ADA AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

[screambowl]

unnecessary doomposting.

F414 is not eligible for stealth aircraft. Ge414 has more zone in the afterburner section which is a disadvantage for a stealth aircraft having such, this is why in F119 engine the afterburner section was reduced from four zones to three zones( it's prototypes had 4 zones, but with three zones also its so designed that no compromise on kinematics) to maintain stealth, it's kinematics were too much scrutinized for it's stealth aircraft integration. And I think the program will shift it's focus on MK2 with joint venture stealth powerplant. Later on when the new engine comes, it may cause adjustment problems with the fuselage of Mk1. Well all fingers crossed.

All past experiences regarding military aerospace development especially regarding Fighter jet platform development has been a disappointment which included major stakeholders like HAL, DRDO, NAL. The LCA programme is a prominent example. But the AMCA project is different. For the first time the private players are being involved in research & development+production model in military aerospace domain regarding 5th generation fighter jet platform. Judging this project on the same line with the past experiences associated with fully PSUs will not be a justiciable argument. I'm not saying to be over confident with its timeline, but atleast let us observe & give atleast 4 years.
Apart from Engine domain I think all other aspects are able to be achieved within the timeline. Engine for the starting will surely come from USA, but the parallel development of a new engine with a foreign partner should be started as soon as possible. To get the IP & all know how of a capable engine with about 120 kN thrust ,very high amount of investment is necessary.

I am also hopeful only due to the private partnership. It is basically the engine domain only which concerns me. We don't know how many times they will have to change the fuselage dimensions, etc etc to fit in the engine. Rest is absolutely fine, it can be achieved on time.

 

[sid4587]

I hope L&T or Bharat Forge wins this, Tata is nearly as bureaucratic as the Government.

Tata has power to pull the strings when required. ASML. Does not depend on running govt. can ensure the secrecy of technology and are willing to handle any law suit against them without help of GoI.

 

[Choice_of _inevitability]

I hope L&T or Bharat Forge wins this, Tata is nearly as bureaucratic as the Government.

IMO L&T and BEL is the best consortium to build the prototypes.
1. L&T has strong manufacturing and integration capability. They get things done quick.
2. BEL has previously executed complex avionics and networking projects
3. Both are as deep in the strategic projects as you can get.
4. L&T and Dynamatic Technologies Limited are already building huge sections of LCA.

They can keep costs low while maintaining quality and speed. TASL maybe strong but this consortium takes things to another level. Similarly BF+BEML+DP, not quite there, and they won't have that established supply chains L&T/Dynamatic have created for LCA.

 

[randomradio]

I don't trust TASL to maintain strategic secrecy due to Tata's dependence on their European and American businesses. Their foreign exposure is too high.

L&T or BF is the way to go. Tata is better off winning the Rafale deal instead.

 

[BHARAT KA BETA]

Insights on AMCA PROJECT by Lt. Gen P R Shankar (R) with journalist Sandeep Unnithan. Do everyone agree with all the points discussed in this video ?

 

[BHARAT KA BETA]

Insights on AMCA PROJECT by Lt. Gen P R Shankar (R) with journalist Sandeep Unnithan. Do everyone agree with all the points discussed in this video ?

Key points highlighted by Lt. Gen Shankar (R) are:

(1) Not any of the 3 shortlisted consortiums for AMCA project ( TASL, L&T+BEL, BF+BEML) has any prior experience of executing a complete military aerospace project apart from Assembling & Component manufacturing. Whereas all 5th generation aircraft developers cum manufacturers in the world have prior experience of executing/developing a full aircraft development (LM, BOEING, AVIC & SAC (of China), Sukhoi Corp., KAI of S.Korea, TAI of Turkiye).

(2) IAF should be part of the project as a leader & stakeholder. Appoint an officer as project head with penalty/punishment provision on failure.

(3) Govt. should provide incentives to the private players to invest heavily on their in-house R&D on such high end aerospace engineering development.

(4) All previous aerospace project failures/delays were collaborative mistakes of IAF + Govt. + PSUs (HAL/NAL) + DRDO. Not to point out finger on a single entity to put all the blame on. And in AMCA project those mistakes should not be repeated, but rather be corrected.

There are many other points too. But these 4 points are major highlights of the discussion.

 

[PhotonVish]

I don't trust TASL to maintain strategic secrecy due to Tata's dependence on their European and American businesses. Their foreign exposure is too high.

L&T or BF is the way to go. Tata is better off winning the Rafale deal instead.

One more point is that tatas are globalist and not nationalist(or patriotic), they have funded many ngo which have protested against developement of india and even against hindus

Also , i dont want too much reliant on tata, they are already big in electronics and chip making.
I dont want any single company to have all strategic sector

We have ambani as petroleum gaint, adani as ports (sea and air) , tata as electronics and chips

And next i want lnt as Aerospace gaint and not tata

And infact. I hope that the consortium selected for amca also get rafale order so that they have a experience in manufacturing as well as good talent pool

Our economy is not big enough to have more than 1 fighter jet manufacturing gaint(other than hal which is public)

 

[lmaoxd]

Key points highlighted by Lt. Gen Shankar (R) are:

(1) Not any of the 3 shortlisted consortiums for AMCA project ( TASL, L&T+BEL, BF+BEML) has any prior experience of executing a complete military aerospace project apart from Assembling & Component manufacturing. Whereas all 5th generation aircraft developers cum manufacturers in the world have prior experience of executing/developing a full aircraft development (LM, BOEING, AVIC & SAC (of China), Sukhoi Corp., KAI of S.Korea, TAI of Turkiye).

(2) IAF should be part of the project as a leader & stakeholder. Appoint an officer as project head with penalty/punishment provision on failure.

(3) Govt. should provide incentives to the private players to invest heavily on their in-house R&D on such high end aerospace engineering development.

(4) All previous aerospace project failures/delays were collaborative mistakes of IAF + Govt. + PSUs (HAL/NAL) + DRDO. Not to point out finger on a single entity to put all the blame on. And in AMCA project those mistakes should not be repeated, but rather be corrected.

There are many other points too. But these 4 points are major highlights of the discussion.

for point one : TASL now does C295 production, TASL is also the sole producer of apache fuselages so that also counts. L&T is part of the tejas program as is TASL. This also doesnt matter as much considering the main development is going to be done by the ADA and DRDO anyway, these private companies js need to execute, they can grow their expertise as they get more experience over the next decade or so. This is how a lot of aerospace manufacturers started and is normal.

point 2: I think this is being done ? is it not?

point 3: this is the whole point of creating these consortiums, They're main incentive is competeing with HAL for your multibillion dollar orders, this is only the start who knows how many orders they will get as the Indian economy grows and we have more to spend on defence. There is a reason the gov is deliberately sidelining HAL, specifically to create competition and telling them that they're guarenteed orders.

point 4: i agree.

 

[BHARAT KA BETA]

for point one : TASL now does C295 production, TASL is also the sole producer of apache fuselages so that also counts. L&T is part of the tejas program as is TASL. This also doesnt matter as much considering the main development is going to be done by the ADA and DRDO anyway, these private companies js need to execute, they can grow their expertise as they get more experience over the next decade or so. This is how a lot of aerospace manufacturers started and is normal.

point 2: I think this is being done ? is it not?

point 3: this is the whole point of creating these consortiums, They're main incentive is competeing with HAL for your multibillion dollar orders, this is only the start who knows how many orders they will get as the Indian economy grows and we have more to spend on defence. There is a reason the gov is deliberately sidelining HAL, specifically to create competition and telling them that they're guarenteed orders.

point 4: i agree.

I appreciate your views regarding this. In my opinion ,

1) I agree with you on first point. Only thing of ambiguity I think according to Lt. Gen Shankar (R) maybe the introduction of these private consortiums in new , from scratch Military aircraft development, directly with a 5th generation platform, rather having any prior experience to any previous generation platform. But that'll not be a big issue if ADA mentors them well as a guide.

2) Yes, IAF will be associated with the project from starting, but as far as I know it'll not put any representative as a project manager to take the responsibility of success in the condition of punishment clause on failure.

3) Yes, there will be incentives and investment in development and manufacturing for sure. But how much of these investments will go to in-house R&D of the consortium. We all know private players are always profit driven in their investment policies. Hence, there should be some bounded clause on necessary investment in R&D.

4) My opinion is similar for the 4th point too.

 

[Barcid]

Key points highlighted by Lt. Gen Shankar (R) are:

(1) Not any of the 3 shortlisted consortiums for AMCA project ( TASL, L&T+BEL, BF+BEML) has any prior experience of executing a complete military aerospace project apart from Assembling & Component manufacturing. Whereas all 5th generation aircraft developers cum manufacturers in the world have prior experience of executing/developing a full aircraft development (LM, BOEING, AVIC & SAC (of China), Sukhoi Corp., KAI of S.Korea, TAI of Turkiye).

(2) IAF should be part of the project as a leader & stakeholder. Appoint an officer as project head with penalty/punishment provision on failure.

(3) Govt. should provide incentives to the private players to invest heavily on their in-house R&D on such high end aerospace engineering development.

(4) All previous aerospace project failures/delays were collaborative mistakes of IAF + Govt. + PSUs (HAL/NAL) + DRDO. Not to point out finger on a single entity to put all the blame on. And in AMCA project those mistakes should not be repeated, but rather be corrected.

There are many other points too. But these 4 points are major highlights of the discussion.

What experience does TAI have? Which aircraft they developed independently?

 

[BHARAT KA BETA]

What experience does TAI have? Which aircraft they developed independently?

TAI is probably the weakest among all other foreign developers. Though they have TAI HÜRJET project, which I think in prototype stage. But surely their experience is much lesser.

 

[randomradio]

Key points highlighted by Lt. Gen Shankar (R) are:

(1) Not any of the 3 shortlisted consortiums for AMCA project ( TASL, L&T+BEL, BF+BEML) has any prior experience of executing a complete military aerospace project apart from Assembling & Component manufacturing. Whereas all 5th generation aircraft developers cum manufacturers in the world have prior experience of executing/developing a full aircraft development (LM, BOEING, AVIC & SAC (of China), Sukhoi Corp., KAI of S.Korea, TAI of Turkiye).

(2) IAF should be part of the project as a leader & stakeholder. Appoint an officer as project head with penalty/punishment provision on failure.

(3) Govt. should provide incentives to the private players to invest heavily on their in-house R&D on such high end aerospace engineering development.

(4) All previous aerospace project failures/delays were collaborative mistakes of IAF + Govt. + PSUs (HAL/NAL) + DRDO. Not to point out finger on a single entity to put all the blame on. And in AMCA project those mistakes should not be repeated, but rather be corrected.

There are many other points too. But these 4 points are major highlights of the discussion.

1 is just a statement. ADA is the primary developer. The private companies are still following the dictates of the primary developer.

2. Agree.

3. Generational change, not happening for AMCA.

4. Bullcrap. Entirely DRDO's fault for overpromising and underdelivering. They should have stuck to the original secifications, ie, analog or hybrid FBW, even hydraulics, and Bison class avionics. We would have had a jet by 2000. People tend to keep forgeting that IAF wasn't even allowed to ask about the progress of the project. "It will be done when it's done." That's actually why the Bison upgrade even happened. The contract for it was a disappointing day for the IAF.

 

[randomradio]

One more point is that tatas are globalist and not nationalist(or patriotic), they have funded many ngo which have protested against developement of india and even against hindus

Also , i dont want too much reliant on tata, they are already big in electronics and chip making.
I dont want any single company to have all strategic sector

We have ambani as petroleum gaint, adani as ports (sea and air) , tata as electronics and chips

And next i want lnt as Aerospace gaint and not tata

And infact. I hope that the consortium selected for amca also get rafale order so that they have a experience in manufacturing as well as good talent pool

Our economy is not big enough to have more than 1 fighter jet manufacturing gaint(other than hal which is public)

Their foreign exposure is the primary reason for joining the globalists. Ambanis are similar in that respect. That's why they are targeting Adani with fake claims too.

 

[jmaxwell_]

Key points highlighted by Lt. Gen Shankar (R) are:

(1) Not any of the 3 shortlisted consortiums for AMCA project ( TASL, L&T+BEL, BF+BEML) has any prior experience of executing a complete military aerospace project apart from Assembling & Component manufacturing. Whereas all 5th generation aircraft developers cum manufacturers in the world have prior experience of executing/developing a full aircraft development (LM, BOEING, AVIC & SAC (of China), Sukhoi Corp., KAI of S.Korea, TAI of Turkiye).

(2) IAF should be part of the project as a leader & stakeholder. Appoint an officer as project head with penalty/punishment provision on failure.

(3) Govt. should provide incentives to the private players to invest heavily on their in-house R&D on such high end aerospace engineering development.

(4) All previous aerospace project failures/delays were collaborative mistakes of IAF + Govt. + PSUs (HAL/NAL) + DRDO. Not to point out finger on a single entity to put all the blame on. And in AMCA project those mistakes should not be repeated, but rather be corrected.

There are many other points too. But these 4 points are major highlights of the discussion.

He elaborated quite a bit on #2 and I agree with everything he said:

The IAF has been tasked with controlling the skies. But it sees this mandate through the narrow lens of a "user" of FA instead of taking charge as a "builder" the way the Indian Navy did. (He claims he himself took inspiration from the IN and tried to introduce this culture into the IA in his own small capacity as the DG of the artillery.)

In his view, ADA/DRDO will be happy with TDs, HAL will take ages to build something obsolete, the private firms lack sufficient experience for something this complex and lack incentives in the form of tax breaks to do real R&D, and that govts. will come and go -- with nobody in charge. Only the IAF has the full 360 degree view, and success is unlikely unless the IAF takes full accountability -- puts a 3 star in charge, cuts through the red tape no matter the personal repercussions, and drives the program. Otherwise, nothing has fundamentally changed and AMCA will come too late and in too few numbers to matter in a crisis.