Is the AMCA a pipe dream that will become a dead Albatross?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jun 2015 21:12

shiv wrote:The people who were at the helm when the LCA saga started are retired, too old or dead. And while everyone is happy that an LCA has finally come and it looks good - none of us want to experience the pain of watching another slow-grinding torture of missed deadlines and unreachable goals.
..

..

..

but

.. from today's tweets

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Jun 2015 22:17

If AMCA is a pipe dream, then so was LCA. And the pipe was much longer!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Jun 2015 22:23

This thread is worse than the turkey thread. And I thought the turkey thread was bad.

Not one argument makes me concerned and look at the questions for the poll. Yikes. Bad science right there.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Jul 2015 04:45

indranilroy wrote:If AMCA is a pipe dream, then so was LCA. And the pipe was much longer!

We survived strong moves to close Tejas project in 2007: Subramanyam

They have experience with such threads. In reality!!!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2015 05:29

NRao wrote:
indranilroy wrote:If AMCA is a pipe dream, then so was LCA. And the pipe was much longer!
We survived strong moves to close Tejas project in 2007: Subramanyam

They have experience with such threads. In reality!!!

They have experience of delaying things so long with goals that they do not have the wherewithal to reach that they have to fight a rearguard battle and you are now praising the ability to fight a rearguard battle. It pains me to see arguments around non issues but I am being unfair here. I am asking questions that BRFites cannot answer.

What upsets me is that the answers to those questions are not coming from the people who talk about creating an AMCA

Once again:
1. Exactly what role will the AMCA play in the Air Force?
2. Is the Air Force on board. Imagine a 40 aircraft order being placed in 2031 with a demand to make AMCA Mk 2?

The LCA's "requirements" kept on expanding as new technology came in and the engine was found to be inadequate. That requires re-engining and modification of the structure.

For the AMCA the engine is crucial. It is going to be imported. Now I don't think people have applied their minds to this deadly question. How on earth are DRDO going to make thrust vectoring on an imported engine with ten thousand licensing clauses?

The "re engining" of IJT delayed it to a stage where people want to kill it. So the experience of fighting program shut down should help with IJT

The HPT 32 died over the question of re engining.

The LCA is "due to have re engining" with no firm dates

The re engining of the Jaguar has gone through the usual ludicrous tamasha - with two vendors, later one backing out and now only one ready to supply a new engine but nothing has moved. It is no longer in the news.

Kaveri is either dead or "repurposed"

HAL is building a teensy weensy engine shown to Modi at Aero India

AMCA engine "has been finalized"

Is there no end to this? I am all for technology to be developed in India, but how can anyone create technology if the infrastructure is not there. When DRDO build an AMCA model someone will get a free Air India air ticket to fly to the USA and do a wind tunnel test. When some other Indian innovator wants to do a supersonic wind tunnel test in India the facilities do not exist because DRDO is spending taxpayers money on claiming great successes in sending people abroad with model aeroplanes for testing

No supersonic wind tunnel in India
No vertical wind tunnel in India
No flying test bed for an engine in India

The presence of such facilities in India will encourage more research bodies to experiment with designs and encourage more innovation and help problem solving. But no. Our scientists want trips to Amrica, Russia and France

We don't have the infrastructure to complete an AMCA project. We have muddle though with the LCA and it looks like the plan is to try and muddle though the AMCA with no firm aim or purpose.

The Kaveri was along pipe dream - longer than LCA. How come no one is making the same arguments for Kaveri that people now make about sAMCA? We have a working 70-80kN Kaveri now. Build something around that., Instead these insufferable Einsteins want to import a brand new engine and take a program on for another 30-50 years of a wild goose chase.

And finally. Some please explain to me the difference between AMCA and FGFA?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2015 05:41

The ability fight rearguard battles is nothing to be proud of. How come the same DRDO is not fighting a rearguard battle to use the Kaveri? Victory has many fathers and this "pride" in staving off efforts to kill the LCA is false pride because it fails to talk about all the programs that died from the same or similar issues

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Jul 2015 06:28

shiv wrote:...

And finally. Some please explain to me the difference between AMCA and FGFA?

In that case what is the difference between Su-30MKI and Rafale?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2015 06:35

srai wrote:
shiv wrote:...

And finally. Some please explain to me the difference between AMCA and FGFA?
In that case what is the difference between Su-30MKI and Rafale?

Is this an answer to the question? Are you trying to say that the relationship between Su 30 MKI and Rafale are like the relationship between AMCA and FGFA.

I don't understand the analogy because I know what MKI is and what Rafale is.I know what AMCA is supposed to be. But I have no idea what FGFA is. I worry when I hear the acronym FGFA coming from governmental and MoD sources. Someone is fudging something.

If you know what FGFA is, please tell me, rather than asking me a question. If India is going to get an FGFA, will it be AMCA? Or PAK-FA? The sneaky use of the term FGFA could well be a cover for indecisiveness and back up plan for potential failure of AMCA.

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Jul 2015 06:50

^^^

PAK-FA/FGFA are one in the same. FGFA was supposed to be MKI'ized version of PAK-FA.

FGFA, AMCA and LCA roles

Current (near future):

Heavy -> Su-30MKI
Medium -> Rafale, Mirage-2000, MiG-29, Jaguar
Light -> LCA (replacing MiG-21s)

Future:

Heavy -> FGFA (or PAK-FA if you like), MKI
Medium -> AMCA, UCAV, Rafale
Light -> LCA, UCAV

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Jul 2015 07:08

Don't forget the Rafale..Its an 8000 hour airframe easily upgradable to 10000 so thats at least 40 years of operations if not more.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2015 08:50

srai wrote:^^^

PAK-FA/FGFA are one in the same. FGFA was supposed to be MKI'ized version of PAK-FA.

Current (near future):

Heavy -> Su-30MKI

Medium -> Rafale, Mirage-2000, MiG-29, Jaguar

Light -> LCA (replacing MiG-21s)
Future:

Heavy -> FGFA (or PAK-FA if you like)

Medium -> AMCA, UCAV, Rafale

Light -> LCA, UCAV

OK That is useful information. According to this (and someone did point this out on this very thread earlier), the AMCA will replace the Mirage 2000, MiG 29 and Jaguar? And the PAK-FA will replace the Su-30 MKI? I have not seen any official MoD or IAF suggestion that this is the plan. At least the LCA had a plan - that was: "Replace Mig 21". Does the AMCA really have an equivalent plan of replacing Mirage 2000, Jaguar and MiG 29 or is the plan simply being conjured up as a convenient ploy to explain away the AMCA's raisin dieter.

The image is from LiveFist and a journalist's words needs to be taken with caution.

Now let me see:

The Jaguar can carry 4000 kg of offensive munitions. The MiG 29 and Mirage 2000 can carry a mix of BVR and WVR AAMs missiles - at least 6 if not more. The Mirage 2000 can carry 6 tons of bombs

So I would expect that the AMCA will be able to match these specs in addition the 5 gen technologies like stealth, super cruise and sensor fusion. Is this a reasonable set of specs to expect from the AMCA? Is there any public information in this regard.

I think the F-35 can carry just 2000 kg internally and I doubt if the AMCA can exceed that. Also, would the AMCA carry 6 AAMs internally?

In order to "replace" Mirage 2000 and MiG 29 and Jaguar the AMCA would have to carry a weapon load externally with a resultant loss of stealth, supercruising ability and super manoeuvrability. That is the theory. A counter theory would be "No No - the AMCA will still pull off everything despite these silly arguments from detractors". Either way there are no pointers

Is the AMCA really planned as a replacement for something or are people just dreaming up this "light", "medium" heavy stuff simply as a rationalization of what might happen? A decade ago when the Su-30 MKI was coming in no one had even dreamt up this theory of "light, medium, heavy mix. Somewhere along the way someone has cooked it up specifically for India. It is cooked up because if IAF was RuAF our "Heavy" would be Tu-160 and if IAF was USAF our "heavy" would be B1, B2, B 52.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 01 Jul 2015 09:23

IIRC, the AMCA's internal bay is designed for 2800 Kgs.

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Jul 2015 11:25

shiv wrote:
... And the PAK-FA will replace the Su-30 MKI? I have not seen any official MoD or IAF suggestion that this is the plan. ...

...

For the foreseeable future, aircraft being currently inducted (or going to be soon) will be around for the next 30-to-40 years. So we can expect some quantities of Su-30MKI, Rafale and LCA to be around on top of future inductions like the FGFA, AMCA and UCAV.

Nothing official ... but some observations:

FGFA falls in the same heavy category as the Su-30MKI. So initially they will occupy the same space but gradually the FGFA will take over as older MKIs retire.
AMCA, similarly, will (if it comes in time) replace current medium category fighters like the Jaguars, MiG-29s and Mirage-2000s. Rafale will be around since it is going to be inducted in limited quantities in the next few years. If the IAF had gotten those 126 + 63 Rafale options, they would have replaced the MiG-29s with it too.
LCAs Mk.1/2/etc will be around too for the next 30-40 years.

Then, in the more distant future, you have UCAVs joining the fleet. Based on the size of Aurora TD, it looks to be medium-sized aircraft. It will augment and replace where appropriate medium and light fighters.

The image is from LiveFist and a journalist's words needs to be taken with caution.

I believe that was issued by ADA originally.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Jul 2015 14:10

I think the F-35 can carry just 2000 kg internally and I doubt if the AMCA can exceed that. Also, would the AMCA carry 6 AAMs internally?

The internal bays of the JSF are actually rated at 2500 kg (5700 pounds) however the heavier weapon available for it to carry on each of the a2g stations is 2000 pounds. There is no reason to believe that the AMCA cannot match the bays of the F-35 especially with the twin engine configuration.

As far as the missile load and flexibility of the weapons load is concerned, it boils down to what the sweet spot is. For the JSF it was the 2000 pound bomb since the USAF had a ton in its inventory and wanted that capability since they lost it with the F117. You can design around a smaller bomb but get more flexibility in terms of a missile load for example...there are a number of ways you can play this. Do keep in mind however, that not all of the internal capability will reflect the external load capability of the fighter the AMCA replaces. Most end-users will easily take a smaller internal load for the penetrating missions as long as it preserves signature. You can always hang stuff outside when the mission allows for it, and the added benefit of the 5th generation designs is that you have the large internal fuel that allows you to a degree, to do away with EFT's and carry just external ordinance.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2015 14:15

srai wrote:
The image is from LiveFist and a journalist's words needs to be taken with caution.
I believe that was issued by ADA originally.

If you look at that image carefully it is totally fanciful. 200-300 km will cover Pakistan completely. 1000 km will not really touch much in China. So the picture looks like a schoolboy dream or a sales brochure.

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Jul 2015 16:30

shiv wrote:...
The image is from LiveFist and a journalist's words needs to be taken with caution.
...
If you look at that image carefully it is totally fanciful. 200-300 km will cover Pakistan completely. 1000 km will not really touch much in China. So the picture looks like a schoolboy dream or a sales brochure.

This is what Shiv Aroor says on his blog about that image:

DRDO's Strike Scenario For 3 Indian Fighter Efforts

June 25, 2012

Wanted to write about this, but I just got back to Delhi from a weekend in Bangalore, and I'm rushing off to work, so I'm putting it up anyway. It's from a recent DRDO presentation and perhaps the first that depicts the LCA, AMCA and FGFA in an operational scenario. Comment and tell what you think this slide tells us.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2015 16:40

srai wrote: Wanted to write about this, but I just got back to Delhi from a weekend in Bangalore, and I'm rushing off to work, so I'm putting it up anyway. It's from a recent DRDO presentation and perhaps the first that depicts the LCA, AMCA and FGFA in an operational scenario. Comment and tell what you think this slide tells us.

[/quote]
Well I have commented on the slide on BRF. Maybe I will cross post the same comment on his blog but it's probably old.

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Jul 2015 16:57

Internal weapon bay:

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2015 18:43

All 3 images show an R-73 which led to so much pain on LCA

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Jul 2015 20:03

shiv wrote: Is the AMCA really planned as a replacement for something or are people just dreaming up this "light", "medium" heavy stuff simply as a rationalization of what might happen? A decade ago when the Su-30 MKI was coming in no one had even dreamt up this theory of "light, medium, heavy mix. Somewhere along the way someone has cooked it up specifically for India. It is cooked up because if IAF was RuAF our "Heavy" would be Tu-160 and if IAF was USAF our "heavy" would be B1, B2, B 52.

Now you are veering into the territory of force structures and its rationale both in types and numbers. They are eminently questionable and should be questioned. How these have come about is a mystery that many are looking to solve. I think it has come about from the following questions on the table. The demand of the MoD to be ready for a two front war. The limitation set by the MoD on the "sanctioned" strength of the number of squadrons (45, IIRC - not funded though

). To be ready to undertake offensive missions into enemy territory (Active defense posture change for China). Last but not the least, to be ready to project force in the larger IOR.

The split of the sanctioned strength into three approximately equal parts, is how the IAF plans to do this. For the future, it seems the light category is most likely the Tejas, the heavy category today is the MKI and FGFA for the future and for the AMCA - I am smelling scAMCA too and think the Americans or Europeans would come and make a serious dent into this area, if the IAF choices prevail.

The kind of demands made on the AMCA by the IAF - reads "Raptor" like features and Indian R&D is simply not there either in engines or stealthy airframes or signals or sensor fusion or Avionics. If the IAF wants a usable and indigenous "product" then compromises would have to be made across most of these areas to come to an "incremental" upgrade from where we are today. Example the J-31 is said to have the 84Kn R-93 as its power plant. Why can we not do our first TD/PT with a 80Kn Kaveri, with a lighter frame with use of composites. Instead of comparing to the Raptor, why not a compare to a country that is undergoing a similar evolution of its own and compare to the advances made in J-10, J-20 and J-31. By compare, I do not mean take a similar evolution path and design but generally compare the levels achieved and evolution of that industry from where they were to where they are and going to. Do not think the J-31 offers all aspect stealth, Super cruise or TVC - but it is built locally and is a serious evolution of the PRC aircraft industry - demonstrated. Given a choice, I would rather that the IAF made a compromised choice in favor of locally made products rather than TFTA western ones. RuAF also has taken an incremental step with the FGFA.

I think the AMCA is the right step in our evolution to a twin engined fighter but need to go with what the ADA can deliver using indigenous components, with not less than 80%+ of the critical components coming from locally controlled technologies. Having said all this, still support incorporating a handful the Tu-160 the only air based deterrent against PRC.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2015 20:29

ShauryaT wrote: The kind of demands made on the AMCA by the IAF - reads "Raptor" like features and Indian R&D is simply not there

Absolutely., The IAF is doing exactly what the army was caught doing (in the No IAF role in mfg thread).
It is shocking that the Army and Air Force have filled themselves up with people who are so removed from the reality of the country that they make these absolutely absurd demands

The typical process is this: all available literature on the equipment is gathered and its multiple characteristics collated. The idea is to include as many features as possible to demonstrate how exhaustively the task has been performed. Thereafter, as the draft travels up the chain of command, it gathers additional parameters, as each officer feels compelled to suggest more improvements. “The final QR takes the shape of a well-compiled wish list of utopian dimensions, which simply do not exist,” stated Gen. Suman.

and

Indian Army scraps the world’s largest assault rifle tender

But the solution to the INSAS’s quality issues was to ask for a weapon so expensive with specifications so outlandish that it raised questions on the Army’s competence in framing General Staff Qualitative Requirements.

A General called the MCAR contract the equivalent of equipping a mass transport taxi service with Mercedes S-class saloons.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2015 20:40

cross post
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 005_1.html

The outgoing ADA director is even more bullish about the AMCA, which the IAF is supporting enthusiastically - a change from its opposition to the Tejas. The AMCA's configuration is finalised, and preliminary design is about to commence. That would provide a clear indication of how much funding the AMCA project would need. "I am confident that the AMCA project would cost less than any fifth generation fighter project anywhere. My estimate would be in the region of $4 billion (Rs 25,000 crore)," says Subramanyam.

Good. If true

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Jul 2015 20:42

The kind of demands made on the AMCA by the IAF - reads "Raptor" like features

I would be interested in what the IAF has requested. Is there a URL that you can provide? Seriously. Thx.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2015 20:45

NRao wrote:
The kind of demands made on the AMCA by the IAF - reads "Raptor" like features
I would be interested in what the IAF has requested. Is there a URL that you can provide? Seriously. Thx.

posted earlier by Karan - don't know how much Vijendra Thakur can be trusted though..
http://thumkar.blogspot.in/2015/03/amca ... -aero.html

Going by the displayed design, AMCA will

Feature two engines without thrust vectoring, relying exclusively on high power to weight ratio for super-maneuverability.
Not have all aspect stealth - engine nozzles are not shaped, though ADA intends to minimize IR signature of the engine exhaust.
Be a single seat fighter.

ADA is all set to roll with the AMCA project, but the IAF isn't impressed with the aircraft's current feature set. The service has drawn up very detailed and ambitious PQSR which includes all aspect stealth, super-maneuverability through thrust vectoring and twin seats.

ADA is confident that it can redesign the AMCA for all aspect stealth, twin-seats and thrust vectoring, but points out that these capabilities would push up costs and stretch timelines. ADA is in the process of responding to the IAF PSQRs with feature wise cost and time frame implications.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Jul 2015 20:50

Is there not some other, over riding, authority to question an irrational GSQR?

What is amazing is that I came across very similar complains - ON BR - in 1996-97. That by itself should be very telling. Why are we surprised at newer projects being "scams" (if they are)? Seems to me it is cultural. Why have others not followed ISRO?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2015 20:55

NRao wrote:Is there not some other, over riding, authority to question an irrational GSQR?

What is amazing is that I came across very similar complains - ON BR - in 1996-97. That by itself should be very telling. Why are we surprised at newer projects being "scams" (if they are)? Seems to me it is cultural. Why have others not followed ISRO?

NRao we have protected the armed forces from criticism - but when mistakes are made, unless we point them out they are going to be cocooned and imagine that al iz vel. Al iz not well if the army and the air force are making idiotic and unrealistic demands that no one in the world, let alone India can meet. It sounds like MAD magazine.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Jul 2015 20:59

shiv wrote:
NRao wrote:
I would be interested in what the IAF has requested. Is there a URL that you can provide? Seriously. Thx.
posted earlier by Karan - don't know how much Vijendra Thakur can be trusted though..
http://thumkar.blogspot.in/2015/03/amca ... -aero.html
Going by the displayed design, AMCA will

Feature two engines without thrust vectoring, relying exclusively on high power to weight ratio for super-maneuverability.
Not have all aspect stealth - engine nozzles are not shaped, though ADA intends to minimize IR signature of the engine exhaust.
Be a single seat fighter.

ADA is all set to roll with the AMCA project, but the IAF isn't impressed with the aircraft's current feature set. The service has drawn up very detailed and ambitious PQSR which includes all aspect stealth, super-maneuverability through thrust vectoring and twin seats.

ADA is confident that it can redesign the AMCA for all aspect stealth, twin-seats and thrust vectoring, but points out that these capabilities would push up costs and stretch timelines. ADA is in the process of responding to the IAF PSQRs with feature wise cost and time frame implications.

ROTFL.

What is "Raptor"isk about that. Seems to have come from a 5th grade class report.

I would have rejected it because it does not have "network centric", "data fusion", lack of a requirement for automated diagnostics, proactive support, at least regional positioning, location based 3D printing (of some parts), digital documentation, etc, etc, etc. Now you get closer to the real deal.

IIRC, the AMCA was expected to be FBL. That by itself would be a game changer (although I do recall people questioning that). Do we know if they have retained FBL?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Jul 2015 21:02

shiv wrote:
NRao wrote:Is there not some other, over riding, authority to question an irrational GSQR?

What is amazing is that I came across very similar complains - ON BR - in 1996-97. That by itself should be very telling. Why are we surprised at newer projects being "scams" (if they are)? Seems to me it is cultural. Why have others not followed ISRO?
NRao we have protected the armed forces from criticism - but when mistakes are made, unless we point them out they are going to be cocooned and imagine that al iz vel. Al iz not well if the army and the air force are making idiotic and unrealistic demands that no one in the world, let alone India can meet. It sounds like MAD magazine.

OK. Fine. Accepted.

It is an Indian problem. Nothing really to do with the "AMCA" being a scam. Anything in India could be a "scam" - toilet building, roads, yoga, spiritual teachers, gurus, whatever.

Indians need to change it - if that is what Indians want. Simple for me to post I guess.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Jul 2015 21:14

NRao wrote: It is an Indian problem. Nothing really to do with the "AMCA" being a scam. Anything in India could be a "scam" - toilet building, roads, yoga, spiritual teachers, gurus, whatever.

Many of these are scams. News about the AMCA, such as what Thakur writes could also be a scam.

The AMCA needs to come on time. The time for saying "Technology is complex. You cannot give firm timelines" should have been over with the LCA. Any project that is taken up should be taken up with a good chance that the risks, and therefor time extensions are minimal, if any.

You mention the words "Indian" and "scam". Let me remind you of a post you made yesterday and then decided to delete. It is about Indians keeping time. It is one thing for the darzi to say "come again tomorrow saar. Not ready". It is completely different if DRDO keeps doing that. if they do, they are doing nothing less than scamming the country.

srin · Post by **srin** » 01 Jul 2015 21:23

NRao wrote:Is there not some other, over riding, authority to question an irrational GSQR?

What is amazing is that I came across very similar complains - ON BR - in 1996-97. That by itself should be very telling. Why are we surprised at newer projects being "scams" (if they are)? Seems to me it is cultural. Why have others not followed ISRO?

That's ADA's job isn't it ? Who else will understand what is infeasible and can say so ? Or atleast tell IAF that with teh requirements, it will take 15-20 years for AMCA to be available.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Jul 2015 21:29

The time for saying "Technology is complex. You cannot give firm timelines" should have been over with the LCA

Your heart is in the right place.

The mind needs to catch up.

More l8r.

That's ADA's job isn't it ? Who else will understand what is infeasible and can say so ? Or atleast tell IAF that with teh requirements, it will take 15-20 years for AMCA to be available.

I am not too sure, but I do not think it works that a way.

The IAF/IA needs someone within or within the MoD to monitor them. I am not too fond of "Think Tanks", but they also are used in some situations to keep entities in line. ?????

However, more than anything else, especially in India, which coined the word "Sat" (Satya) this should have been at the very lowest in the entire world. But, such is life. Those are the cards, need to deal with it and not complain.

member_28397 · Post by **member_28397** » 01 Jul 2015 21:54

the only solution is learn from past LCA experience.

* first priority get the final design freeze, no more last minute changes that stretches the project for years.
* make it sanction proof, the AMCA design should be able to mate with american, french or russian engines and of course desi one.
* no more ioc foc drama, put in squadron service make it work IAF should be coupled with testing from day 1.
* make sure part of development funds comes from IAF, keeps them away from losing their sight on firangi babes.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Jul 2015 22:03

srin wrote:That's ADA's job isn't it ? Who else will understand what is infeasible and can say so ? Or atleast tell IAF that with teh requirements, it will take 15-20 years for AMCA to be available.

It looks like the IAF has factored that into the picture for both the AMCA and the UCAV, if papers like these are to be believed.....We will continue to be over 80% dependent on foreign platforms in 2032 also. Meanwhile, this is what is happening.

Wishful thinking apart, unfortunately, this does not exist between IAF
and PLAAF, or for that matter, between IAF and PAF. The technological
edge is unlikely to change in IAF’s favour by 2032 as compared to PLAAF,
given the development programmes already underway in the two countries:
IAF imports AWACS from Israel, while People’s Republic of China (PRC)
builds its own AWACS; and IAF buys Rafale, MiG-29K, FGFA, C-17,
etc., with grudging transfer of technology by the original equipment
manufacturer (OEM), whereas PRC designs and builds its own J-10, J-15,
J-16, J-20, J-31 and Y-20. The trend appears to be towards the technology
edge shifting more in PLAAF’s favour rather than the other way around as
per data currently available. Hence, numbers do matter a great deal to IAF.

IAF Equipment and Force Structure Requirements to Meet External Threats, 2032

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Jul 2015 23:19

I said this before the IAF needs some changes at the top.
This constant changes in requirements have price and has to be paid.
Also Congress is not the party in power.
So no need for importgiri and ASR giri to ensure foreign buys.
Also when they leak they are not impressed they need to be specific about it. its not like going to a mandi and buying tanga horse.

BTW we are not impressed with IAF track record either in procurement. Looks like its simply based on not anything from Indian sources.

How about a proton torpedo along with it?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Jul 2015 05:32

NRaoji, I have tried to ignore irrelevant drivel on this thread because irrelevant drivel should not be used as a defence against criticism of a project. But when it is repeated, I worry that people in the highest places such as DRDO and IAF will also be tempted to use similar meaningless blather and snide criticism of the questioner rather than answering questions to cover up an inability to provide straight answers to straight questions.

I refer to the following eminently uninspired and uniniformative "defence of AMCA" posts from you

NRao wrote:This thread is worse than the turkey thread. And I thought the turkey thread was bad.
Not one argument makes me concerned and look at the questions for the poll. Yikes. Bad science right there.

NRao wrote: Your heart is in the right place.
The mind needs to catch up.

Silence is better than this NRaoji. I am not holding you personally responsible for any fake promises or unreasonable demands that people might be making wrt AMCA. No need to get yourself worked up enough to score self goals

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Jul 2015 05:43

Ok. Thx

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Jul 2015 18:26

"Twin seats".Barring a trainer type,why in the age of increased automation, terrific sensor fusion,UCAVs,etc.,is the IAF hung up on a two seat medium sized aircraft when they are already whining about pilot shortages? We seem to be the only air force in the world that is wanting twin-seat future stealth birds. One can understand if we were developing our desi version of an SU-34,etc.,a tactical bomber,Flanker family,but an aircraft to replace our M-2000s,MIG-29s,Jaguars?
The IAF's requirements must be spelt out in detail and each item on the list analysed in the Indian context-where it will come from.at home or from abroad. From the poll,one can clearly see that most want a poarallel programme with the FGFA so that time,money,etc. can be saved leveraging the FGFA's tech advances into the AMCA wherever possible,so that the goals are achievable.On the other hand,the IAF must stop asking for the "Starship Enterprise" as well!

srin · Post by **srin** » 02 Jul 2015 18:35

I can sympathize with the twin seat requirement. If the pilots are on a strike mission of a 6-7 hours and flying at low level and in formation most of the time, I guess it can get really fatiguing for the pilots. Tired pilots make mistakes. So it would be nice - perhaps necessary - if someone in the backseat can take over for a while.
We didn't have this problem when the only deep strike aircraft we had were Jaguars. After we understood the capabilities of the Sukhois, the IAF has been enamoured of this option.

Though why it is a requirement for AMCA and why they aren't buying only twinseat Rafales (which are of same class and perhaps same uses) isn't something I understand.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Jul 2015 19:42

srin wrote:I can sympathize with the twin seat requirement. If the pilots are on a strike mission of a 6-7 hours and flying at low level and in formation most of the time, I guess it can get really fatiguing for the pilots. Tired pilots make mistakes. So it would be nice - perhaps necessary - if someone in the backseat can take over for a while.
We didn't have this problem when the only deep strike aircraft we had were Jaguars. After we understood the capabilities of the Sukhois, the IAF has been enamoured of this option.

Though why it is a requirement for AMCA and why they aren't buying only twinseat Rafales (which are of same class and perhaps same uses) isn't something I understand.

srin, looking at the geopolitical scenario around India, under what circumstances do you think the IAF would be required to do 6-8 hour combat sorties?

The US did them regularly in various conflicts. The UK did them with Vulcans for the Falklands. The need for such long missions for IAF could be to hit parts of China or over the Indian ocean - but that is a niche role that can be played by one or two dedicated squadrons. An extra pilot carries a huge weight and range penalty for any combat aircraft.

If that role is so important it is better for us to invest in a long range bomber rather than a half hearted two seat multirole fighter.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 02 Jul 2015 20:42

Philip wrote:One can understand if we were developing our desi version of an SU-34,etc.,a tactical bomber,Flanker family,but an aircraft to replace our M-2000s,MIG-29s,Jaguars?
The IAF's requirements must be spelt out in detail and each item on the list analysed in the Indian context-where it will come from.at home or from abroad. From the poll,one can clearly see that most want a poarallel programme with the FGFA so that time,money,etc. can be saved leveraging the FGFA's tech advances into the AMCA wherever possible,so that the goals are achievable.On the other hand,the IAF must stop asking for the "Starship Enterprise" as well!

A reasonable bet to make would be to cancel the FGFA, divest its dollars to the AMCA and double up on building a long range stealth bomber. No direct MKI replacement. LCA/MCA, UCAV and a long range bomber should be the strategic vision.