ADA AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tarun
  • Start date Start date
India is planning to launch a programme to develop a stealth fighter named Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), according to Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman.

In a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha, she said the feasibility study for the programme has been already completed.

"The Indian Air Force suggested Aeronautical Development Agency of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to initiate AMCA technology demonstration phase before launching full ..

Read more at:
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/63617345.cms?utm_source=ETMyNews&utm_medium=HPMN&utm_campaign=AL1&utm_content=20&utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
 
  • Like
Reactions: TARGET and Shekhar Singh
Ashwin said:
India is planning to launch a programme to develop a stealth fighter named Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), according to Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman.

In a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha, she said the feasibility study for the programme has been already completed.

"The Indian Air Force suggested Aeronautical Development Agency of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to initiate AMCA technology demonstration phase before launching full ..

Read more at:
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/63617345.cms?utm_source=ETMyNews&utm_medium=HPMN&utm_campaign=AL1&utm_content=20&utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
Click to expand...
This project seems to be done by ADA /DRDO and private industry no HAL.i hope they maintain their planed project deadline for the 1st AMCA TD .
 
TARGET said:
This project seems to be done by ADA /DRDO and private industry no HAL.i hope they maintain their planed project deadline for the 1st AMCA TD .
Click to expand...
Its impossible to make a plane like this in India without HAL. It only meant ADA will have more say with maturing private aero ecosystem.
 
Ashwin said:
Its impossible to make a plane like this in India without HAL. It only meant ADA will have more say with maturing private aero ecosystem.
Click to expand...
What my understanding is the assembling of initial TD may be developed by HAL@DRDO contract employees in Coimbatore but once done it will be handover to private player to assemble SP using the same jigs.Any needed design will be given by ADA and parts can be procured from private players . But these are my assumptions it may go to HAL to assemble these fighters in future.
 
Govt to open next Make in India jet project for pvt sector
Govt to open next Make in India jet project for pvt sector

Is India Inc ready for this ride with mega bucks thrown in?

In an initiative that would provide the private sector an opportunity to participate and gain experience in manufacture of an advanced fighter aircraft, and help the industry to bid for projects in the global aerospace market, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has invited the private sector to participate in the $2 billion project involving design and manufacture of technology demonstrators (TDs) and prototypes of the next generation stealth fighter, Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).

A new manufacturing facility would be built in the new defence corridor proposed in Tamil Nadu. The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), Bengaluru, the nodal organization which designed 'Tejas' fighter jets, would provide detailed drawings and technical specifications of the twin-engine, twin military jet to the industry as part of the 'Make in India' initiative, sources in MoD told Deccan Chronicle.

The schedule: three-and-half years for the first TD from the date of execution of the contract with ADA, and the second TD within four years. The flight tests of these technology demonstrators are likely to be completed in six years, followed by development of prototypes of AMCA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TARGET
So, if we sign a contract by 2020, we can see the two TDs rolling out in 2023-24. Which means, we can see first flight at this time.

But what they are also saying is the FSED Phase I will be complete by 2025-26. So we should see the 1st prototype flying in 2027.

I'm assuming we will need 7 years for the prototypes to finish their work. So that puts us in 2034 for IOC. Which means the first squadron could happen by 2037. This is perfectly acceptable.

The first LSP should start construction in 2027 and should see first flight in 2030. Hopefully, this time the IAF should get all the LSPs, unlike LCA. That way the IAF can start suggesting changes while they are actually flying the jet.
 
randomradio said:
So, if we sign a contract by 2020, we can see the two TDs rolling out in 2023-24. Which means, we can see first flight at this time.

But what they are also saying is the FSED Phase I will be complete by 2025-26. So we should see the 1st prototype flying in 2027.

I'm assuming we will need 7 years for the prototypes to finish their work. So that puts us in 2034 for IOC. Which means the first squadron could happen by 2037. This is perfectly acceptable.

The first LSP should start construction in 2027 and should see first flight in 2030. Hopefully, this time the IAF should get all the LSPs, unlike LCA. That way the IAF can start suggesting changes while they are actually flying the jet.
Click to expand...
Yeah, mystery-one-man no-state-support fifth-generation-plane will make first flight and production in 5 years. But, this will take entire kalyug. Your proprietary 'assuming' skills are a thing of wonder sometime.

Why don't you follow timeline given in the document for a change.

1519067103417-png.1814
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Himanshu and TARGET
Ashwin said:
Yeah, mystery-one-man no-state-support fifth-generation-plane will make first flight and production in 5 years. But, this will take entire kalyug. Your proprietary 'assuming' skills are a thing of wonder sometime.

Why don't you follow timeline given in the document for a change.

1519067103417-png.1814
Click to expand...

I have assumed the correct dates. It clearly says NGTD-1 before 3.5 years and TD-2 before 4 years. Followed by 2 years of flight tests. Which means, if the contract is signed in 2020, then the TD phase will complete 6 years later, ie, 2026. So what's the problem with that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Angel Eyes
randomradio said:
I have assumed the correct dates. It clearly says NGTD-1 before 3.5 years and TD-2 before 4 years. Followed by 2 years of flight tests. Which means, if the contract is signed in 2020, then the TD phase will complete 6 years later, ie, 2026. So what's the problem with that?
Click to expand...
The current pre-development program is scheduled to end by 2019 June. If everything goes right Both TDs will be flying by 2025. And there is no need to wait for flight test to complete to start work on prototypes. It's a concurrent process.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: TARGET
randomradio said:
I have assumed the correct dates. It clearly says NGTD-1 before 3.5 years and TD-2 before 4 years. Followed by 2 years of flight tests. Which means, if the contract is signed in 2020, then the TD phase will complete 6 years later, ie, 2026. So what's the problem with that?
Click to expand...

Assumptions can only be said to be correct when they are proven.

BTW, 2040 is too much time.. forget it.. World will be probably flying 6th gen and testing 7th
 
Ashwin said:
The current pre-development program is scheduled to end by 2019 June. If everything goes right Both TDs will be flying by 2025. And there is no need to wait for flight test to complete to start work on prototypes. It's a concurrent process.
Click to expand...

It's because we followed a concurrent program for the prototypes that we screwed up LCA.

For FSED Phase I, we should have 2 TDs and 1 or 2 prototypes. But the completed prototype, the PV-3, that's what matters the most. This is the one that will carry most of the avionics and the new engine. The definitive PV will be ready well after the TD phase is complete. It's impossible before that. And it's after this PV is ready is when we can actually begin the main flight tests.

It took the Americans 6 years after they chose the YF-22 to get the first proper prototype of the F-22. If we don't get PV-3 right, then we will go back to the circus of using LSPs as prototypes and junking the actual prototypes.

If you have seen the flight test history, you will notice that the aircraft built in concurrency are pretty much dead, or are being used for alternate technologies not related directly to the IOC and FOC regime.
 
Copy-pasta from Livefist
Hitherto unknown, the Indian Navy has apparently been left out in the cold on the AMCA project, its requests and suggestions alarmingly ignored for over two years.
Click to expand...
Ignored by the the DRDO-ADA on its 2015 request, the navy followed up with a more radical (well, for India) proposal — it asked at an MoD meeting whether it was not better and economical to simply start with the naval variant?

“We wanted to be cautious. We advised that ADA must have a naval variant to start with. It is, in fact, better to start with just one variant – the naval variant – since it is difficult to fund two development programs together,” says the navy officer. “The spin-off of mass reduction etc on the Air Force variant should be taken advantage of later. Case in point being the Rafale. They started with the Rafale-M. But, I don’t know who is listening!”
Click to expand...
Amatuers 😿
 
vstol Jockey said:
when I had first presented my design to IN and the full concept, they told me that this is exactly what they want except for one change. I wanted to make the trainer first and they wanted the fighter first. In my second presentation they agreed that my way of going about it is better than what ADA had been proposing.
Click to expand...

ADA is prioritising the AF-AMCA. I think you have to fight for the navy's deal for 57 jets. And also get them to commit to build 100+ after the first 57.
 
randomradio said:
ADA is prioritising the AF-AMCA. I think you have to fight for the navy's deal for 57 jets. And also get them to commit to build 100+ after the first 57.
Click to expand...
It is always difficult to convert a land based fighter to naval requirements. A deck based fighter has to be designed as a deck based fighter only and after that it can be converted to shore based easily. When French designed rafale TDs, they realised that the forward visibility is a problem for deck operations so they amended the design by drooping the nose by 2*. The prototypes were built with the revised nose and now all variants of Rafale have that revised nose shape for better visibility.
The requirements of rolling, pitching and go around are very demanding for deck based fighter while they are lower for shore based fighter. So the design must meet the needs of deck operations from the very beginning. I am of the firm view that if an aircraft is required to be based on deck, we must design it as deck based fighter only and the first TD/Prototype must be deck based only.
For MSA, I went to the extent of calculating STOBAR performance requirements even before finalising the design. The wing area and design had to be changed to make it compliant with STOBAR. If you may recall, after my first presentation to IN, I had not only revised the design but also added boundary layer control with a very different software logic to ensure that MSA-N is able to go with full load from STOBAR deck.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: bonobashi, Bon Plan, randomradio and 1 other person
Based on the analysis of the members of the forum, where the LCA got stuck was
1. Design
2. Engines
3. Avionics

The design of AMCA is frozen and I personally think that its a good design.,
The engine is still the critical part where we are nowhere. Will we use Kaveri? or would be prefer variant of GE-F414 ?
Avionics, we have some of them and we can develop more by the time frame of AMCA, but perhaps we should exceed our own requirement with radar coverage all over the envelope and possibly even having Active Anti missile protection (something that can shoot down approaching missiles at distance of say over 200 metres from the plane. I might call it Active Defensive subsystem


vstol Jockey said:
AMCA will turn out to b an evn bigger disaster than LCA. This aircraft will never be built even if we pump in over USD 5b in this project.
Click to expand...
 
vstol Jockey said:
It is always difficult to convert a land based fighter to naval requirements. A deck based fighter has to be designed as a deck based fighter only and after that it can be converted to shore based easily. When French designed rafale TDs, they realised that the forward visibility is a problem for deck operations so they amended the design by drooping the nose by 2*. The prototypes were built with the revised nose and now all variants of Rafale have that revised nose shape for better visibility.
The requirements of rolling, pitching and go around are very demanding for deck based fighter while they are lower for shore based fighter. So the design must meet the needs of deck operations from the very beginning. I am of the firm view that if an aircraft is required to be based on deck, we must design it as deck based fighter only and the first TD/Prototype must be deck based only.
For MSA, I went to the extent of calculating STOBAR performance requirements even before finalising the design. The wing area and design had to be changed to make it compliant with STOBAR. If you may recall, after my first presentation to IN, I had not only revised the design but also added boundary layer control with a very different software logic to ensure that MSA-N is able to go with full load from STOBAR deck.
Click to expand...
You are right. However, the first priority is always aerodynamics, which excludes landing gear, internal components, fuel etc but only focuses on aerodynamics with a rough estimate of the internal space required. Without proper aerodynamics, the plane will not work. Also, considering that it is a stealth plane, the design becomes very crucial. Once the external design satisfies the requirement, only then the internals will be worked out. It is then that the fighter will be designed for Airforce or Naval carrier use.

In AMCA, there will be internal bays to carry payload. However, in case of AMCA for NAVY, due to limited number of planes that a carrier can carry, it is unlikely that any plane will take off with 1-2 internal bay weapons. It will be too inefficient to send out a plane on a sortie just to attack one single target. So, Naval AMCA is unlikely to require internal bays at all. So, that also makes the AMCA relatively simpler than that of Air Force.

Due to special circumstances, AMCA AF will be more difficult to make than that for Navy.

smestarz said:
Based on the analysis of the members of the forum, where the LCA got stuck was
1. Design
2. Engines
3. Avionics

The design of AMCA is frozen and I personally think that its a good design.,
The engine is still the critical part where we are nowhere. Will we use Kaveri? or would be prefer variant of GE-F414 ?
Avionics, we have some of them and we can develop more by the time frame of AMCA, but perhaps we should exceed our own requirement with radar coverage all over the envelope and possibly even having Active Anti missile protection (something that can shoot down approaching missiles at distance of say over 200 metres from the plane. I might call it Active Defensive subsystem
Click to expand...

Using F414 is simply ruled out. Kaveri will perform equivalent to it. However, the real question is if AMCA will need 110kN engine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom