AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (HAL)

[Armand2REP]

u might think it as failed aircraft. but we don't.. we learnt a lot from Tejas program. we spent 1 billion on it and we acquired 1 billion worth knowledge on our own. rafale is a good bird but how many years your rafale will stand a chance against fifth gen fighter?? probably rafale is comparable(may be inferior) to Su-35 we definitely need a fifth gen aircraft which we can mass produce to counter Chinese fifth gen planes. even if we start AMCA in an year or two , even if we flight test it by 2022 , and FOC by 2035 (the time by which so called "RAFALE" will be of no use except train IAF pilots ) it will be a huge advantage and we can carry that research forward to make a 5++ gen fighter. I am interested to know how many years dassault take to built a fifth gen fighter from scratch.. atleast 20 yrs??

You spend one billion with no knowledge base while it costs $10 billion to develop a fighter with that base. Do you really think you can nickle and dime fighter development? That is why nothing gets done, you don't spend any money.

 

[santosh_g]

You spend one billion with no knowledge base while it costs $10 billion to develop a fighter with that base. Do you really think you can nickle and dime fighter development? That is why nothing gets done, you don't spend any money.

Tejas is flying and will get FOC in coming one or two years. It shows that we really developed fighter with that 1 billion (may not be as good as typhoon or rafale but sufficient enough to counter many types fighters of PAF and PLAF) . After all it's our own bird and in coming years we are confident that Tejas will prove itself in whatever role it will get assigned.

 

[Crusader53]

Similar to an earlier posting........



India Postpones Homegrown Jet Program | Defense News | defensenews.com




NEW DELHI — India has postponed the development of the homegrown Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) program, according to sources in the Indian Defence Ministry, because the MoD first wants to complete the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) program.

The LCA is behind schedule by more than 15 years and the MoD has spent more than $1 billion in its development. Both the LCA and AMCA are being developed by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) under the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

DRDO spokesman Ravi Gupta said the AMCA project is still at a feasibility stage and is awaiting government approval .

He denied that the project is being abandoned and did not comment when asked if it was postponed.

If the AMCA program is canceled, India might buy additional medium multirole combat aircraft from overseas, an MoD source said. Dassault Aviation of France is the preferred vendor for the 126-jet program.

The AMCA was conceived in 2006 as a twin-engine, stealth/multirole fighter weighing 20 tons and fitted with air-to-air missiles and other precision weapons.

The AMCA development budget is $3 billion, a senior ADA scientist said, under which a prototype would be developed after 2020. By 2035, nearly 200 aircraft are planned to be produced by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.

The Eurofighter consortium and US-based Lockheed Martin have offered to tie up with ADA in the development of the AMCA project. The source said the MoD has not made a final decision on any partnerships with overseas manufacturers. Neither Lockheed Martin nor Eurofighter executives were available for comment.

The AMCA project is an extension of the LCA project, which was conceived in 1983 and is still in the prototype stage. The Indian Air Force has awarded a contract for 40 Mark-1 LCAs expected to be inducted in 2016-'17. Another order of more than 80 Mark-2 LCAs is pending.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re-post of Re-posts..

Similar to an earlier posting........

 

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[Rahul Singh]

Seems like these AMCA haters are jumping in jubilation for their own respective reasons on reports which can't even name any authority.

Besides i don't get what has been grounded when proposed technologies will anyway be developed for LCA MK-2 and FGFA? With 2020 date ADA has at least 5 years to finalize design, which is already on path to freeze.

And who cares of new engine when we will be manufacturing F-414 for LCA MK-2, at least for first or MK-1 AMCAs.

 

[sayareakd]

India is already very far behind in the 5th G fighter aircraft design and development. FGFA has no Indian design input, design has already been frozen by Russia. If we have any chance to make our own 6th G, we should work on 5th G.

 

[Rahul Singh]

India is already very far behind in the 5th G fighter aircraft design and development. FGFA has no Indian design input, design has already been frozen by Russia. If we have any chance to make our own 6th G, we should work on 5th G.

On certification date of LCA MK-1 lot of air will clear. I certainly not see authorities and planners making same mistake over again.

 

[sayareakd]

On certification date of LCA MK-1 lot of air will clear. I certainly not see authorities and planners making same mistake over again.

Rahul may be, LCA is good for Point defence, it does not have long legs, plus IAF want fighter that can go for two decades, but we cant just give up what we learn from LCA, we have to put the effort into AMCA and get the customer interested in it and he has to do actual participation from the very start to the very end of development.

we need our own 5th G fighter, if we ever want to fight two front war effectively we need home grown fighter, IAF doctrine of two front war is offensive action with Pakistan and Defensive with China, in actual war we should have at least capabilities to take on offensive operations deep inside China for that we need fighter with long legs, already we have curtail the number of FGFA, so it would be better if we concentrate all our energies into AMCA and make it successes in shortest possible period of time.

 

[Crusader53]

Re-post of Re-posts..

Sorry, I see that now and I will delete it....

 

[Crusader53]

Rahul may be, LCA is good for Point defence, it does not have long legs, plus IAF want fighter that can go for two decades, but we cant just give up what we learn from LCA, we have to put the effort into AMCA and get the customer interested in it and he has to do actual participation from the very start to the very end of development.

we need our own 5th G fighter, if we ever want to fight two front war effectively we need home grown fighter, IAF doctrine of two front war is offensive action with Pakistan and Defensive with China, in actual war we should have at least capabilities to take on offensive operations deep inside China for that we need fighter with long legs, already we have curtail the number of FGFA, so it would be better if we concentrate all our energies into AMCA and make it successes in shortest possible period of time.

This is why I said sometime ago that India should drop the MMRCA and purchase the F-35. Then India would have a Hi-Low Mix of FGFA's and F-35's to counter PAF and the PLAAF. Then after both are in service for several years. India could partner with the company of the most successful design. In addition India would have access to 5th Generation Designs from both the US and Russia. Thereby gaining from both.........

 

[Uriel Correa]

What I have heard is a pure/crancked delta form finds it difficult to maintain sustainable turn rate something for which IAF have been yelling ADA wrt LCA some thing for which LCA was not designed for (initially designed to be a light weight interceptor 'only', while current projection is for a capable multirole platform). Pure delta form have its own advantages but not known as a all round, heavy duty performer for a multirole platform, or am I missing something?

The movable leading edge vortex lift aka LEVCON for Tejas seems as a rescue package if things do not get too complicated but it is no more a pure/cranked delta form then on.

Beauty depends upon the eyes of the viewer.

 

[ersakthivel]

It takes 30 years for a failed ADA project and still no results, who has 50 years to wait for AMCA? Rafale is the clear winner here.

For that to happen first the RAFALE deal will have to be signed!!!!!!!!!! . We don't know what commission mongering expose is going to hit the deal , and whether it is going to be signed or not. or your information the RAFALE and AMCA have nothing in common, They belong to different league of fighters. So your contention that RAFALE can fulfill the AMCA numbers is just a wishfull thinking.

Also this so called 30 years time and 50 years time frame is a stupid claim made by people who know nothing about aviation.

RAFALE and TYPHOON took 16 and 17 years respectively to enter into service from first metal cut and Tejas took 20 years for mk-1 to enter into serial production,

Both RAFALE and TYPHOON entered production without finishing all their developmental goals and are being updated in tranches,TYPHOON is yet to demonstarate it's stand alone ground bombing ability , but that hasn't precluded it from entering in 100s in service, Because it can be upgraded after induction. The same goes for Tejas,

For Tejas funding for two prototypes were released only in 1993 , it finished IOC in 2012, entered series production in HAL with orders for 40. So just 4 or five years delay when compared to RAFALE and TYPHOON. The above words are not mine, They are HAL chief retired Airmarshal MSD WOOLEn's wordsi

 

[ersakthivel]

It takes 30 years for a failed ADA project and still no results, who has 50 years to wait for AMCA? Rafale is the clear winner here.

For that to happen first the RAFALE deal will have to be signed!!!!!!!!!! . We don't know what commission mongering expose is going to hit the deal , and whether it is going to be signed or not.

For your information the RAFALE and AMCA have nothing in common, They belong to different league of fighters. So your contention that RAFALE can fulfill the AMCA numbers is just a wishfull thinking.AMCA is meant to take on chinese J-20s and J-31 s which will beinducted in huge numbers by PLAF. Only AMCA will be an equal fighter to counter them. Not RAFALE which was designed in the 1970s!!!!

Also it will be foolish to expect that AMCA will also be delayed!!!!The main purpose of the Tejas program is exactly opposite of the witch doctor prognosis like these being prescribed all over the net!!!!!!!!!!!!

The learning curve that ADA crossed will enable it to develop AMCA faster , not slower.And composite tech is already mastered in Tejas , so no problem for AMCA which is going to use them in much higher percentage. Also within a decade a GTRE K-10 engine with or without JV will enter production . SO no problems on the engine front also for AMCA. EVEN if this engine is delayed we can use the GE-414-S6 version for flight testing period at least

Also this so called 30 years time and 50 years time frame is a stupid claim made by people who know nothing about aviation.

RAFALE and TYPHOON took 16 and 17 years respectively to enter into service from first metal cut and Tejas took 20 years for mk-1 to enter into serial production,

Both RAFALE and TYPHOON entered production without finishing all their developmental goals and are being updated in tranches,TYPHOON is yet to demonstarate it's stand alone ground bombing ability , but that hasn't precluded it from entering in 100s in service, Because it can be upgraded after induction. The same goes for Tejas,

For Tejas funding for two prototypes were released only in 1993 , it finished IOC in 2012, entered series production in HAL with orders for 40. So just 4 or five years delay when compared to RAFALE and TYPHOON. The above words are not mine, They are HAL chief retired Airmarshal MSD WOOLEn's wordsi

 

[ersakthivel]

This is why I said sometime ago that India should drop the MMRCA and purchase the F-35. Then India would have a Hi-Low Mix of FGFA's and F-35's to counter PAF and the PLAAF. Then after both are in service for several years. India could partner with the company of the most successful design. In addition India would have access to 5th Generation Designs from both the US and Russia. Thereby gaining from both.........

that will make IAF not an indian airforce but Imported Airforce, whose scruff of the neck will always be in the hands of foriegn OEMS vulnerable to sanctions.
And it will bust the economy of India if we are to counter the chinese 5ht gen fighter with imported pricey 5th gens . It will lead to the former soviet union kinda economic ruin for india. Because in lifecycle terms we will be spending 4 times the amount chinese spend for their single fighter.

 

[ersakthivel]

What I have heard is a pure/crancked delta form finds it difficult to maintain sustainable turn rate something for which IAF have been yelling ADA wrt LCA some thing for which LCA was not designed for (initially designed to be a light weight interceptor 'only', while current projection is for a capable multirole platform). Pure delta form have its own advantages but not known as a all round, heavy duty performer for a multirole platform, or am I missing something?

The movable leading edge vortex lift aka LEVCON for Tejas seems as a rescue package if things do not get too complicated but it is no more a pure/cranked delta form then on.

Beauty depends upon the eyes of the viewer.

It is a strange cocktail of accusations you throw at a cranked delta wing form. The crank in delta does the same job of inducing vortex generation which delays the onset of stall in high AOA regime , which has been proven in CFD analysis and wind tunnel model even before a single piece of metal was cut for Tejas!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It follows on the much acclaimed F-16 XL design which was viewed very favourably for a single engine fighter design by the Aviation community as the next evolution of F-16!!!!!!!!!!!

LEVCONS are primarily being developed for carrier landing requirement of Indian navy, and it is a further development of cranked delta wing form , not a rejection, the LEVCONS will give additional lift during critical moments on the deck. It was the primary purpose of their design. If they are found to help in other flight envelopes it will of course be used for that purpose as well. But adding LEVCONS won't change the cranked delta wing form

So only posters are yelling across each other in various forums about this so called revulsion of IAF over the LCA. In reality IAF voluntarily increased the order from 20 to 0 for Even the Tejas mk-1 itself.

So some uncorraborated yelling noway reduces the Cranked delta design's utility,

Infact canrds were added to this cranked delta to see whether they will significantly improve the Tejas mk-1 performance for the weight it is going to add. And found out to be of no use, since the crank and the twist at the wing root does the same job of canrds, the canards were found to be redundant. In TYPHOON and RAfaLE there is no crank or twist at the wing root, So a canard complements the simple swept back delta wing. In tejs it is not the case.

 

[Decklander]

I have always been amused by the design philosophy of creating an unstable ac and than adding more and more contol surfaces to just to make it fly. Addition of these control surfaces add weight and consequently results in degradation of performance besides making the ac heavier. All you aerodynamics experts must remember the qudraple rule for designing an ac and need to know few basic facts about aerodynamics.

The vetted area of an ac and its wings matters the most for high speed ac as skin friction drag increases with increase in size and speed.
The design of airfoil (wing Planform) has direct bearing on the overall weight of the ac as the weight of the undercart increases and can be anywhere from 2.5% of MTOW to 4.5% of MTOW of the ac. This is what made LCA go beyond the design OEW. Infact the weight of undercart for a carrier based ac is 25% higher than a shore based ac. The CLmax of an airfoil is directly proportional to its sweep angle.
Now, we started LCA project with an aim to have a small light fighter. We used F-16XL as a baseline. The net result is that we have an ac which flies better than M2K but has control surfaces much bigger than that of M2k resulting in overall degradation of load carrying ability and also problems with C of P control. The control deflection for a tail less RSS delta has these problems.
Using movable LEVCONS in LCA will only add to these problems. My best suggestion is to make LCA positively stable design with maneuover margins kept between 5% to 1% like F-16 blk-52. AND ADD CRUCIFORM TAIL TO IT AS IT ALREADY HAS A FLAT RUDDER.

 

[ersakthivel]

I have always been amused by the design philosophy of creating an unstable ac and than adding more and more contol surfaces to just to make it fly. Addition of these control surfaces add weight and consequently results in degradation of performance besides making the ac heavier. All you aerodynamics experts must remember the qudraple rule for designing an ac and need to know few basic facts about aerodynamics.

The vetted area of an ac and its wings matters the most for high speed ac as skin friction drag increases with increase in size and speed.
The design of airfoil (wing Planform) has direct bearing on the overall weight of the ac as the weight of the undercart increases and can be anywhere from 2.5% of MTOW to 4.5% of MTOW of the ac. This is what made LCA go beyond the design OEW. Infact the weight of undercart for a carrier based ac is 25% higher than a shore based ac. The CLmax of an airfoil is directly proportional to its sweep angle.
Now, we started LCA project with an aim to have a small light fighter. We used F-16XL as a baseline. The net result is that we have an ac which flies better than M2K but has control surfaces much bigger than that of M2k resulting in overall degradation of load carrying ability and also problems with C of P control. The control deflection for a tail less RSS delta has these problems.
Using movable LEVCONS in LCA will only add to these problems. My best suggestion is to make LCA positively stable design with maneuover margins kept between 5% to 1% like F-16 blk-52. AND ADD CRUCIFORM TAIL TO IT AS IT ALREADY HAS A FLAT RUDDER.

What made the LCA go beyond the targeted empty weight is not the large wing, but the later insistence from IAF for the deployment of higher launch stress inducing, higher weight longer range BVR missiles on all the pylons, which led to the strengthening of the wing and the consequent weight increase and the sudden increase in cross section from x=5000 mm to x=6000 mm along the fuselage axis.

Even with this weight increase and some drag issues related to the sudden fuselage cross section increase needed to strengthen the section there to attach the higher weight wing, (due to the revised IAF BVR missile needs) the LCA mk-1 still managed to clear many of the targets set for it.MK-2 will be in the grippen NG class.

Since the design phase of LCA all the fighters be it RAFALE, TYPYHOON, F-22, J-20, J-31,FGFA(T-50) all followed the Relaxed static stability Fly by wire based, low wing loading massive wing area delta type design of Tejas, thereby vindicating the wing design.

The benefit of lower wing loading obviously offsets the higher drag of higher wetted area resulting in superior lift to drag performance in all flight envelopes is the reason for this continued adherence to the low wing loading theory.

Any positive static stability fighter will have it's center of gravity ahead of the center of lift in subsonic and trans sonic flight regime , where maneuvering at corner speeds and all other close combat maneuvers will be performed.

The CoG positioned in front of the CoP will act against the center of the lift by nose down momentum thereby delaying the fighter from attain higher bank angles quickly and reach higher Gs quickly.

Even Mirage-2000 has it's wings positioned far below the CG, meaning it's thrust line is well below the CG, But still it is supposed to be RSS fighter. If this lower thrust line alone makes the fighter nimble, then why Dassault went in for Analogue FBW based RSS aerodynamic layout for this fighter?

Having the thrust line right below the Cg will remedy this problem to some extent, But will it completely solve it? Only detailed wind tunnel modelling will clarify these things.

In the same way bigger control surfaces only increase the maneuverability, not decrease it. Now with the advent of 60 G plus BVR and WVR missiles the emphasis is on agile maneuvers to avoid these mssiles as much as possible, opposed to the low drag, positive static stability,highter STR fighters of the previous era.

That is the reason for RSS fighters with larger and more in number control surfaces to attain this goal. Rather than having smaller control surfaces and the low drag configuration,

 

[ersakthivel]

Having the thrust line right below the Cg will remedy this problem to some extent, But will it completely solve it?

Only detailed wind tunnel modelling will clarify these things.

Even though it may result in a force couple to lift the fighter, the continued presence of CG in front of the CP will give a nose down momentum which will act against the pilot's effort to obtain higher AOAs quickly.

In RSS fighters the presence of CG behind the Center of Lift or pressure will aid the pilot's effort to attain higher AOA in all flight profiles.

More in number controlling surfaces assist in maneuvering quickly coupled with the higher agility of the RSS airframe.

The Mirage 2000 features a low-set thin delta wing with cambered section, 58 degrees leading-edge sweep and moderately blended root; area-ruled; two small canard wings, fixed, placed just behind the air intakes. The flight controls on the wings are: four elevons (+15/−30°), four slats.
Its neutral point is in front of its center of gravity, giving the fighter relaxed stability to enhance maneuverability. It incorporated negative stability and fly-by-wire controls with four analog computers.[9] An airbrake is fitted above and below each wing in an arrangement very similar to that of the Mirage III. A noticeably taller tailfin allows the pilot to retain control at higher angles of attack, assisted by the small strakes mounted along each air intake.

The mirage-200 has low enough thrust line, still it's designers went for RSS. WHY?