Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) Project

[SQ8]

Outstanding reply. I always thought you will be an excellent manager, not already. Don't know why DRDO or ISRO don't hire some top management guys from IIMs and I do not think GoI have any plan to implement something like this.

Because its government and because our "learning" hieratic(common to all desis).. is that only Scientists can manage scientific stuff..or only teachers can run universities.
Yes.. its a plus point.. which is why sending a Scientist or two to IIM may not be a bad option.
follow the example of companies like Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin,Boeing or even NASA.

Here is look at the current head of LM.

Robert J. Stevens
He earned a master's degree in engineering and management from the Polytechnic University of New York and, with a Fairchild Fellowship, earned a master's degree in business administration from Columbia Business School

 

[Kinetic]

Because its government and because our "learning" hieratic(common to all desis).. is that only Scientists can manage scientific stuff..or only teachers can run universities.
Yes.. its a plus point.. which is why sending a Scientist or two to IIM may not be a bad option.
follow the example of companies like Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin,Boeing or even NASA.

Here is look at the current head of LM.

You are 100% right, thats the thing happens with all our govt offices, agencies and orgs. They think top MBAs are needed only to run private companies.

But a good exception, ISRO's current chief is a alumna of IIM Bangalore (PGDM).

K. Radhakrishnan
He received his B.Sc.(Engineering) degree in Electrical Engineering in 1970 from the Government Engineering College, Thrissur, University of Kerala. He started his career in the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) as an Avionics Engineer at the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Trivandrum, in 1971. While at ISRO, he joined the Masters programme in Management at the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore. He received his MBA degree in 1976. In 2000, he obtained his Doctorate from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. He has held several key positions in ISRO and was one of the key people behind India's Chandrayaan-1 moon mission.

 

[SQ8]

You are 100% right, thats the thing happens with all our govt offices, agencies and orgs. They think top MBAs are needed only to run private companies.

But a good exception, ISRO's current chief is a alumna of IIM Bangalore (PGDM).

K. Radhakrishnan
He received his B.Sc.(Engineering) degree in Electrical Engineering in 1970 from the Government Engineering College, Thrissur, University of Kerala. He started his career in the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) as an Avionics Engineer at the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Trivandrum, in 1971. While at ISRO, he joined the Masters programme in Management at the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore. He received his MBA degree in 1976. In 2000, he obtained his Doctorate from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. He has held several key positions in ISRO and was one of the key people behind India's Chandrayaan-1 moon mission.

Which is evident in ISRO's rapid advances as compared to DRDO..
I would not be surprised if AGNI-V derives a lot from ISRO's research.

 

[tvsram1992]

Which is evident in ISRO's rapid advances as compared to DRDO..
I would not be surprised if AGNI-V derives a lot from ISRO's research.

From the series of Agni it is evident that Agni V is made mostly by DRDO with out external help . ISRO could have made ICBM long time ago if it was permitted .

 

[Kinetic]

Which is evident in ISRO's rapid advances as compared to DRDO..
I would not be surprised if AGNI-V derives a lot from ISRO's research.

ISRO has pioneered in making large motors for launch vehicles. They tested S-200 solid rocket engine for GSLV mk III carrying 200 tonnes of HTPB that makes it 4/5 times larger than Agni-5 generating 5200 kN of thrusts. S-200 is the third largest solid rocket motor in the world.

But I don't think DRDO and ISRO collaborate for such strategic systems.

 

[SQ8]

ISRO has pioneered in making large motors for launch vehicles. They tested S-200 solid rocket engine for GSLV mk III carrying 200 tonnes of HTPB that makes it 4/5 times larger than Agni-5 generating 5200 kN of thrusts. S-200 is the third largest solid rocket motor in the world.

But I don't think DRDO and ISRO collaborate for such strategic systems.

Bureaucratic barriers from my PoV..
Both have parallel rocket development programs.. The Russians benefited greatly from a combined program.
Sure there differences.. but where common knowledge can be pooled and researched together.. it would reduce r&D costs and speed up programs a lot.

 

[tvsram1992]

First of all, indigenous doesn't mean developing it alone!
Secondly, different partners can be used in different fields for different advantages!

Brazil / Embraer – have good experience in the aero field, is an emerging country, most likely will buy Rafale as well and will have a similar requirement for CATOBAR carrier fighters.
=> That means, they are the perfect co-development partner to jointly fund and order AMCA with similar requirements and in numbers that will reduce the operating costs too!

Dassault – with the Rafale licence production and the offsets they have to return to Indian industry, they are the perfect industrial partner for any future indigenous development. In this case, there is even hardly any better since Rafale was developed at first for navy and as a CATOBAR fighter.
=> So be it for the development in general, or for the navalising of the fighter, they are an obvious choice!

Engine and radar (preferably Snecma & Elta / Thales) – as mentioned in my earlier posts, these are the fields where we completely failed in LCA development and where we already search for foreign partners, to have these techs ready for LCA MK2.
=> These co-developments will be the base for AMCA!

Again, LCA development hardly gives us more than material and cockpit design experience, that would be good enough for a 5 th gen fighter (see FGFA participation).
Rafale will give us mainly the chance to get into deeper ties with Thales and Snecma for AESA and Kaveri developments, especially since it is unclear how much ToT we will be able to absorb and how long it takes. We can't learn from Rafale or FGFA and develop AMCA at the same time. So either we co-develop AMCA with foreign partners now, or we skip the development and wait till we learned enough and develop it only for the MKI replacement around 2030.

It would have been much better if we had already done this with LCA .The coming decade would give HAL/ADA/DRDO plenty of experience in making aircrafts . This is perfect time for indigenous ones . Any ways there is no need to codevelop/partner with other countries because simply we can get what ever component we require .

 

[OrionHunter]

The AMCA is being designed as an affordable fighter with swing role capability to meet the requirements of the IAF post 2020.

What the dickens is 'swing role capability'? Never heard of it! I guess I'm getting old.

The AMCA is proposed to be powered by two Kaveri engines.

Duh!

 

[SQ8]

What the dickens is 'swing role capability'? Never heard of it! I guess I'm getting old.

Duh!

swing-role==omni-role==fluid-fighter..
all nice catch phrases for stating an ability to engage air to air and air to ground targets in a single mission.

 

[illusion8]

The AMCA will build on what has been learnt from the LCA, and what will be learnt from the Rafale's co-production..and the MKI.
At this point, it should be given priority(or rather dual use tech for both AMCA,MKI and Tejas) on R&D .

Also.. DRDO should for all purposes be given a bureaucratic backseat..and the AMCA project turned into a consortium and there should be bias on involving private contractors like BEL or tata electronics.
It would surprise HAL on what these companies come up with.
Let some private corporations have a stake in the program and promise them a chunk in profits from local sales and possibly even from a downgraded export version..
then see the result.

The private defense sector in India is at its nascent stage and is not mature enough to put money and resources into a project which will take 7 years or more to see sales and profit. Any private company will do a cost benefit analysis and will not invest in researching and developing a technology from grass roots level what is available in a probably better form in the market.

A project that doesn't have a guarantee of getting in the sales numbers with high profits and one which will take a decade to generate business - no Indian company will go for it. to get faster results it will go into JV's with existing firms who have developed or developing these technologies, which means we are again at a point of assembling and buying foreign components - not manufacturing in house. The sheer amount of investment required - ADA has asked for 2 billion USD is a put off for these companies. At most they will do is start manufacturing defense systems which are easier to make and sell immediately.

That leaves only the PSU's to take up such projects. AND Indian PSU's are entering into JV's with private companies to enhance capabilities all round, the PSU's get professional production lines, the private firms get experience. Rafale when produced in India will see private companies manufacturing some parts.

P.S. BEL is a PSU not a private firm.

 

[Dash]

ISRO has pioneered in making large motors for launch vehicles. They tested S-200 solid rocket engine for GSLV mk III carrying 200 tonnes of HTPB that makes it 4/5 times larger than Agni-5 generating 5200 kN of thrusts. S-200 is the third largest solid rocket motor in the world.

But I don't think DRDO and ISRO collaborate for such strategic systems.

IGMP project started with scientists from ISRO. so saying ISRO didnt help DRDO in building A-5 is wrong.
Technology always gets shared.

It would have been much better if we had already done this with LCA .The coming decade would give HAL/ADA/DRDO plenty of experience in making aircrafts . This is perfect time for indigenous ones . Any ways there is no need to codevelop/partner with other countries because simply we can get what ever component we require .

Today we have developed LCA doesnt mean that we have all the tech to build an aircraft.
Technology changes in due course of time and whatever ADA and DRDO have learnt will be obsolete in coming years.

I would say for AMCA, JV is the right way, because you become more accountable in terms of timeline. You can share technology and gain knowledge from that.

I know Sancho will agree with this as AMCA is not worth developing and if you are still doing it then do it through JV. Else tomorrow IAF will say I need an AESA with GaN modules and then you ask for more time. but if you have a JV, you can immediately make one available. Simple as that.

Dassult will make a perfect choice, though they are not cost effective.

 

[tvsram1992]

IGMP project started with scientists from ISRO. so saying ISRO didnt help DRDO in building A-5 is wrong.
Technology always gets shared.



Today we have developed LCA doesnt mean that we have all the tech to build an aircraft.
Technology changes in due course of time and whatever ADA and DRDO have learnt will be obsolete in coming years.

I would say for AMCA, JV is the right way, because you become more accountable in terms of timeline. You can share technology and gain knowledge from that.

I know Sancho will agree with this as AMCA is not worth developing and if you are still doing it then do it through JV. Else tomorrow IAF will say I need an AESA with GaN modules and then you ask for more time. but if you have a JV, you can immediately make one available. Simple as that.

Dassult will make a perfect choice, though they are not cost effective.

We may not have all the necessary tech now . We get the tech in the form of TOT at a rapid rate . Mki,Rafale,PAKFA techs . I didnt say we have the tech now itself . We will be absorbing it with the time at a rapid rate and by the end of the decade we will have many high end techs . But engine seems to be a problem . If you still go for JV i would say Russia would be the best partner than France and Swedan .

 

[Abingdonboy]

First of all, indigenous doesn't mean developing it alone!
Secondly, different partners can be used in different fields for different advantages!

Brazil / Embraer – have good experience in the aero field, is an emerging country, most likely will buy Rafale as well and will have a similar requirement for CATOBAR carrier fighters.
=> That means, they are the perfect co-development partner to jointly fund and order AMCA with similar requirements and in numbers that will reduce the operating costs too!

Dassault – with the Rafale licence production and the offsets they have to return to Indian industry, they are the perfect industrial partner for any future indigenous development. In this case, there is even hardly any better since Rafale was developed at first for navy and as a CATOBAR fighter.
=> So be it for the development in general, or for the navalising of the fighter, they are an obvious choice!

Engine and radar (preferably Snecma & Elta / Thales) – as mentioned in my earlier posts, these are the fields where we completely failed in LCA development and where we already search for foreign partners, to have these techs ready for LCA MK2.
=> These co-developments will be the base for AMCA!

Again, LCA development hardly gives us more than material and cockpit design experience, that would be good enough for a 5 th gen fighter (see FGFA participation).
Rafale will give us mainly the chance to get into deeper ties with Thales and Snecma for AESA and Kaveri developments, especially since it is unclear how much ToT we will be able to absorb and how long it takes. We can't learn from Rafale or FGFA and develop AMCA at the same time. So either we co-develop AMCA with foreign partners now, or we skip the development and wait till we learned enough and develop it only for the MKI replacement around 2030.

I'm sorry but I fail to see what the Brazillians could possibly bring to the table. Yes they have made a few commercial planes with military applications but fighter design is completely different and I can't see much the Brazillians could offer.



+ AFAIK the AMCA is meant to serve as a replacement to the Jaguar and Mig-27 not the MKI. The FGFA/PAK-FA is the replacement to the MKI.

 

[tvsram1992]

I'm sorry but I fail to see what the Brazillians could possibly bring to the table. Yes they have made a few commercial planes with military applications but fighter design is completely different and I can't see much the Brazillians could offer.



+ AFAIK the AMCA is meant to serve as a replacement to the Jaguar and Mig-27 not the MKI. The FGFA/PAK-FA is the replacement to the MKI.

Still there are no plans to replace our mki's .

 

[Great Sachin]

IGMP project started with scientists from ISRO. so saying ISRO didnt help DRDO in building A-5 is wrong.
Technology always gets shared.



Today we have developed LCA doesnt mean that we have all the tech to build an aircraft.
Technology changes in due course of time and whatever ADA and DRDO have learnt will be obsolete in coming years.

I would say for AMCA, JV is the right way, because you become more accountable in terms of timeline. You can share technology and gain knowledge from that.

I know Sancho will agree with this as AMCA is not worth developing and if you are still doing it then do it through JV. Else tomorrow IAF will say I need an AESA with GaN modules and then you ask for more time. but if you have a JV, you can immediately make one available. Simple as that.

Dassult will make a perfect choice, though they are not cost effective.

Basics never get obsolete