from MWF first flight before entry into service of the IOC variant. So if they do achieve first flight in 2023, then 2028 for entry into service. And even that would be quite an achievement given the fact that while it will share some systems commonality with the Mk1, a lot of new systems are being developed and would need to be tested out and validated. There'll be thousands of test points that would need to be covered just for IOC. With 4 prototypes being developed, not all of which will be immediately available for testing, it'll take a good 5-6 years to wrap up IOC testing. Even that may be optimistic.

What's your take on this?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5346
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 31 Oct 2019 04:30

Cain Marko wrote:
Indranil wrote:No sir, LCA Mk2 and AMCA are well supported by IAF now. MK2 or MWF design work is in very advanced stages. MWF and AMCA timelines are not the same at all. One will start squadron service before 2025 and the other is unlikely to get into the air before 2025. It will be atleast 2035, before AMCA gets clearance!
.

Where does the naval fighter fit in? IIRC the Navy was looking at a twin engined Desi design.


Indranil mentioned on the Navy LCA thread that the N-LCA Mk2 project is dead.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5346
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 31 Oct 2019 04:40

LakshmanPST wrote:Have they even started building the first prototype for Tejas Mk2...??? Any news about it...???
Last I read, they were planning 4 prototypes, 2 IOC Configuration targeting 2023 & 2 FOC Configuration targeting 2025...


As per Dr Girish Deodhare at AI-2019, metal cutting for the first Tejas Mk2/MWF prototype was to start "very soon". That was back in February 2019. If that indeed happened, then a prototype rollout by mid 2021 is indeed possible. They're targeting a first flight by end 2021 or early 2022.

Maybe Indranil can confirm if metal cutting has indeed happened or not.


Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 31 Oct 2019 05:29

Kartik wrote:As per Dr Girish Deodhare at AI-2019, metal cutting for the first Tejas Mk2/MWF prototype was to start "very soon". That was back in February 2019. If that indeed happened, then a prototype rollout by mid 2021 is indeed possible. They're targeting a first flight by end 2021 or early 2022.

Maybe Indranil can confirm if metal cutting has indeed happened or not.


What can I say beyond what Dr. Deodhare said?! All I can say, is that the design has cleared many detailed reviews.

Kartik wrote:
Indranil wrote:I couple of years more may be.


I would take a ballpark 5 years from MWF first flight before entry into service of the IOC variant. So if they do achieve first flight in 2023, then 2028 for entry into service. And even that would be quite an achievement given the fact that while it will share some systems commonality with the Mk1, a lot of new systems are being developed and would need to be tested out and validated. There'll be thousands of test points that would need to be covered just for IOC. With 4 prototypes being developed, not all of which will be immediately available for testing, it'll take a good 5-6 years to wrap up IOC testing. Even that may be optimistic.

What's your take on this?

I think you are on the money here regarding timelines. They are being optimistic. But, these are manageable because this is just an incremental development. 1500-2000 test flights should be enough. That can be achieved in 5 years.

The reason that Mk2 will see faster adoption into service is because of the production model. The prototypes will actually be LSPs produced on the Mk1A production line. As the Mk1A production draws to an end, the production line will be switched to Mk2. The gap between the roll-out of the last Mk1A and the first Mk2 is like the gap you see between the last IOC-Tejas and the first FOC-Tejas. This is a learning!

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3828
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

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

Postby suryag » 31 Oct 2019 06:53

IR/Kartik jis , my guess is that from time of first flight it will be about 3 years to IOC. The reason behind this assessment being that as opposed to MK1 they have most of the system tooling, test infrastructure, workflows, test data, simulation rigs, simulation tools, trained NFTC team, fault diagnosing tools, flight test envelope expansion strategies, user input-relationship, change management, requirement management etc ironed out with the MK1 program. If they go with full focus and if GoI doesnt screw up in anyway(money, direction etc) they might knock off most points and reach IOC in 3 years TIFWIW

FYI am not from an aviation background but have been working on building automobiles that will see mass production soon. We had massive difficulties on the first version and the second version although has numerous items in the innards replaced we are on track with a substantially shorter schedule. All the enablers i mentioned above bit us badly during V1 and consumed a lot of time I presume( and hope and wish) it is similar for the Tejas program

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 31 Oct 2019 07:43

nachiket wrote:
Indranil wrote:Fair enough. What about just the engines?

What are the intended specifications of the X-2 (not the small demonstrator they have flying)? They seemed to be looking at something bigger than the AMCA or KF-X for the final variant I believe. More in the F-22 class. They will need bigger engines in that case. Being a close ally they might get the F119.


I believe the Japanese if they go for an indigenous fighter (the F-3) it will have an indigenous engine too. They are spending a lot of treasure screwdrivergiri' ing the F-35 though.

The XF9 turbofans being developed for the F-3 is supposed to be 107kN dry, 147kN wet. This is comparable the AL-41 and the F-3 will have too of them. This is a heavyweight fighter like SU-57. Not in the class of the AMCA.

Now the KFX is of comparable size with the AMCA. The Koreans originally had Indonesia as a partner but from what I read the Indonesians are hesitant about releasing funds. An opportunity? But their KFX are far more along than the AMCA. They are already building the prototype as we speak. Probably to late to partner on the air frame but since the KFX is wedded to the F414 to start with, we might be able to work together on the engine.

The Koreans are nowhere near the Japanese on engines though. The Japanese have flying prototypes for low bypass turbofans and production models for high-bypass ones. The Koreans have only the locally assembled F404/F414 family as experience.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7533
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Postby Prasad » 31 Oct 2019 12:05

On engines, currently we'll have commonality only with the Koreans. Japan is gunning for an F110 sized engine. So we could get tech but not work on the same engine. Korea's next gen fighter program is in need of funding, esp after Indonesia is dragging her feet on ponying up her part of the deal. WIthout it and not much engine related tech capability, they wont have a Korean engine either. Japan will have her own. We, well, we can and should get our own engine.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4041
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 31 Oct 2019 15:58

Given that F35, which will be the most widely deployed 5G, not having a super cruise, will it be a critical capability to have?

If IAF is not very adamant on super cruise, then we could take the risk of to develop a local engine for later batches of AMCA. As a back up, you can continue building batches using F414.

With stealth and ability to do some nap of the earth flying, it will be an asset in the valleys of Himalayas.

If we concentrate on stealth, EW, terrain flying and ability to fly at 80-90K for BVR games, we would have done pretty well.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4553
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 31 Oct 2019 16:49

Sorry, but how exactly F35 (or any other aircraft for that matter) having or not having super cruise capability even relevant for AMCA..?? What matters is, whether it can manage to fulfil IAF SQRs without Super cruise or not. ADA says it does, more or less. So that should be the end of it.

F35 is designed to replace the teen fighters with equivalent combat load/range capability if not more (roughly speaking). It fulfills that part well enough, even without super cruise. That's exactly why the designer compromised on it.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9239
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 31 Oct 2019 16:54

nam wrote:
If we concentrate on stealth, EW, terrain flying and ability to fly at 80-90K for BVR games, we would have done pretty well.


What is 80-90K?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ParGha, sooraj and 52 guests