AMCA Project heading LCA Direction??

[sancho]

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.

Exactly, we have the base available now and the requirements are much lower than for an advanced fighter, that's why this side of the project would be easier.

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 problem I see is, that MoD only tries to balance things between budget, the forces and the industry, they don't really lead in which direction the defence strategy or the developments should go. That is a mistake imo, because it gives the forces and the industry too much freedom to think at their own interests, instead of thinking about a joint interest for the security of our nations.

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?

Not many:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/4346-lca-news-discussions-492.html#post4123892

 

[IND151]

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.




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

Originally Posted by IND151
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

BTW what is Type 30 engine?

 

[Dillinger]

BTW what is Type 30 engine?

Its the alleged designation of the new 5th gen engine for the PAK-FA/FGFA.

 

[sancho]

BTW what is Type 30 engine?

Check this:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...-updates-news-discussions-68.html#post3623819

 

[IND151]

Check this:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...-updates-news-discussions-68.html#post3623819

Thanks

BTW I think Russia should solve the the non flat under fuselage problem of PAK FA

It will improve stealth and IWBs with more room will also be possible

 

[sancho]

Thanks

BTW I think Russia should solve the the non flat under fuselage problem of PAK FA

It will improve stealth and IWBs with more room will also be possible

I don't think it's a problem, especially not now in the prototype stage. Airframe improvements will come in the final prototype stage, with the new engine.

 

[sancho]

@sandy_3126

In case you missed my earlier question:

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

Also although it's OT here, but since I can't write PMs I don't have a choice. Do you have any further infos on what reasons IN exactly had to reject the naval Dhruv and does HAL consider to offer an upgraded MK4 version of it in competition to the foreign counterparts, in the competition for 56 x naval LUH?

We can discuss this in the IN thread as well.

 

[MilSpec]

@sandy_3126

In case you missed my earlier question:




Also although it's OT here, but since I can't write PMs I don't have a choice. Do you have any further infos on what reasons IN exactly had to reject the naval Dhruv and does HAL consider to offer an upgraded MK4 version of it in competition to the foreign counterparts, in the competition for 56 x naval LUH?

We can discuss this in the IN thread as well.

I dont think HAL can offer another design at least for the AMCA. Unless IAF ask's for one, and even if it does, it needs time, a lot of time. Unlike others there is an entire set of protocols for feasibility analysis, and HAL follows something that I suspect it picked up from dassualt of completing a design set after finishing the entire assemble design using inductive ground up approach whereas, ADA tries a seamless semi top down deductive approach by defining the airframe structure as the only solid constraints.Both have there set of advantages and disadvantages, but where ADA suffers in our context of discussion is having a airframe structure defined without having any consolidation of the assembly process.

Another feature I have usually seen is certainly, MoD puts a lot of weight behind glamsham cad pictures and yawns at lengthy discussion about production planning and budget consolidation.

Apart from venting my usual ADA diatribe the short answer to your question is It's possible for HAL to pitch a better and more practical solution IF IAF SHOWS GENUINE INTENT, as of now it's HAL hasn't been asked to submit any.

 

[sancho]

I dont think HAL can offer another design at least for the AMCA. Unless IAF ask's for one, and even if it does, it needs time, a lot of time.

But why? IAF afaik didn't asked for AMCA either, ADA/DRDO proposed it and IAF set up certain minimum requirements, that's it.
HAL imo is now in the perfect situation to offer a design alternative, once because they can design the fighter completely according to the requirements of IAF (preferably of IN), unlike ADA/DRDO that has to change many things from their earlier concepts. Moreover, HAL could benefit much from the development of FGFA, be it in design, use of materials, or as I showed earlier, even by sharing certain parts.
Even if they completely develop a new design, they could use the same radar, engine and avioncs that DRDO would develop for the ADA design, so this would be only about a basic design and possibly about the development costs.

 

[MilSpec]

But why? IAF afaik didn't asked for AMCA either, ADA/DRDO proposed it and IAF set up certain minimum requirements, that's it.
HAL imo is now in the perfect situation to offer a design alternative, once because they can design the fighter completely according to the requirements of IAF (preferably of IN), unlike ADA/DRDO that has to change many things from their earlier concepts. Moreover, HAL could benefit much from the development of FGFA, be it in design, use of materials, or as I showed earlier, even by sharing certain parts.
Even if they completely develop a new design, they could use the same radar, engine and avioncs that DRDO would develop for the ADA design, so this would be only about a basic design and possibly about the development costs.

Sancho, as I said a ground up design process takes time and money, IAF/MoD is not that generous to HAL as it has been to ADA. And for all intents and purposes HAL's hands are full right now. IAF/IN doesn't have the planning or the foresight for RFI an any design platforms.

Hence reluctance and shortsitedness on both HAL and MoD front!

 

[sancho]

IAF/MoD is not that generous to HAL as it has been to ADA.

Then why not find potent partners in the privat industry? Afaik HAL has a JV with TATA and they are interested to get into the defence aero sector as well. Funding some CAD designs and a windtunnel model as ADA has it as of now, can't be that expensive and with the ongoing FGFA project, HAL is working in the area anyway, which as far as I see it, should reduce the development time, compared to ADA that has no such experience or know how to gain from.
That's a big chance that HAL is missing, not only from an economical point of view, since even 100 x NG fighters for IN would be a big deal, but mainly to show MoD, the forces and the whole world, that they are better than ADA/DRDO in certain fields and more importantly much better than the current reputation!
HAL should stand up against ADA/DRDO and such a design competition would be the best chance to do it.

 

[MilSpec]

Then why not find potent partners in the privat industry? Afaik HAL has a JV with TATA and they are interested to get into the defence aero sector as well. Funding some CAD designs and a windtunnel model as ADA has it as of now, can't be that expensive and with the ongoing FGFA project, HAL is working in the area anyway, which as far as I see it, should reduce the development time, compared to ADA that has no such experience or know how to gain from.

Why even get TATA involved in that, even I can do both of those functions, the truth of the matter is designing a CAD model, and scaled prototypes is not enough, it might impress Mod babus, but honestly it is ridiculous to pitch in a fighter without the adequate feasibility analyses and the most importantly, the customer Intent

MOD/IAF in a parellel thread says fix IJT first and then talk about HTT 40, have you heard anything of that sort w.r.t. to AD/DRDO... this should be a clear indicator to understand HAL's ambivalence .

 

[sancho]

Why even get TATA involved in that, even I can do both of those functions, the truth of the matter is designing a CAD model, and scaled prototypes is not enough, it might impress Mod babus, but honestly it is ridiculous to pitch in a fighter without the adequate feasibility analyses and the most importantly, the customer Intent

For the fundings, benefit from TATAs access to foreign partners or techs, from their advanced production facilities and as I said, there is no request from the customer, only possible requirements, which are already know. If you want a direct intent, then develop a the fighter for IN, which has the requierement and would divert fundings as well.

MOD/IAF in a parellel thread says fix IJT first and then talk about HTT 40, have you heard anything of that sort w.r.t. to AD/DRDO... this should be a clear indicator to understand HAL's ambivalence .

I know and as I said in that thread, I share their view, but would apply the same for ADA/DRDO too, but just some "silent" complains about ambivalence won't change anything. HAL needs to directly show that they can do better and in a competition, with a credible partner on your side, you would have the best chances to do so, with a much higher benefit in terms of reputation and economical benefits than with the HTT 40 project.