AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (HAL)

[p2prada]

You make it sound as if India had no choice, when the reality of it all is that- India is in the position she is, because of a lack of initiative taken, because of a lack of strategic foresight and because of faulty leadership. But all of this is still our doing. Blaming others or blaming the system or circumstances is a pathetic attempt at bending the truth. Fact is, had India been serious about closing the gap in technology (as-well as serious in other areas such as poverty, corruption, nepotism, population control, etc..), the situation would certainly have been different and India might have been on par or even ahead of China.

Lack of initiative. What are you talking about? We started aerospace projects decades ago. We started with modifying old aircraft for our needs. Then we made the HF-24 fighter bomber before we started work on LCA.

China is ahead because they received a lot of technological help from the US between 1975 and 1989. India received no such help.

The Chinese defense establishment does not suffer from bureaucratic lag, the way India does and they also make a bigger effort by throwing more money at it. China had several Combat Aircraft development projects running (JF-17, J-10 and J-20), while India was/is content taking baby steps with the LCA.

So, China had mature programs while India was taking baby steps. Proves my point on how China is ahead.

Even so, the J-10 isn't noticeably more advanced than the Tejas- it just has a different mission profile. Incompetent as they are, the DRDO is fully capable of making a bigger, heavier version of the Tejas (a counterpart, if you will, to the J-10).

Yes, China can also make a twin engine LCA, but nobody does that. Do you know why? Because only fools make a twin engine aircraft out of a single engine aircraft.

J-10B is already being manufactured while LCA Mk2 is yet to fly.

DRDO is indeed capable of making an aircraft superior to Rafale, let alone J-10B. But this aircraft will be ready only in 2030. Now, do you get my point on why we need another 20-30 years.

Where a gap truly exists, is the strategic Ballistic Missile technology of India and China. The Chinese have had ICBM's (true Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles- unlike the short legged quasi-ICBM- Agni V) for some time now, while Indian development of such missiles have been at snails pace. Even Agni VI will supposedly add a 500 Km range increment to its predecessor- which is silly. I really don't understand why India is lagging in this particular area.

We haven't focussed a lot on cryogenic engines.

Not really. World War I era technology is a century old. Even India isn't that far behind.

I was talking of our economic difference.

DRDO is fully capable of making a bigger, heavier, twin engine version of the LCA. Had they gone ahead with it (keep in mind the the LCA's first flight was in 2001 and no substantial changes have been made to the Tejas since then), then there would have been no need to purchase the Rafale. (This is what China did with the JF-17 and J-10 and it worked out perfectly for them.)

LCA Mk1 has no substantial changes because they can't make substantial changes, LCA Mk2 will see major changes.

Indeed, had LCA Mk1 been inducted in 1999 as planned, we would have made a flying prototype of a MCA by now. That's what the MCA was, a 4.5th gen aircraft like Rafale.

 

[ersakthivel]

You make it sound as if India had no choice, when the reality of it all is that- India is in the position she is, because of a lack of initiative taken, because of a lack of strategic foresight and because of faulty leadership. But all of this is still our doing. Blaming others or blaming the system or circumstances is a pathetic attempt at bending the truth. Fact is, had India been serious about closing the gap in technology (as-well as serious in other areas such as poverty, corruption, nepotism, population control, etc..), the situation would certainly have been different and India might have been on par or even ahead of China.



The Chinese defense establishment does not suffer from bureaucratic lag, the way India does and they also make a bigger effort by throwing more money at it. China had several Combat Aircraft development projects running (JF-17, J-10 and J-20), while India was/is content taking baby steps with the LCA. Even so, the J-10 isn't noticeably more advanced than the Tejas- it just has a different mission profile. Incompetent as they are, the DRDO is fully capable of making a bigger, heavier version of the Tejas (a counterpart, if you will, to the J-10).

Where a gap truly exists, is the strategic Ballistic Missile technology of India and China. The Chinese have had ICBM's (true Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles- unlike the short legged quasi-ICBM- Agni V) for some time now, while Indian development of such missiles have been at snails pace. Even Agni VI will supposedly add a 500 Km range increment to its predecessor- which is silly. I really don't understand why India is lagging in this particular area.



Not really. World War I era technology is a century old. Even India isn't that far behind.


^This is precisely what I meant when I claimed that the military planners in India are lacking in strategic foresight!
DRDO is fully capable of making a bigger, heavier, twin engine version of the LCA. Had they gone ahead with it (keep in mind the the LCA's first flight was in 2001 and no substantial changes have been made to the Tejas since then), then there would have been no need to purchase the Rafale. (This is what China did with the JF-17 and J-10 and it worked out perfectly for them.)

see the strategic mindset of china is different. It wanted to propagate commmunist ideology through armed revolution. India had so such agenda.That was the reason that china entered into korean war and nuclear ballistic missile production. India was a democracy which plays by rule and had no such ambition. Even after three wars with pakistan India dutifully releases the river waters to pakistan through UN supervised INDUS water treaty.

So India initially did not compete with china and followed it's own model of socialist democracy(with terrible economic fall out ,of course.) under the dynastic rule of NHERU- INDIRA family.

With this stupid socialism and simple lecturing from the podiums of NAM the nehru-indira dynasty believed that they can safe guard the national security and thought that chinese have no strategic interest south of Himalays and blinded themselves by their own Hindi-chini are brothers slogan.

Mao was an active military man who believed in armed struggle to spread communism opposed to Nehru who was a social activist and adhered to Gandhi's non violence policy with which India won it's freedom.So India always defined it's military program considering pakistan's force level and capacities.



Only when china invaded tibet and started a war with india in the 1960s the dynasty recovered from this delusion and indian strategic military programs started.

So india jumped reforms band wagon 20 years later than china and hence the economic disparity.

Same with weapons development. India did not envisage active military rivalry with china till china started helping pak nuclear missile ,weapons and other military program.

Only when it was confirmed to India that china is trying to bog down India by actively arming pakisatan's strategic program India entered into Nuclear ballistic missile program.

Without realizing this many guys blurt out that India is taking baby steps and china is taking grandfather steps . India civilian nuclear program is much more advanced than Chinese. india once exported heavy water to US. And Indian fast breeder reactor program is one of it's kind in world,because nehru sincerely believed civilian nuclear power will help India to develop fast.

Nehru never liked nuclear bomb program. that was the reason why Indian bomb was developed only after his death by Indira Gandhi.
Nehru always thought that india -china rivalry is completely wasteful resource draining enterprise with zero sum outcome. He died a heart broken man after chinese showed their true dominating intent with invasion of tibet and India in 1962


So Indian military developments are always later than china because they all were started later.

 

[ersakthivel]

LCA mk-1 does not need any major changes and can fulfill IAF needs all by itself. Top speeds and g force shortfalls of Mk-1 is due to IAF's change in specs for heavier BVRs with longer range which led to extra strenghtening of the wings.Rafale has lesser top speeds than typhoon and still it is fine with IAF.And in the first engine change if MK-1 is fitted with higher power lower weight advanced AMCA engines , which will be available for sure,all the so called shortfalls will vanish.

The AMCA engines and MK-1 engines will have the same form fit. So engine interchange with no major structural change is possible.



Lca program and AMCA program have no links in between. The IAF sat on AMCA ASR for the past 7 years ignoring any concept sudggestion fom ADA and changed the ASR three times.That is why AMCA will be delayed.

Even LCA MK-2 will not have any major improvement over mk-1's range. The IAf mk-2 will have much better performance because it will not have the weight penalties of naval Mk-2 . that's all.

 

[ersakthivel]

Nehru never liked nuclear bomb program. While he actively encouraged civilian nuclear program and space program even in those very tight economic conditions , he did not initiate military missile and bomb program.but china with the help of Soviet union before the early sixties itself has entered into military missile and bomb program along with civilian nuclear and space program.


That was the reason why Indian bomb was developed only after his death by Indira Gandhi.he was a visionary leader who wanted to organize the third world countries under the umbrella of Non Alignment between super powers to avoid global conflict. it was a tragic irony that china and pakistan forged their strategic relationship right under his nose in BANDUNG conference organized by Nehru for the non alignment. he spent 27 years of his life in british jails and complete disbeliever in dominating the world through the might of weapons.

So simpletons saying that India is taking baby steps and china is more advanced are simply ignorant of the historic context of the indian and chinese military programs.

 

[Libertarian]

Lack of initiative. What are you talking about? We started aerospace projects decades ago. We started with modifying old aircraft for our needs. Then we made the HF-24 fighter bomber before we started work on LCA.

Lack on initiative in the sense that India put all her eggs in the "LCA" basket. Also, there was also no follow up after HF-24 (which was guided by a German scientist from what I remember); the knowledge and expertise gained there, was lost.

China is ahead because they received a lot of technological help from the US between 1975 and 1989. India received no such help.

^Can you cite this? And in what sector did they receive help in?

So, China had mature programs while India was taking baby steps. Proves my point on how China is ahead.

No, it proves my point that India, herself, is to blame! It took nearly a decade before funds for the LCA were released (if my memory is correct), then and even now, progress has been so slow. From Tejas's first flight in 2001 to now (2013), what has been done? Nothing!

BTY, the idea of China being ahead has never been under dispute. lol

Yes, China can also make a twin engine LCA, but nobody does that. Do you know why? Because only fools make a twin engine aircraft out of a single engine aircraft.

Read again- I said a bigger, heavier version of the LCA, I did not mention a twin engine LCA. And I got news for you, buddy, China already has made a heavier, bigger LCA: they call it the J-10. It has a longer range and carries a bigger payload.

DRDO is indeed capable of making an aircraft superior to Rafale, let alone J-10B. But this aircraft will be ready only in 2030. Now, do you get my point on why we need another 20-30 years.

It will only be ready in 2030, because India screwed up! India/DRDO/Whoever-is-incharge was/is disorganized, slow, lazy, and incompetent! That is the real reason why it will take India 20-30 years.


@ersakthivel -
We can blame Nehru, but he was Indian and so were the people that elected him.

 

[ersakthivel]

Lack on initiative in the sense that India put all her eggs in the "LCA" basket. Also, there was also no follow up after HF-24 (which was guided by a German scientist from what I remember); the knowledge and expertise gained there, was lost.


^Can you cite this? And in what sector did they receive help in?



No, it proves my point that India, herself, is to blame! It took nearly a decade before funds for the LCA were released (if my memory is correct), then and even now, progress has been so slow. From Tejas's first flight in 2001 to now (2013), what has been done? Nothing!

BTY, the idea of China being ahead has never been under dispute. lol



Read again- I said a bigger, heavier version of the LCA, I did not mention a twin engine LCA. And I got news for you, buddy, China already has made a heavier, bigger LCA: they call it the J-10. It has a longer range and carries a bigger payload.


It will only be ready in 2030, because India screwed up! India/DRDO/Whoever-is-incharge was/is disorganized, slow, lazy, and incompetent! That is the real reason why it will take India 20-30 years.


@ersakthivel -
We can blame Nehru, but he was Indian and so were the people that elected him.

I didn't blame Nehru.The reason for the delay in Indian military program was ,not because of technical inabilities, but because of the different priorities followed by India and China , which set them on different paths in military programs.Indians believed that there was no need for any large scale military programs in South Asia in till the 1962 Indo-China war.

On the other hand Mao believed in armed revolutionary struggle backed by strategic nuclear missile programs were needed to propagate Communism.So china with massive technical help from Soviet union started it's strategic programs from the 1950s itself, while till the middle 60s (till Nehru's death there was no large scale strategic nuclear ballistic missile military programs.)

 

[lookieloo]

New Design For Indian Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

Did AVweek use the wrong picture, or has it changed again?

 

[Pandora]

Done by Fighterman35 AMCA Aero India 2013 by ~fighterman35 on deviantART

 

[p2prada]

Lack on initiative in the sense that India put all her eggs in the "LCA" basket.

It was all we could afford. Not just in terms of money, but also technology and manpower.

Also, there was also no follow up after HF-24 (which was guided by a German scientist from what I remember); the knowledge and expertise gained there, was lost.

There as no follow up for the HF-24 because we did not have manpower capable of delivering another fighter. Kurt Tank and the team left after India failed to secure a better engine.

^Can you cite this? And in what sector did they receive help in?

You name it, everywhere. IAI, Grumman and LM helped in pretty much every project. IAI provided design equipment and technology. Grumman and LM offered a lot of assistance in flight controls and aerodynamics. We don't know how much though. This was since the time the Cultural Revolution started to the Tiananmen square massacre.

No, it proves my point that India, herself, is to blame! It took nearly a decade before funds for the LCA were released (if my memory is correct),

Your memory is flawed. Except for the brief period between 1992 and 1993, LCA faced no financial issues. But at that time the country was broke and was only then picking up. Meaning FSED should have started sometime in 1992 and instead started a year later. However the issue at the time was not just money but also allocation of resources for the project which was the real reason for the delay in starting the project.

Prototypes were ready in 1995. But flight testing never started because they found cracks in the airframe. Meaning the TDs were unflyable. Apart from that the FCS was not ready at all. ADA thought they will do it very quickly. Turned out they were wrong. Apart from that IAF had given an ASR for a very simple aircraft, something like JF-17, with analog FCS, a Bison type radar etc. ADA decided to make something at the Mirage-2000 level instead. Meaning they unilaterally upped the ASR to greater heights, heights that they couldn't scale alone. The nuclear test delayed the project for 2 more years. Meaning they had planned first flight in 1999, but the US threw our engineers out of the US after the tests. Whatever work was left behind, mainly dealing with integration, had to be restarted in India. This took two years.

ADA thought LCA will need only 5 years of testing before IOC. They were too late in realizing that they would actually take double that time, which they did. Even after that there were delays due to other issues like placement of fuel tanks, internal estate. Apart from that the avionics they decided on in 1999 was obsolete in 2004. They had to create a new avionics package in 2005 and even that is obsolete today. They are only delivering the same old same old with Mk1 and have started work on a new Mk2.

They had money the entire time. Heck it was ADA who decided how much money they needed and the govt provided. Sure, there was red tape and delays in releasing money, but it is not the reason for why the LCA is delayed for so many years. The blame clearly lies on ADA and the main cause for delays is technical in nature.

then and even now, progress has been so slow. From Tejas's first flight in 2001 to now (2013), what has been done? Nothing!

The same as the F-35. The project started, they figured it was flawed, but it was too late to stop the project. LCA MK1 is a flawed aircraft. That's why there are no proper orders for it.

Read again- I said a bigger, heavier version of the LCA, I did not mention a twin engine LCA.

You should have made that clear. LCA Mk2 is a bigger, heavier version of LCA Mk1. It will be 0.5m longer and slightly taller.

And I got news for you, buddy, China already has made a heavier, bigger LCA: they call it the J-10. It has a longer range and carries a bigger payload.

Not an equivalent comparison. The Chinese did not take the LCA and make the J-10 from it. Completely different programs. What I am saying is you don't take a F-16, add two engines to it and call it a new aircraft. Nobody does that.

What OP is talking about is making a Mirage-4000 from a Mirage-2000. Mirage-4000 is a real aircraft. It is a bigger, heavier, twin engine version of a Mirage-2000.

It will only be ready in 2030, because India screwed up! India/DRDO/Whoever-is-incharge was/is disorganized, slow, lazy, and incompetent! That is the real reason why it will take India 20-30 years.

Yes. You hit the nail on the head.

 

[ersakthivel]

The FSED for LCA tejas has started at 1983 if my memory serves me right.it finished in the 90. And there was a huge tussle among officialdom about taking the decision to release the funding. Some sections of IAF bitterly opposed the LCA saying which was not feasible to build a fully unstable fly by wire cranked delta platform (against the advice of much more technically experienced multi disciplinary board of scientific minds that said that the tech levels were there to carry on and set up ADA by picking people from HAL and NAl) , while many supported it as well because it is the only way the country can bridge the tech gap left by the abandoning of all design efforts after MARUT.


A lot of people call the sorry state today's of MIg-21 is due to the delays in LCA. But as early as 2005 IAf wanted to buy 126 mirages , which was delayed and modified to the MMRCA circus of today. if those Mirages were bought the migs would have been retired by now. but the government of the day decided to avoid single vendor situation and went for multi vendor tender in the name of MMRCA.Also if faith was shown earlier and and decisions were fast tracked in the past Lca would have been a reality long before.

And this tussle and economic struggle of the yearly 1990s meant that the decision to release the funding was postponed. After peace brokering by ABDUL KALAM a compromise was reahed among warring sections. In1993 funds were released for the construction of two TDs. And in just seven years the TD-1 flew.

i don't know where were the cracks on LCA? Every single flight of LCA was text book type until now. till 2005 the Tds demonstrated the suitability of the design. may be the sanctions delayed the FCS program by a few years, but the major reason for the delays from the 1983 to 2005 when further LSps and PVs joined for flight testing was the official apathy and economic gloom of the 1990s and the struggle among the IAf and ADA to determine what sort of a fighter LCA should be.

Anyway the LCA that flies today is very much a modern fighter with all the tech that is on RAFALE or grippen. if a rough and ready replacement of MIG-21 as desired by some were built, surely it would have entered the services by 2005 and it would have been completely obsolete by now.

 

[arkem8]

[video]http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/bbs/view.html?b_bbs_id=10040&num=71606[/video]

Hehe, that video got posted on some Korean Daily News Website!!

 

[ersakthivel]

Details of Phase-I and Phase-II of LCA development is given below:-

Full Scale Engineering Development (FSED) Phase-I of LCA

Date of Sanction : June 1993
Original Date of Completion : June 1998
Actual Date of Completion : March 2004
Overall objectives of Phase-I was achieved with completion of 202 flight tests (123 hrs : 49 min) on 03 LCAs).
Full Scale Engineering Development (FSED) Phase-II of LCA
Date of Sanction : November 2001
Original Date of Completion : December 2008
Revised Date of Completion : March 2015
Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) was achieved in January 2011 and Full Operational Clearance is likely to be achieved in December 2014.

 

[arnabmit]

Indian indigenous Stealth Dominance :AMCA | CombatGears

India has entered the global race of stealth technology with its AMCA (Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft) programme. Apart from the ongoing FGFA programme with Russia, India is investing a dime for its indigenous stealth aircraft. Apart from China, India is the only country in the world to carry two stealth programmes at a time. Although picture is not clear that can differentiate between roles of the two aircrafts, as developing both the programmes to an air superiority stealth aircraft does not make sense. But one thing is for sure India wants to produce a multirole fighter aircraft rather than strike optimized plane with advanced air to air capabilities, just like F-22 Raptor. Apart from Dassault Rafale there is no bomber to fill the void between Sukhoi 30 MKI and LCA Tejas in IAF at present time.

In 2008 Indian Air Force discussed the technology advancements with ADA (Aeronautical Developments Agency) in achieving stealth features that can be developed and incorporated with present technology advancements in the country. And after realizing the feasibility of the programme IAF proposed the project by submitting the proposal with its requirements to be featured. Indian Air Force clearly emphasized that the programme cannot take delays and failures like LCA Tejas and asked ADA to come up with pragmatic solutions. IAF have reviewed the project number of times in the past to meet its range and payload capacity, and therefore the design have been under alteration since the beginning. The total development of the programme seeks $2 billion of funding and an initial waver for 100 Crore has been granted to it for initial phase developments.

ACMA is a twin engine, single seat Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft to counter the J-31 and J-20 stealth aircrafts of China. The programme is using the valuable advancements in jet technology achieved while designing LCA Tejas. A naval version of the jet will also be developed as navy has also contributed in the project. The approximated weight of the aircraft will be 16-18 tones with an internal weapon bay capacity of 2 tones and internal fueling of 4 tones. ADA has so far planned to use GTRE (Gas Turbine Research Establishment) state of the art GTX 35VS which is still in its development stage, but is expected to get delivered in the later part of this decade with all its glitches eliminated. GTX 35 VS has reached 90-93% of its required capabilities with the technical assistance from SNECMA. The aircraft will reach up to Mach 1.8 with a ceiling of 15 kms. With aerodynamic optimization completed the broad scale picture is drawn. It is expected to take its maiden flight in 2020 with introduction in Air Force by 2022; although the configuration finalization is expected to finish early in 2018.Aircraft will be equipped with DRDO Astra missiles, AESA Radars and other modern electronic warfare systems. SAAB is providing technical consultancy to ADA.

 

[rohit b3]

"SAAB is providing technical consultancy to ADA. "

What experience does SAAB have regarding 5th generation aircrafts?? Infact SAAB and HAL both are along the same lines when it comes to designing and aircraft manufacture.

And is it possbile for AMCA to get IOC in 2 years of it's first flight?? :|

 

[halloweene]

SAAB is a partner of NeuroN... And has real great competences in airframes, datalinks and onboard computers specially.

 

[p2prada]

"SAAB is providing technical consultancy to ADA. "

What experience does SAAB have regarding 5th generation aircrafts?? Infact SAAB and HAL both are along the same lines when it comes to designing and aircraft manufacture.

Saab has far more experience compared to ADA in all the fields, especially in the field of avionics. Fly by light, mission computers, datalinks, EW, you name it.

And is it possbile for AMCA to get IOC in 2 years of it's first flight?? :|

No.

According to ADA, 7 years for design and prototype building. 9 years for flight testing. So, at best IOC will be sometime around 2030.

 

[ersakthivel]

Which is the fly by light fighter produced by SAAB?
They crashed their first grippen prototype with their sub standard FCS and lost another one later leading to test pilots quitting to save their lives.
then they ran to US firm to do a simple fly by wire , and that too for stable flight profile grippen.
Contrast this to the 100 percent indigenous Fly by wire system perfected for tejas after the US refused all FCS assistance after the sakthi series of nuclear tests , and a few versions of it were even exported to foreign majors, and the flawless performance of quadraple redundant fully digital FCS on a much more demanding unstable flight profile platform tejas with effusive praise by LCA test pilots.

Even the F-16 when run on this FCS developed by ADA performs much better than the one with the F-16 with original FCS, according to US test pilots.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Of course we need to see how well HAL absorbs technology.

Let me start by stating overly accepted fact that TOT in field differs significantly to one shown on paper and sold to tax payers with sugar coating.

Consequently, no, the HAL can not absorb all the technology starting from parts fabrication and tooling to entire Rafale program for the purpose it is being mentioned. Please do consider how much HAL has absorbed from SU-30MKI deal when it can't strengthen its air frame for Brahmos thereby effectively stalling the program since 2009. That besides the fact that even today MKIs are being made from good amount of FKDs.

Moreover workload on HAL when it started MKI was far less than what will be there when M-MRCA is undertaken. Heck when HAL started MKI it had responsibility of just ALH and limited production of LCA apart from regular upgrading job. But now, it has MKI, LCA MK-1, LCA Mk-2, HAWK, IJT (that besides from likes of Chetak, Cheetal, ALH, LCH, LUH, Dornier , SARAS, MTA and not to mention obvious workforce diversion because of upcoming projects like , PMFA and IMRH etc). I can only imagine the space MMRCA will have.

Here one mentionable fact is that the year 2010 is when HAL started manufacturing MKIs from raw materials, which is a good 8 years after first MKI joined IAF. It is just a matter of calculation to find out how time HAL will take to start Rafale production (from raw materials) given X times more work load it has today.

Anyway, there is serious doubt if HAL will be able to absorb even methodology and technology of advance engineering (behind tooling and testers) besides assembling of aircraft in time for the spoken purpose (gaining from Rafale experience for application on AMCA). That all considering how much time it shall and could take when an ever impatient customer would be yelling "compress it".

Hell, even learning advance manufacturing methodology seems very unlikely in present situation because IAF won't sit and wait and let HAL learn not only technology behind assembling aircraft but also those behind crafting and fabrication and also those that goes into tooling, testers, jigs and rigs. Reminding is one important point, the entire rationality behind M-MRCA has been tied to speedy delivery (for taking care of depleting squadron strength) which otherwise is iconic wastage of exchequers fund.

Before i go any further, let i state that HAL is not naive in manufacturing. What of course it lacks is quality control, especially at manufacturing of individual parts and to an extent efficiency at assembly as well. Apart from it what it too lacks is experience in designing manufacturing equipment, testing equipment and field support equipment for new products, call it home grown designs.

Now, what Advance manufacturing techniques could mean.


Advance manufacturing techniques and requirements:-

a) Possession of advance engineering systems which are used for crafting and fabrication of laser perfect individual parts.

b) Smart Jigs for laser perfect assembling of individual modules.

c) Smarts rigs for integration and testing of parts and systems in both standalone and integrated mode.

d) Formulation of most efficient final assembly flow chat for final integration and roll out.

Here what precedes (stated points) is designing and manufacturing of systems and tools such as ; engineering systems, jigs, rigs, tools etc. Which as acknowledged by PS Subramanyam is in itself a technology.

So, you now tell me, will Dassualt teach HAL and rest of Indian industry how to manufacture these laser perfect automated crafting systems, rigs, jigs, testers etc besides teaching how to assemble Rafale in most comprehensive manner? If yes, then in how much time?
Mentionable is fact, the HAL took 5-6 years from day of contract to build first Su-30MKI using SKDs and little less for HAWK, and both of them came with TOT. It is also estimated that HAL would take atleast 4 years from signing of the contract for rolling out first M-MRCA from its line using SKDs. And if history and present order book at HAL is used in combination to form a situation ball, then the first so-called HAL Rafale (build from raw materials) is not coming out before 7-8 years from signing of contract which is anything beyond 2020. Which in other word means we will be inducting 4th generation fighters ( would go so far to call it air show fighter in face of would be acquired capabilities by enemy) bought at ever hefty cost when enemy will be inducting fifth generation assets.

Besides if production line stretches to then, then what applicability it will have to successive futuristic systems (like you yourself is saying

Also the tools and equipment are specific to the product, it won't suit other products[unquote])?

Literally, what Rafale deal will teach us is advance manufacturing skills which can be further applied only in 'methodology', since technology associated with advanced tooling for specific systems won't come of use beyond that product. And whatever that will come will be very late for imparting any meaning to AMCA program.

Now i say and repeat say, if manufacturing skills in theory is the only gain from Rafale deal then why not we buy same through consultancy? Why can't Boeing be asked to teach us advance manufacturing skills as part of its offset obligation coming to it with deals like Chinook and follow-on orders of previously signed deals?

Just a look back tells us, how offset obligation of C-17 deal has mandated Boeing to set up High Altitude Engine Test Facility in India (need i tell its strategic importance). Similarly, why can't Chinook deal (even Apache, considering it has not progressed far beyond) mandate Boeing to pass advance manufacturing skills or provide assistance in Modernizing Aircraft Production in India, if you may?

What is what that can restrict Boeing from passing on trending approach and style in manufacturing of aircraft as well as manufacturing of tools and testers (both in general)? If yes is the case which certainly is ( i don't see it more strategic than setting up high altitude engine test facility) , then isn't same will what we actually be gaining from Rafale deal albeit at far far far greater cost?

But, that said, are we not doing it already. ADA-HAL is hiring an experienced consultant for LCA MK-1 production (may be not, but i put faith on older report ) which will give HAL enough expertise in producing a newly designed fighter in efficient manner for application on Mk-2 program (maturation stage) followed by PMFA which will have russian assistance at every imaginable stage (- perfection stage). Riding in tandem with PMFA will be AMCA program which will have all that it will be needed for success. Needless to mention MK-2 program will be feeder for electronics and PMFA for rest of all foreseeable.

********Let me again remind that this whole discussion is based on 'logic' given for supporting Rafale deal with assumption that India will learn manufacturing skills through this program for application on future programs, when question is being raised about its (Rafale deal) rationality by putting picture of enemy who is soon to operationalize 5th generation fighters. Not to mention that 'cost term efficiency' with respect to other available options are also being considered, while so.

Of course we need to see how well HAL absorbs technology. But if we can't absorb this technology then the AMCA program is screwed.

PMFA is a back-up and in a sense real learning ground for AMCA workforce. Also PMFA is secure program because it has experienced partner leading the project. Technological gains from design development shall be enough to start prototyping AMCA. Production learning can straight be applied to AMCA program, tooling of course will have to be done by Indian industry. Who because of experience from preceding indigenous programs namely LCA Mk-1 and more advance MK-2 combined with working experiences from PMFA will be able to accomplish it successfully.

So no AMCA is not screwed, in fact very safely placed program.

Huh? What? You think HAL will not learn anything from assembly. Have you even talked to HAL engineers? You are only assuming there will be no indigenous production after SKD and CKD phase. How about waiting for it.

HAL isn't ADA. Leave the designing aspect of Indian projects to ADA right now. We will worry about HAL much later. They will be busy with PMF either way.

Absorbing new manufacturing processes now while we are designing and testing 5th gen aircraft is the way to go. HAL can use their own experience from PMF to better Rafale's manufacturing processes and apply it to PMFs and later AMCAs.

Huh! Oh! assumptions. No, i am not assuming here, i had already stated why there are less chances of Rafale being produced from raw materials at HAL .

And my sources, Hmm! If i say i have talked to PD, Chief Test Pilot and Chief Engineer of N-LCA program would it make any difference to what i say about LCA?........Better not ask, not telling..... such such claimed associations makes absolutely no difference to any discussion being carried out in amateurish (no pro) free open forum. Not to me.

Anyway it was about learning beyond what HAL is presently capable of and that is something which is decades away from where HAL's skills set is right now. Acknowledges PK Barbora.

And that comment was actually towards manufacturing standards and skills set of HAL, not about its designing. Read right!

HAL may very well better it. PMF is a program expected in the next decade. Heck Rafale's assembly line may end up coming to a close by the time PMF is ready. What we set up for PMF won't give us the time to setup the same for AMCA or even AURA class UCAVs.

It is not necessary the Russians may follow French processes either. So there will be newer methods to learn.

Well priority is learning efficient methods, not necessarily newer methods. If PMFA is good then Rafale is not necessary, if not then why the f*** we are buying PMFA?

Anyway, you see , IAF apparently has minus plus 160 MKIs including those Made in Russia that all despite HAL producing them since 2004. That's enough idea, i guess.

So , i don't know when PMFA will be ready but surely don't see HAL completing M-MRCA order anytime under a decade from day production begins at HAL.

That's what they said when LCA started. A little bit of luck and consultancy. We can see what that lead to.

It takes badly myopic to make such statement. Are you even aware of where we are from where we were?

Consultancy is not easy here. You need to buy their products to learn modern manufacturing processes. Tools and equipment costs billions. Costs are absorbed by buying their products. Also the tools and equipment are specific to the product, it won't suit other products. The consultants biggest experience is with the products they have worked on.

Basic manufacturing skills is not what HAL lacks but advance skills and Quality Control are what it sure do. And for that it needs to learn how to approach in most efficient manner. This is where consultancy can help. It be more like joining a work-shop than formal training. HAL is experienced enough to self do latter part.

Consultancy is about pointers and hand holding. Not whole lot of learning, yet some.

This won't be to our interests and IAF won't accept a compromised product in the end. It is fine for LCA, it is between a 3rd and 4th gen aircraft.

Huh a fighter made with over 50 percent composites, full authority FBW etc is what? Have you ever talked to Tejas TP?

If they come into our domestic programs, then we will have to give away information about our own development. This won't be to our interests and IAF won't accept a compromised product in the end. It is fine for LCA, it is between a 3rd and 4th gen aircraft. But it won't be fine for LCA Mk2 and definitely won't do for AMCA.

Consultancy is like going to the doctor and stripping down to your birthday suit, so he comes and grabs you by the balls. You give away everything.

If birthday boy has an ailing ball (or balls), well he will have to strip down all, no choice there. But if birthday boy himself is a BALL specialist albeit less experienced then he can comfortably get job done with only verbal picturing.

Exactly the case here. HAL is experienced but not enough especially at precision manufacturing of large volume of sub-assemblies and quality control. So it can get most out of consultancy, yet not expose all.

Besides, a moving line concept is also desirable. So hire consultancy, see where they can help with. Surely they won't teach all, but they will sure save on time by helping in not so critical sectors.

Anyway good analogy, indeed very good if you are talking of SOMALIA.

It is fine for LCA. Not worth the effort for AMCA and AURA.

Buy stuff now, so we can use it later. Simply remove the third party involvement in the long run. It has been the same for so many other programs. Russians were involved in Arihant, Agni (through SLV) etc. But both are TDs. Once we start developing operational systems, remove the third party.

LCA is first project of its kind in India and is delayed. So HAL is looking for experienced consultant who can help cut delays in setting up (production standard) assembly line plus parts manufacturing units and also with efficient approach to quality control and assurance. That said it's not like HAL lacks these expertise entirely, all they of course do is efficiency and quality in those.

Once HAL observes these technologies through LCA project(s), then rest of it will be left just to its innovative power for application to family of upcoming projects.

It means they are being careful and making sure they will deliver an engine that will allow for weight increases in AMCA.

The way LCA was designed, the designers were very confident that the LCA will never weigh above 5 tonnes and hence will not need an engine above 80 KN and you already know how bad a decision that was. That way even GTRE designed the Kaveri to not exceed 80 KN with current technologies.

75-110 KN is a very, very big margin.

GTRE RFI also calls for 5 percent growth potential on Mass flow rate, Pressure Ratio, Isentropic efficiency, Surge margin which if achieved, would ideally translate into extra dry thrust over 75KN.

So to me this official Thrust requirement figure of this new engine indicates that AMCA would be a + 25 ton MTOW fighter, definitely and certainly not an 18 ton fighter.

 

[Decklander]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

It seems the game has started to increase the order book of FGFA and kill AMCA project or to order more SU-30MKIs.

 

[p2prada]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

It seems the game has started to increase the order book of FGFA and kill AMCA project or to order more SU-30MKIs.

I remember a very recent article from a retd ACM. He had pointed out something quite relevant there.

He said that we already have the FGFA project and we should instead focus on later generation technologies for AMCA instead of building "another" 5th gen aircraft.

Also, I am sure you yourself said that 4th and 5th gen won't matter 15-20 years from now. That's around the time AMCA is set to be inducted. If threat perception changes so dramatically, then I don't see the relevance of even FGFA, let alone AMCA.