AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (HAL)

[ice berg]

moreover india actually took that many years to develop nuclear submarine because beyond hull there is a nuclear reactor that actually makes a conventional submarine a nuclear submarine. i know how a nuclear reactor was made in disguise and what help russians provided but wont divulge here.( through personal contacts). so ok for public consumption one can say the actual production time was this much only and that much only but it actually took hell lot of time. if you were a mechanical engineer or a production engg then you would have known what difficult thing is welding submarine hull.

It is obvious Russia provided lots of assistance. We will never know how much though.

Abit strange consider SSBN are strategic assets and polar bear isnt exactly known for generosity.....

 

[ersakthivel]

Huh? What spares are we getting from others. There are consumables that we can get from anywhere, but if we want the right spares we will always look to Russia. Apart from that we are creating an industry capable of building all spares in India itself.

Russia has a lot of interest in India interfering in Afghanistan.

Economics, there are very few policies where Russian and Indian interests diverge.

Why should India take Russian route in modernization? That doesn't make sense anyway. India never followed the Soviet model let alone the current non-existent Russian model. Heck India never followed any model, instead made our own by combining the western models.

I would really like examples of what you have stated here.



The Soviet flavour never existed, we never had any proper join ventures with the Union. An Indo-Soviet relation was that of a master and a servant. That's why it was good at those times. India was poor and SU provided nearly free weapons.

Today's Russia-India relations are far more strategic than before. We are working on projects like Nuclear Submarines and Fifth gen aircraft. This kind of a partnership does not exist anywhere else. Even the US-UK relation in defence projects is one sided unlike Indo-Russian. Apart from that we have little we can provide for political support, unlike the Russian support to India through the UNSC. You don't hand over GLONASS military signals, or help develop Arihant and then say our strategic relationship is slipping.

I will repeat that, India did not break any kind of spares support from Russia, we still need spares from Russia. What you must be talking about is small items like connecting wires, transformers and rectifiers that can be sourced from anywhere and is not aircraft specific.



Sorry, but I suppose you don't know that the current workshare for HAL is 25% and they may be looking to increase it further.

India to develop 25% of fifth generation fighter



You are mistaken with where I said we are ahead. I said we are ahead with respect to the aerospace industry. We have far more projects happening here compared to what the Israelis are doing. We have one fourth gen project, two fifth gen projects and have already started a fifth gen UCAV project. Israel has nothing in comparison apart from .

Where they are indeed ahead is in the electronics that go in the aircraft. Therefore the advantage in converting the Cheetah into an unmanned bird. If we attempt it on our own we will take much longer in comparison. We can work on these together with the Israelis instead of going it alone and help further our own major projects in the process. That's what's happening anyway, across all three services.

Just because we are taking help from EADS for the LCA does not mean we cannot work on AMCA. This is my point.

Is russian sale of AL-31 engines and sukhoi aircrafts to china,,and the lining up of sukhoi clones on the tibetian airbases, and the delivery of JF-17 to pakistan also aimed at strengthening the INDO-RUSSIAN strategic partnership?What are the engines that are presently running on J-20 ,J-30?Mostly russian..This must also be another effort aimed at strenghtening the stategic partnership between india and russia.




Indians must be in deep gratitude for that.

If it is so,then it is a wonderful strategic relationship.
Arihnant project has started 30 years back,not after the birth of russia,

 

[p2prada]

my point is that since india drifted away from russian sphere of influence to somewhat independent status or pro-western influence, India was offered many new things like better quality and on time delivery of defence products from france, usa etc. since ussr is now russia and 13 other countries many of the factories are scattered allover them and in any case one needs to go to them,
regarding proof IAF launched global tender for spares which broke half century old tradition of shouting to russia across himalayas for help.

You are confusing things here. The west considered us as enemies and now they don't. That's about it.

Russia-India relations haven't waned in anyway. It is just the media playing down Russia.

i talked about lca because that joke indicate how big jokers its developer and manufacturer ie hal and drdo are.
regarding fgfa what is apparent is that hal is only fiddling with the indian version of fgfa and not the overall pak fa project. thats why there are different names because purely russian bred version will be designed by sukhoi but the indian version will be having 25% indian input just what you like what you said about work sharing.

HAL is only modifying PAKFA like how the Su-30 was modified to the MKI. A MKIzed PAKFA will be called FGFA. The Russians will have their own version and we will have our own including electronics. No big deal there.

right now india dont have an electronic industry. the govts plan to launch national electronics policy which aims to make indian electronic manufacturing industry a 400 billion $ electronic industry by 2015 might help but first let it roll out, then only we can see anything like software growth in india.

Military R&D is not related to civilian R&D.

moreover india actually took that many years to develop nuclear submarine because beyond hull there is a nuclear reactor that actually makes a conventional submarine a nuclear submarine. i know how a nuclear reactor was made in disguise and what help russians provided but wont divulge here.( through personal contacts). so ok for public consumption one can say the actual production time was this much only and that much only but it actually took hell lot of time. if you were a mechanical engineer or a production engg then you would have known what difficult thing is welding submarine hull.

I hardly doubt we would have had the funding or the capability to start work anytime before we leased the first INS Chakra. Regardless of your contacts, there is no way in hell we would have started the construction of a submarine without having studied the Charlie class between 1988 and 1991.

Heck our submarine is said to be a Charlie II design but with more modern quietening techniques.

No way that we would have started construction 2 or 3 decades ago. The thing would have started falling apart by now if that was the case. At best I would say construction of Arihant started well after 1995, if we consider reports about a 11 years construction cycle before launch, then we can say it began in 1997-98.

The first land based reactor was ready in 2006 followed by the sub reactor in 2010.

 

[agentperry]

You are confusing things here. The west considered us as enemies and now they don't. That's about it.

Russia-India relations haven't waned in anyway. It is just the media playing down Russia.



HAL is only modifying PAKFA like how the Su-30 was modified to the MKI. A MKIzed PAKFA will be called FGFA. The Russians will have their own version and we will have our own including electronics. No big deal there.



Military R&D is not related to civilian R&D.



I hardly doubt we would have had the funding or the capability to start work anytime before we leased the first INS Chakra. Regardless of your contacts, there is no way in hell we would have started the construction of a submarine without having studied the Charlie class between 1988 and 1991.

Heck our submarine is said to be a Charlie II design but with more modern quietening techniques.

No way that we would have started construction 2 or 3 decades ago. The thing would have started falling apart by now if that was the case. At best I would say construction of Arihant started well after 1995, if we consider reports about a 11 years construction cycle before launch, then we can say it began in 1997-98.

The first land based reactor was ready in 2006 followed by the sub reactor in 2010.

the submarine construction started after many years of continuous R&D rather i should call it decades of hardwork. initially india planned to develop it on its own but then went on for 3 year lease of russian charlie and then copied many of the component simply by studying. though they were only critical but important components. then after finalization of design india started its construction in post 2000 world.

once you wish to make something you dont jump onto work table and start making it like kids castle. just like a lawyer prepares his case before going to court in engineering first design testing and other things has to be completed and then integrated in construction phase.
you are assuming india took 2-3 decades in constructing 1 submarine but im TELLING you that india took 2-3 decades to design a submarine which is still advanced in current world and not like tejas whose status is still unclear

 

[p2prada]

the submarine construction started after many years of continuous R&D rather i should call it decades of hardwork. initially india planned to develop it on its own but then went on for 3 year lease of russian charlie and then copied many of the component simply by studying. though they were only critical but important components. then after finalization of design india started its construction in post 2000 world.

once you wish to make something you dont jump onto work table and start making it like kids castle. just like a lawyer prepares his case before going to court in engineering first design testing and other things has to be completed and then integrated in construction phase.
you are assuming india took 2-3 decades in constructing 1 submarine but im TELLING you that india took 2-3 decades to design a submarine which is still advanced in current world and not like tejas whose status is still unclear

Obvious. Just like how AMCA has been in the works as a concept since the late 90s.

But at the same time work starts after it is sanctioned.

Will you say AMCA was being worked on since the late 90s? The design phase started now, and the actual work will be considered from this year.

Similarly LCA has been in the works since the 70s with actual work started after 1989.

Similarly construction on Arihant along with actual design and production phase started after the SU broke up. It is impossible for it to be a 70s sub.

India never took 2-3 decades designing Arihant. As it is the case everywhere the design phase would have been anywhere between 2 years and 5 years for a sub of this class. Arihant isn't a particularly advanced design. Also, the first sub is a tech demonstrator.

 

[ersakthivel]

Tejas - Feature - The Light Combat Aircraft Story by Air Marshal MSD Wollen (Retd)


The author, Air Marshal M.S.D. Wollen (Retd) was the chairman of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited from September 1984 to March 1988. He entered the Indian Air Force in 1947 and was awarded the Param Vishisht Seva Medal (PVSM) for his exemplary role in the 1971 Indo-Pak War. It was during his tenure at HAL that the design and development of the Advanced Light Helicopter and Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) was undertaken. He is considered an authority on LCA, and MIGs in particular. Air Marshal Wollen has authored several papers on aviation and here he talks about Tejas and the reason why it is so important.

The following is the actual timeline of LCA

1983 ADA was formed.


The IAF's Air Staff Requirement, finalized in October 1985 is the base document for development.

Project definition (PD) commenced in October 1987 and was completed in September I988

A Review Committee was formed in May 1989. Experts from outside the aviation industry were included. The general view was that infrastructure, facilities and technology had advanced in most areas to undertake the project. As a precaution, Full Scale Engineering Development would proceed in two phases. Phase 1: design, construction and flight test of two Technology Demonstrator aircraft (TDI & 2); construction of a Structural Test Specimen; construction of two Prototype Vehicles (PVI &2); creation of infrastructure and test facilities. Phase 2: construction of three more PV '5, the last PV5, being a trainer; construction of a Fatigue Test Specimen; creation of facilities at various work centres. Cost of Phase I - Rs.2188 crores, of Phase II - Rs. 2,340 crores. Phase I commenced in 1990. However, due to a financial crunch, sanction was accorded in April 1993 and was marked by an upsurge in work.

As a point of interest, a second series of in-flight simulation tests of flight control software took place in July 1996 at Calspan USA on an F-16D VISTA (variable in-flight stability aircraft); 33 test flights were carried out. Another reason for delay was the sanction imposed after Pokhran II in May 1999. Scientists working at Lockheed Martin, USA were sent back; equipment, software and documents were impounded. Herculean efforts brought the FCS software to a standard where the FCS performed flawlessly over 50 hours of testing on TD 1 by pilots, resulting in the aircraft being cleared for flight in early 2001.

The LCA is tailless with a double-sweep delta wing. Its wing span is 8.2 m, length 13.2 m, height 4.4 m. TOW clean 8.500 kg, MTOW 12500kg. It will be super-sonic at all altitudes, max speed of M 1.5 at the tropopause. Specific excess power and g-over load data has not been published. Maximum sustained rate of turn will be 17 deg per sec and maximum attainable 30 deg per sec.

The fighter that was in the works in 1970 was MARUT.Not LCA.
The first funding for the aircraft TD-1 came in 1993 due to severe Financial crunch in the early nineties.

Previously 500 cr was given on 1989 ,which went into establishment of infra and testing facilities and labs for ADA.

SO saying LCA program started in 1970s and it's designers are working on it for 45 years is a motivated lie.

TD-1 won't walk out of the ADA labs with it's own legs in 1995 , just because these 500 cr worth of labs and infra was set up in 1989.
Phase -1 commenced in 1990 with 2180 cr is the official statement .But it was only peper work because due to severe financial crisis in the i990-93 period funds for construction of TD-1 was not released.

The first funding of the prototype TD-1 was received in 1993.

In 7 years the TD-1 flew on 2001 with complete fly by wire software.



I have repeated it more than 10 times in this forum.
But the same absurd cock and bull story that LCA is in the works for 45 years and it is 30 years late is being repeated again and again.

WHY?

The only intention is to malign the developers ADA.

There is really no point in misrepresenting dates and timelines of LCA in a AMCA thread.


again from the samw article.

In the late eighties India's aircraft Industry was not as advanced as Sweden's; and yet India follows a more arduous design/development route for its LCA, compared to Sweden for its JAS-39 Gripen. The Gripen embodied a far higher percentage of foreign, off-the-shelf technology, including its RM-12 engine (improved GE F404). France (Dassault Aviation) built and exhaustively flew a demonstrator aircraft (Rafale-A) before embarking on construction of Rafale prototypes. Over 2,000 flights were completed by September 1994 when first Flight of a production Rafale was still 20 months away. At that point of time, Dassault Aviation had built or flown 93 prototypes, of which at least fifteen went into production after sixteen years elapsed from 'first-metal-cut' of the Rafale demonstrator to entry into service.

It is unlikely that the LCA will attain initial operational clearance (IOC) before 2010.When it is achieved, it will be an industrial success of magnificent proportion, and is sure to receive the acclaim it deserves.

It achieved IOC with much higher specs than the original ASR. so what is the problem of one particular member with LCA?

So that it has to be disparagingly draged into AMCA thread and beaten down?

it is astounding that folks couldn't log in to

http://www.tejas.gov.in/

a government website and read some plain facts.

 

[sayareakd]

I think DRDO+HAL+IAF should work together to make AMCA at fast pace, they have some experience with LCA, they should work towards at least flying stealth airframe, later on other features can be added.

 

[ersakthivel]

I think DRDO+HAL+IAF should work together to make AMCA at fast pace, they have some experience with LCA, they should work towards at least flying stealth airframe, later on other features can be added.

That seems to be not happening right now.More than 3 types of ASrs were issued already

 

[roma]

[
SO saying LCA program started in 1970s and it's designers are working on it for 45 years is a motivated lie.

The first funding of the prototype TD-1 was received in 1993.

In 7 years the TD-1 flew on 2001 with complete fly by wire software.

I have repeated it more than 10 times in this forum. But the same absurd cock and bull story that LCA is in the works for 45 years and it is 30 years late is being repeated again and again. WHY? The only intention is to malign the developers ADA. .

Sir many thanks for the information - I myself was under the confused impression that it took all that time ...so i thank you for the clarifications and i can assure that my confusion was not out of wanting to malign anyone indeed as you can see from my posts im pro-india but simply a lack of proper information

however by the same token one must hope that other projects especially those of a military nature will proceed smoothly without undue delay ....eg the MCA ?

 

[ersakthivel]

Sir many thanks for the information - I myself was under the confused impression that it took all that time ...so i thank you for the clarifications and i can assure that my confusion was not out of wanting to malign anyone indeed as you can see from my posts im pro-india but simply a lack of proper information

however by the same token one must hope that other projects especially those of a military nature will proceed smoothly without undue delay ....eg the MCA ?

AMCA won't take that long because a degree of maturity regarding control laws of flight(called CLAWS) is already there, and fly by wire tech is also there.
The GTRE -snecma JV for the k-10 kaveri with 90 kn engine is hanging fire for the past three years due to confrontation between IAF and GTRE.
But after consultation in a joint committee of IAF and GTRE ,ADA it is now cleared, according to MOD A.K.Antony's statement in paliament.

SO it can be done in 5 years time.But the problem is it can only provide 2x90 kn .But the IAF ASR of 16 to 18 ton AMCA specs call fro 2x130 kn.
So will a new engine be needed or not is not clear? If it is needed then it will take minimum 15 years to develop.Hope the development of the fighter and engine go well without hiccups.

But if a lesser weight weight fighter that can be supported by 2x90 kn is attempted it can be done within a decade plu a couple of years at the least.But whether it will fit the IAF need is to be debated.bECAUSE 5TH GENS need more power for their compromises in aerodynamic to achieve stealth and avionics and cooling needs.

So if 130 kn engine is needed in 16 to 18 ton class fighter it is better to initiate a jv with snecma right now, to reach it with in the deadline of 15 years

I

 

[sayareakd]

we dont have 15 years this time, plus with the recent statement about number of FGFA by Chief of IAF, looks like our AF is short of options, therefore instead of fighting with developer they need to set and found a way to complete our AMCA on time with accepted limits and specification, wont be bad idea to ask IAF to put 60% of development cost, to show their seriousness.

 

[agentperry]

Obvious. Just like how AMCA has been in the works as a concept since the late 90s.

But at the same time work starts after it is sanctioned.

Will you say AMCA was being worked on since the late 90s? The design phase started now, and the actual work will be considered from this year.

Similarly LCA has been in the works since the 70s with actual work started after 1989.

Similarly construction on Arihant along with actual design and production phase started after the SU broke up. It is impossible for it to be a 70s sub.

India never took 2-3 decades designing Arihant. As it is the case everywhere the design phase would have been anywhere between 2 years and 5 years for a sub of this class. Arihant isn't a particularly advanced design. Also, the first sub is a tech demonstrator.

designing nuclear submarine include designing its reactor too specially when you dont have robust nuclear reactor manufacturing industry

 

[ersakthivel]

we dont have 15 years this time, plus with the recent statement about number of FGFA by Chief of IAF, looks like our AF is short of options, therefore instead of fighting with developer they need to set and found a way to complete our AMCA on time with accepted limits and specification, wont be bad idea to ask IAF to put 60% of development cost, to show their seriousness.

The only thingyou can count on IAF is toCHANGE the ASR 3 times and not set aside a single ruppee fromt heir budget.They will snipe from the side lines sure.They won't get down to do real business with ada by setting realistic goals and time lines.
But the navy has set aside 900 cr for funding the development of tejas and working actively with ada .

If you want the work culture change in IAF ,like OFFSETrules for foreign manufacturers govt must declare that the ARMYand IAF must have atleast 50 percent of their topline fighting harware made up of indian origin by 2025 .

Then only IA andIAF will co ordinate with ada and cvrde to finetune LCA,AMCA, ARJUn and FMBT.

Otherwise all kinds of excuses will be forwarded for continuation of upgradation of all the dated junks like JAGUAR, T-72 and MIG-29,MIG-21,MIG-23.ANd they will fill their new arrival lines with PAKFA, T-90,FMBT.

The gravy train will never stop.

Then we will end up like saudi arabian armed forces importing everything under the sun with huge lucrative defence deals.

At least they are doing it with money from oil exports to other countries, but we will be sending billions and billions ofdollars abroad.

When nuclear ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons ,nuclear submarines made here are good enough ,How come tanks and aircrafts be inferior?

Certainly they can be allowed to import 40 percent top of the line material from abroad.But not everything.
Then IAF and IA will co ordinate with ada, drdo, cvrde and private industries to build the weapon systems here.

Because in along drawnout war depending on critical foriegn spares is the dumbest thing to do. As no manufacturer worth his salt will transfer 100 percent ToT .Expecting france and russia to brave the chinese to send spares for us in a long drawn out war is a futile thing.

Normally a sukjoi pilot does 250 hours a year on his plane. How much will this be in war time , if the war draws out for 6months or so. If this weakness of india is known, then it will become the incentive forchina to lenghten the war.
Besides 15 years from now who knows which side russia will be .

There are many versions of an occurence from MOSCOW long time back.In th thick of CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS chinese decided to invade india and they sought the assurance from russians that they won't intervene in favour of India as a return favour for supporting ussr in the crisis..Chinese ambasssador personally met Kurushev(or the one at the helm) for this purpose. And he didn't speak a word but personally nodded in agreement as the story goes.

Then NEHRU shed all his non alignments and literally begged for american help. Americans firmed up a plan to send fighters and stores , then the cuban missile crisis got over and realizing their folly chinese retreated announcing a cease fire.They were in no position to hold on to the gains is another matter for discussion.

Then only after the USSR-CHINA breakup and USA-china-PAK alignment the SOVIETS turned to our side.

And after the fall of SOVIET UNION ,Yelstin simply diluted the INDO-soviet strategic treaty as friendship treaty.

So depending on a big brother especially when your industry has the capacity to make 50 percent of the arms is a foolish business.The arms of foriegn arms maker lobbies are too powerful.So unless the government mandates something like this , there won't be any hurry in IAf and IA.

 

[ersakthivel]

If reasonable specs were issued AMCA will fly in 15years,IfIAF want's a fancy plan with more stealth,more TWR,and more weaponload then it should be pursued as separate project under another name.

Tejas - Feature - The Light Combat Aircraft Story by Air Marshal MSD Wollen (Retd)

For the LCA the following approach was undertaken as per the article.

After examining the PD documents, the IAF felt that the risks were too high (likely shortfalls in performance, inordinate delay, Cost over-run, price escalations) to proceed further.

Funding was delayed till 1993 and specs are now more stringent is themain reason for the delay.

A Review Committee was formed in May 1989. Experts from outside the aviation industry were included. The general view was that infrastructure, facilities and technology had advanced in most areas to undertake the project. As a precaution, Full Scale Engineering Development would proceed in two phases.

This is what is needed for AMCA too.SImply allowing the IAF and ADA to sort it out among themselves won't do any good.

Phase 1: design, construction and flight test of two Technology Demonstrator aircraft (TDI & 2); construction of a Structural Test Specimen; construction of two Prototype Vehicles (PVI &2); creation of infrastructure and test facilities. Phase 2: construction of three more PV '5, the last PV5, being a trainer; construction of a Fatigue Test Specimen; creation of facilities at various work centres.

Trying to better F-22 in all aspects will take longer time and it must be taken into account and a less demanding AMCA with stealth as a prime requisite with optimum weapon load and range in 12 to 14 ton weight class for 2x90 kn k-10 must be proceeded fast.

If people want bigger plane with 16to 18 ton weight class with 2x130 kn engine it should be done as separate project with realistic time line.IAF should be asked to set aside 50 percent of the project cost from their budget.

Then they will know the importance of giving realistic specs after tech audit and freezing the finalized specs. Instead it took time till 2011 august for IAFto finalize the specs.

The chinese 5th gen is flying in 2012.IAFis freezing the specs in 2011!!!!!!.Who will hold them responsible for the delay between 2005 and 2011?

The chinese are doing 2 or 3 5th gen stealths at the same time,We too must follow the same path with a realistic amca in one project and more demanding plane in another project.

 

[sasi]

Deleted out

 

[SATISH]

130 KN for a medium class plane is absurd...next what?....Ability to mount laser canons and warp speeds? or fly from earth to the Andromeda Galaxy?

 

[ersakthivel]

130 KN for a medium class plane is absurd...next what?....Ability to mount laser canons and warp speeds? or fly from earth to the Andromeda Galaxy?

The F-35 requires 180 kn .Still it is derided as underpowered.So what will be the thrust needed for 16 to 18 ton AMCA?

 

[ersakthivel]

130 KN for a medium class plane is absurd...next what?....Ability to mount laser canons and warp speeds? or fly from earth to the Andromeda Galaxy?

F-35 which has an empty weight of 13 ton and loaded weight of 22 tons requires 191 kn power.It is still accused of being under powered.The F-22 which is more of an air to air fighter has way higher power than F-35.

What are the empty and loaded weights of AMCA?

So what will the optimum power for each of the engines of the AMCA which is to debut around 2025 ,with those futuristic standards?

Please post.

 

[hello_10]

Re: Indigenous Vikrant class Aircraft Carrier (IAC)

india is not in a position to wait as our strength is decreasing every day
besides from rising costs the delay is irking indian defense ministry

(Sir, im in the position to discuss delays and cost escalation issues with other side but we first need to find out how exactly this happens and why Russia would lose its biggest defence market for no reason? and these points are always raised, while giving example of Scorpions of Project 75, M-MRCA, IAC including the western own projects like US's F35/JSF, Rafale, EFT Typhoon, British HMS etc, to state how they have been delayed for over 10 years, with 3-4 times cost escalation than previously estimated. we do need to find out, why exactly cost and time of big russian defense rise and why the same is not seen in case of other suppliers, to sort out those issue. and if something happens every where then there is no God in world, to use any miracle in case of russian projects only )

and Sir, in fact there is just one country of world which may supply 'in-use' defense arms on time, the USA, as they have 50+ customers world wide and running production lines. but there are four main points, why I dont find it a wise step to have closer defence deals with US, as below:

1st, US use defence contracts to bargain on the foreign policy side. here we have example of Pakistan and other US's customers, like how US delayed supply of F16s in 90s, and during last decade to bargain with Pakistan's foreign policy side. and the same we saw in case of other US's non-Western customers for different US's defense deals..........

2nd:, US has nothing to offer other than Transport Aircrafts, P8I, GE F414 or hardly Apache also. even during the trials of M-MRCA deal, Super Hornet and F16s were rejected during performance tests and it was found that its better IAF would buy more Mig29s which may also deliver the similar works, more or less, and no extra infrastructure or training will be required in case of Mig29s also, like how IN is buying Mig29Ks for its ACs. and US's Top Gun, F15SE is fit in comparison with Super Sukhoi Su30mki. while we find F22 for hardly 'strategic' purpose during 90s and last decade, better the prototypes of PAK FA we have got till now........

even in case of F35, the new Top Gun of US, this project is well delayed till 2020, if not more, single engine and now less likely to be as effective as PAK FA, as below. while we do know that there will be hardly 0% to 5% tech transfer for F35, if India ever think for it, while India is involved from design to production phase of PAK FA, which will help their home projects, mainly AMCA :thumb:

September 7, 2011

Part of the presentation showed a computer simulation which calculated that the F-35 would be consistently defeated by the Russian-made SU-35 fighter aircraft. The defeat calculated by the scenario also showed the loss of the F-35's supporting airborne-early warning and air-to-air refueling aircraft.

Independent air combat analysts from Air Power Australia have also stated that the F-35 is not capable of facing high end threats; that what will be delivered (if it ever arrives) will be obsolete; and that the F-35 is not affordable or sustainable.

http://www.f-16.net/news_article4416.html

November 14, 2011

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program has some negative issues that must be watched in the coming years.

Other signs of ill-health with the F-35 program are that the U.S. Navy is buying more Super Hornets to fill gaps in their carrier air wings. The United States Air Force (USAF) is in a similar state of affairs. For them the F-35 program is 7 years late compared to the 2001 plan. Initial Operating Capability (IOC) for USAF IOC's has been pushed to 2018. USAF now plans to refurbish 350 F-16s to deal with broken promises by the F-35 program.

http://www.f-16.net/news_article4462.html

3rd: there is just 'no' technology transfer from US's side on any defence contract. you would understand that its only a supplier-customer relation while India needs its own defence infrastructure. and more India have deals with Russia like PAK FA, its more likely that India will then have got all the key expertise of Russia this way at the end, by involvements from design to production phase like in case of PAK FA, making India's own credible defense infrastructure, including of all missile, missile defence, T90 tanks, aircrafts, stealth submarines etc and thats what we would like to see :thumb:

India is developing its own fifth generation combat jet in the form of the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) that was formerly conceived as the Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA). The AMCA will be a single-seater, twin-engine stealth multirole fighter.

The AMCA is likely to complement the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) and the Indo-Russian joint venture fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA), also known as the PAK FA, the Sukhoi Su-30MKI and the Dassault Rafale :thumb:, which will be the chosen plane under the MMRCA or the medium multi-role combat aircraft tender for 126 planes for the Indian Air Force (IAF).

India's Indigenous 5th-Gen Combat Plane to Boast Of Condition Monitoring Systems

like how we do know that russian Stealth Submarines, which are offered for Project 75I, would bring all the key russian techs which we won't get from either German or Spanish one.....:ranger:

4th, right now US has only transport aircrafts, P8I, GE engine and hardly Apache also to offer but they charge India very high price than what they ask from Australia, Canada and its other customers like Pakistan, and in fact very less of its price it required for making these arms in US. I think, India would keep kicking US for the defence arms India buy from US, to always make US understand that its India who feeds them......

like, India is paying $410mil each for C-17, while Australia is paying around $350mil each for C-17. while for US, its just around $250mil each for C-17 to make it in US for themselves.
(prices of Australian, Canadian and US's is mentioned in the last paragraph of this news as below.

June 7/11: India's Cabinet Committee on Security has reportedly approved a $4.1 billion buy of 10 C-17As.

Australia spent about $1.4 billion, and Canada about $1.6 billion, to buy and induct 4 C-17As into their respective air forces; the USA, who does not have the extra expenses that accompany any new fleet aircraft type, is set to spend $2.5 billion for 10 C-17s in the Senate's FY 2010 defense budget.

C-17s for India

similarly I have read on many places that US charge India with much higher prices for the same aircrafts/ missiles etc than what they got from their other customers. for example of Harpoon missile price for India and much less was charged from pakistan

Harpoons: India to pay US almost three times more than Pak

Harpoons: India to pay US almost three times more than Pak : India, News - India Today

 

[sathya]

more power always better as long as mileage doesn't suffer ..

BTW F 35 is a single engine aircraft.

AMCA - dual.

we have signed up for F 414 IN S6, not yet with snecma..

so is there any chance for F 414 to get in AMCA ?

with F414, AMCA can be airborne at least 5 years ahead ..