AMCA configuration in final stages

[WHITESMOKE]

And the real plane will look totally different from these two. Its too early to know what the plane look like.



Thanks for admit that the engine development failed. I said the same thing and I was attacked ruthlessly.

Thought not to reply you ever but doing this time to clarify a bit. For you kaveri is failed because it did not power LCA. That's just your perspective. The engine design was frozen long ago and LCA changed a lot meantime. I would call kaveri failed if it does not produce any thrust. Instead it produces a lot. It gave vital R&D base to India and a lot was learned. Indian can not make a super duper jet engine just from scratch. Western countries have 60-80 years of jet engine experience. Do you think just a kaveri project is enough to cover all that gap? May be if aliens are helping them, in that case it is possible. So get out of the tiny well and start looking at broader perspective. Kaveri has given a lot. It will be base of another engine project even if kaveri is abandoned at current levels. You just need to look beyond fail-pass criteria.

 

[IndoUS]

Thought not to reply you ever but doing this time to clarify a bit. For you kaveri is failed because it did not power LCA. That's just your perspective. The engine design was frozen long ago and LCA changed a lot meantime. I would call kaveri failed if it does not produce any thrust. Instead it produces a lot. It gave vital R&D base to India and a lot was learned. Indian can not make a super duper jet engine just from scratch. Western countries have 60-80 years of jet engine experience. Do you think just a kaveri project is enough to cover all that gap? May be if aliens are helping them, in that case it is possible. So get out of the tiny well and start looking at broader perspective. Kaveri has given a lot. It will be base of another engine project even if kaveri is abandoned at current levels. You just need to look beyond fail-pass criteria.

Mate you are trying to reason with people that already have a set mindset which would not change even if you came up with any proper reasoning and proof. They only come here for trolling, better ignore them, they will just end up ruining the thread.

 

[WHITESMOKE]

Mate you are trying to reason with people that already have a set mindset which would not change even if you came up with any proper reasoning and proof. They only come here for trolling, better ignore them, they will just end up ruining the thread.

Sir, he was complaining last time that why I am not replying you. I bet now he has no respectable reply to my post and for me he will be just another bot on pdf. I am currently studying the material science and I see people have almost given up their entire life in research and still they say progress is going on and some kids here are jumping that why kaveri is not a success in 1st attempt. They need to understand its material science not like a 20 year old kid trying to make a virus to hack neighbour's computer. The whole future of mankind will revolve around research in materials.

 

[faithfulguy]

Thought not to reply you ever but doing this time to clarify a bit. For you kaveri is failed because it did not power LCA. That's just your perspective. The engine design was frozen long ago and LCA changed a lot meantime. I would call kaveri failed if it does not produce any thrust. Instead it produces a lot. It gave vital R&D base to India and a lot was learned. Indian can not make a super duper jet engine just from scratch. Western countries have 60-80 years of jet engine experience. Do you think just a kaveri project is enough to cover all that gap? May be if aliens are helping them, in that case it is possible. So get out of the tiny well and start looking at broader perspective. Kaveri has given a lot. It will be base of another engine project even if kaveri is abandoned at current levels. You just need to look beyond fail-pass criteria.

Kaveri failed as it was designed to power LCA. It failed in its objective. After that, it was redesign first for AMCA and then ships and then trains and now, drones. If its not a failed engine, it would achieve its objective of flying on LCA.

Finally, I was quoting Sancho, an India who also mentioned that Kaveri failed. read his post first. No one attacked him. But as I had predicted, I was attacked for saying the same thing as him.

Sir, he was complaining last time that why I am not replying you. I bet now he has no respectable reply to my post and for me he will be just another bot on pdf. I am currently studying the material science and I see people have almost given up their entire life in research and still they say progress is going on and some kids here are jumping that why kaveri is not a success in 1st attempt. They need to understand its material science not like a 20 year old kid trying to make a virus to hack neighbour's computer. The whole future of mankind will revolve around research in materials.

I agree its hard to build the engine. So no shame in failing. But its a failure none the less.

 

[Sergi]

Apart from that 7 years seems to be a good timeline to generate the first prototype since funding started in 2010

Fair enough

P.S dont call me sir... makes me feel super old!

Will try to avoid it next time.

 

[IndianArmy]

Exactly, that's why going for LCA was the right way, the problem is only that we didn't have achieved anything apart from basics in the aero field through this development after so many years. The development is still not finished, the serial production didn't started, the engine developments failed, the radar is uncertain and so on.
So we still have a long way to go to reach the goal and should waste time with dreaming about new developments.


Wrong, because the mismanagement lead into failures in the tech developments, ADA designed to fighter too draggy and too heavy, DRDO failed to develop the engine and now struggle with the radar, ADA (according to IN officials) totally underestimated the chances needed to navalise a fighter...
So it's a mix of both that caused a good project to suffer that much!



Not only that, but also partners with knowledge and experience in the field of design, NG radar, engine and avionic technologies, because we lack behind in these fields, even for 4th gen standards.



Oh please, we constantly denied any Russian involvement in LCA, because we thought their techs don't offer the quality we wanted and suddenly we CHOSE to simply taka a Russian design, a Russian engine and a Russian radar? These are the core fields of a fighter development and we don't participate in them, because we are at least a generation behind what would be needed for such a fighter and the same developments for LCA are obvious proves for that!

We have achieved everything but not good enough to power a 4th gen aircraft per IAF requirements, but there are Air forces around the globe who have 4th gen fighter's carrying Radar's and engine of MMR and Kaveri standards. You cannot deny the change in demands by the IAF which prolonged its progress.

For LCA we did not have a platform of research, every thing was built from scrap. I am not saying we have all the 5th gen technologies readily available to build a 5th gen aircraft, but the technical know how, to build one is readily available, some of India's best minds are on it while we debate.

Why would you want to re-invent the wheel. India is not a partner in PAK-FA but FGFA. Most of the core technology's are derived from Pak FA. Why would u waste your money to research on a technology which Russians have already and especially when they are ready to share it with you.

You really under estimate Institutions like IISC and C-DAC who would be prime research partners for AMCA.

 

[fast]

Look like a copy of F-35.

 

[Black Widow]

Look like a copy of F-35.

I used the similar word for J20 and I was banned for 3 weeks... Lets see what's going to happen to you...

 

[Black Widow]

Kaveri failed as it was designed to power LCA. It failed in its objective. After that, it was redesign first for AMCA and then ships and then trains and now, drones. If its not a failed engine, it would achieve its objective of flying on LCA.

You are delusional on Kaveri issue...

1. Kaveri didn't failed rather requirement was changed. Its like I first asked 500cc bike, in mid course I changed my requirement to 1000cc bike..

2. Kaveri for AMCA is different project
3. Kaveri for Ships is different project
4. Kaveri for UAV is different project...

 

[sancho]

We have achieved everything but not good enough to power a 4th gen aircraft per IAF requirements, but there are Air forces around the globe who have 4th gen fighter's carrying Radar's and engine of MMR and Kaveri standards. You cannot deny the change in demands by the IAF which prolonged its progress.

We don't and not only according to IAF standards, but according to those ADA and DRDO set up at the begining. What about the TWR of 1, what about the AoA of 24 degrees, the speed and G limits, the 81kN of Kaveri engine, or the 5.5t emptyweight?
It is not IAFs fault to ask the manufacturers to provide, what they promised or what their own standards were.
IAF has their own part of the problems and I have critisized that often too, but using them to distract from the facts and to not hold the industry accountable for their mistakes and failures is not getting us anywhere.

We have to finish what we started, have to fix the problems, get the fighter into serial production and induct it into squadron service, but moreover we have to assess the things that went wrong in the project, take people that were responsible to account and learn to not do the same mistakes again. Then and only then we can say we have achieved soemething!

For LCA we did not have a platform of research, every thing was built from scrap. I am not saying we have all the 5th gen technologies readily available to build a 5th gen aircraft, but the technical know how, to build one is readily available, some of India's best minds are on it while we debate.

What technical know how? Do we know about stealth design now? As I said, we even have major problems in normal aero design, let alone to mix it with stealth in mind.
We have no know how in fighter engine development, let alone a 5 th gen engine.
We have just basic know how of 4 th gen puls doppler radar development, but haven't fielded a single fighter radar yet. AESA developments are only in early stages, far away from beeing used even in LCA, let alone a 5 th gen fighter.

What we do have is, know how in materials, cockpit avionics and EW, that's why these are the fields where we can contribute to a NG development and why these are the only fields where we can contribute to FGFA.

Why would you want to re-invent the wheel. India is not a partner in PAK-FA but FGFA. Most of the core technology's are derived from Pak FA. Why would u waste your money to research on a technology which Russians have already and especially when they are ready to share it with you.

Because it's meant to be our fighter and if we COULD contribute more like you claimed, we would not simply choose Russian AESA, but integrate our own. As said, the fact is that we can't and that's why we didn't chose to not contribute more, but we were limited to such a low contribution.
That's also why we couldn provide an own engine, because we couldn't even develop an engine for LCA MK1, nor can we further develop it alone for LCA MK2 or AMCA.

That is the reality of Indias industrial capability in the aero field today and denying it, makes us just weaker!

 

[sancho]

@ WHITESMOKE

I guess I have mentioned most of the things you talked about in my reply to India Army, my point is that there is a serious lack of reality in our thinking and our assement of what is doable and what is needed.

As I often showed on PDF, there is no requirement for a second stealth fighter in IAF, since it won't offer any operational advantages over FGFA, the only point is, it is "more Indian", but that imo is not a good reason to waste billions of taxpayers money, that could be used for more important defence related procurements.
So this is just another development, for the wrong reasons!

The on need for AMCA is in IN as a carrier fighter for IAC 2, especially since we don't have a 5th gen fighter for them so far and because they will be the spearhead to project power in future. IN has already stated their interest in such a fighter, but we doing the same mistake again that we did with LCA, making it too complicated by first developing an airforce version and then re-design ot to a naval version.
Keep in mind that ADA messed up the navalising of LCA as well and navalising an AMCA, even for the possible use with catapults is waaaaaay more difficult, so all those who think we have gained anything for a naval AMCA, because we now have N-LCA, are highly mistaken!!!

I'm sorry, but so far I don't see the changes, we still are at the basics, haven't achieved anything yet, but keep dreaming about things that even are difficult for countries that are far ahead of us. Keep it simple and think about the needs of the forces first!

Simple example, DRDO messed up radar and engine developments and still are dreaming about AESA radar, 5th cockpit for LCA MK2 and even a stealthy MK3, at the same time ADA made the whole LCA project even more complicated, by developing N-LCA at the side, which requirers to mix up requirements of IAF and IN for the MK2.

The better choice would have been, to integrate not only a foreign engine to LCA MK2, but also a foreign AESA (logically Rafales, since we produce it under licence in India). Not to develop N-LCA, but to increase the number of Mig 29s (and now comes the important part!) with higher Indian content!
IN is the biggest customer of Mig 29Ks, even more than RuN will operate, so why didn't we go for an Indian radar, why don't we think about integrating Kaveri into Mig 29s?
So instead developing a single engine less capable carrier fighter and making LCA development more complicated, DRDO should develop the indigenous AESA to replace Zhuk ME radars in the Migs, just like they should focus on improving and integrating Kaveri engine to replace RD33 engines. That would make our own developments useful within this decade and not only in the next one and more importantly, makes us / IN less dependen on Russia too.
At the same time, the LCA development would completely focused on IAFs requirement only and would be way easier as well.

But that is the problem, we (ADA/DRDO mainly) don't think about small steps, because a Russian fighter with Indian radar and engine might be an achievement, but still is a Russian fighter, no matter how much more capable it would be. It's more prestigious to develop an "indigenous carrier fighter" for an "indigenous carrier" and to claim that we have achieved something that only very few other countries can either.

 

[arp2041]

@sancho u seem to be against AMCA development, but what about the post-2025 scenario in which 3 of the important IAF fighters would retire - mirage, mig 29, jags. They will need replacements & considering the time frame it will be logical to replace the mid-weight 4th gen fighters with a mid-weight 5th gen fighters. Yes, going for more FGFA can be an option but there nos. too have limits (IAF can't be dependent on one fighter type only), we can't go for more than 250 FGFA (not even that nos.), so where will we bridge the gap (& actually increase the squad nos.) created from retirement of around 250+ jags, mig29 & mirage-2000s.

 

[Anony]

We don't and not only according to IAF standards, but according to those ADA and DRDO set up at the begining. What about the TWR of 1, what about the AoA of 24 degrees, the speed and G limits, the 81kN of Kaveri engine, or the 5.5t emptyweight?
It is not IAFs fault to ask the manufacturers to provide, what they promised or what their own standards were.
IAF has their own part of the problems and I have critisized that often too, but using them to distract from the facts and to not hold the industry accountable for their mistakes and failures is not getting us anywhere.

We have to finish what we started, have to fix the problems, get the fighter into serial production and induct it into squadron service, but moreover we have to assess the things that went wrong in the project, take people that were responsible to account and learn to not do the same mistakes again. Then and only then we can say we have achieved soemething!




What technical know how? Do we know about stealth design now? As I said, we even have major problems in normal aero design, let alone to mix it with stealth in mind.
We have no know how in fighter engine development, let alone a 5 th gen engine.
We have just basic know how of 4 th gen puls doppler radar development, but haven't fielded a single fighter radar yet. AESA developments are only in early stages, far away from beeing used even in LCA, let alone a 5 th gen fighter.

What we do have is, know how in materials, cockpit avionics and EW, that's why these are the fields where we can contribute to a NG development and why these are the only fields where we can contribute to FGFA.




Because it's meant to be our fighter and if we COULD contribute more like you claimed, we would not simply choose Russian AESA, but integrate our own. As said, the fact is that we can't and that's why we didn't chose to not contribute more, but we were limited to such a low contribution.
That's also why we couldn provide an own engine, because we couldn't even develop an engine for LCA MK1, nor can we further develop it alone for LCA MK2 or AMCA.

That is the reality of Indias industrial capability in the aero field today and denying it, makes us just weaker!

Most of what you mentioned are correct but not all. LCA mk1 now has empty weight of 5680 kg just 180 kg more than original planned and to me this much obesity is accepted.

Development of AESA has been divided into eight parts of which two are ready.I am quite hopeful that it will get completed by 2015 or early 2016. Then DRDO can go for its upgradation to 5th gen standard.

In the mode of LCA we have achieved expertise in FBW, composites, cockpit design and other avionics, EW, infrastructure required for fighter development, etc. Though engine design is one area where I think DRDO needs atleast a decade and a decade more to make it up to the 5gen standard.

 

[Anony]

@sancho . I agree with your point on N-LCA but my argument is not based on capability of N-LCA but its need. Since N-LCA if ever need to be operated from an aircraft carrier, it has to be from the deck of IAC1 and IAC2. Since IAC2 will be inducted after 2025, probably 2027-2028 timeframe, ideal choice should be N-AMCA. And also IAC2 be possibly a catapult design, N-LCA is straight away rejected. Thus for one or two squadron we should not waste our money to design a complete new fighter(as India don't have any prior experience). Has it been CATOBAR design, it would have made some sense but since it is a STOBAR it's a ridiculous thinking. We should rather get one or two more squadron of MIG 29k, which is a very potent fighter.

 

[Backbencher]

Knowing the Indian potential the actual work on AMCA will begin when PAKFA will arrive in Indian soil and through reverse engineering me might just manage to pull out the impossible .
The engineers who couldnt make a decent 4 th generation fighter untill 2013 how could they by themselves manage to make the ultimate fighter jet .