5th generation AMCA on backburner

[skynet]

Lead In Fighter Trainer

From wiki ,

Lead-in fighter training (LIFT) utilises advanced jet trainer aircraft with avionics and stores-management capability that emulate operational fighter planes, to provide efficient training in combat scenarios with reduced training cost compared to moving straight to operational conversion.The on-board avionics system may be linked to ground-based systems, and together they can simulate situations such as infrared or radar guided missile, interceptors, air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft batteries, radars, chaff and flare countermeasures and collision warnings, in low or dense electronic warfare environments. Systems may also be able to re-enact true-to-life combat situations

Thanks for the info sir

 

[NKVD]

There is no need of co-develop engine. We don't need engine either for LCA or AMCA.

Well that's what you think Although Hal is comfortable with Engine co-development.there Shakti engine with Turbomeca Ardiden and was developed under the aegis of a HAL-Turbomeca joint venture. HAL has also been entering into key joint venture partnerships in this domain since the nineties. The most recent of these is International Aerospace Manufacturing Limited (IAML), a 50-50 joint venture between HAL and Rolls-Royce which inaugurated a Rs 135 crore production facility in Bangalore last year.The Bangalore facility is also likely to help Rolls Royce discharge offset obligations that will arise out of the supply of the IAF's Hawk advanced jet trainer's Adour Mk871 engine and the C-130J's Royce AE 2100D3 engines.
HAL's engine division has also been executing component orders for other American tier-I suppliers like Pratt & Whitney (P&W). P&W sources components for rotating and static engines from HAL Koraput and could ride this existing agreement for discharging any offset obligations arising out of the supply of F117-PW-100 engines as a part of the Boeing C-17 purchase by the IAF. GE may look to do the same for its own extant offset obligations given that it is now the beneficiary of a 558 million dollar contract for supplying 99 F414-INS6 engines to power the LCA Mk-2.
The contract also has the option for another 100 engines in the future. HAL and GE have an evolving relationship in the components space since 2009 and it would be interesting to see if the F414 like the Adour Mk 811 for the Hawk is produced in India. In any case GE's technology transfer proposition made under the offset obligations for the contract will also be interesting to see.

 

[kurup]

Thanks for the info sir

No sirs please ...... afterall information is from wiki not mine ....

 

[sancho]

2x M88 is enough for rafale why not Amcaas both are medium range fighters

The F18SH is also a medium class fighter, but comes at an emptyweight of close to 14t, while the Rafale is 4-5t lighter, which obviously makes a difference for the thrust requirement. Stealth fighters will be even heavier, since they are designed to carry all the fuel and much of the weapon load internally. The F35 comes around 13t empty and has a thrust of 125kN dry / 190kN wet, but is considered as bad in flight performance. AMCA must perform much better and is required with Supercuise capability too, but might be designed smaller and lighter. Upgraded M88s with around 60 / 90kN might fit better than the current once, but then you also have the GE 414 that you produce soon in India under licence anyway with 62 / 98kN or the EJ200 with 60 / 90kN (if we want even with 3D TVC).

DRDO is quite confidant on avionics front as they had worked too many projects in past.

DRDO is not developing most of the avionics, maybe that's why. Their core projects, radar and engine are in big trouble and only DARE makes them look at least somekind of useful.

There is no AMCA for IN. HOW CAN you built a a/c for a customer who even doesn't decide that how his carrier should be. Don't forget it is IAF who put ASR to ADA. What IN did is shown " interest" only.

DRDO already have claimed to develop a naval varient, of the AMCA that they want to develop for IAF, which is the same mistake they did with LCA and N-LCA. IN showed interest of course, but they also slamed DRDO for going the wrong way again.
And no IAF did not put ASR to ADA, it was DRDO who started the AMCA as their own concept and proposed it to IAF and the MoD, which then required the ASR from the customer and freeing fundings of the MoD. IAF provided the ASRs, but we now have the 2nd Air Chief in a row who basically says, they don't need AMCA and don't care much about it.
Also, you can develop a carrier fighter without knowing if IAC 2 will get catapults or not, simply by developing it for the catapult launch from the start but with a good TWR and thrust. If the catapults won't come, you only need minor changes (mainly less strengthenings => weight reductions) to use it via ski-jump take off. The aressted landing, the main design, the avionics or weapons will be the same anyway, so that is not an issue either.

You can see too many subsytems for AMCA is already developed.

Subsystems, but not the core parts! Kaveri failed, is of no use for LCA now and even less for an AMCA at the moment. Radar is still not ready and the AESA is a long shot, but actually the only hope for DRDO to provide something meaningful to AMCA.
LCA suffers from design issues caused by the limited experience in ADA, but without them being part of the FGFA project, it's no use to let them design AMCA. So if you want to benefit from FGFA, HAL would not only need to be the designer of AMCA, based on their participation and experience in the FGFA project, but also to be the main develop, which neither ADA nor DRDO will allow.
So what's the use of having subsystems, when you lack behind in all core areas and continue to give the the project to the wrong PSUs?

No sirs please ...... afterall information is from wiki not mine ....

But helping others to find the right answers is the right thing to do (especially for senior / elite members), even if you only point to the right direction. Keep it up!

 

[BuddhaPalm]

India can't even manufacture a bullet, nevermind WW2 era technology relic like LCA. When it comes to self-delusion, even stealth fighters, laser beams, hypersonic vehicles and ballistic missile shield are not enough.

 

[sancho]

Post reported, ignore him and stick to topic!

 

[Icewolf]

Is it really so surprising? People who thought India was actually even researching a fifth generation aircraft when TEJAS still has not been potty trained by the IAF....

 

[Vinayak Tiwari]

NO Lca was a fighter from scratch Whereas AMCA Was To Be Developed On Basis of technologies And Experience which we get under TOT from both MMRCA And FGFA Projects So the Induction process Might get faster

Lets hope for the best

 

[ANPP]

DRDO is not developing most of the avionics, maybe that's why. Their core projects, radar and engine are in big trouble and only DARE makes them look at least somekind of useful.

I don't understand what you mean. But most of avionics for LCA is developed by DRDO. LCA's mmr radar was also quite successful and praised by IAF back than. Although it doesn't achieve certain criteria under some mode. Than later it was dropped in favor of AESA radar. They tested TR modules for AESA radar successfully. So I am sure they will deliver a AESA radar for LCA mk2, but before 2017 is quite tough job. I am seeing 2019 timeline for AESA. Upgraded model can be used for AMCA.

DRDO already have claimed to develop a naval varient, of the AMCA that they want to develop for IAF, which is the same mistake they did with LCA and N-LCA. IN showed interest of course, but they also slamed DRDO for going the wrong way again.
And no IAF did not put ASR to ADA, it was DRDO who started the AMCA as their own concept and proposed it to IAF and the MoD, which then required the ASR from the customer and freeing fundings of the MoD. IAF provided the ASRs, but we now have the 2nd Air Chief in a row who basically says, they don't need AMCA and don't care much about it.
Also, you can develop a carrier fighter without knowing if IAC 2 will get catapults or not, simply by developing it for the catapult launch from the start but with a good TWR and thrust. If the catapults won't come, you only need minor changes (mainly less strengthenings => weight reductions) to use it via ski-jump take off. The aressted landing, the main design, the avionics or weapons will be the same anyway, so that is not an issue either

First we are not cash rich country so that we can build two different fighters for IN as well as IAF. True, ADA took the proposal to IAF, but IAF doesn't accept it in its original form. They changed it and than put their ASR. Evan ordered to change the design. Everyone know IAF will need new fighter in ~2030. But it is the reality which IAF is not seeing. What they do, if they need a fighter in 2006 than they put requirement in 2001. No one can make fighter in 5-6 years. Than they ended buying fighters in 2016. Thats what they were doing. ADA is doing right, first develop airforce version, test it and do changes according to naval fighter. ADA aslo proposed AMCA to IN, but they didn't give ASR. What IN wants is a indigenous fighter. And AMCA will be provided to them in time. I hope that ADA will start work on naval version from TD stage of AMCA unlike if LCA.

Subsystems, but not the core parts! Kaveri failed, is of no use for LCA now and even less for an AMCA at the moment. Radar is still not ready and the AESA is a long shot, but actually the only hope for DRDO to provide something meaningful to AMCA.
LCA suffers from design issues caused by the limited experience in ADA, but without them being part of the FGFA project, it's no use to let them design AMCA. So if you want to benefit from FGFA, HAL would not only need to be the designer of AMCA, based on their participation and experience in the FGFA project, but also to be the main develop, which neither ADA nor DRDO will allow.
So what's the use of having subsystems, when you lack behind in all core areas and continue to give the the project to the wrong PSUs?

Kaveri doesn't fail. You know IAF criticized GTRE to over-estimate its capability. Every major giant need 2 decade to develop engine from starting. GTRE put 7 year deadline. Kaveri is one of the key of delay in LCA. Although Kaveri is dropped from LCA but independent development is going. The test on IL76 is completed and test on mig29 will be conducted. So Kaveri is going right. Although I also have concern about Kveri 2.

No, AMCA's design should be different from FGFA. Different designs have their prons and coins. If we take things from FGFA than AMCA will be more or less FGFA. So it will be worthless. ADA is doing right, develop our own design. Profit of subsystems is that, first you don't have think about it and second if any system will delay than it will not delay the whole project, unlike what happened to LCA.

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

Many wanna be technologies still to be developed , some ppl want technology developed during LCA -II should go into this AC. So let first develop the technology then go for 5th Gen or else it become another tejas....

 

[kurup]

But helping others to find the right answers is the right thing to do (especially for senior / elite members), even if you only point to the right direction. Keep it up!

Thank You sirji