Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

AMCA: Updates and Discussions

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by DaRk KnIght, Oct 6, 2010.

  1. layman

    layman Aurignacian STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    11,024
    Likes Received:
    3,037
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Official Update of India’s AMCA 5th Generation Fighter project
    Published April 20, 2017
    SOURCE: IDRW NEWS NETWORK

    [​IMG]

    As per official information sourced from Annual report of Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) compiled together by idrw.org on India’s AMCA 5th Generation Fighter project , Government of India had sanctioned to carryout feasibility studies of design and development of Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) on 5th Oct 2010, at a cost of Rs.90.5 Crores, for a duration of 1 ½ years initially and st subsequently PDC was extended upto 31 March 2017 .

    AMCA Feasibility Report: Feasibility studies have been carried out based on IAF’s Top Level Operational Requirements and completed the scope of the project. Feasibility Report was compiled and Review held in November 2013. Feasibility Report was updated in October 2015 with various activities carried out post the reviews and submitted to Air HQ and Hon’ble Raksha Mantri.

    Present Status: AMCA configuration has been arrived after considerable refinements and it was accepted by Indian Air Force. Currently, the validation tests are being conducted.These are AMCA intake model of 1:1 scale for RCS test, 2nd campaign of high speed wind tunnel tests, static intake test,dynamic & rotary derivative tests for generating un-steady data etc. Also a simulator has been developed which would be used for sizing the system and refining the architecture . The technology development and testing projects are being continued at various work centres.

    [​IMG]

    PSQR Finalization: DA received Draft Preliminary Services Qualitative Requirements (PSQRs) for AMCA in September 2014 from Air HQ for study and feedback. Appreciation of requirements document was forwarded to Air HQ for finalizing PSQRs. Reviews have been held by VCAS, DCAS and ACAS (Plans).

    AMCA latest Configuration and development approach are accepted by IAF. First two/three prototypes will fly with proven 90kN class engine and 110 kN class engine will be installed in a phased th manner from 4 prototype onwards. PSQR is being amended by IAF towards finalization.

    Powerplant: It has been communicated by Air HQ that the AMCA should be powered by 110 kN class engine. GE, Euroject and Rolls Royce have proposed G-G route for AMCA powerplant. A final decision is awaited.

    Business Models and Execution Methods: As part of AMCA feasibility, various possible scenarios of AMCA Programme execution were studied which includes participation of Indian and foreign aircraft houses in various collaborative modes. AMCA team with the help of Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore (IIMB) has carried out the strategic analysis of possible candidate Programme Execution Models (i) Joint Venture (JV) with International Aircraft House (IAH) & Domestic Aircraft House (DAH), (ii) JV with IAH, (iii) JV with DAH and IAH as consultant and (iv) IAH as consultant), for the Design & Development, Production and Product Support phases of AMCA Programme.

    Based on the Analysis & Discussions, it can be concluded that the Execution Model ‘JV with IAH & DAH’ is the unanimous first choice of the Experts for attaining the defined Programme Goals in the AMCA Programme. The Execution Model ‘JV with IAH’ stands in the second place followed by ‘JV with DAH and IAH as Consultant’ and ‘IAH as Consultant’ in the third and fourth places respectively.

    AMCA – NAVY: Indian Navy (IN) Projected requirement for Naval variant of AMCA and forwarded Top Level Operational Requirements ( Vide Letter No : AO/9670/NAMCA, dated 7th Sep 2015). Meeting held with VCNS on 24th Nov 2015 at Naval Head Quarters and discussions held on Way Forward for AMCA – Navy.

    Way Forward: Permission may be given to initiate next phase of activities. In-principle approval for submission of CCS papers and Lead-in project has been sought.
     
    Schwifty, Sancho and Guynextdoor like this.
  2. Sancho

    Sancho Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,731
    Likes Received:
    2,055
    Probably posted before, but that would actually be the best solution for AMCA:

    [​IMG]

    https://www.livefistdefence.com/2016/11/boeing-unveils-an-amca-sweetener.html


    Snecma doesn't seem to be considered for an engine and the K/S co-development is a long shot, nobody can say at the moment if the 90kN will be achieved, let alone 110kN.
    GE on the other hand has the 414 EP prototype under development and if funded could offer it for LCA MK2, F18SH and AMCA

    The F18SH Block 3 would also be a leading candidate for the navy and possibly one choice for IAC2 to get catapults.

    Combine that all and you have one single development!

    1) GE 414 EPE funding and joint development

    2) Order of F18SH if possible for both STOBAR carriers

    3) Joint development of AMCA based on the F18SH block 3
    =>

    - GE414 EPE engine
    - HALBIT displays
    - Indian / Israeli EW upgrade
    - weapon pod / weapon bay
    - IRST / targeting pod
    - designed as a CATOBAR carrier fighter
     
  3. Agent_47

    Agent_47 Admin - Blog Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,825
    Likes Received:
    2,886
    Country Flag:
    India
    You think US/Boeing will be better with tech sharing and co development than French/Dassult ?

    We saw the MMRCA drama and Trump era.
    • EJ200 is better engine than GE 404
    • Rafale already in service with IAF why bring in new aircraft altogether?
    • Is there any reason to believe Boeing will be more open to tech sharing for such a small order?
    • Rafale is better aircraft than SH.
    • We already have a solid base design for AMCA and you want to scrap that for US one?
     
    Grevion and PARIKRAMA like this.
  4. Sancho

    Sancho Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,731
    Likes Received:
    2,055
    Both would be consultancy partners in design, so there is no big tech sharing anyway. Ideally both help us with stealth design and catapult capable navalisations.

    It is, but it would need funding for the EJ230 version as well and is not navalised. So funding the EPE should be cheaper and the development easier.

    Rafale has no meaning in this case, first of all it's only available in low numbers, secondly there is hardly anything that we directly could use for AMCA, while the Silent Hornet upgrade includes the mentioned commonalities and without folding wings, Rafale might not fit to any of IN's carriers.

    First of all, we can hire Boeing as a consultany partner for AMCA, just as any other foreign company, even without F18 orders.
    Combining both, would however give us advantages in negotiating tech transfer, production of parts in India and costs of course.
    Secondly, IN is looking for 57 fighters for IAC1 as it seems, which already would be more than the Rafale order, but if it could be used on both carriers, we could even increase the numbers (will explain in another thread why that would be a great solution).

    No denying there, but if it doesn't fit the carries, it's of no use.
    Please mate, don't fall for the BS of ADA! They have a very basic concept but have no clue of stealth design. Even more important, nearly any of their, NAL or HAL conventional aircraft designs (LCA LCH, Saras, IJT) suffered from design errors and came out with drag and weight issues. A stealth design is even more difficult in that regard, so they should focus on learning from experienced partners, rather than jumping into the next failure.

    So when you look at it from cost-effectiveness, commonality and easy of development, this route seems to be a logical choice.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2017
  5. Agent_47

    Agent_47 Admin - Blog Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,825
    Likes Received:
    2,886
    Country Flag:
    India
    So, why the hell should we choose SH?

    EPE have serious shortfalls in life and service and it's a old design.

    There has to be a comprehensive cost to benefit comparison before concluding one is better for AMCA.

    What stops Dassult from offering above mentioned upgrades from rafale? A slide from a seller and you decided it's better without looking at alternative options?

    You think there won't be any more rafale orders even with enough evidence. But you have concluded SH is best for IN even if it's a inferior product and no production or tech sharing. That is biased skpticism .

    Who says rafale won't fit in IAC1? What stops from modifying plane or carrier?

    Even after all the past experience and official statements this is your conclusion?

    In India, projects like LCA, AMCA are considered as a tools for nationalism/ patriotism. We crave for ego boosters just like this . A $80 million mars mission was the best example for this phenomenon. Keyboard warriors of this depressed nation is still boosting about it.

    We don't like to share credit for projects like this. In some cases when we are desperate we do. For example with Russians on SSBN project. Here we are not desperate or in hurry. If you think we are going to have JV with especially US for AMCA. Then you are living in a la la land . Here pride overpowers logic. Accept the reality.
     
    Picdelamirand-oil and PARIKRAMA like this.
  6. Sancho

    Sancho Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,731
    Likes Received:
    2,055
    You mean Boeing? They are experienced in stealth design and manufacturing, have the knowledge of navalising, have already good relations and experience with our industries, privat and HAL. Even for Trump that would be a good choice, because with the F35 meant to replace most US fighters and the C17 out of production, Boeing needs exports and partners to fund upgrades or joint projects. Participation in AMCA gets us a good partner and them more business.

    Do you think the life of EJ230 will remain the same either?
    Old is good in this case, because it's proven, ready and cost-effective. As long as it offers the required thrust and SC capabilities, there is nothing wrong about it for AMCA.

    Which we can't make obviously, so we have to stick to the facts we know.

    - EPE demonstrator available
    - GE414 base more cost-effective than EJ200
    - GE 414 is already navalised (which probably was one reason why it was chosen for LCA too, although I would have prefered EJ200 there)
    - we could use the same engine in naval MMRCAs and AMCA, while the EJ engine has no commonality in IAF or IN

    Clear benefits that we can't ignore right?

    First of all the fact that Dassault doesn't develop joint upgrades as we already have seen. Not a single joint development was proposed.
    Secondly, because we already have commonalities with the F18! Be it indo-israeli EW, the singlescreen display that AMCA is meant to get as well, or the fact that we will use the same GE engine in varients in at least 120 LCAs. So it's not based on the slide, but based on commonalities which eases development and logistics.
    I prefered the Rafale for IAF as well, but that doesn't mean it offers similar advantages for AMCA.

    I do think that there are no more or at least not in MMRCA requirement number, because there is no indication for more (DM stated no more, PM limited the order to 36, MoD is considering single engine MMRCA and possibly 2nd hand fighters, which all speakes against more Rafales as sad as it is), but as I said, in this case Rafale doesn't matter, because the topic is AMCA and what is the best for it's development!

    Without folding wings it probably won't fit to the lifts, which means you have to re-design, test and certificate it's wings. Only the Mig and the F18SH (F35C but we don't know if it's on offer) have folding wings, which reduces size limitations.


    Even after all the past experience and official statements this is your conclusion?

    Not even after, but as said BECAUSE of past experience, I came to that conclusion! It's simple logic and the lessons from the aircraft developments we see, because they all are in trouble or even failed. Not to mention that even IAF, MoD as well as our scientists say, that we need FGFA to learn for AMCA, so there is a common understand that we lack the knowledge.

    And where is the nationalism in begging foreign companies to fix the failed designs and developments (Airbus, Elta, Safran...)
    So instead of embarrassing ourselfs afterwards, we should do it the right way from the start, not to mention that a partnership with a foreign partner wouldn't make AMCA any less indigenous.
     
  7. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    12,339
    Likes Received:
    12,326
    Country Flag:
    India
    Every aircraft projected for IN is a paper plane and all of them will result in reducing the compliment of air wing carried by each carrier. IN needs a new aircraft design altogether and only the paper plane-LSA meets the reqts. You must have read the ADA report in which the NLCA MK2 wingspan was found to be unfit for rear lift which has just 8.65m width and IN wanted ADA to give folding wings for NLCA MK2 which ADA refused owing to degradation of aircraft capabilities.
     
  8. Sancho

    Sancho Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,731
    Likes Received:
    2,055
    Where did you find that spec?
    And wrt wing folding for NLCA, you need to keep in mind that IN sees it only as a tech demo program for future carrier fighters. If ADA would develop wing folding, it actually would add to the navalising ad give MK2 more purpose than it does now and also would help navalising AMCA. Otherwise they wouldn't ask for a redesign only to fit the rear lift of just Viki.
     
  9. Sancho

    Sancho Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,731
    Likes Received:
    2,055
    AMCA features
    [​IMG]

    F18SH upgrade features
    [​IMG]

    Engine:
    http://wap.business-standard.com/ar...-engine-for-gen-5-fighter-115121200004_1.html


    AMCA cockpit display (Samtel?)
    [​IMG]
    HABIT cockpit display
    [​IMG]
    F18SH Block 3 Cockpit display
    [​IMG]


    Weapon bay / weapon pod
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Passive sensors
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]


    Plenty of common features, that not only could be jointly developed, but also marketed for both fighters.
     
    ni8mare likes this.
  10. zebra7

    zebra7 Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    652
    Country Flag:
    India
    Bhai Logoan, this is funny you want ADA to develop AMCA quickly as possible, but where is the ASQR of the IAF or IN, there is nothing as compare to DARPA of U.S in India for the strategic thinking.

    @PARIKRAMA @Abingdonboy

    Why not ?? Once all tech. of Kaveri is completed, the GTRE would be able to produce highter thrust engine or targeted thrust. What is needed is the national program, with funds and national plan, just like how China have planned for its aviation industry 1oo billion with 15 billion on the turbofan engine development, and not the release of fund with beurocratic snail speed file movement process for small targets/project such as further testing. Expecting everything from the GTRE, when the material, alloys, composites coming from the Govt. PSU's. P.S. Don't expect superb result without the Civil aviation industry. The foreign OEM which we compare have Civilian aviation product, providing them profit, of which a big chunk goes to R&D.

    Really, and for EPE, India have to bear the development costing. This let me wonder, if we agreed for the development cost, does Eurojet, Snerma, Saturn, and now the British would be ready to give India ready made product sorry engine.

    My suggestion, is instead of EMALs we should go for the Steam Catapult system and co-develop with the Russians. There are lot of complexity with the U.S, and India have to sign various deals. Yes for the U.S EMAL something important and substantial substance have to be put on the table, and also there is the need for the carrier based AE/EW aerial platform requirment, for which Russia don't have any product -- but there might be some other thing, rather than profiting the U.S with the few squadron of SH due to various reasons.

    1. If you think that F-18SH is the logical solutions for the AMCA, than I can only laugh because it is the same country which didn't allowed Israeli radar in Sufa, and it is the same country, which is giving the lolypop of F35 to all its allies, and failed to codevelop or help in the development of their fighter project. It is the same country, which forces the UK to send their missile to the U.S for the integration to F-35 and dreaming of treating India, like you projected........... LOL.

    Baki Lage Raho .................. just enjoying.
     
    Schwifty and GSLV Mk III like this.
  11. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    9,415
    Likes Received:
    4,275
    The AMCA is about the size and weight of the F-15C.
     
  12. Guynextdoor

    Guynextdoor Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2010
    Messages:
    4,284
    Likes Received:
    1,387
    that would make it a heavy class fighter. I thought it was supposed to be a mid class fighter.
     
  13. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    9,415
    Likes Received:
    4,275
    AMCA's empty weight will be about 12-13T, similar to the F-15C, not 18+T like in the case of the Flanker or the Raptor.
     
    GSLV Mk III, Guynextdoor and SR-91 like this.
  14. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    12,339
    Likes Received:
    12,326
    Country Flag:
    India
    I got it from IN. I have posted these specs of the Vikky and IAC-1 lifts in LSA thread.
     
  15. Sancho

    Sancho Major Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,731
    Likes Received:
    2,055
    Ask ADA, the info is from their Annual report. My guess is, the fact that the M88 is rated so far only up to 90kN.

    We have to take the costs anyway, since none of these baseline engine's offer the required thrust so far. The RFP then takes into account what tech transfer and licences they offer in return for the costs.

    Even Russia has started EMALS developments, but when you look at their potential carrier designs, it gets clear that they remain with skijump take off for a naval Pak Fa and catapult take off heavier aircrafts like AEW or UCAVs with strike loads. Not a bad idea either, but with all the problems IN had with the Gorshkov refit and the Mig 29Ks now, a joint development with Russia doesn't seems to be their first choice.

    Instead of laughing, you should try to understand the matter first. :rolleyes2:
    Sufa and the Israeli F35 are still US fighters, therefor the US doesn't allow too many customisations.
    On the other hand they allowed Japan the joint development of the F2 varient of the F16, which includes more indigenous parts.
    The AMCA case would be even more different, since it's an Indian fighter development, with some US techs and maybe Boeing as a consulancy partner.

    Moreover the F18 upgrade even includes Israeli MAWS, selected by Boeing as a possible option and they could go for the HALBIT display as well, if we commit to an order. That guarantees Make in India for IN and export customers and then would lead to the AMCA development with GE and Boeing support.
     

Share This Page