AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (HAL)

Abhijeet Dey

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
1,746
Likes
2,492
Country flag
IAF should also make dummy models of MKIs and place thrm on all bases to confuse enemies on satellite images. :D
Good suggestion. If China and Pakistan do launch a first strike then IAF should use dummy Sukhois to fool them and their spy satellites. That would happen only if there is an indication of hostilities between India and those two countries. But taking out Sukhois from a secret aircraft bunker is very time consuming.

I think it would be better to invest in SAM systems with strong radar installations. But what if stealth aircrafts are used for bombing operations?
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,763
Country flag
Dassault nEUROn has a Adour 951 engine in it www.rolls-royce.com/customers/defence-aerospace/products/trainers/adour.aspx#engine-specifications. Which is a moderate bypass ratio engine 0.8. OTOH K-9 is 0.16 - Leaky Turbojet is how its called sometimes. UCAVs as they are currently envisaged are not expected to be Top Gun Maverick and Iceman kind of planes. More staid, bombing, stand off missile delivery, recce, multistatic sensors. Other UCAVs are likely to sport the same kind of moderate bypass ratio engines.

So K-9 would not go straight into the Aura. Not just the removal of AB. Even the innards of the engine as also the exxards will have to be changed, The Inlet, the Bypass, Fan sizes and materials, shaft and blades too will most likely have to be reworked for both the optimum thrust but also for the best lifetime considerations.

Also India is going to be welcomed into the MTCR by Chachu Sam. Just when it becomes clear that K-9 can easily be ported to a UCAV and the political leadership cannot any longer be counted to stop that.

My guesstimate. Either something radically better then K-9 would be imported. Simultaneously K-9 based engine would be kept in the works to make sure the negotiator's hand are strengthened.

K-9 should however be easily ported as is to the initial TDs and PVs. IAF too would like to follow the longer TD, PV, LSP, IOC-SP, FOC-SP route since it makes them appear innocent.
Because Nuron has 0.8 by pass ratio engine, not every UCAV in the world has to have bigger by pass ratio engine!!
So no need to change anything on K-9 to fit into AURA.
by pass ratio plays no part in UCAV engine selection.
No need to change innards or exxards(???) of K-9 to fit it into AURA.
All we need is good enough thrust to weight ratio, nothing more.
 

bennedose

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
1,365
Likes
2,169
Secondly the least important strategic aircraft is usually given the job of interception.
If it proves fatal/confrontation then only another lot of much powerful a/c are sent for support.
.
I would like to see even one, single reference from any air force that this is done. If you can show me one reference I will bow my head to you and deliberately not post a single word on DFI for two weeks.

In actual fact I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life. but I am willing to be proven wrong and willing to apologize as well.
 

Yumdoot

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
778
Likes
688

Pulkit

Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs"
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,622
Likes
590
Country flag
I would like to see even one, single reference from any air force that this is done. If you can show me one reference I will bow my head to you and deliberately not post a single word on DFI for two weeks.

In actual fact I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life. but I am willing to be proven wrong and willing to apologize as well.
You felt this ridiculous is sad.I need not prove you wrong when I know I am correct while stating what I had said.
the only way to check the aircraft is radar and its cross section but we still cannot be assure if there are any surprises.
Interception is done as a warning to chase an enemy aircraft away and there is a risk of surprise always.
When you cannot confirm which aircraft are you going against you have two option send your best and risk it or send the aircraft least strategically important but capable one up against it.

I simply said you cannot put your main asset in risk.

Study the roles assigned to aircrafts in IAF you will get your answer.

or just tell me
Did Mig21 made no interceptions?
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
Come on we want this, set up core team of people, with good budget, get cracking. Failure and delay is not an option. Two Chinese 5G will be flying with PLAAF and PAF. We need our 5G, fast and potent
 

bennedose

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
1,365
Likes
2,169
You felt this ridiculous is sad.I need not prove you wrong when I know I am correct while stating what I had said.
the only way to check the aircraft is radar and its cross section but we still cannot be assure if there are any surprises.
Interception is done as a warning to chase an enemy aircraft away and there is a risk of surprise always.
When you cannot confirm which aircraft are you going against you have two option send your best and risk it or send the aircraft least strategically important but capable one up against it.

I simply said you cannot put your main asset in risk.

Study the roles assigned to aircrafts in IAF you will get your answer.

or just tell me
Did Mig21 made no interceptions?
Pulkit, let us not talk about how much you or I have studied this subject. That is a digression and if I have studied more it does not mean you are wrong because of that reason.

But what you are saying is that a less capable plane should be sent up first - possibly sacrificing a plane and a pilot, and if that happens a more capable plane should be sent up.

The best analogy I can think of is that if there is an intruder in your house, you send your five year old daughter to investigate and if she is overwhelmed, you decide to go yourself.

Any intruder must be shot down by the best and most effective possible means. Not by a process of experimentation and elimination.
 

Pulkit

Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs"
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,622
Likes
590
Country flag
Pulkit, let us not talk about how much you or I have studied this subject. That is a digression and if I have studied more it does not mean you are wrong because of that reason.

But what you are saying is that a less capable plane should be sent up first - possibly sacrificing a plane and a pilot, and if that happens a more capable plane should be sent up.

The best analogy I can think of is that if there is an intruder in your house, you send your five year old daughter to investigate and if she is overwhelmed, you decide to go yourself.

Any intruder must be shot down by the best and most effective possible means. Not by a process of experimentation and elimination.
thats why I say read the words properly.
Lesser strategically important and that does not mean less capable. A a/c with high numbers but very capable might have lesser importance than the a/c in low numbers but specific role.
So just to clarify I never said less capable.

The example you just gave is not a very pleasing one.

My point you will not send your best against the worst that too for interception(its not war just interception).

Understand the difference interception in regular days .In war its sent to kill

It eats away the flying life of an aircraft so everytime there is an intruder you cannot send the most vital asset against it.
 

bennedose

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
1,365
Likes
2,169
My point you will not send your best against the worst that too for interception(its not war just interception).

Understand the difference interception in regular days .In war its sent to kill
You are talking about interception of unknown targets during peacetime?

I think you do not understand the meaning of air interception. It always means ready to kill if necessary. It does not mean "Take it easy in peacetime, kucch bhi chalta hai. Be serious in war".

Even in peacetime there could be a deadly attack. The forces are ready 24x7x365. The plane that is sent up for interception depends on the area and which air base has the interceptors for that area. If that area has cover from a base that has MiG 29s - then MiG 29s will be sent up. If that area has cover from a base that has MiG 21s then MiG 21s will be sent up.

The choice of aircraft is not made according to peacetime or wartime but what assets are closest to the intruder, peacetime or wartime. You seem to believe that an air base will have everything - Sukhois, Mirages, MiG 29s and MiG 21s and when an intruder is detected - Sukhoi pilot will say to MiG 21 pilot "Tum chalo yaar. It is peacetime and I fly a great strategic asset so I must not go. You can go - you are not as important as me" If that is what you believe you are wrong.

Every inch of airspace over India is covered by one or more air bases and the planes that take off will be whatever is available for that area in that air base.
 
Last edited:

Pulkit

Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs"
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,622
Likes
590
Country flag
You are talking about interception of unknown targets during peacetime?

I think you do not understand the meaning of air interception. It always means ready to kill if necessary. It does not mean "Take it easy in peacetime, kucch bhi chalta hai. Be serious in war".

Even in peacetime there could be a deadly attack. The forces are ready 24x7x365. The plane that is sent up for interception depends on the area and which air base has the interceptors for that area. If that area has cover from a base that has MiG 29s - then MiG 29s will be sent up. If that area has cover from a base that has MiG 21s then MiG 21s will be sent up.

The choice of aircraft is not made according to peacetime or wartime but what assets are closest to the intruder, peacetime or wartime. You seem to believe that an air base will have everything - Sukhois, Mirages, MiG 29s and MiG 21s and when an intruder is detected - Sukhoi pilot will say to MiG 21 pilot "Tum chalo yaar. It is peacetime and I fly a great strategic asset so I must not go. You can go - you are not as important as me" If that is what you believe you are wrong.

Every inch of airspace over India is covered by one or more air bases and the planes that take off will be whatever is available for that area in that air base.
My friend you are drifting from the point i have stated.
If there is only one option then of course it will be the one sent but in case there is more than one option then you will not risk your strategically important aircraft until its utmost necessity.

check the airbases around paki border you will find a chain of bases which can cover the border along with each other as well.


and yes if i have mig 29 and mig 21 both available i will send mig 21....
 

Kranthi

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
152
Likes
70
On the front of maintenance cost I can say that it does not make any difference if you manage a 25 T or 35T category aircraft that is because the system complexity and duel engine configuration is same for both category air crafts. N i bet the maintenance cost of rafel must be higher than SU30. In case of AMCAit will go higher as it will include fifgth generation elements tobe maintained.
Yes for sure there will be marginal cost saving per sortie due ro lower fuel consumption. But then you are sacrificing huge amount of capacity superiority. What if tomorrow Pak gets J20 or J31. How will you manage it. Is the 25 T category aircraft will be sufficient, or yhen we will again cry for more capable FGFA. And if this is the possiblty why not develop our won fightet today it self more capable than FGFA?

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Tapatalk
It is because the IAF has specific roles preset for different classes of fighters. It needs fighters in all the three categories light, medium and heavy, each for different roles..

Now that we are able to build a light fighter, it is sensible to gradually step up with a medium fighter, rather than going for a heavy fighter with higher budget allocations, engaging our scientists and engineers into a complex project which might take over 20 years. We cannot afford to invest huge money and manpower in a complex project for which we don't yet have several critical technologies, especially the engine. As for AMCA, we might be able to develop our own engine by the time of its first engine change and hence a chance to completely indeginise the fighter sooner. We cannot simply import high end engines for a heavy fighter, unless we have a greater involvement in the project, like FGFA, where we can obtain firm commitments for engines for future.

Further, we already have involvement in FGFA, which serves the purpose of a 5th gen heavy fighter. Now we also reportedly have Tejas Mk3 program for a stealthier light fighter. Hence it is better to fill the gap in between to replace the Mirages and Mig 29s with a 5th gen fighter of our own.

And I think FGFA will be the last foreign fighter that we buy. We will be capable of building sophisticated heavy fighters by then with the experience gained from Tejas and AMCA.
 

Pulkit

Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs"
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,622
Likes
590
Country flag
It is because the IAF has specific roles preset for different classes of fighters. It needs fighters in all the three categories light, medium and heavy, each for different roles..
Kindly elaborate the point as I do not see any specific or u can say specialized role for a medium aircraft in IAF when we are about to get FGFA for air superiority and Tejas MK1 for Light and Tejas MK2 some where between Light and medium.
Now that we are able to build a light fighter, it is sensible to gradually step up with a medium fighter, rather than going for a heavy fighter with higher budget allocations, engaging our scientists and engineers into a complex project which might take over 20 years.
Now is the time as we will be needing them only after 20-25 years this can be pretty good time.. Though I agree about the budget constraints
We cannot afford to invest huge money and manpower in a complex project for which we don't yet have several critical technologies, especially the engine. As for AMCA, we might be able to develop our own engine by the time of its first engine change and hence a chance to completely indeginise the fighter sooner. We cannot simply import high end engines for a heavy fighter, unless we have a greater involvement in the project, like FGFA, where we can obtain firm commitments for engines for future.
If we have multiple platforms that too not in good numbers even building local engines will not be an economical solution.
You are adding variety into ur airforce which does not allow u to have proper maintenance and proper inventory for parts.
Further, we already have involvement in FGFA, which serves the purpose of a 5th gen heavy fighter. Now we also reportedly have Tejas Mk3 program for a stealthier light fighter. Hence it is better to fill the gap in between to replace the Mirages and Mig 29s with a 5th gen fighter of our own.
At the present moment I donot see MK3 in picture having 5th gen a/c is one thing ... Building it designing is another and maintaining it yet another thing we will have to wait and see how it goes its more than a decade away.
And I think FGFA will be the last foreign fighter that we buy. We will be capable of building sophisticated heavy fighters by then with the experience gained from Tejas and AMCA.
Its too early to say that ...... But fingers crossed...

Just for sake of argument FGFA is a JV.... Does not exactly fall under bought category.
 

Kranthi

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
152
Likes
70
Kindly elaborate the point as I do not see any specific or u can say specialized role for a medium aircraft in IAF when we are about to get FGFA for air superiority and Tejas MK1 for Light and Tejas MK2 some where between Light and medium.
The role which the Mig 29, Mirage and Rafale have in IAF. Though a heavy fighter can do better justice to the same roles, we can have numerical advantage by choosing a medium fighter (we can build 4 to 5 fighters instead of 3 heavy fighters), thus having better availability and better presence across the borders. Since a medium fighter can carry 'most' kinds of payloads that a heavy fighter can, this setup will indeed increase availability of aircraft, thus allowing more options to IAF.

If we have multiple platforms that too not in good numbers even building local engines will not be an economical solution. You are adding variety into ur airforce which does not allow u to have proper maintenance and proper inventory for parts.
True.. But when it comes to local engines/components, self sufficiency and shield from sanctions by unreliable suppliers and unreliable price inflations play greater role than economies of scale. And you always have the possibility to market your own tech for others to improve economies of scale.

Just for sake of argument FGFA is a JV.... Does not exactly fall under bought category.
Looking at recent developments, I don't have anymore JV feeling associated to FGFA. We need more participation to call it a proper JV. I see it might end up like something similar to MKI development. But lets hope for better participation and technology sharing..
 

Pulkit

Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs"
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,622
Likes
590
Country flag
The role which the Mig 29, Mirage and Rafale have in IAF. Though a heavy fighter can do better justice to the same roles, we can have numerical advantage by choosing a medium fighter (we can build 4 to 5 fighters instead of 3 heavy fighters), thus having better availability and better presence across the borders. Since a medium fighter can carry 'most' kinds of payloads that a heavy fighter can, this setup will indeed increase availability of aircraft, thus allowing more options to IAF.
Beg to differ the preset medium Aircraft which India is buying Rafale is costing More than Su as per some reports. & secondly I see no role Rafale can play in todays scenario. I am asking you what role they have which a heavier fighter cannot do? More option for IAF is a issue which makes maintenance impossible which further reduces operationability.
True.. But when it comes to local engines/components, self sufficiency and shield from sanctions by unreliable suppliers and unreliable price inflations play greater role than economies of scale. And you always have the possibility to market your own tech for others to improve economies of scale.
True I agree
Looking at recent developments, I don't have anymore JV feeling associated to FGFA. We need more participation to call it a proper JV. I see it might end up like something similar to MKI development. But lets hope for better participation and technology sharing..
The point is we are learning something and also getting the product.
 

Kranthi

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
152
Likes
70
Beg to differ the preset medium Aircraft which India is buying Rafale is costing More than Su as per some reports. & secondly I see no role Rafale can play in todays scenario. I am asking you what role they have which a heavier fighter cannot do? More option for IAF is a issue which makes maintenance impossible which further reduces operationability.
By role I didn't mean that there is something a medium fighter can do that a heavy fighter can't do. What I meant was that the IAF had been operating medium class fighters for quite some time now. They might have formulated some strategies where and how a medium fighter would fit quite effectively. Remember medium fighters have lower RCS and yet capable of carrying most payloads (except not something like Brahmos as of now). They can be better used for SEAD compared to somewhat heavy fighters. So by not asking for a heavy fighter from the AMCA, the IAF has some special role envisaged for a medium fighter, that's what I think.

And by 'more options', I meant more number of fighters. Not more kinds of fighters.. [emoji4] . I meant we can build more medium fighters at the cost of less heavy fighters, thus more fighters available at a given time.

Yes Rafale is costlier than MKI. But a 25 ton Rafale is always cheaper than a 35 ton Rafale. so we can build 4 to 5 AMCA at the cost of 3 heavier AMCA kind aircraft.

And above all, we are almost done with the LCA. Now the next logical step is to go for an MCA, in order to not overload ADE with a huge project all at once. The success of MCA will lead way to HCA eventually.. We can't hope to jump up the learning curve all at once, right. Besides we have the FGFA. So by all logical considerations, a medium craft is better to be pursued than a heavy one right now.

However I'm not contrasting with your views. Had there been no FGFA, I would second your opinion to go for a heavier fighter to replace the MKIs.

The point is we are learning something and also getting the product.
Agreed that we are definitely learning something. But we were looking for more initially. Well something is better than nothing anyway.

Sent from my AO5510 using Tapatalk
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,598
Ajai Shukla: From Tejas to AMCA

Persistent allegations about the Tejas' performance shortfalls are now being exposed

Ajai Shukla July 6, 2015 Last Updated at 21:50 IST

This fortnight, the Aeronautical Development Agency(ADA), which is responsible for the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) project, will brief its new boss on a project that will shape the future of the Indian Air Force (IAF) — the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), an indigenous “fifth-generation” (Gen-5) fighter more advanced than anything on the IAF’s inventory. After briefing Dr S Christopher, the new Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) chief who is also ex-officio director-general of ADA, the AMCA proposal will be taken to Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, who has specifically asked for a briefing. After Mr Parrikar’s green light, the DRDO will seek $4 billion (currently Rs 25,000 crore, but this would fluctuate with the rupee) to design and develop the AMCA, build and test-fly prototypes, and give the IAF a Gen-5 fighter within 15 years.

Knowledgeable insiders say the AMCA will be a single-pilot, twin-engine, medium (20-25 tonnes) fighter with a highly stealthy design. This would be invaluable in the first days of a major war for targeting enemy war-waging infrastructure — roads, railways, airfields, radars, headquarters and depots — when conventional, non-stealthy fighters would be detected by the enemy’s air defence radars and shot down by fighters, missiles and guns. In such a “dense air defence environment”, stealth fighters would be able to degrade the enemy’s air defences, opening the window for our non-stealthy fighters, like the Sukhoi-30MKI, to strike with large loads of externally mounted ordnance and fuel. Stealth is central for a Gen-5 fighter, and is achieved by shaping aircraft surfaces to scatter radar waves, using radar absorbent materials and paints, and using internal fuel tanks, sensors, antennae and weapons carriage and ordnance.

Alongside stealth, a Gen-5 fighter incorporates super-cruise (flying supersonic without an afterburner); super-manoeuvrability (with thrust vectoring engines and an unstable design); advanced avionics architecture and sensors that enhance the pilot-vehicle interface (allowing a single pilot to fly and fight the aircraft); and extended target detection and engagement ranges. In an ideal combat engagement, a Gen-5 fighter would detect an enemy fighter and fire his long-range missile well before the adversary’s radar detects the stealth aircraft.

“Ho-hum! ADA can never do this,” the import lobbyists will say — self-appointed patriots who see no irony in their advocacy of expensive foreign weaponry at the expense of Indian R&D and defence industry. Their critique of the Tejas is well worn. Arguing (fallaciously) that the DRDO has taken 33 years to deliver the Tejas, they will (incorrectly) extrapolate that the more complex AMCA will take even longer! Their persistent allegations about the Tejas’ performance shortfalls are now being exposed. As flight-testing expanded the Tejas’ flight envelope, it became evident the LCA far outperforms the MiG-21 BISON, the most advanced of the fighters it was built to replace, as well as any Pakistani fighter except the latest F-16 Block 50/52. The upcoming Tejas Mark II — with a more powerful engine, upgraded avionics and better air-to-air missile — could be built cheaply, overwhelming even more sophisticated opponents with numbers. This would require Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) to galvanise its production line, but that is a management issue, not a delay-inducing technology challenge.

With the Tejas’ performance now demonstrated, critics have shifted their fire to delays in the project, a more credible complaint. Even so, it is false to date the start of the LCA project to 1983, as is commonly done; the project really began a decade later. In 1983, the LCA was allocated Rs 560 crore for “feasibility studies and project definition”, and for creating developmental infrastructure. Only in 1993 was development funding allocated (Rs 2,188 crore, including the Rs 560 crore allocated in 1983). This was for building two “technology demonstrators”, the first of which flew in 2001. Taking 1993 as the base year, the Tejas took just eight years to fly, and will have taken 23 years for “final operational certification” (FOC) which is anticipated by March 2016. This is comparable with international timelines for fighter aircraft development, including the Rafale and the F-35 Lightning II.

Encouragingly, the AMCA will enjoy an impetus the LCA never got, now that the IAF has thrown its weight and support behind the AMCA programme. While the IAF stood aloof from the LCA, participating only as a critic, it has joined hands with ADA in formulating the AMCA’s configuration, and is deputing pilots and engineers to work alongside ADA as it designs the fighter. It is unclear what is driving this dramatic change in the IAF’s approach to indigenisation. It could be the realisation — stemming from the Rafale fiasco — that India simply cannot afford to import sizeable numbers of modern fighters. It could be the positive example of the navy, which has wisely steered the process of designing and building warships in India. Or, in an organisation that is shaped by the personality of the top man, it could just be that the current IAF chief favours indigenisation.

While the IAF will be praised if the AMCA meets its objectives, credit should really go to the unfairly vilified DRDO-HAL-ADA combine for leapfrogging three generations of technology in developing the fourth-generation Tejas fighter. In this process, the LCA project has catalysed an aerospace eco-structure, and a design experience, that will be the essential springboard to the AMCA.

A range of fighter aircraft technologies is already mastered. These include: a sophisticated “unstable configuration” for extra agility; quadruplex digital flight control system; light composite materials for the aero-structures; glass cockpit with digital instrumentation; an environment control system with an on-board oxygen generating system (OBOGS); and advanced avionics that allow the pilot to switch quickly between air-to-air and air-to-ground roles. With much of these Gen-4 technologies currently being refined for the Tejas Mark II, the AMCA team can focus on the Gen-5 challenges.

In sum, the LCA project has created Indian design expertise, design tools and test facilities. It has allowed ADA to gain expertise in the processes of flight testing and certification, and in prototype development. In designing, building and certifying the Tejas, ADA and the defence ministry have painstakingly woven together a countrywide network of technical and engineering institutions, laboratories and facilities. ADA calculates that 149 work centres in 28 cities have directly contributed to the LCA programme. These are now networked and available for the AMCA project. True, there are shortfalls, such as the fact that India has just one wind tunnel, essential for simulation studies in designing airframes and structures. Before the AMCA gets under way, ADA should holistically identify and make up such deficiencies as part of a national ecosystem for future aerospace projects.

The IAF’s future lies in its own hands. At the recent Paris Air Show, the Pakistan Air Force displayed its new Sino-Pakistani fighter, the JF-17 Thunder. Countries like Myanmar and Sri Lanka were reportedly making purchase enquiries. While significantly inferior to the Tejas in technologies and performance, the JF-17 was better in one crucial respect — it was steadfastly supported by its home air force. Perhaps the IAF could draw a lesson from that.
 

3The Crossbow

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
51
Likes
17
Ajai Shukla: From Tejas to AMCA

Persistent allegations about the Tejas' performance shortfalls are now being exposed

Ajai Shukla July 6, 2015 Last Updated at 21:50 IST

This fortnight, the Aeronautical Development Agency(ADA), which is responsible for the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) project, will brief its new boss on a project that will shape the future of the Indian Air Force (IAF) — the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), an indigenous “fifth-generation” (Gen-5) fighter more advanced than anything on the IAF’s inventory. After briefing Dr S Christopher, the new Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) chief who is also ex-officio director-general of ADA, the AMCA proposal will be taken to Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, who has specifically asked for a briefing. After Mr Parrikar’s green light, the DRDO will seek $4 billion (currently Rs 25,000 crore, but this would fluctuate with the rupee) to design and develop the AMCA, build and test-fly prototypes, and give the IAF a Gen-5 fighter within 15 years.

Knowledgeable insiders say the AMCA will be a single-pilot, twin-engine, medium (20-25 tonnes) fighter with a highly stealthy design. This would be invaluable in the first days of a major war for targeting enemy war-waging infrastructure — roads, railways, airfields, radars, headquarters and depots — when conventional, non-stealthy fighters would be detected by the enemy’s air defence radars and shot down by fighters, missiles and guns. In such a “dense air defence environment”, stealth fighters would be able to degrade the enemy’s air defences, opening the window for our non-stealthy fighters, like the Sukhoi-30MKI, to strike with large loads of externally mounted ordnance and fuel. Stealth is central for a Gen-5 fighter, and is achieved by shaping aircraft surfaces to scatter radar waves, using radar absorbent materials and paints, and using internal fuel tanks, sensors, antennae and weapons carriage and ordnance.

Alongside stealth, a Gen-5 fighter incorporates super-cruise (flying supersonic without an afterburner); super-manoeuvrability (with thrust vectoring engines and an unstable design); advanced avionics architecture and sensors that enhance the pilot-vehicle interface (allowing a single pilot to fly and fight the aircraft); and extended target detection and engagement ranges. In an ideal combat engagement, a Gen-5 fighter would detect an enemy fighter and fire his long-range missile well before the adversary’s radar detects the stealth aircraft.

“Ho-hum! ADA can never do this,” the import lobbyists will say — self-appointed patriots who see no irony in their advocacy of expensive foreign weaponry at the expense of Indian R&D and defence industry. Their critique of the Tejas is well worn. Arguing (fallaciously) that the DRDO has taken 33 years to deliver the Tejas, they will (incorrectly) extrapolate that the more complex AMCA will take even longer! Their persistent allegations about the Tejas’ performance shortfalls are now being exposed. As flight-testing expanded the Tejas’ flight envelope, it became evident the LCA far outperforms the MiG-21 BISON, the most advanced of the fighters it was built to replace, as well as any Pakistani fighter except the latest F-16 Block 50/52. The upcoming Tejas Mark II — with a more powerful engine, upgraded avionics and better air-to-air missile — could be built cheaply, overwhelming even more sophisticated opponents with numbers. This would require Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) to galvanise its production line, but that is a management issue, not a delay-inducing technology challenge.

With the Tejas’ performance now demonstrated, critics have shifted their fire to delays in the project, a more credible complaint. Even so, it is false to date the start of the LCA project to 1983, as is commonly done; the project really began a decade later. In 1983, the LCA was allocated Rs 560 crore for “feasibility studies and project definition”, and for creating developmental infrastructure. Only in 1993 was development funding allocated (Rs 2,188 crore, including the Rs 560 crore allocated in 1983). This was for building two “technology demonstrators”, the first of which flew in 2001. Taking 1993 as the base year, the Tejas took just eight years to fly, and will have taken 23 years for “final operational certification” (FOC) which is anticipated by March 2016. This is comparable with international timelines for fighter aircraft development, including the Rafale and the F-35 Lightning II.

Encouragingly, the AMCA will enjoy an impetus the LCA never got, now that the IAF has thrown its weight and support behind the AMCA programme. While the IAF stood aloof from the LCA, participating only as a critic, it has joined hands with ADA in formulating the AMCA’s configuration, and is deputing pilots and engineers to work alongside ADA as it designs the fighter. It is unclear what is driving this dramatic change in the IAF’s approach to indigenisation. It could be the realisation — stemming from the Rafale fiasco — that India simply cannot afford to import sizeable numbers of modern fighters. It could be the positive example of the navy, which has wisely steered the process of designing and building warships in India. Or, in an organisation that is shaped by the personality of the top man, it could just be that the current IAF chief favours indigenisation.

While the IAF will be praised if the AMCA meets its objectives, credit should really go to the unfairly vilified DRDO-HAL-ADA combine for leapfrogging three generations of technology in developing the fourth-generation Tejas fighter. In this process, the LCA project has catalysed an aerospace eco-structure, and a design experience, that will be the essential springboard to the AMCA.

A range of fighter aircraft technologies is already mastered. These include: a sophisticated “unstable configuration” for extra agility; quadruplex digital flight control system; light composite materials for the aero-structures; glass cockpit with digital instrumentation; an environment control system with an on-board oxygen generating system (OBOGS); and advanced avionics that allow the pilot to switch quickly between air-to-air and air-to-ground roles. With much of these Gen-4 technologies currently being refined for the Tejas Mark II, the AMCA team can focus on the Gen-5 challenges.

In sum, the LCA project has created Indian design expertise, design tools and test facilities. It has allowed ADA to gain expertise in the processes of flight testing and certification, and in prototype development. In designing, building and certifying the Tejas, ADA and the defence ministry have painstakingly woven together a countrywide network of technical and engineering institutions, laboratories and facilities. ADA calculates that 149 work centres in 28 cities have directly contributed to the LCA programme. These are now networked and available for the AMCA project. True, there are shortfalls, such as the fact that India has just one wind tunnel, essential for simulation studies in designing airframes and structures. Before the AMCA gets under way, ADA should holistically identify and make up such deficiencies as part of a national ecosystem for future aerospace projects.

The IAF’s future lies in its own hands. At the recent Paris Air Show, the Pakistan Air Force displayed its new Sino-Pakistani fighter, the JF-17 Thunder. Countries like Myanmar and Sri Lanka were reportedly making purchase enquiries. While significantly inferior to the Tejas in technologies and performance, the JF-17 was better in one crucial respect — it was steadfastly supported by its home air force. Perhaps the IAF could draw a lesson from that.
nice article even if tejas is not awesome it is indian with increase in number of atleast 400+ we will have
advantage first economy of scale which can bring the cost down to 25 million a piece and will instill confidence in market. we can sell the product in the huge market where over 2000 light attack aircraft are needed bringing funding for the amca project and establishing india claim of next superpower.

it will create thousands of job in India

it will bring the number advantage in iaf and increase the time in flight for its pilot which is decreasing rapidly.
tejas can always used as a advance trainer in future just like gripen is used by raf and the number exported to other countries if we mange to get some order hopefully they can be given away from the 400 jets ordered by iaf.

we need people like ajai shukla in mainstream media who can echo our voice as we are dying on forum. with no one listening.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top