What's new

AMCA Project heading LCA Direction??

But the very fact that the AMCA is a medium fighter while the FGFA is a heavy one would make that less than feasible no? The FGFA project should go on as planned, then we will have one assured 5th gen in our kitty delinked from whatever might happen elsewhere, no?

I have often wondered what are the implications and advantages of using a HCA instead of a MCA....

Implications
HCA's are expensive compared to MCA's
HCA's consume more fuel compared to MCA's

Advantages
Better range, better payload,
Abiilty to house bigger radar, and support the power rating


If all AMCA efforts were put into PAKFA, including the budget to not just license build but to joint manufacture all the key technologies, instead of haveing 250 PAKFA/FGFA and another 200 AMCA, we could Build 450 units of a single aircraft driving the cost of the aircraft significantly down.

Single fighter would reduce logistical complications as well as maintenance hassles.

PAKFA will have the might of russian R&D Experience behind it, and India will benefit form it.

Buying in to joint production and equal partnership will ensure russia doesn't sell the aircraft to china.

India will be able to seamlessly customize it's versions, and even sell it.

It would be easier to make another custom fullback styled strike platform if needed.


Operating a medium and high end 5th gen platform makes sense for US and China, because thier intention seems to follow f15/f16 model where, Air dom platform is held by them and multirole platform is exported worldwide.

For India, it's "chacha, apni jaan bacha", as long as we can come upto 50 sqdns of high tech fighter we should be happy...
 
.
If all AMCA efforts were put into PAKFA, including the budget to not just license build but to joint manufacture all the key technologies, instead of haveing 250 PAKFA/FGFA and another 200 AMCA, we could Build 450 units of a single aircraft driving the cost of the aircraft significantly down.

That is not possible Sandy. Once because the Pak Fa development had started long ago, secondly because we initially wanted an own twin seat version and most importantly because ADA/DRDO have not enough contribution to FGFA, which is why they now come out with an own stealth fighter for IAF.

So combining both won't work anymore and as I often say is not needed anyway, since IAF don't has the requirement for another fighter type!

FGFA - 5th gen, manned, air superiority, long range offensiv strike (SEAD, DEAD, deepstrike...)
AURA - 5th gen, unmanned, long range offensiv strike
MKI - 4.5th gen, manned, air superiority, medium to long range offensiv and 2nd day strike
Rafale - 4.5th gen, manned air superiority medium to long range offensiv and 2nd day strike
LCA - 4.5th gen, manned interception and CAS
Rustom H (armed) - 4.5th gen, unmanned, recon and CAS

Neither any of the roles where NG capabilities will be important, nor in patrol or 2nd day strike roles an AMCA would be important in IAF.

Btw, since you have some inside knowledge. Has HAL own fighter designs / concepts?
 
.
I mean a common avionics base would be wonderful

That is already going on today, since avionics is one of the field where we are quiet successful. HAL and Samtel have gained quiet some know how with MFDs and displays, DARE with EWS and sensors, which is why we integrate Indian techs into MKI, Mig 29s, Jaguars, LCA of course and most likely also into Mirage 2000 and Rafale, although I didn't found something offical about the content so far. I just asked it yesterday on IDF, if HAL or Samtel might replace some of the French MFDs with Indian once?
The next step would be a joint weapon package, which includes Astra missiles, Sudarshan LGBs, possibly Helina or CLGM, or as I often say, to develop indigenous AESA and engines for Mig 29K future upgrade, instead of being dependent on Russia. But then again, the focus is more on N-LCA, instead adding more to Mig 29K, only because N-LCA is indigenous.
 
.
That is already going on today, since avionics is one of the field where we are quiet successful. HAL and Samtel have gained quiet some know how with MFDs and displays, DARE with EWS and sensors, which is why we integrate Indian techs into MKI, Mig 29s, Jaguars, LCA of course and most likely also into Mirage 2000 and Rafale, although I didn't found something offical about the content so far. I just asked it yesterday on IDF, if HAL or Samtel might replace some of the French MFDs with Indian once?
The next step would be a joint weapon package, which includes Astra missiles, Sudarshan LGBs, possibly Helina or CLGM, or as I often say, to develop indigenous AESA and engines for Mig 29K future upgrade, instead of being dependent on Russia. But then again, the focus is more on N-LCA, instead adding more to Mig 29K, only because N-LCA is indigenous.

But even so we lag behind in major avionics such as a fighter's AESA radar or even Doppler radar? Nor can we match something like the Thales Spectra. Although the points you've highlighted are rather heartening. Completely agree with your point regarding the 29ks.
 
.
That is not possible Sandy. Once because the Pak Fa development had started long ago, secondly because we initially wanted an own twin seat version and most importantly because ADA/DRDO have not enough contribution to FGFA, which is why they now come out with an own stealth fighter for IAF.

So combining both won't work anymore and as I often say is not needed anyway, since IAF don't has the requirement for another fighter type!

FGFA - 5th gen, manned, air superiority, long range offensiv strike (SEAD, DEAD, deepstrike...)
AURA - 5th gen, unmanned, long range offensiv strike
MKI - 4.5th gen, manned, air superiority, medium to long range offensiv and 2nd day strike
Rafale - 4.5th gen, manned air superiority medium to long range offensiv and 2nd day strike
LCA - 4.5th gen, manned interception and CAS
Rustom H (armed) - 4.5th gen, unmanned, recon and CAS

Neither any of the roles where NG capabilities will be important, nor in patrol or 2nd day strike roles an AMCA would be important in IAF.

Btw, since you have some inside knowledge. Has HAL own fighter designs / concepts?
I agree on the point that we don't need an another Heavy 5th generation fighter and it's not possible to develope it from scratch now.Infact AMCA has its role only in IN.

Don't you think that building AURA will be more ambitious than building AMCA,later would not require sofisticated Data-link systems to reduce latency between the drone and its operator and an operational indegenous statellite navigational system.
We are struggling to induct basic drones like Rustum-1(2016), let alone AURA (Though its achievable if ADA makes partnership with Mig,dassualt,BAE systems).

AMCA is achievable without any major delay,if ADA/DRDO delinks Kaveri NG from the start and select Thales spectra EW suite for AMCA.According to this pic AESA for Mk2 is in development and it should be ready,well before AMCA 1st flight.
scaled.php
 
.
I agree on the point that we don't need an another Heavy 5th generation fighter and it's not possible to develope it from scratch now.Infact AMCA has its role only in IN.

Don't you think that building AURA will be more ambitious than building AMCA,later would not require sofisticated Data-link systems to reduce latency between the drone and its operator and an operational indegenous statellite navigational system.
We are struggling to induct basic drones like Rustum-1(2016), let alone AURA (Though its achievable if ADA makes partnership with Mig,dassualt,BAE systems).

AMCA is achievable without any major delay,if ADA/DRDO delinks Kaveri NG from the start and select Thales spectra EW suite for AMCA.According to this pic AESA for Mk2 is in development and it should be ready,well before AMCA 1st flight.
scaled.php

What's the MPR, any concrete info, last I checked Astra had been involved in the 3D-CAR system.

Why are they stating that 2 modules of T/R elements have ALREADY BEEN delivered for user trials for the LCA AESA? Any substantiation and details on that?
 
.
What's the MPR, any concrete info, last I checked Astra had been involved in the 3D-CAR system.

Why are they stating that 2 modules of T/R elements have ALREADY BEEN delivered for user trials for the LCA AESA? Any substantiation and details on that?
It took me awhile to dig up some info about on MPR.
MPR is a 4D surveillance(means it can calculate height,distance,range,velocity).It might replace Arudra AESA MPR that IAF inducted in 2011 OR it may happen that DRDO will replace critical Isrealy subcompoment(TRMM modules) by indigenous ones.

Ministry of Defence Annual Report 2009/2010
http://mod.nic.in/reports/AR-eng-2010.pdf
Medium Power Radar (MPR) & Low Level Transportable Radars (LLTR) : DRDO has started design & development of these 4D (range; direction; height & doppler velocity) Radars required by the IAF for Air Surveillance. These Radars will use many state of the art technologies including advanced Active Array technology & Digital Beam Forming. Initially 8 indigenous MPRs and 18 numbers of LLTRs will be inducted by the Indian Air Force.



I don't know much on that bolded part.You can think AstraMw as silicon industry that makes chips out of designs.Infact our 1stAESA systems are designed by lecturers of NIT Trichy.

trmodules_big.jpg
 
.
That is not possible Sandy. Once because the Pak Fa development had started long ago, secondly because we initially wanted an own twin seat version and most importantly because ADA/DRDO have not enough contribution to FGFA, which is why they now come out with an own stealth fighter for IAF.
"Aam khao ped mat gino" Just because ADA did not have much of a role in developing Pak Fa doesn't mean we need to another platform. We need to appreciate the situation, not situate the appreciation.

So combining both won't work anymore and as I often say is not needed anyway, since IAF don't has the requirement for another fighter type!

FGFA - 5th gen, manned, air superiority, long range offensiv strike (SEAD, DEAD, deepstrike...)
AURA - 5th gen, unmanned, long range offensiv strike
MKI - 4.5th gen, manned, air superiority, medium to long range offensiv and 2nd day strike
Rafale - 4.5th gen, manned air superiority medium to long range offensiv and 2nd day strike
LCA - 4.5th gen, manned interception and CAS
Rustom H (armed) - 4.5th gen, unmanned, recon and CAS

Neither any of the roles where NG capabilities will be important, nor in patrol or 2nd day strike roles an AMCA would be important in IAF.

Btw, since you have some inside knowledge. Has HAL own fighter designs / concepts?

There are a few floating concepts, practical ones, not NG stuff. cant disclose details but there were a few trainer and cas concepts developed, also 4th gen twin engined strike platform.
 
.
Sounds like another fairy-tale from India.

Can we expect the first prototype to fly by 2050 or am I being too optimistic?
 
.
Sounds like another fairy-tale from India.

Can we expect the first prototype to fly by 2050 or am I being too optimistic?

Highly experienced and best Fighter designer in the world,Pakistan Aeronautical Complex(PAC) are the best organization to answer these questions.:rofl:
 
.
I won't hold my breath on AMCA. If this plane can be inducted by 2030, than this would be a great success. But more likely, we are looking at 2035-2040. This would be especially true if the first prototype does not fly until 2025, which is 50/50 at this point. As the article stated, this is the working of another LCA. And @sancho is the only Indian here honest enough to call it out. Kudos to him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
First of all guys, Sancho is enough.

Dillinger, I know but I guessed S-Duct has already answered it. Imo we might be able to offer more on the material and coating side for a 5th gen fighter, than we can do at the design side. For every simple forumer like us, it is obvious that a stealth fighter must have angled surfaces and designing a fighter like that is not that difficult, however finding a design that is not only vlo, but also aerodynamical and offers good flight performance is something different. By the record of drag and overweight issues we have with our indigenous aircraft programs with conventional designs, I don't see how we can overcome this at such an advanced design.
The engine is of course another core issue, but just like it should have been done in LCA, we don't need an indigenous engine necessarily for our AMCA in general, or at least for the prototypes and early production versions. Even the T50 and the early Pak Fa versions, will use an available and proven engine, while the NG newly developed engine will come later only, so why do we without any know how in the engine field always want an indigenous engine for our fighter? Because we see it as a matter of pride and that is one of the main problem in most of our own developments anyway and as long we can't get over it, we won't get such development done the right way!


S-DUCT, to be honest none of them, because I am not an aero engineer and don't have deep know how about stealth design and like any forumer I want to see something new and innovative in any new fighter, that we have not seen in reality so far.
So I would have prefered a different approach, more based on our experience with LCAs design, since it's design was chosen with a very low RCS in mind too. That's why we have chosen a tailless delta wing design, without canards, that's why we wanted a very small fighter, because the size alone is a big factor.

q3k4om77.jpg



Another more practical approach could be of the current design and some off the shelf additions of the FGFA program. One could have thought about using the Type 30 engine in a single engine AMCA design for example, which would give much more commonality, or to use the all moving vertical tail design for too.

I even made some simple paintjobs once ;)

AMCA current design:
522zl4tt.jpg



Single engine, tailless wing design, with Type 30 engine and all moving:
skwwujdj.jpg

I think AMCA built around single, modified Super MKI engine, producing 15,000 kg thrust, will be easy to design and produce

what you do think? It will also result in MKIs, AMCAs and Super MKIs using engines based on same engine, thus simplifying maintenance

@sancho> how about this idea,is it feasible?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
But even so we lag behind in major avionics such as a fighter's AESA radar or even Doppler radar? Nor can we match something like the Thales Spectra. Although the points you've highlighted are rather heartening. Completely agree with your point regarding the 29ks.

At radar we seem to lack behind yet, but what we hear about the EW systems is promising, even of the EW sensors of LCA, which is why I expect that some French parts of SPECTRA might be replaced by Indian parts as well. Don't forget that we have gained some Israeli know how in the EW field, which helps in that regard.


Don't you think that building AURA will be more ambitious than building AMCA,later would not require sofisticated Data-link systems to reduce latency between the drone and its operator and an operational indegenous statellite navigational system.
We are struggling to induct basic drones like Rustum-1(2016), let alone AURA (Though its achievable if ADA makes partnership with Mig,dassualt,BAE systems).

No doubt it is ambitious, but I see the lack of design knowledge as the main problem and not the avionics itself. When you look at the mock up of Rustom H and compare it with other MALE drones, the bad design is pretty obvious.
That's why I would love to see us teaming up with the Israelis, which have similar plans for a UCAV. Their experience in UAV design and developments, would be a major boost for this program.
The difference to AMCA on the other hand is, that the design is simpler, since it must not hav high flight performance standards and maneuverability, but must just be stealthy and have a good range.
Similarly, we would need way less accessories that needs to be developed. No NG radar, no NG cockpit, no SC engine with TVC features..., which saves a lot of time and should make things easier again.
Also, unlike in LCAs or AMCAs case, Kaveri would be way better suited as the base for an indigenous engine and would have more scope for success. So the basics for such a project are available, but we need still an experienced partner.



AMCA is achievable without any major delay,if ADA/DRDO delinks Kaveri NG from the start and select Thales spectra EW suite for AMCA.According to this pic AESA for Mk2 is in development and it should be ready,well before AMCA 1st flight.

As I mentioned above, that is not the case, since all core areas must be developed from the scratch and even in those areas where we have something under development, we have no idea how good it really is. When you take official statements from ADA and the air chief to account, it doesn't look too good. Eventhough DRDOs Dr Saraswath claims MK2 will have AESA, ADA officials said that it might have a new MMR, but if it will be an AESA needs to be seen. The air chief even said, that they should develop it first and that in needs to be seen if it's a 5th gen fighter or not. Not very flatering and with the mistakes and failures of LCA, I see it as a difficult attempt.
The naval AMCA must be build with an experienced partner as well, preferably Dassault, since they have good experience with developing CATOBAR fighters. And at least some experience was gaind during N-LCA MK1 development, for example re-designing the gear, so that will help too, but when the fighter is focused on the requirements of a single force and as a carrier fighter from the start, it will make things way easier as well.
Bottom line:

Focus on FGFA!
Kill N-LCA and focus on MK2 for IAF!
Kill HTT 40 and focus on IJT!
AURA for IAF!
AMCA for IN!
Improve naval Dhruv with a foreign partner instead of procuring foreign naval helicopters!
Indigenise Mig 29K!
Co-develop AURA and a HALE drone, based on Kaveri!
Co-develop a NG helicopter in the medium class!
MTA as RTA for civil airlines!

That's how I would approach the indigenous projects.
 
.
"Aam khao ped mat gino" Just because ADA did not have much of a role in developing Pak Fa doesn't mean we need to another platform. We need to appreciate the situation, not situate the appreciation.

Exactly, that's why AMCA as it is developed currently doesn't make sense, since all the techs and capabilities they want to develop, could easily be integrated into FGFA way earlier, but as I said, the indigenous aspect is the drive and they seems to be hurt that they are more or less outsiders in the FGFA project.


There are a few floating concepts, practical ones, not NG stuff. cant disclose details but there were a few trainer and cas concepts developed, also 4th gen twin engined strike platform.

I see, could HAL offer MoD an alternative design in competition to the one of ADA/DRDO, or is that impossible?

I think AMCA built around single, modified Super MKI engine, producing 15,000 kg thrust, will be easy to design and produce

what you do think? It will also result in MKIs, AMCAs and Super MKIs using engines based on same engine, thus simplifying maintenance

@sancho> how about this idea,is it feasible?

My idea was also based on more commonality between the fighters, but I see only the Type 30 engine as a good choice, since it requires a lot of thrust. The MKI engines might be used for prototypes, but are older gen engines and should not be useful. The good thing is, developed as a single engine fighter, it will be cheaper to operate than all those twin engine fighter concepts, which offers certain export potential below the Pak Fa / FGFA class and the more techs we take directly from programs like LCA MK2, Rafale, Super 30 and FGFA, the more feasable and simple the project.

However, I tend in to the first concept that I mentioned based on the Pak Fa fan art, because I see it as a logical design evolution from LCA. We could basically develop it with the same ideas that we had for LCA:

- smallest size of it's class
- as less surface areas as possible, to not reflect radar waves
- high ammount of composites and RAM coatings

- Kaveri engines (developed with a partner)
- Indigenous AESA radar
- NG EWS

- HALBIT singlescreen touchscreen
- FSO-IT via Samtel
- NG HMS via Samel
- NG IRST / internal PDL
- weapon bays, all moving tail and L-BAND AESA arrays from FGFA
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
At radar we seem to lack behind yet, but what we hear about the EW systems is promising, even of the EW sensors of LCA, which is why I expect that some French parts of SPECTRA might be replaced by Indian parts as well. Don't forget that we have gained some Israeli know how in the EW field, which helps in that regard.


Don't you think that building AURA will be more ambitious than building AMCA,later would not require sofisticated Data-link systems to reduce latency between the drone and its operator and an operational indegenous statellite navigational system.
We are struggling to induct basic drones like Rustum-1(2016), let alone AURA (Though its achievable if ADA makes partnership with Mig,dassualt,BAE systems).

No doubt it is ambitious, but I see the lack of design knowledge as the main problem and not the avionics itself. When you look at the mock up of Rustom H and compare it with other MALE drones, the bad design is pretty obvious.
That's why I would love to see us teaming up with the Israelis, which have similar plans for a UCAV. Their experience in UAV design and developments, would be a major boost for this program.
The difference to AMCA on the other hand is, that the design is simpler, since it must not hav high flight performance standards and maneuverability, but must just be stealthy and have a good range.
Similarly, we would need way less accessories that needs to be developed. No NG radar, no NG cockpit, no SC engine with TVC features..., which saves a lot of time and should make things easier again.
Also, unlike in LCAs or AMCAs case, Kaveri would be way better suited as the base for an indigenous engine and would have more scope for success. So the basics for such a project are available, but we need still an experienced partner.



AMCA is achievable without any major delay,if ADA/DRDO delinks Kaveri NG from the start and select Thales spectra EW suite for AMCA.According to this pic AESA for Mk2 is in development and it should be ready,well before AMCA 1st flight.

As I mentioned above, that is not the case, since all core areas must be developed from the scratch and even in those areas where we have something under development, we have no idea how good it really is. When you take official statements from ADA and the air chief to account, it doesn't look too good. Eventhough DRDOs Dr Saraswath claims MK2 will have AESA, ADA officials said that it might have a new MMR, but if it will be an AESA needs to be seen. The air chief even said, that they should develop it first and that in needs to be seen if it's a 5th gen fighter or not. Not very flatering and with the mistakes and failures of LCA, I see it as a difficult attempt.
The naval AMCA must be build with an experienced partner as well, preferably Dassault, since they have good experience with developing CATOBAR fighters. And at least some experience was gaind during N-LCA MK1 development, for example re-designing the gear, so that will help too, but when the fighter is focused on the requirements of a single force and as a carrier fighter from the start, it will make things way easier as well.
Bottom line:

Focus on FGFA!
Kill N-LCA and focus on MK2 for IAF!
Kill HTT 40 and focus on IJT!
AURA for IAF!
AMCA for IN!
Improve naval Dhruv with a foreign partner instead of procuring foreign naval helicopters!
Indigenise Mig 29K!
Co-develop AURA and a HALE drone, based on Kaveri!
Co-develop a NG helicopter in the medium class!
MTA as RTA for civil airlines!

That's how I would approach the indigenous projects.

As far as I am aware the Kaveri in its present form can very well power an UCAV like the AURA. A few more validations and tinkering will get it ready. The pain is going to be to design a platform around it, but as you stated above when you take out a big factor like maneuverability out of the equation then designing a stealth platform is well within our reach. From what I've gleaned- sat links, encryption gear and ground exploitation stations for UAVs have already been developed- whether that will translate into similarly capable systems capable of operating at the ranges that AURA will require remains to be seen but even that will not be a hurdle. AURA should actually go by well granted that proper management practices are adhered to. IF turf wars and pride projects persist then we're screwed.

It seems both of us are projecting the same solution for the AMCA, although you're the progenitor of said solution. As I said either we're missing something big in all of this or the MOD is being run by people less than absolutely suitable and apt.

The N-LCA seems to be some sort of a vacuous project- what's IN's projected need for it anyway, not numbers, what role?

I would have said that the AMCA should be primarily targeted at the IN, although obviously the IAF's expertise will have to be relied upon.

AURA can work for both forces.

Indigenous substitutions on the 29Ks will be an issue since the IN will not enjoy letting HAL/ADA/DRDO have a go with trying to shovel their substitutes down the IN's throat for systems that already work and are in operation. Depending upon what controls are set upon the production agencies and a veto power being given to IN if they are not satisfied will allow for the IN to agree in the worst case scenario.

@S-DUCT's post shows that ASTRA has delivered arrays of T/R modules for the MK.2's AESA, lets watch that develop. Any info you could provide on ASTRA Microwave, is it a wholly Indian company?

I believe HALBIT already has some good NG cockpit solutions.

Man let these people rationalize their business operations. For the love of all that's holy let them en their turf wars.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Back
Top Bottom