Design your own fighter

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.
Post Reply
vardhank
BRFite
Posts: 192
Joined: 17 Feb 2007 15:16
Location: Mumbai

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by vardhank »

shiv wrote:
vardhank wrote: The 2-seater/longer fuselage thing was in reference to my two-engined LCA idea (which no one has commented on *pouts and sulks* :D),
Ok I'll bite
Can someone come up with projected specs and an illustration of a two-engined LCA? I think it could make a very good gen 4+ MMRCA, good enough to take on the current MMRCA contenders.
To keep things simple, you'd use the same wings, same avionics and probably the same GE 414 engines (or two R25s, if we want to be stringent about the made-in-India idea, though it's probably not the best idea for this sort of plane).
You can either go for a narrow-fuselage design like the Rafale/Typhoon, or (my preference), a wide, lifting body like the Russians. Two vertical stabs, maybe canards if needed.
Can someone project weights, payload, range, number of hard points, etc?
The sticking point is probably the radar, but I expect it'll use whatever the LCA finally ends up using.
Also, how long do you estimate it would take to make this?
Actually I am horrified by the idea of a larger LCA. It makes a much bigger target to shoot at. I am no aerodynamics expert but somehow I get this vague feeling that the drag caused by a delta wing while turning probably shows more than just a linear increase with increase in wingspan - I mean the drag is related to area and not wingspan needing engines that are that much more powerful and fuel guzzling. I may be wrong. Ignorance may be speaking through me.

In fact some months ago we had discussed on this forum the exact opposite. A smaller LCA with no pilot - a UCAV.
:D
The twin-engined idea isn't for an LCA mk 2 or LCA upgrade... I'm talking about using as much as possible of what's been developed for the LCA to create a new, twin-engined, twin-seater medium combat aircraft, with a somewhat different role to the LCA. As I mentioned, I'm trying to imagine an Indian contender in the MMRCA competition, and trying to make it with the resources most easily available to us. It would be a totally new aircraft with very different capabilities - only using the same building blocks as the LCA.
And I have no clue re the drag - far as I know, planes stay up because I wear rocketship underpants, and drag is what I do to my feet when I have to go to work. Can we invite the likes of Vina and Abhimanyu onto this forum? Would help.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by shiv »

vardhank wrote: far as I know, planes stay up because I wear rocketship underpants, and drag is what I do to my feet when I have to go to work. Can we invite the likes of Vina and Abhimanyu onto this forum? Would help.
:rotfl: Welcome to the club of real experts.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5412
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by ShauryaT »

For some reason, the idea of an enlarged LCA, to make it an MCA with two engines, with essentially the same building blocks, but may be not a simple extension of the same air frame and/or wing design has not been received well. I have never understood why? Hence our DRDO is on its quest for a fifth generation AMCA, bypassing what logically should be an MCA and a first rate 4+ generation aircraft, as demanded by some in our air forces.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by shiv »

ShauryaT wrote:For some reason, the idea of an enlarged LCA, to make it an MCA with two engines, with essentially the same building blocks, but may be not a simple extension of the same air frame and/or wing design has not been received well. I have never understood why? Hence our DRDO is on its quest for a fifth generation AMCA, bypassing what logically should be an MCA and a first rate 4+ generation aircraft, as demanded by some in our air forces.
Shaurya I have a viewpoint on this. Well informed or not I don't know. These are my views and I might possibly be saying things that are not totally correct.

I have not understood how or why the LCA design team chose an elegant but difficult route. They could have produced a JF 17 like fighter with far greater ease. The purpose appears to have been to produce a "light combat aircraft" - not a medium or heavy one. My recent reading, on and off this thread suggests several things to me:

1) The LCA was to have been a MiG 21 replacement. The MiG 21 was a light high flying agile fighter that was primarily for the air defence role. That may have dictated the delta wing decision. If the requirement had been for a low "nap of the earth" flying medium fighter I am certain the design would have been different.

2) Delta wings have some advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantages have to be set right, but the requirement for a "Light Fighter" apparently ruled out some of the more common solutions for the disadvantages of selecting a delta wing. The design team went for a unique and innovative approach that did not involve the addition of weight with a tailplane or canards.

Every combat aircraft is a compromise of sorts. You compromise on one thing to gain some other advantage. The LCA's compromises have been in the direction of optimization for a "small.light" aircraft. With that being the premise - it does not make sense to use the same design to be scaled up to build a bigger aircraft. The LCA's design was for a small aircraft. For a bigger, heavier one a new design may just be much simpler with none of the compromises made for the LCA.
Abhibhushan
BRFite
Posts: 210
Joined: 28 Sep 2005 20:56
Location: Chennai

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Abhibhushan »

^^^^
Bravo Dr Shiv. Neat and precise appreciation worthy of a surgeon. A +1 to you.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by shiv »

:mrgreen: :oops: Thank you Sir!
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by shiv »

manish.rastogi wrote: You might have seen movies like Stealth and the recent GI Joe Rise of the Cobra......I took some inspiration from that!Now I hardly have any technical knowledge but I say that we should develop from scratch a totally new fighter plane(could also be said as 6th gen),the engine too...If we see new general innovations and technologies and basic concepts,I am pretty sure we could develop a unique and innovative jet and engine,I would say to develop a new kind of fuel with co-op from ISRO!
I say it should have internal bays for weapons....and some holes on the underneath of the fuselage to attach pylons if needed!
The biggest innovation I propose...is thrust vectoring but in a diff. manner,we should keep it on engine too!!but underneath the fuselage we should have some points from where thrust could be provided.....each point could give a variable thrust in the whole circular cone of area beneath it!All this could be controlled by a computer doing the necessary calculation stuff which could be controlled by pilot's throttle or by any other method which pilots would suggest!This could definitely give us a pretty good VTOL capability....and for sure would provide super maneuverability !I prefer maneuverability rather than very high speeds....for pulling maneuvers more than 9G....we could study the cockpit changes for more than 9G..and provide necessary changes which could nullify the high G effects!

I also say a bit enlarged and with some structural changes,we could also give a world class bomber JET!!
Please feel free to suggest or finding my mistakes!!I have still a lot to learn!
OK let me state my views on this.

Where do you want to put the engines? In the fuselage or on the wings. If it is one engine it will have to be fuselage/geographic middle of plane. If 2 engines they can go on the wings or sides of fuselage. If they are too far away from the center (wings) the loss of one engine due to any reason will result in asymmetric thrust so the engines are better off near the middle.

You have asked for a lot of things in the fuselage. You want an internal weapons bay. Unless the plane is a "flying wing" only the fuselage will have the space for an internal weapons bay. Then you want exhaust openings under the fuselage. You also want space for external pylons on the fuselage. Either you will need a fuselage as big as a ship, or they cannot all be accommodated. The bigger and thicker it is, the more "drag" (air resistance) it will have and the bigger the engines will need to be and the more fuel they will need. So it's range will be short, or some weight or drag has to be shaved off somewhere.

You speak of a new fuel. There are only two choices. Rocket fuel or jet fuel. We may be able to develop some bio jet fuel. Rocket fuel will make it a rocket/missile. Not a plane.

When you talk of aircraft that can do high G maneuvers you must recall that the human being (pilot) is the weakest link. Humans cannot survive sustained high G. There is no point in having an aircraft that can sustain 15 G because the pilot will not be able to take it. Better to make a missile or UCAV.
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Victor »

Manned version of Kaveri powered JF2
Image
manish.rastogi
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 01 Nov 2010 15:30
Location: Pandora.....
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by manish.rastogi »

shiv sir i would like 2 engines on that....i see that plane in heavy category....and sir maybe you are right about a lot of things beneath the fuselage but i still think all this could be adjusted there...sir i dont understand how we cant use the rocket fuel..(woule be grt if you describe it in brief)also i totally agree that the engines have to be really powerful as they have to provide thrust to the openings too....and what i say is we could create a controlled atmosphere in the cockpit....also i would like it to be flying wing but somewhat less in the width than b-2 type bombers and which looks more like jet!the main problems of the design i.e. Control and stability could be pretty much be solved by the proposed exhausts!
Please feel free to point other mistakes in the design or any other feature you would like me to learn about...i am really enthusiastic about aviation bt with not much technical knowledge...(i am just 16)! :P
Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2145
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Bala Vignesh »

victor sir,
Must say this, it sure is a revolutionary design and a looker...
iparvas
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 05 Oct 2010 21:03

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by iparvas »

how about the AURORA STEALTH FIGHTER which is rumoured to fly at mach 10 ! :eek:http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:O9gT1f9T8TQnaM:
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10541
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Yagnasri »

We are looking for a ground attack aircraft right? With Kaveri reported as test flown we can take it is likely to be avaliable for any other programme. So let us also consider Kaveri and the options it will give. How does Kaveri single on a Mig23/27 based design or a Maruth 2000. May be a Jag MKI.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Singha »

imho a smaller and derated kaveri with a higher bypass ratio or unchanged could be the building block of a range of cruise missile engines just like Willians Intl first tomahawk engine was probably the father of all the J-series/KEPD engines flitting around today.

we need one good solid product to get things started. while Nirbhay necessarily needs to be cylindrical to permit VL and torpedo tube launches, a purely air delivered boxy JASSM weapon could be rectangular in X-section and mount the micro-Kaveri imo.

its time we started work on this new I-series weapon :)

sweet huh? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJi2K8mKTRM

imagine a Tejas mk2 carrying 4 of these against chinese SAM batteries...
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Rahul M »

Abhibhushan wrote:Let me now design this beast.

Take a basic Kiran. Retain the wings/tail. Build it as light as possible using composites. Redesign the main body for a single pilot and lots of internal fuel. Give it an internal bay for carrying about 50 x 68mm or 57mm unguided rockets and four hard points fit for 350 kg class loads. Give it a light contour mapping / imaging radar slaved to an HMS. Replace the 2 machine guns of the Kiran Mk 2 with one GSh23. Give it a glass cockpit and a DARIN III fit. Give it an integral laser target designator. Power it with an unreheated Adour (as used in the Hawk). Play around with the wing structure a little to improve its low speed turning performance. See if the RCS can be reduced by tinkering with the intakes. If possible, give it one or two short range light air to air missiles carried over the wing like the Jaguar. Give it a self defence electronic suit. If the Adour is unable to lift all this load then make it really an overpowered beast by fitting an unreheated Kavery!

Produce it in 36 months. Test and certify it in the next 24 months. Produce it in large numbers. In 1962, we could not / did not use offensive air power. Let there not be a repeat of that situation.

PS. I do not foresee a dense air defence air presence in the projected hostile area. If one comes along, I shall need top cover by the air dominance fighters you all are designing.
nice ideas. the LCA fits the bill 100% IMHO. :wink:
Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2145
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Bala Vignesh »

Sir, the kaveri in the current form can be used for a frogfoot lite.. So if the ADE and ADA get cracking on that as a spin off from the Tejas project and come up with a AJT/LIFT it is good enough for the program to continue ahead.
Of course the project should be kept as simple as possible to reap maximum benefits of whatever we have learnt now.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Kanson »

For some reason, the idea of an enlarged LCA, to make it an MCA with two engines, with essentially the same building blocks, but may be not a simple extension of the same air frame and/or wing design has not been received well. I have never understood why? Hence our DRDO is on its quest for a fifth generation AMCA, bypassing what logically should be an MCA and a first rate 4+ generation aircraft, as demanded by some in our air forces.
Another opinion from different point.

It is not the wing design that was not received well(using your words), Sir, but the proposition of TVC enabled engines as the principle controller of the aircraft. Doubts were raised, whether TVC engine could be that reliable and plane could be survivable if there is any such failure of TVC. That must have to do probably based upon our experience with TVC(Su-30MKI). AFAIK, MKI's TVC is not used in every day business and reserved for extreme situation that needs TVC. I think that has to do with their reliability. Navy rejected TVC on MiG based on the maintainability issues. Let me call this design as MCA-1
as demanded by some in our air forces.
Correction, Sir. F-22-ish MCA design (lets call this as MCA-2) which was shown in wind tunnel model (AeroIndia-2009)is one of the next design chosen. But the IAF clearly said in their ASR for NGFA that we dont want a monkey business of half stealth or quarter stealth but a full aspect/spectrum stealth; that is a VLO design and not a LO design. Once receiving the ASR, boffins and mandarins went for a cuddle and not emerged so far with any news officially. But, Shiv Aroor reported after the ASR was issued that the new design for AMCA could be different from the models so far shown. Full aspect stealth means shaping, internal weapons bay and it could also means no vertical fins. Lets see what we are upto.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by shiv »

What the fck are we Indians trying to achieve? :roll: :evil: :evil:

One the one hand I read the following:
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/11/ex ... st-of.html
India's concept fifth generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) will be its cockpit and man-machine interface. For starters, unlike the cluttered, resoundingly less-than-fourth-generation cockpit of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA Tejas), the AMCA cockpit could have a panoramic active-matrix display. Next, switches, bezels and keypads could be replaced with touch screen interfaces and voice commands. Finally, what the team wants is for the AMCA pilot to have a helmet-mounted display system that allows the jettisoning of a HUD from the AMCA cockpit altogether. Some pretty hardcore stuff.
And on the other hand I read
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20101118/nation.htm#6
The Indian Air Force would have to wait for another 10 months or a year for the induction of indigenously developed light combat aircraft Tejas, it has been learnt. While earlier the aircraft was slated to be inducted into the IAF by March 2011, now even the clearance to operationally fly the fighter may not be available by this period.
Does anyone seriously believe that this "AMCA/FGFA" will even be realised in a realistic and predictable time period. We are a nation of windmill chasers.

What is the matter with us as a people? No Indian that I know fails to praise the attitude that one must always aspire for the highest, but are we so stupid that we cannot see reality? Why can't we build something totally in house and in time? Are we so ashamed of our own capabilities that we must try to match someone else's capability and fail miserably?
ShivaS
BRFite
Posts: 701
Joined: 16 Jul 2010 14:23

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by ShivaS »

Shiv thats my point in every rant, about PSU, we have evrything. I just cant believe that we can build our own Diesel submarines.... just bogus, we are a nation of lotus eaters....
just want to asseble kits
We can make a UAV gas propeller engine....
Cant make A decent field gun...
give me break....
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by vic »

I think that AMCA should be way less advanced and let the cutting edge thingie be done by PAKFA. AMCA should provide the numbers cheaply and quickly. My specifications for AMCA are :- Use all tech of LCA + Internal weapon bay + Recent Def Expo design = quick AMCA


Re Shiv + Admins:-

A new topic on AMCA is warranted. Something like design an AMCA, budget it, so that it gets into air by 2016 and production by 2018????
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by shiv »

vic wrote: A new topic on AMCA is warranted. Something like design an AMCA, budget it, so that it gets into air by 2016 and production by 2018????
I would start that topic with a title that asks Indian AMCA by 2020 or Indian AMCA by 2080?
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Kanson »

vic wrote:I think that AMCA should be way less advanced and let the cutting edge thingie be done by PAKFA. AMCA should provide the numbers cheaply and quickly. My specifications for AMCA are :- Use all tech of LCA + Internal weapon bay + Recent Def Expo design = quick AMCA
Pls send this proposal to IAF. If they can accept it, then we can move on developing a 'quick AMCA', whatever that means.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by shiv »

ShivaS wrote:Shiv thats my point in every rant, about PSU, we have evrything. I just cant believe that we can build our own Diesel submarines.... just bogus, we are a nation of lotus eaters....
just want to asseble kits
We can make a UAV gas propeller engine....
Cant make A decent field gun...
give me break....
(Cross post)
Since LCA is not ready, we will spend 2010 to 2020 dependent on MMRCA and MKI

And then, in 2020 when AMCA is not ready we will depend on PAKFA and what?

And in the 1950 to 2010 period what combat aircraft has the IAF depended on?

Foreign origin:
  • Vampire
    Ouragan
    Mystere
    Hunter
    Canberra
    Gnat
    Su-7
    MiG 21
    MiG 23
    MiG 27
    MiG 29
    Mirage 2000
    Jaguar
    Su-30 MKI
Indian origin
  • HF 24 Marut
And in the 2010 to 2040 period we are looking at
Foreign origin
  • Su 30 MKI
    MiG 21
    MiG 29 (Navy)
    Jaguar
    Mirage 2000
    MMRCA
    PAKFA/FGFA
    And some Indian dream of the F-35
Indian origin
  • Tejas (not in service yet)
    AMCA (no more than a dream)
Is it any surprise that India's international clout matches India's confidence in its own technology?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by shiv »

Cross post
vic wrote: So we want to develop an AMCA for One Billion dollars which is more advanced then US$ 50 billion F-22, US$ 75 Billion F-35 and US$ 15 Billin PAKFA. Now as a 10th class student, we want to teach engineering at MIT, so lets look at our track record:-

Rustom = strugling
Saras=struggling
IJT=struggling with imported engine
AJT=2nd gen imported
Mig29K=3rd gen will be imported till 2015
MMRCA=4th gen will be imported till 2020
PAKFA=4.5Gen will be imported as Russians do not want to give us even 25% of the R&D
Engine of LCA =dead
Radar of LCA= in Coma
MRTA= JV with imported engines
Our Missiles are 1960s tech like Prithvi and Agni -1,2
Astra, AAD, PAD dependent on foregn seekers
Nirbhay missile engine imported
Lakshya engine practically imported (screw driver used on french components for PTAE-7)

China as 3 times the defence budget and 15 times the R&D budet but they are going for simpler things like JF-17 and J-10s while we are still playing around with PVs of LCA. The most idiotic thing is that we want to beat the Ruskies while importing everything from them.
ShivaS
BRFite
Posts: 701
Joined: 16 Jul 2010 14:23

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by ShivaS »

folks recall that some time ago Unkil imposed a ban on supply of raw material for making Carbon Carbon fiber in India for our use..., this offset our staretgic development efforts by many years, thats the name of the game played by Gang of 5 and their poodles. Delay is worst form of denail

See how the PRC chaps circumvent the World. They take advantage of free market, flout all labor laws international norms of human rights environmental responsibilities, andd top it peg their curriency for expots advantage, Oh IP is BS for them.

(we need some nationalism in our Intelligentia)


Now read on.

***
From Wall Street Journal dated yesterday
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 15198.html
By JASON DEAN, ANDREW BROWNE And SHAI OSTER
(Please see Corrections & Amplifications item below.)

BEIJING—Since the end of the Cold War, the world's powers have generally agreed on the wisdom of letting market competition—more than government planning—shape economic outcomes. China's national economic strategy is disrupting that consensus, and a look at the ascent of solar-energy magnate Zhu Gongshan explains why.

A shortage of polycrystalline silicon—the main raw material for solar panels—was threatening China's burgeoning solar-energy industry in 2007. Polysilicon prices soared, hitting $450 a kilogram in 2008, up tenfold in a year. Foreign companies dominated production and were passing those high costs onto China.

Beijing's response was swift: development of domestic polysilicon supplies was declared a national priority. Money poured in to manufacturers from state-owned companies and banks; local governments expedited approvals for new plants.

In the West, polysilicon plants take years to build, requiring lengthy approvals. Mr. Zhu, an entrepreneur who raised $1 billion for a plant, started production within 15 months. In just a few years, he created one of the world's biggest polysilicon makers, GCL-Poly Energy Holding Ltd. China's sovereign-wealth fund bought 20% of GCL-Poly for $710 million. Today, China makes about a quarter of the world's polysilicon and controls roughly half the global market for finished solar-power equipment.

Western anger with China has focused on Beijing's cheap-currency policy; President Obama blasted the practice at the G-20 summit in Seoul last weekend. Mr. Zhu's sprint to the top points to a deeper issue: China's national economic strategy is detailed and multifaceted, and it is challenging the U.S. and other powers on a number of fronts.

Where Are Those Extra 77 Million Mobile Phones Sold Last Quarter?Access thousands of business sources not available on the free web. Learn More Central to China's approach are policies that champion state-owned firms and other so-called national champions, seek aggressively to obtain advanced technology, and manage its exchange rate to benefit exporters. It leverages state control of the financial system to channel low-cost capital to domestic industries—and to resource-rich foreign nations whose oil and minerals China needs to maintain rapid growth.

China's policies are partly a product of its unique status: a developing country that is also a rising superpower. Its leaders don't assume the market is preeminent. Rather, they see state power as essential to maintaining stability and growth, and thereby ensuring continued Communist Party rule.

It's a model with a track record of getting things done, especially at a time when public faith in the efficacy of markets and the competence of politicians is shaken in much of the West. Already the world's biggest exporter, China is on track to pass Japan this year as the second-biggest economy. View Full Image


Charlene Barshefsky, the U.S. trade representative under President Bill Clinton, says the rise of powerful state-led economies like China and Russia is undermining the established post-World War II trading system.
Charlene Barshefsky, who as U.S. trade representative under President Bill Clinton helped negotiate China's 2001 entry into the World Trade Organization, says the rise of powerful state-led economies like China and Russia is undermining the established post-World War II trading system. When these economies decide that "entire new industries should be created by the government," says Ms. Barshefsky, it tilts the playing field against the private sector.

Western critics say China's practices are a form of mercantilism aimed at piling up wealth by manipulating trade. They point to China's $2.6 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves. The U.S. and the European Union have lodged a series of WTO cases and other trade actions targeting Beijing's policies, and hammer China's refusal to let its currency appreciate more quickly, which they argue fuels global economic imbalances.

Top executives at foreign companies have started griping publicly. In July, Peter Löscher, Siemens AG chief executive, and Jürgen Hambrecht, chairman of chemical company BASF SE, in a public meeting between German industrialists and China's premier, raised concerns about efforts to compel foreign companies to transfer valuable intellectual property in order to gain market access.

View Full Image
Some observers think Beijing's vision is rooted in a desire to avenge China's "century of humiliation" that started with the 19th-century opium wars. Such critics believe that China's focus on "indigenous innovation"—nurturing home-grown technologies—entails appropriating others' technology. China's high-speed trains, for instance, are based on technology introduced to China by German, French and Japanese makers.

"The Chinese have shown that if they have the ability to kill your model and take your profits, they will," says Ian Bremmer, president of New York-based consultancy Eurasia Group. His book, "The End of the Free Market," argues that a rising tide of "state capitalism" led by China threatens to erode the competitive edge of the U.S.

So far, though, multinationals aren't staying away, because China remains a vital source of growth for companies whose domestic markets are saturated.

China's strategy echoes the policies Japan employed in its economic rise—policies that also rankled the U.S. But China's sheer scale—its population is 10 times Japan's—makes it a more formidable threat. Also, its willingness in recent decades to open some industries to foreign firms makes its market far more important for global business than Japan's ever was, giving Beijing much greater leverage.


China's sovereign-wealth fund bought 20% of GCL-Poly Energy Holding for $710 million. Today, China makes about a quarter of the world's polysilicon and controls half the global market for finished solar-power equipment. A company handout shows a GCL control room.
Chinese leaders have begun to acknowledge the backlash. At the World Economic Forum in Tianjin in September, Premier Wen Jiabao said that the recent debate about China among foreign investors "is not all due to misunderstanding by foreign companies. It's also because our policies were not clear enough."

"China is committed to creating an open and fair environment for foreign-invested enterprises," Mr. Wen said.

The state has always played a big role in China's economy, but for most of the reform era that started in the late 1970s, it retreated as state-owned collective farms were dismantled and inefficient state industrial enterprises closed. Accession to the WTO in 2001 represented a big bet by the leadership on liberalizing markets further. The gamble paid off, with growth rocketing much of the past decade.

But the state is again ascendant. Many analysts say the pace of liberalization has slowed, and point to vast swaths of industry still controlled by state companies and tightly restricted for foreigners. The government owns almost all major banks in China, its three major oil companies, its three telecom carriers and its major media firms.


Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao acknowledges a foreign backlash, but says Beijing "is committed to creating an open and fair environment for foreign-invested enterprises."
According to China's Ministry of Finance, assets of all state enterprises in 2008 totaled about $6 trillion, equal to 133% of annual economic output that year. By comparison, total assets of the agency that controls government enterprises in France, whose dirigiste policies give it one of the biggest state sectors among major Western economies, were €539 billion ($686 billion) in 2008, about 28% of the size of France's economy.

The government's increased involvement in sectors from coal mining to the Internet has spawned the phrase guojin mintui, or "the state advances, the private sector retreats," among market proponents in China. A January report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said China's economy had the least competition of 29 surveyed, including Russia's. Prominent Chinese economist Qian Yingyi has said he worries over what appears to be "a reversal of market-oriented reforms in the last couple of years."

The state's huge role in the economy gives it enormous sway to pursue its policy goals, which are often laid out in voluminous five-year (sometimes 15-year) plans. These relics of the Mao-era command economy are central to the corporate fortunes of Western giants like Caterpillar Inc. and Boeing Co. that rely on the country's market. China is now one of the biggest sources of revenue growth for Caterpillar, and is the biggest buyer of commercial jets outside the U.S., according to Boeing.


Huawei has long had its overseas expansion supported by China Development Bank, which in 2004 extended a five-year, $10 billion credit line and routinely lends money to foreign buyers to finance their purchases of Huawei products.
One of Beijing's most important goals: wean China off expensive foreign technology. It is a process that began with the "open door" economic policies launched by Deng Xiaoping in 1978 that brought in waves of foreign technology firms. Companies such as Microsoft Corp. and Motorola Inc. set up R&D facilities and helped train a generation of Chinese scientists, engineers and managers.

That process is now in overdrive. In 2006, China's leadership unveiled the "National Medium- and Long-Term Plan for the Development of Science and Technology," a blueprint for turning China into a tech powerhouse by 2020. The plan calls for nearly doubling the share of gross domestic product devoted to research and development, to 2.5% from 1.3% in 2005.

One area of hot pursuit: green technology. China's "Torch" program fast-tracks industries, attracting entrepreneurs with offers of cheap land for factories, export tax breaks and even a free apartment for three years.

Take the case of Deng Xunming, a China-born U.S. citizen who is a pioneer of America's solar industry and whose innovations light up the first solar-powered billboard on New York's Times Square.

His company, Xunlight Corp., has been nurtured by U.S. financial aid and embraced by politicians eager for the U.S. to win the race to develop new energy technologies. Xunlight has pulled in more than $50 million in state and federal grants, loans and tax credits, partly aimed at bringing needed jobs to Toledo, Ohio, where the company is based.

More
Summers: China Is 'Central Challenge' Video: Larry Summers on China China Real Time: Banking's Easy in China Events: China Financial Markets Conference But two years ago, Mr. Deng, who left China in 1985 to study at the University of Chicago, set up a Xunlight unit on a giant industrial estate near Shanghai. The company now also makes its thin-film solar panels there and employs 100 workers. The panels are exported back to the U.S.

Mr. Deng says he is trying to keep the Chinese operation "low key." It isn't mentioned on Xunlight's website, and Mr. Deng declined to comment on the China factory in an interview. "China will be a good market for the future," he said. "But right now, the bigger market is in Europe. We're putting our attention on the Europe and U.S. market. But meanwhile we're developing efforts for the China market," which could eventually be bigger, he said.

While the state seeks new technology, it also uses control of banking to feed cheap credit to industries it wants to foster. The government sets interest rates for China's bank depositors low relative to rates of growth and inflation. That means Chinese households, through the banks, effectively subsidize the state's industrial darlings.


Associated Press

Xunlight has pulled in more than $50 million in state and federal grants, loans and tax credits, partly aimed at bringing jobs to Toledo, Ohio, where the company is based. But two years ago, CEO Deng Xunming, second from left, set up a Xunlight unit near Shanghai. The company now also makes its thin-film solar panels there and employs 100 workers. The panels are exported back to the U.S.
Privately held telecommunications equipment maker Huawei Techologies Co. has long had its overseas expansion supported by China Development Bank, which in 2004 extended a five-year, $10 billion credit line and routinely lends money to foreign buyers to finance their purchases of Huawei products. Revenue has risen more than 200% in the past five years, and it has become one of the top three telecommunications companies, along with Nokia Siemens Networks and Telefon AB LM Ericsson.

Sprint Nextel Corp. recently excluded Huawei and fellow Chinese telecom company ZTE Corp. from a contract worth billions of dollars, prompted by U.S. fears that the companies have ties to China's military. The Sprint decision was a setback for Huawei in the one major market it has had difficulty penetrating, the U.S., and shows how mounting concerns over China's policies are starting to exact a cost.

Huawei has also faced complaints in Europe that Chinese government backing gives it an unfair advantage. Both Huawei and ZTE have said their equipment poses no threat to U.S. security, and deny benefiting unfairly from government support.


Zhao Changhui, chief country-risk analyst at Exim Bank of China, speaks to the WSJ's Mohammed Hadi about whether China's banks will become global champions at the China Financial Markets conference.
For China, the biggest risks may be internal. Some attempts to generate high-tech breakthroughs by fiat have fizzled. A drive to produce a home-grown microprocessor took years to replicate features of those from Intel Corp. and Advanced Micro Devices Inc., whose products had continued to evolve. A Chinese-developed mobile phone technology has yet to gather significant momentum abroad, despite the government forcing China's largest phone company to adopt it.

Longer term, China faces a host of challenges that threaten growth. They include a population that is aging quickly because the one-child policy limited births in recent decades, and environmental damage resulting from the country's breakneck pace of industrialization.

For now, that pace has the West on guard. "Our competition has gotten tougher during a period for the U.S. of profound economic weakness that magnifies any perceived threat," says Ms. Barshefsky, the former U.S. trade representative. There is a "significant and profound—almost theological—question about the rules as they exist."
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by shiv »

There is nothing wrong if Indians yearn for cutting edge technology such as that described for the AMCA. Sensor fusion, next gen glass cockpit, HMD etc. But any delays in acquiring these things should not interfere with the following four factors
  • 1) Operational readiness
    2) Being free from sanctions
    3) The ability to produce large numbers at short notice because as many have pointed out "numbers have a quality of their own"
    4) Low cost so that we can make money by exporting the aircraft.
The fourth point in the list is often forgotten.

Some of the most successful aircraft in history have been successful because of long production runs and healthy exports. Both the MiG 21 (2-3 gen LCA) and F-16 (3-4 gen LCA) developed reputations of being widow makers. but both have been among the most exported aircraft on earth.

Jaguar, Mirage 2000, Tornado, MiG 21, MiG 23, MiG 29, Su 27/30, Harrier, F-18 have all found export markets and have had long production runs enabling the costs to be recouped and modifications made to "step-up" the generation of fighter. The Chinese have been extremely intelligent in realizing that newer aircraft like F-16, F-18, Mirage 2000 and the latest aircraft are very expensive and are designed to make money from rich Gulf states and rich far eastern states. Even failing states need arms - so China came up with a slew of weapons systems for that market - with the JF-17 being an important player.

Imagine the boost that the Chinese aviation industry will get by exporting 300 JF-17s. All aircraft show mid-life crises. They crash unexpectedly. If you have exported enough of them, you have not only made your money but by maintenance contracts you get the pilots of some other foreign air force to face the problems of YOUR manufacturing line. We all know very well that BAe did exactly this with our Jags. This is what everyone does.

But we Indians have not put enough Banias/Marwaris in our Aerospace industry. We have tried to stick to the cerebral route of self realization. Saraswati sits higher than Lakshmi. Exports are as important for the aerospace industry as R&D. And exports fund R&D.

The development of high tech should run in parallel with the production of earlier generation aircrfaft cheaply for export to Africa for example. Even Somalis need planes to kill each other. They would not be able to maintain a Tejas. Why not sell them 10 JF-1s

But we need to make that damn JF-1. With AMCA we are only following the route of USA/Russia and those ideas will all be exported to other nations long before we even have a flying AMCA. So we will have no market.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by SaiK »

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by shiv »


Please..

This photoshopping expertise was posted on this forum years ago.
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1444
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Kersi D »

shiv wrote:What the fck are we Indians trying to achieve? :roll: :evil: :evil:

One the one hand I read the following:
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/11/ex ... st-of.html
India's concept fifth generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) will be its cockpit and man-machine interface. For starters, unlike the cluttered, resoundingly less-than-fourth-generation cockpit of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA Tejas), the AMCA cockpit could have a panoramic active-matrix display. Next, switches, bezels and keypads could be replaced with touch screen interfaces and voice commands. Finally, what the team wants is for the AMCA pilot to have a helmet-mounted display system that allows the jettisoning of a HUD from the AMCA cockpit altogether. Some pretty hardcore stuff.
Does anyone seriously believe that this "AMCA/FGFA" will even be realised in a realistic and predictable time period. We are a nation of windmill chasers.

What is the matter with us as a people? No Indian that I know fails to praise the attitude that one must always aspire for the highest, but are we so stupid that we cannot see reality? Why can't we build something totally in house and in time? Are we so ashamed of our own capabilities that we must try to match someone else's capability and fail miserably?[/quote]

ZIMPLE. VERY ZIMPLE

Make the specifications such that DRDO and others can never make it is a reasonable time.

So ?

Let us import it :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by vic »

shiv wrote:

Please..

This photoshopping expertise was posted on this forum years ago.

Now this photoshop is obsolete and we need to have better in budget of US$ 1 and timeline of hundred years
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by shiv »

vic wrote:
http://www.stavatti.com/NEXT_GENERATION.html

Now this photoshop is obsolete and we need to have better in budget of US$ 1 and timeline of hundred years
:D

In fact its so stupid - its pathetic. Since we are talking about designing a fighter here let me put a pic of that thing and say how silly it looks. It won't fly.

Image
vardhank
BRFite
Posts: 192
Joined: 17 Feb 2007 15:16
Location: Mumbai

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by vardhank »

Shiv,
A thought about the 3rd-gen fighter you think India needs to develop... can we not simply manufacture Bisons? Replace whatever's possible, and make the little b******.

Maybe even DRDO's MMR... if they can get only A2A mode working, fine. Maybe even a composite skin, if possible. I think it'll be a pretty formidable fighter. And cheap!
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12686
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Pratyush »

It seems to be a matter of if it can be imported it must be imported dont bother with local.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19335
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by NRao »

It won't fly
Because it is using an older version of the kaveri?

BTW, Shivji, on a more serious note. There was an alternative, proposed by a IIT (then) Bombay Prof, to the "LCA". To be also called the "LCA", he proposed to modify the MiG-21, rid it of the, what he called, the very obvious -ves. And, of course, since India was already manufacturing it, the "production", IOC/FOC/etc would not be that much of an issue.

But alas ....................................... delta wing it is.
manish.rastogi
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 01 Nov 2010 15:30
Location: Pandora.....
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by manish.rastogi »

could anyone here please take out some time and write in detail about the steps and basic aircraft designing!....i would be really grateful.....
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Rahul M »

it can't be explained by someone in one post or even a dozen. there's a very approachable book aircraft design : a conceptual approach by daniel p raymer. you need 1st year engn/physics/maths background to get the basic idea.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by SaiK »

So... if this thread turns out to be the aMCA one, here is some open nuj

http://www.hindu.com/2010/11/21/stories ... 812200.htm
  • 100 crores released feasibility study- by 18 months
  • autonomous ADA is spearhead-er
  • 20 tons
  • operational range of 30km {?}
  • stealth technology
  • super cruise
  • mostly carbon composites
  • $2b
  • TD1 and TD2 s
  • PV1-PV7 s
  • Identifies 6th generation features
Well.. I am positive now since everything else is achievable since Kaveri is taking shape. Kaveri without ECO core should be the choice.

Also, please note the design team of LCA should not be kept idle till operational clearance of LCA. They need to start working on future technologies.

100 crores for feasibility study? I would like to know details here and the operational range aspect as well.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12686
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Pratyush »

vardhank wrote:


Not really. I don't think we have the license to fiddle that much with the MKI, and in any case, both are the wrong weight class. We really need a medium fighter - the LCA is one of the lightest fighters around, and the MKI one of the heaviest :)
I think basically what is required is a new airframe - the rest of the stuff we have.

Should we move this to the Design your own fighter thread?
We have the full TOT for the MKI. In future it can be upgraded with 4++ gen capabilities. Also the LCA ints future iterations as is being tried with the Gripen could gain weight in say Mk3 iteration and that can have 4++ gen technology.

Also both the aircrafts will benefit from 4++ technologies. Moreover, the technology is indipendent from the weight of the aircraft.

That is the reason why I prefer the two platforms for the job.
vardhank
BRFite
Posts: 192
Joined: 17 Feb 2007 15:16
Location: Mumbai

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by vardhank »

Cross-posting from the AMCA thread...

Should we be looking at a parallel project to develop a 4++ fighter, based on most of the tech we already possess? Perhaps the simplest option as a hedge would be to manufacture more MMRCAs, but I'd very much like to have our own option ready, as a supplement to the MMRCA if needed.
Shiv, I understand you don't like the idea of a twin-engined LCA. Fine, we don't do exactly the same, but maybe a project to make a feasible fighter based around the Kaveri, MMR and the other tech we've developed for the LCA? Call it a TD if you want for now, but keep a manufacturing option ready. If nothing else, it's a good place to learn, and perhaps it'll turn into a fighter we can export, if all goes according to plan on the AMCA and this 4++ fighter isn't needed.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12686
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Pratyush »

Vardhank,

The correct time to initiate the parallel medium weight programme would have been in 2003 / 2004. Time frame. That way the AC would have entered service by 2015/17 time frame. Today however, it will only serve to distract the effort from the AMCA.

JMT
manish.rastogi
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 01 Nov 2010 15:30
Location: Pandora.....
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by manish.rastogi »

Rahul M wrote:it can't be explained by someone in one post or even a dozen. there's a very approachable book aircraft design : a conceptual approach by daniel p raymer. you need 1st year engn/physics/maths background to get the basic idea.
thank you sir....guess still have a year to get that book!!
Post Reply