AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (HAL)

[p2prada]

LCA/ADA is to be blamed for the delay. If we can't get an aircraft at the level of LCA inducted, you think IAF will expect ADA to deliver a 5th gen aircraft. For ASQR to be finalised in 2003, they should have finished LCA development by 2004-05. MCA was planned to be built as soon as ADA had the proficiency to build basic aircraft technologies, ie, the LCA.

ASQR is generated by the IAF. Since when did the manufacturer decide what IAF wanted. Have you ever bought something where the company decides what you should buy. Idiot.

ASQR is generated by pilots, technical officers and maintenance officers which is created once the manufacturer responds to the initial RFI. It is not a technical document. It is a very simple document saying things like I want my aircraft to do this and that at this range and I need it to carry this much as this range. I want it to carry this much and have this much turn rate and roll rate. I want it to accelerate to this speed at this time and so on. If the manufacturer cannot meet it, the IAF will look at other suppliers because the ASQR must not be diluted.

MCA was without vertical tail fins because it was expected to be a strike aircraft. Things changed later. Kaveri was not even close to ready, we can't have a 5th gen aircraft with a 3rd/4th gen engine. We need a 5th gen engine. Without K-10 program, the AMCA program is dead.

The questions you posted about LCA is BS and has nothing to do with the trainer called T-50. They are both different aircraft for different purposes. So, no need to answer them. Even if we talk about FA-50, the questions you asked has nothing to do with actual aircraft comparison. Go Google.

 

[sathya]

de javu.. all over again...

 

[SpArK]

This is why the EJ200 Engine (later with with TVC) should have won the LCA deal.

It would have been sure that it would have powered AMCA.

 

[p2prada]

TVC is useless on small fighters. Most single engine aircraft won't have the kind of fuel capacity to utilize its advantage anyway. The amount of fuel lost in post stall maneuvers and regaining lost energy for a minor advantage in nose pointing ability is not justified. Especially considering the cost of maintaining an aircraft shoots up when a small fighter is supposed to be cheap.

Heck they decided not to put TVC on an aircraft like the F-15 because the costs were not justified while the effect in aerodynamics wasn't particularly good enough to justify the investment. Same for aircraft like EF-2000 and Rafale. Their pilots are right when they said TVC is not required for these aircraft.

But at the same time it is not something we can ignore on heavier aircraft like the F-22, PAKFA or Su-30/35.

 

[agentperry]

Agreed ,but if you look at J-20,PAKFA, they both are evolution of existing Mig-1.44 MFI and SUKHOI platforms, about which chinese and russian have lot of experience, so all they have to concentrate on is adopting them to x band stealth.

If they nitpicked on a brand new airframe(there is no need for it in the first place,since Mig-1.44, sukhoi are known and proven)their project will be delayed by atleast a decade.Serious professional design organizations like sukhoi won't buy IAF's bull shit ,out of the world fantasies for all world beating specs.

If you insist on two seater ,100 percent stealth like the IAF insisted on PAKFA earlier in 2005,they will transfer these design responsibilities on your head and,they will move ahead with their program.Because they are not a talking shop with no production and deadline responsibilities like IAF.

They have to make and sell 1000 fighters in good time and recoup their investment.

Because they have to keep production shedule and make some money to stay aloft in the business.Talking gas is not what they get paid for.

If you take 5 years give 3 different ASRs and reject 3 different models based on your fantasies seen on jane's defence weekly like IAF did on AMCA, then they won't care much about keeping their word ,and dump you with whatever they are going to produce for their airforce and world market.

Then all the HAL guys have to do is to keep repeatedly looking at the FGFA yellow colour models for a while and ultimately toe the russian line, saying HI..Hi.... we don't need two seater FFGA fighters now,since the whole world knows it is beyond the capacities of HAL and IAF combine to alter it.




But the IAF can afford to play football with ADA at leisure,sneering at ADA all the time.The chinese are test flying their 5th gen in 2012,And IAF is giving the FINAL ARS for AMCA only in 2011,means how fast the thinking process in IAF is,instead of sparring with GTRE-snecma ,advancing the spurious argument that GTRE won't gain any indigenous know how from GTRE-SNECMA deal and scuttling the JV for 3 years,the IAF could have finalised the ASR 3 years before.

If the ASR has been finalized in 2005 ,And a lot of design steps would have been finished by now.Testing of atleast the airframe would have atarted by 2014,The LCA TD flew just 78 years after the funding.

The problem is IAF is a fighting force ,and not engineering force.It just doesnot have the ability to get the correct assesment of technologicwl assesment of country's technical potential, and how to harness it into a 5th gen fighter with stealth capacities in time and how to employ tactics to take on the enemy.

That's why I said this ASR and GSQR things must be finalized by inter disciplinary committee chaired by competent people with knowledge and authority.It should never be alowed to become a late outcome of 5 year long confabulations between ADA abd IAF.

It injures our national security.

The tejas has been tested to death and increasing it size and putting another engine on it and acomadating internal bombbays on them and finishing it within 10 years with adequate capacities must be the first goal of first medium weight ,5th gen IAF fighter for the future.

Because right now the priority is to take on the J-20 with a much lighter, much lower all around signature ,much more stealthy 5th gen in a point defence role like the LCA tejas was once designed for.
I want another engine added because the country doesnot have the tech to produce a single engine with 180 kn thrust like they are doing for F-35.
SO add another engine, sacrifice a bit of range and keep the fighting specs in tact for a medium point defence fighter in 5th gen avathar for the4 already proven LCA aerodynamics.


Since we have all conquering PAKFA getting accepted with much diluted single seater and ,not F-22 equivalent stealth,why are we driving ada into into wall with much harder specs than SUKHOI design team?Does IAF thinks that ADA has more competence than SUKHOI in designing 5th gens?

If the MOD has any sense it should proceed along these lines.Then ADA and DRDO can pander to all the whims and fantasies of IAF in another heavy 5th gen fighter program to replace the RAFALE , and keep working on it for the next 25 years,No harm in that in a new project with all the bells and whistles.

well i would like to draw your attention towards the very first sentence of yours- chinese had access to mig 1.44. do India have access to anything on which amca can be casted so as to have a real 5th gen plane? no. posing a plane and knowing about its minute are two different things.

 

[agentperry]

China will be moving into the 6th gen era a little later than the US. We can't compare to those two countries in R&D spending today, but we eventually will. At that time we need to be able to at least be their equal. Russia is already up to American standards while China will catch up quickly. Other countries like Britain-France (JV), Japan, Sweden and Turkey will also have their own programs, 5th and 6th gen.

If we get our first AMCA and AURA prototype flying by 2017, we will only move forward from there. So, there is no point in setting a lesser goal and lag behind the rest of the world.

vision without knowledge is just a dream and i think that before getting our concepts right with turboprop we shouldnt quantum leap to anything like AURA.

 

[p2prada]

well i would like to draw your attention towards the very first sentence of yours- chinese had access to mig 1.44. do India have access to anything on which amca can be casted so as to have a real 5th gen plane? no. posing a plane and knowing about its minute are two different things.

The Chinese don't have access to the Mig-1.44. Their J-20 design is their own.

vision without knowledge is just a dream and i think that before getting our concepts right with turboprop we shouldnt quantum leap to anything like AURA.

AURA is not such a big deal when we already have two 5th gen fighter programs. We have already made UAVs. Next step is giving it combat value and this will be done on the Rustom-2 before being attempted on AURA. UAV gestation period is smaller than aircraft. However AURA is still a 2020 aircraft going by media reports. So, there is plenty of time if they get Rustom right.

 

[asianobserve]

TVC is useless on small fighters. Most single engine aircraft won't have the kind of fuel capacity to utilize its advantage anyway. The amount of fuel lost in post stall maneuvers and regaining lost energy for a minor advantage in nose pointing ability is not justified. Especially considering the cost of maintaining an aircraft shoots up when a small fighter is supposed to be cheap.

And then there is this...

Why overload the pilot with enormous G stresses just to point your nose on an enemy's behind?

OT

The geometry of high angle of attack maneuvers and the implications for Gy-induced neck injuries.
Newman DG, Ostler D.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:
Modern super agile fighter aircraft have significantly expanded maneuverability envelopes, often involving very high angles of attack (AOA) in the post-stall region. One such maneuver is the high AOA velocity vector roll. The geometry of this flight maneuver is such that during the roll there is a significant lateral C load imposed on the unrestrained head-neck complex of the pilot.

METHODS:
A mathematical analysis of the geometric relationship determining the magnitude of +/- Gy acceleration during high AOA maneuvering was conducted. This preliminary mathematical model is able to predict the Gy load imposed on the head-neck complex of the pilot for a given set of flight maneuver parameters.

RESULTS:
The analysis predicts that at an AOA of 700 and with a roll rate of 100 degrees x s(-1), the lateral G developed will be approximately 3.5 Gy. Increasing the roll rate increases the lateral G component: at 200 degrees x s(-1) the Gy, load is more than 6 Gy.

CONCLUSIONS:
There are serious potential implications of super agile maneuvers on the neck of the pilot. The G environment experienced by the pilot of super agile aircraft is increasingly multiaxial, involving +/- Gx, +/- Gy, and +/- Gz. The level of lateral G developed during these dynamic flight maneuvers should not be underestimated, as such G loads can potentially lead to neck injuries. While aircraft become ever more capable, a full understanding of the biodynamic effects on the pilot while exploiting the agility of the aircraft still needs to be developed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21853862

 

[p2prada]

And then there is this...

A JHMCS is not a magic pill. The Soviets invented the HMS and reverse firing R-73. Neither of which existed in other air forces. Nevertheless, they still decided to put a TVC in their aircraft.

Apart from that every maneuver can cause injury.

TVC on small aircraft is a cost issue. If you think you can afford it, then go for it. If not, then no big deal.

 

[asianobserve]

A JHMCS is not a magic pill. The Soviets invented the HMS and reverse firing R-73. Neither of which existed in other air forces. Nevertheless, they still decided to put a TVC in their aircraft.

Apart from that every maneuver can cause injury.

TVC on small aircraft is a cost issue. If you think you can afford it, then go for it. If not, then no big deal.

It's not that the Russians had much choice in their aircraft design. They may have introduced first an operation HMD in Shchel-3UM HMD but their lack of more mature electronics industry means that they cannot seriously advance beyond the rudimentary cueing system. Even now they can only salivate on the features of the American JHMCS. In fact I have yet to hear of a mature advanced Russian HMCS.

Of course the JHMCS is not a magic pill, electronic active and passive sensors, sensors integration and advanced lock after lunch missiles are very much an integral part of a modern fighter. But I think the HMCS solves a lot of design restrictions of lightweight fighters.

 

[p2prada]

It's not that the Russians had much choice in their aircraft design. They may have introduced first an operation HMD in Shchel-3UM HMD but their lack of more mature electronics industry means that they cannot seriously advance beyond the rudimentary cueing system. Even now they can only salivate on the features of the American JHMCS. In fact I have yet to hear of a mature advanced Russian HMCS.

Time will tell. For now we have opted for a French(Indianized), Israeli and Russian mix of HMS.

Of course the JHMCS is not a magic pill, electronic active and passive sensors, sensors integration and advanced lock after lunch missiles are very much an integral part of a modern fighter. But I think the HMCS solves a lot of design restrictions of lightweight fighters.

Ok. I got your point.

 

[ersakthivel]

LCA/ADA is to be blamed for the delay. If we can't get an aircraft at the level of LCA inducted, you think IAF will expect ADA to deliver a 5th gen aircraft. For ASQR to be finalised in 2003, they should have finished LCA development by 2004-05. MCA was planned to be built as soon as ADA had the proficiency to build basic aircraft technologies, ie, the LCA.

ASQR is generated by the IAF. Since when did the manufacturer decide what IAF wanted. Have you ever bought something where the company decides what you should buy. Idiot.

ASQR is generated by pilots, technical officers and maintenance officers which is created once the manufacturer responds to the initial RFI. It is not a technical document. It is a very simple document saying things like I want my aircraft to do this and that at this range and I need it to carry this much as this range. I want it to carry this much and have this much turn rate and roll rate. I want it to accelerate to this speed at this time and so on. If the manufacturer cannot meet it, the IAF will look at other suppliers because the ASQR must not be diluted.

MCA was without vertical tail fins because it was expected to be a strike aircraft. Things changed later. Kaveri was not even close to ready, we can't have a 5th gen aircraft with a 3rd/4th gen engine. We need a 5th gen engine. Without K-10 program, the AMCA program is dead.

The questions you posted about LCA is BS and has nothing to do with the trainer called T-50. They are both different aircraft for different purposes. So, no need to answer them. Even if we talk about FA-50, the questions you asked has nothing to do with actual aircraft comparison. Go Google.

Every one knows lca is where it is today due to the delay in funding and less powerful engine,nothing else.
Piltos and technicians know nothing about the technological capabilities of the nation that can be harnessed into fighter tech.
As they ended up with egg on their face by diluting the twin seater fgfa into single seater is enough climb down.
Only a committee of experts can see the future and set the specs.Ia IAF-ADA combine doeas it again, it will end up in the same way as LCAA is

 

[bhramos]

Designing of AMCA from Discovery Channel

 

[ersakthivel]

In the world of pipedreams only 5th gen fighters keep waiting for 5th gen engine.Can you tell me which 5th gen engine was there on the J-20?Just old russian engine,not even chinese one.
Any gen fighter is designed with whatever engine tech availabe in the country.Now if we have K-9 with 70 kn is ready then a sensible option is to design amca with just enough range,enough payload and decent specs for 2X90 kn=180 kn thrust.SUrely the jv with snecma will deliver atleast a 90 kn engine.

Just aping the F-35 which has the engine tech to produce whopping 180 kn from single engine is a pipe dream.
So an empty weight just right enough for this thrust must be arrived at.optimum range for this thrust ,with optimum weapon load,providing the fighter with decent AOA,TWR,MTOW is the right option of designing and getting the fighter of the ground in a decade.

Factoring for a presupposed 5th gen engine's higher thrust to weight with 16 to 18 ton empty weight seems to be not a workable solution considering the engine tech available.Surely a 6.5 ton empty weight 4th gen tejas needs 90 kn engien.Then how much thrust will the 16 ton amca 5th gen need?

So I think care should have been taken to suit the empty weight ,range,kinematic performance and weapon load of the fighter to the max available thrust from the country's engine tech from 5 years onwards.

to adopt this approach a higher committee of strategic experts with technical background, who are capable of performing a technological audit for the nations engine capabilities ,independant of ADA,IAF,GTRE are needed.

That was what I was trying to say.Just a few folks from IAF and ADA, and GTRE retiring within a few years of ASR finalization is not fit for this serious job.The IAf guys will always try for max specs,the GTRE guys will promise the moon,with not enough infra,ADA will have a design that will be criticized for lesser power.

if this approach is not adopted ADA will blame IAF for unrealistic demand,changing the goal post in the middle of the game,IAf will blame ada for incompetency.

Why i am reiterating it again is exactly the same thing is happening on amca,already 3 different ASRs,3 different models.

 

[agentperry]

The Chinese don't have access to the Mig-1.44. Their J-20 design is their own.



AURA is not such a big deal when we already have two 5th gen fighter programs. We have already made UAVs. Next step is giving it combat value and this will be done on the Rustom-2 before being attempted on AURA. UAV gestation period is smaller than aircraft. However AURA is still a 2020 aircraft going by media reports. So, there is plenty of time if they get Rustom right.

that 5th gen program is not our own. its a cake we are having in a birthday party. we gave them money and they are giving us tech. there is no parity between russian R&D and HAL R&D. moreover AURA is being undertaken by drdo and not hal so when drdo dont even have co-ordination between its lab i think co-ordination between hal and drdo is like fooling ourselves. moreover the example of fraternity of drdo hal is very well showcased by tejas program

 

[The Messiah]

Designing of AMCA from Discovery Channel

any video ?

 

[p2prada]

that 5th gen program is not our own. its a cake we are having in a birthday party. we gave them money and they are giving us tech. there is no parity between russian R&D and HAL R&D. moreover AURA is being undertaken by drdo and not hal so when drdo dont even have co-ordination between its lab i think co-ordination between hal and drdo is like fooling ourselves. moreover the example of fraternity of drdo hal is very well showcased by tejas program

It is fine. What it means is we will have the infrastructure to build these aircraft along with the expertise needed to test it.

HAL will get FGFA experience. ADA already has LCA and will work on the AMCA. ADE will work on Rustom and then AURA. So, there is nothing to lose here.

I agree that you are skeptical about ADA or ADE delivering on AMCA or Aura, but we need to work on something regardless of the earlier failures with Marut and LCA. We can say it is their second chance. What's important is these guys won't be working on aircraft from scratch, so at least the basic technologies will be worked out like fly by wire, composite materials, avionics etc while we get engine tech from both Kaveri programs. There is no point being bogged down with basic technologies in the future if we don't start these programs now.

If AMCA and AURA fail then we can always jump towards US(F-35), Russian (LMFI) and French-UK equivalents.

 

[bhramos]

any video ?

i dont have it.... i just posted it from mp.net.....

 

[ersakthivel]

In November, 2010, The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) had sought $2-billion (approximately 9,060 crore) fund for the development of the advanced medium combat aircraft (AMCA).[12]
PS Subramanyam subsequently stated, "We have just started working on this fifth-generation aircraft, for which we had already received sanctions to the tune of Rs 100 crore. The way the government is cooperating, I am able to say that we will receive the funding ($2 billion) in the next 18 months."[12]
Funding will initially be utilized to develop two technology demonstrators and seven prototypes. The first flight test is expected to take place by 2017.[12]

So upto now a mind boggling amount of 100 cr has been released for AMCA development!!!!!!!!!
Three chinese 5th gen prototypes are already flying.

 

[ersakthivel]

In November, 2010, The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) had sought $2-billion (approximately 9,060 crore) fund for the development of the advanced medium combat aircraft (AMCA).[12]
PS Subramanyam subsequently stated, "We have just started working on this fifth-generation aircraft, for which we had already received sanctions to the tune of Rs 100 crore. The way the government is cooperating, I am able to say that we will receive the funding ($2 billion) in the next 18 months."[12]
Funding will initially be utilized to develop two technology demonstrators and seven prototypes. The first flight test is expected to take place by 2017.[12]

So upto now a mind boggling amount of 100 cr has been released for AMCA development!!!!!!!!!
Three chinese 5th gen prototypes are already flying.

final ASr has been given only on 2011 august.So there is no way much of the design work can be completed by now.

If there has been any design work fdone for the past three years it would have been irrelevant now considering the final asr is for 16 to 18 tons.
First a 25 ton empty weight figure was floating around.
Then 20 ton figure.
Then 16 to 18 ton figure.
Do you know the final ASR,If you have please post.
As it is I cannot find it in any site.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/archive/index.php?t-111936.html

Some more interesting discussion regarding,"whether AUSTRALIA should have invested in indian AMCA?