AMCA News and Discussions

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Feb 2013 06:54

There is nothing more golden than that we can get.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Feb 2013 07:35

its very unlikely very ambitious engine upg of the EJ200 or M88 will get funded. instead whatever limited funds will be diverted to more useful kit like ucav engines and EDE evolutions to reduce running cost. hanging our hat on those is AL55 all over again.
nor is a customized AL31 a safe bet because it will need extensive downsizing work and we know sukhoi even drags their feet on brahmosA integration and given the al55 project track record...

it has to be either the current M88-3/EJ200 for the protos , and whatever comes later should not be expected as very ambitious leaps...atleast we will get a working stealth plane instead of a raptor with no useful engines.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Feb 2013 07:49

we never know.. all it takes is to reach the turn-over point, and kaveri goes high success with its new blades. but, that would be the day, we can arrange high bandwidth access to BR.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Feb 2013 07:53

The AMCA has been rather well cloaked yet seems to be well thought through. Do we know what their thinking is on an engine? They should have an idea by now - not a speculated one.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Feb 2013 08:30

I am certain a Kaveri variant will be used. This time I predict there will be NO AMCA if there is no ready engine. Even India will not make the same mistake the third time. AMCA will not get off the drawing board until Kaveri flies. Mark my words.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 13 Feb 2013 09:11

shiv wrote:If we get AMCA before get an engine of our own it will be a dud. Kaveri/other engine first. AMCA next IMO

Why is that so?

There is a lot of proving to be done on the AMCA apart from the engine. While there will be rework (and a lot of it) for the series production variants if an interim engine is used to power Technology Demonstrators, I still believe that in the current situation we are in, they must go ahead and develop the AMCA TD as soon as possible with an interim EJ200 or M-88 or even the RD-33MK from the MiG-29K..the F-414INS6 may be too big for the AMCA since it’s not meant to be a Super Hornet class fighter, but rather a Rafale/Typhoon/MiG-29 class fighter.

There will be a lot of refinements required which requires data, and that data will have to come over hundreds of flights. The example I’ll quote here is the NP1 flights- they’ve apparently given them enough data on the landing loads to have them working on it for more than a year now.

On the AMCA, there is much more that will be unknown or purely theoretically calculated or obtained from wind tunnel test. The aerodynamic behavior will be initially taken from wind tunnel tests and used to develop the first block of software for the FBW- but that needs to be validated in flight tests. Then aerodynamic loads from flight tests will be required to validate structures, tests will be required for a whole host of systems from brake management systems to fuel management systems..they’ll be introducing a host of new technologies for which the LCA was not a test bed, such as internal weapons carriage and ejectors for those, weapons bays and their interaction with the fuselage when they’re opened in flight, RCS signature management and how the RAM coatings work over a period of time..apart from that they have very ambitious (I fear too ambitious) targets for the onboard avionics which I pray to God are dropped along the way by the IAF (such as the requirement for a HUD free cockpit). I personally do not want ADA and other DRDO labs to set themselves too lofty goals to just advance their technology levels- the goal must be firmly set and that is to get an AMCA into service by 2025. In the words of an ex-manager of mine- don’t make it into a science project.

A re-worked Kaveri engine may not be the right approach either. What may be required (and the engine gurus may be better equipped to comment on this) could be a new cycle, with the design being more compact and with much higher T/W ratios than that on the Kaveri. The Kaveri after all was conceived in the 1980s and may not be right baseline for an engine that will primarily see service from the 2030-2070 period.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Feb 2013 09:20

Kartik wrote:
shiv wrote:If we get AMCA before get an engine of our own it will be a dud. Kaveri/other engine first. AMCA next IMO
Why is that so?

<snip>

A re-worked Kaveri engine may not be the right approach either. What may be required (and the engine gurus may be better equipped to comment on this) could be a new cycle, with the design being more compact and with much higher T/W ratios than that on the Kaveri. The Kaveri after all was conceived in the 1980s and may not be right baseline for an engine that will primarily see service from the 2030-2070 period.

In fact I use the name Kaveri, but I guess I should have used the name "Kabini" core engine. That core engine with a bigger low pressure fan and a working afterburner is the only way that I can see as non-ROTFL AMCA go forward.

This is my view.

I belong to a generation that saw the HF 24 come and die for lack of engine and am still seeing the LCA struggle on engine issues. I was a mute observer seeing people of my father's generation failing on HJE 2500 and my own generation failing to deliver Kaveri in a continuous epic failure saga. People who were young with me started on the Kaveri and they are retiring now and still no Kaveri. If the next generation does this with the AMCA shame on them for having learned nothing. Doing the same thing a third time would be inexcusably stupid.

I personally think this whole AMCA idea would be laughable without an Indian engine. But these are my views.

nash · Post by **nash** » 13 Feb 2013 09:26

IMO, if people are serious about AMCA then they should take it as a phased manner, just like any product development.
from the beginning all sub system of AMCA should be decoupled,i.e,engine,radar,avionics,etc.If airframe is ready and some subsystems is not then go with some comparable stopgap measure , while simultaneously develop those systems and subsequently add those subsystems.

My take will be, develop kaveri of atleast 90-100KN , let say in next 5-6 years from now, put that into AMCA , but,simultaneously, develop the required variant of >100kn with TVC and try to get that done before FOC,which would be around good 10-15 years from now,if AMCA first fly at 2019-20.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Feb 2013 09:34

Just curious. Why would AMCA need thrust vectoring?

vina · Post by **vina** » 13 Feb 2013 09:34

Kartik wrote:A re-worked Kaveri engine may not be the right approach either. What may be required (and the engine gurus may be better equipped to comment on this) could be a new cycle, with the design being more compact and with much higher T/W ratios than that on the Kaveri. The Kaveri after all was conceived in the 1980s and may not be right baseline for an engine that will primarily see service from the 2030-2070 period.

Indeed. Kaveri and it's ultra low bypass ratio was conceived keeping India's material technology of the day in mind (hence the extra large core and Dhoti cooling tech). If going by what we see we have made the materials jump, we can leverage what we have developed into something better.

For eg, the F100 engine of the F-16 /16 is a 120KN engine (which currently puts out 140KN in the latest versions) is a 1975 engine . The latest engine from P&W which fully leverages the computational fluid dynamics advances and the materials tech since then and designed ground up , the F119 puts out 160KN in the F22 and a whopping 180KN in the F-35. And the F119 uses 40% LESS parts than the F100 (uses far fewer stages, both HP and LP), is shorter and lighter and thus has a T:W ratio of on order more !

Shiv wrote:In fact I use the name Kaveri, but I guess I should have used the name "Kabini" core engine. That core engine with a bigger low pressure fan and a working afterburner is the only way that I can see as non-ROTFL AMCA go forward.

In theory yes, probably the core might need to be scaled a bit if it is for a 100KN+ (around 120KN would be ideal for AMCA), new materials introduced and probably tweaked a bit and it will definitely need a new/ vastly scaled up (if possible) LP spool altogether . It will need a bit of rework if the required thrust levels are high (as should be) and probably cannot use stuff as is.

I had said that the current Kaveri could probably spawn two derivatives if the materials and stuff are up to scratch..A Ge 414 replacement and a 120KN engine , the former using a smaller core (like the French wanted to do with the M88 core) and current LP system and the latter probably using a new LP system and current core.

For that the materials need to be available and if what you saw at the AI-13 is true, we are close to having it (if we already don't have it).

Before we can do all that, we need to debug the current Kaveri and fly it and prove it.

chiru · Post by **chiru** » 13 Feb 2013 09:44

NRao wrote:The AMCA has been rather well cloaked yet seems to be well thought through. Do we know what their thinking is on an engine? They should have an idea by now - not a speculated one.

a senior scientist at the ADA stall said that the team is not worried as to which engine they are going to use, he specifically said ANY engine with 90kn of thrust would suffice.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Feb 2013 09:44

shiv wrote:Just curious. Why would AMCA need thrust vectoring?

from the EF link, i read it as 5% increase in fuel efficiency, and plus in my understanding to get high AoA, besides all that MKI can do whilst dog fight- cobra shabra stuff. raptor has a 2d, whereas current pak-fa/mki is multi-axis.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Feb 2013 09:45

Indranil,guys,yes,the TVC EJ was displayed at the last AI.Itt is one option.Shiv might remember my referring to it.If a proven firang engine is chosen,at least the prototypes can fly just as we have done with the LCA.having a proven Indian designed engine is the holy grail,but we have to be practical if we want the aircraft to be commissioned,but there are huge challenges if we want a cutting edge engine as given below.

AM Sumit Mukerjee has in the latest IDR written a very good article on "Aero Engines for Future Military Aircraft".I mention just one point.For "6th-gen" aircraft,the US is hoping to achieve on the F-35/F135 engine,a 25% increase in fuel efficiency,giving a 25-30% increase in combat radius,supersonic cruise radius by 50%,tanker burden reduction by 75%,etc.The global 3 major manufacturers are collaborating on this through a programme called "ADVENT" (adaptive versatile engine technology).Other exotics are SABRE,hybrid jet/rocket engines giving a mach 5 capability.

Wny TVC? With a limited internal weapons bay,exhausted one's limited number of BVR missiles,the game enters the dog-fighting regime.The F-35 has less capability in this area than even the F-16! With underwing weaponry ,bang goes stealth.This why the Israelis still retain their guns/cannon and give importance to aerial combat/dog-fighting skills.

prashanth · Post by **prashanth** » 13 Feb 2013 10:53

shiv wrote: I personally think this whole AMCA idea would be ~~laughable~~ disappointing without an Indian engine. But these are my views.

I have the same opinion. Better have a slightly underpowered AMCA with a home developed engine than wait for a foreign vendor to modify their engine to suit our requirements. Asking for thrust vectoring on F414/EJ200/M88 is inviting more trouble in addition to what we already have.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 13 Feb 2013 11:57

Flightglobal has it as GTRE engine.

Advanced medium combat aircraft first flight likely in 2020

It will be powered by a future variant of the indigenously developed Gas Turbine Research Establishment Kaveri engine. The Kaveri was originally intended as the powerplant for the Tejas, but was detached from the programme owing to weight and performance issues.

Even if the engine is delayed beyond FOC, we could still have a Mark II with the GTRE engine but lets hope it does not go that far.

A Question for the Gurus. Couldn't the GTRE engine be build with external characteristics very similar to a proven (foreign backup) engine? Wouldn't it then be possible to change the engine with minimal changes to the plane?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Feb 2013 12:09

Actually Shivji, I would not make the AMCA hostage to indigenous engine design. It should be the other way around. ADA and GTRE should get together and chalk out common requirements, keeping in mind a contingency plan, in case the engine does not materialize. By contigency plan, I mean an alternative engine which can be fit into the cavity with adapters. If the engine materializes, you fit it in. If not move on with Plan B.

I agree with Kartik, prototyping and flight testing should be started at the earliest. By earliest, I mean what Mr. P.S. Subramanyam had said during this years seminar. They should do virtual prototyping to the point where they know the order in which parts are put together. I really liked it when he said, finalize that step, freeze your design before building your first prototype. This is a lesson learnt from both LCA and ALH(please watch Group Captain Unni Pillai's talk). There should be formal closure of previous stage before starting of next step. Hence LCA LSPs don't match, and even ALH first few SPs did not match! They actually ended up spending more time rather than saving any.

I was reading some discussion somewhere about designing TVC. Providing TVC nozzle for the engine is not that difficult (every thing is comparative here). To be able retain control while using TVC is much more difficult.

prashanth · Post by **prashanth** » 13 Feb 2013 13:52

indranilroy wrote:Actually Shivji, I would not make the AMCA hostage to indigenous engine design. It should be the other way around. ADA and GTRE should get together and chalk out common requirements, keeping in mind a contingency plan, in case the engine does not materialize. By contigency plan, I mean an alternative engine which can be fit into the cavity with adapters. If the engine materializes, you fit it in. If not move on with Plan B.

Roy ji,
It is the other way round. You cannot make the engine programme hostage to AMCA. Even if the AMCA comes a bit late we will have the FGFA/PAKFA to fill in the gap for sometime. AMCA can take off whenever Kaveri meets the required standards. GTRE/DRDO will be under pressure to deliver in time.

OTOH, if we plan to have some alternative to kaveri on AMCA, even until FOC, rest assured that the LCA story will repeat. It is natural for the forces/DRDO to lose interest in indigenous engine if you have alternatives available and when the larger project is held up (which is why they de-linked Kaveri from LCA). In that case, fifteen years from now, Kaveri will have become a hobby project to be sidelined by the air force, with an assurance from GTRE that an upgraded version will be used for the sixth generation fighter, whenever that comes along. Snecma will still deny technology of high temp materials or offer to replace Kaveri core with M88-X. Please note that, even for the F-22, P&W and GE started working on the engines from the early 80's. They build their engines first and then wrap an airframe around it.

PS: The chinese posters claim that Chinese fighters are flying WS-10 engines. I agree they might have copied the AL31 to some extent but still it seems that tech/product denial really helps, sometimes.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Feb 2013 14:07

No 'ji' please,

I see your point. But will lighting a fire under the GTRE guys yield faster results. In case of research of basic sciences, I have hardly seen that to be the case.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Feb 2013 14:31

This is where ACM Browne has said "impose penalties".Look what Putin and Medvedev did with the famous missile designer who was given the Bulava dev.After years of patchy results,he was sacked .It worked.The missile has now been perfected and the Borei class SSBNs are entering Russian service.Unless there is accountability in our def. organisations,the results will be the same.

Secondly,after the LCA fiasco,an overall head with hire and fire powers should be selected to head the programme.He should be directly answerable to and under the Def. Min.If a "committee" is responsible,it will be "passing the parcel" yet again.Look again at hoe APJAK was entrusted with the overall planning of our P-2 tests.In the missile programmes,there are clear heads for each project.They have to establish positive teamwork and innovation to yeild results.We have abundant talent,they need to be motivated and genuine success should have its rewards,

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 13 Feb 2013 15:06

I think F414 EPE could be the engine of choice if a 120+KN Kaveri isn't ready instead of EJs or the M-88s. Note that the F414 would be made completely in India and by then it would be an engine we fully understand. It remains perhaps the most reliable and rugged fighter engine ever made, I have yet to see a crash of bird due to engine failure on this one. Moreover, with CMCs being used in the engines, it is well on its way to be the lightest among its peers and the best part this tech might just find its way into the LCA's engine. The estimated weigh savings are upward of 200kg.

As for the F414 being too big for the AMCA, if it can fit on the LCA, it can certainly fit on the AMCA. Higher thrust, reliability and sheer opertaional ruggedness, great high alpha performance are some of the key strengths of this engine. Besides makes more sense to have this than the EJ or the M-88 from a cost and commonality point of view. The cost savings from having LCA and AMCA on same engine platform over an entire or even mid life cycle would save billions.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... es-349834/

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Feb 2013 15:15

I agree if ADA is happy working with GE and has developed a working relationship with it for F-404 and later F-414 program for Tejas , F414EPE is a logical choice for AMCA and it should be pursued accordingly , May be AMCA mark 1 can use the same engine at Tejas Mk2 and then for Mark 2 model go for higher thrust EPE version

prashanth · Post by **prashanth** » 13 Feb 2013 15:16

indranilroy wrote:No 'ji' please,

I see your point. But will lighting a fire under the GTRE guys yield faster results. In case of research of basic sciences, I have hardly seen that to be the case.

Basic science or product development, it is not wise to jump headlong into AMCA without first perfecting Kaveri. This is my opinion.

abhishek-nayak · Post by **abhishek-nayak** » 13 Feb 2013 15:44

Septimus P. wrote:I think F414 EPE could be the engine of choice if a 120+KN Kaveri isn't ready instead of EJs or the M-88s. Note that the F414 would be made completely in India and by then it would be an engine we fully understand. It remains perhaps the most reliable and rugged fighter engine ever made, I have yet to see a crash of bird due to engine failure on this one. Moreover, with CMCs being used in the engines, it is well on its way to be the lightest among its peers and the best part this tech might just find its way into the LCA's engine. The estimated weigh savings are upward of 200kg.

As for the F414 being too big for the AMCA, if it can fit on the LCA, it can certainly fit on the AMCA. Higher thrust, reliability and sheer opertaional ruggedness, great high alpha performance are some of the key strengths of this engine. Besides makes more sense to have this than the EJ or the M-88 from a cost and commonality point of view. The cost savings from having LCA and AMCA on same engine platform over an entire or even mid life cycle would save billions.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... es-349834/

F414 for AMCA?

i say thats a bad idea not because of the technical specifications but because of politics.Engine is the heart of a fighter and overly reliant on a foreign country for it is not a wise idea.
Chinese are making their own engines,why can't india?
besides that US military exports comes with a lot of if and but clauses .For the LCA MK2 engine they wanted india to pay liabilities if an Indian plane crashed into Pakistan or if it carried nuclear weapons

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 13 Feb 2013 16:54

Till we have a viable engine of our own we will be reliant on foreign vendors and governments be it for just the engine or the whole plane itself (FGFA or Rafale). Whether it is the Americans or the French or the Russians, we have had well documented issues with all of them at one time or another for one reason or the other.

With that background, In case of a delay in the GTRE engine, I would prefer an AMCA with an imported engine to an imported plane as the stopgap. At least our designers and engineers would have progressed on the Plane by the time the GTRE engine is available.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Feb 2013 18:15

GTRE needs a turbulence and veered off from their style of working. All said and done, they need more funds, better management, young blood and reinforced. I sincerely hope this happens on the background.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 13 Feb 2013 18:26

abhishek-nayak wrote:
Septimus P. wrote:I think F414 EPE could be the engine of choice if a 120+KN Kaveri isn't ready instead of EJs or the M-88s. Note that the F414 would be made completely in India and by then it would be an engine we fully understand. It remains perhaps the most reliable and rugged fighter engine ever made, I have yet to see a crash of bird due to engine failure on this one. Moreover, with CMCs being used in the engines, it is well on its way to be the lightest among its peers and the best part this tech might just find its way into the LCA's engine. The estimated weigh savings are upward of 200kg.

As for the F414 being too big for the AMCA, if it can fit on the LCA, it can certainly fit on the AMCA. Higher thrust, reliability and sheer opertaional ruggedness, great high alpha performance are some of the key strengths of this engine. Besides makes more sense to have this than the EJ or the M-88 from a cost and commonality point of view. The cost savings from having LCA and AMCA on same engine platform over an entire or even mid life cycle would save billions.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... es-349834/

F414 for AMCA?

i say thats a bad idea not because of the technical specifications but because of politics.Engine is the heart of a fighter and overly reliant on a foreign country for it is not a wise idea.
Chinese are making their own engines,why can't india?
besides that US military exports comes with a lot of if and but clauses .For the LCA MK2 engine they wanted india to pay liabilities if an Indian plane crashed into Pakistan or if it carried nuclear weapons

Well I did say if Kaveri doesn't happen by then, my point is always have self reliance but in certain domains a lot of work still remains. Those silly clauses were rejected outright and the deal signed now seems ok. Offcourse, we still have inspections but I think they can be dropped in time

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 13 Feb 2013 19:13

Karan M wrote:Re: Sancho - FGFA is a Russian plane. Very unlikely to get the design specs we want to reconfigure into any AMCA, and nor do the Israelis have the across the board experience we need for UCAVs etc.

FGFA is a co-development, which means we get access to the project details as well, otherwise you suggest that we pay nearly 30 billions for nothing. Moreover, we don't need their design specs, but the know how in stealth design to start with, while the commonality of systems to FGFA would dramatically increase the speed of an AMCA development (common engines, materials, cockpit design, possibly radar and avionics), just like commonality to Rafale would make the current AMCA development faster, by using the know how gathered from that project. But if we want to develop everything new again and everything indigenously for the wrong reasons, we will take decades again.

The Israelis have vastly more experience and know how than India has with drones, sensors, electro optics and even weapons systems. We don't want their drones, their radars, or their weapons for no reasons right? And this would be the perfect chance to co-develop a UCAV and a HALE drone, with high capability and according to the needs of our forces.

Karan M wrote:As regards "India struggling with drag and weight", don't go overboard ...

LCA, LCH, IJT, Saras, all developed with weight and drag issues. Isn't that obvious enough to see one of the key problems?

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 13 Feb 2013 19:29

On India's contribution to the FGFA design. Hope this puts to rest some of the assumptions that are being made with respect to AMCA's design or that such an expensive (~$2 Billion, ADA, Will have to dig up the reference) porgram is even required.

Austin wrote:New Design For India's Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

“Let’s be clear: the HAL-Sukhoi program isn’t a joint effort,” says an IAF officer with Bengaluru-based Training Command. “The airframe will be identical to the ones the Russians currently have in flight test. Our decision to go with a single-seat configuration is principally to avoid potential time overruns that will almost certainly be part of designing such a configuration. The maximum that HAL will do is insert a few systems of our choice and play lead integrator for the ‘MKI,’ if you will. Therefore, it is imperative that India look ahead and begin developing technologies and platforms like the AMCA. We cannot forever be a buyer of aircraft that are conceptualized, designed by others, and simply assembled or license-built here.”

A senior scientist at the AMCA directorate in Bengaluru says, “We have the fourth-generation Tejas on the one hand. But evolutionary technologies we are developing for the AMCA are on the cutting edge. They hope to be comparable with the best in the world. If we need a little help along the way in the interests of pragmatism, cost and time, we will study the feasibility of cooperation. But this ideally needs to be a fully Indian program. Sensitive stealth technologies will not be shared by foreign technology companies.”

It seems to have been structured exactly like the Su30 MKI program except for both the countries choosing to call it "joint development".

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 13 Feb 2013 19:33

SaiK wrote:There were willing to demonstrate the TVN.. in test bed:
http://defense-update.com/20110209_typhoon_tvn.html

We did not choose them on price / low cost bidding. So, we have to work with F414. Now, it is quite possible to have EJ2?0-TVN for AMCA. It all depends on how we are finalizing on the design.

Actually it's not, since we produce the GE 414 under licence in India, which makes it to the most cost-effective engine for a possible AMCA prototypes, which doesn't need TVN anyway.
Secondly, the long term solution is not another foreign engine, but a co-developed Kaveri K10 and so far only the French and the Russians made co-development offers to fix Kaveri. If Eurojet would have made a co-development offer as a long term prospect, WITH the offer of EJ200 as stopgaps for LCA MK2, they would have won the deal with ease, but they didn't! All they offered was, that we fund the TVC development and that it could be added on LCA MK2s with EJ 200s, just like on EFs with EJ200 engines. That would have benefited only the EF consortium and their MMRCA bid, but not DRDO to fix Kaveri engines problems.

The French and the Russians are still the most likeliest choices for a co-development and since we rejected the Russians in LCA from the start, the French will bag this deal as well, the only reason for the competition now is, to reduce the price and increase ToT/offset benefits.

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 13 Feb 2013 19:45

pankajs wrote:On India's contribution to the FGFA design. Hope this puts to rest some of the assumptions that are being made with respect to AMCA's design or that such an expensive (~$2 Billion, ADA, Will have to dig up the reference) porgram is even required.

First of all, any report that includes statements of unnamed sources is more than questionable and what knowledge exactly should an officer from a training command have about the FGFA program ot the content of HAL to the design stage? That is just as reliable as the statements of an Indian ambassador in Italy, that claimed EF leads MMRCA, even before it attended the trials.

Also "only" in India there is a view, that any program to gain experience and knowledge like N-LCA for navalising a fighter, or AMCA possibly for stealth design, must be a fully fledged program including the procurement of high number of fighters. All around the world instead, tech demonstrator programs are used for exactly the same purpose, but will be done way simpler, faster and with lower costs.

Only because ADA/DRDO/HAL needs to get these know how, we don't have to add a 5th type of fighter into IAF, nor should we develop a limited capable carrier fighter.

pankajs wrote:It seems to have been structured exactly like the Su30 MKI program except for both the countries choosing to call it "joint development".

Btw, the joint development is based on FGFA, not on T50 or Pak Fa. So we jointly develop the changes for FGFA, but the main difference will be, that we own half of the fighter and it's intellectual rights, just like we will have our shares from exports.
That makes the deal more beneficiary for us than the MKI deal and although many might not like the comparision, more similar to the JF 17 deal. Joint funding, customisations, shared production, intellectual and export rights, while design and development mainly will be done by the prime partners, Russia / China.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Feb 2013 19:58

I am expecting the wind tunnel model changing again. Has any gyan gurus of the forum analyzed possible parameters from the design? - mach number, drag, turn , AoA, stealth, etc?

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 13 Feb 2013 20:05

Sancho wrote:First of all, any report that includes statements of unnamed sources is more than questionable and what knowledge exactly should an officer from a training command have about the FGFA program ot the content of HAL to the design stage?

The ADA guy quoted is referred to as "A senior scientist at the AMCA directorate in Bengaluru". If the senior guys in the AMCA program office states "Sensitive stealth technologies will not be shared by foreign technology companies", I see no reason not to believe him on the AMCA program.

Folks are free to read the report and decide for themselves on this matter.

vic · Post by **vic** » 13 Feb 2013 20:09

Designing and putting a turbojet engine into production is a USD 10 Billion dollar 10 year project. I think we should develop AMCA around F414EPE 114kN engine while developing a Kaveri with same dimensions with TVC and 120kn output.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Feb 2013 20:16

we can get from the massans. they did try on the f-16s, MATV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZQDwRKHCSQ ,(video has with chip caption).

however, if kilmov wants to provide or we can derive our own from experiences from the nozzle group working on IGMDP or ISRO.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Feb 2013 20:27

indranilroy wrote:Actually Shivji, I would not make the AMCA hostage to indigenous engine design.

I would

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Feb 2013 20:29

prashanth wrote:
shiv wrote: I personally think this whole AMCA idea would be ~~laughable~~ disappointing without an Indian engine. But these are my views.
I have the same opinion. Better have a slightly underpowered AMCA with a home developed engine than wait for a foreign vendor to modify their engine to suit our requirements. Asking for thrust vectoring on F414/EJ200/M88 is inviting more trouble in addition to what we already have.

Yes Prashanth. I think the final dimensions and weights of AMCA must not be fixed until we know how much thrust an indigenous engine is developing.

The last thing this country needs is another HF 24 and LCA "No engine" joke.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Feb 2013 20:41

I will vote for you shiv ji. tell us if you are doing a hunger strike or raasta roko... if I can within legal limits, 'll participate.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Feb 2013 20:47

Let me formally place a bet on here.

I bet AMCA will fly ONLY with an Indian engine.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Feb 2013 20:53

chiru wrote:
NRao wrote:The AMCA has been rather well cloaked yet seems to be well thought through. Do we know what their thinking is on an engine? They should have an idea by now - not a speculated one.
a senior scientist at the ADA stall said that the team is not worried as to which engine they are going to use, he specifically said ANY engine with 90kn of thrust would suffice.

Sounds like a development of Kaveri to me

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Feb 2013 20:59

wrt to the AMCA, if the intake does not have moveable constricting surface inside (like mig29/F15), will it be able to beat the Mach1.8 top speed limit even with a pair of souped up 414 EPE + diamond shaped "black widow" wings?

or does the diamond shape wings help in merely raising the supercruise speed higher?