That’s what DRDO chief said today itseems according to Vayu Aerospace.
He probably meant parts like actuators.
If airframe production is on you will know with the issue of tenders. Like what you see for mk2.
Last heard, ADA asked seperate infra for prototype development in Coimbatore. Don't know what happened to it then.
Some news going around about the AMCA's actuators. So I am doing a recap :
The AMCA would use actuators for the control surfaces & also for the weapon bay. The weapon bay's opening/closing mechanism was first prototyped 5-6 years ago. It was called the "Door Operation Mechanism". Not a lot of info is available on that prototype, what we know of it so far :
Door Operation Mechanism: This system is an Aluminum alloy door along with multi-link mechanism for opening, closing & locking arrangement. This system is hydraulic actuated at 280 bar pressure. The cycle time for (opening-closing-positive locking) of the system is 2 sec.
Bay Dimensions (LxW): 4.2m x 2m
Material: Aerospace grade AL 6061 alloy in T6 tempered condition.
The internal hydraulics are mounted on the mid-rib of the weapon bay. The 2 bay doors are independently controlled by the hydraulics on the each side of the mid rib. This gives you the option of opening only one side of the bay & firing off a weapon. :
We don't know if this was the full sized weapon bay. It is pretty normal for the 1st prototype to have a sub scaled, case in point the SWiFT/Ghatak UCAV. Also notice the bay doors don't have serrated teeth that are commonly seen on the AMCA designs.
At that size the weapon bay can carry the 3.84m long Astra Mk-1 BVRAAMs but not the 5.5m long Rudram-1 NG-ARM. Remember SEAD/DEAD is one of the primary missions of a stealth fighter. The Rudram-1 with its ~250km range is the most potent ARM we have at the moment. Integrating it to the internal weapon bay should be a no brainer. Also a weapon bay that can hold the Rudram-1 should also be able to accommodate the upcoming Astra Mk-2 & Mk-3 BVRAAMs.
Yesterday the DRDO chief was seen briefing the Rajnath Singh on some hydraulic actuators:
It is being speculated that these actuators are for the control surfaces & the weapons bay of the AMCA. It is very likely that DRDO has completed the development of the actuators of the AMCA by now. But we cannot be certain that these ones here are for the AMCA. There are a few other fighter projects ongoing. Still lets keep the photos here for future reference.
The AMCA would use actuators for the control surfaces & also for the weapon bay. The weapon bay's opening/closing mechanism was first prototyped 5-6 years ago. It was called the "Door Operation Mechanism". Not a lot of info is available on that prototype, what we know of it so far :
Door Operation Mechanism: This system is an Aluminum alloy door along with multi-link mechanism for opening, closing & locking arrangement. This system is hydraulic actuated at 280 bar pressure. The cycle time for (opening-closing-positive locking) of the system is 2 sec.
Bay Dimensions (LxW): 4.2m x 2m
Material: Aerospace grade AL 6061 alloy in T6 tempered condition.
The internal hydraulics are mounted on the mid-rib of the weapon bay. The 2 bay doors are independently controlled by the hydraulics on the each side of the mid rib. This gives you the option of opening only one side of the bay & firing off a weapon. :
We don't know if this was the full sized weapon bay. It is pretty normal for the 1st prototype to have a sub scaled, case in point the SWiFT/Ghatak UCAV. Also notice the bay doors don't have serrated teeth that are commonly seen on the AMCA designs.
At that size the weapon bay can carry the 3.84m long Astra Mk-1 BVRAAMs but not the 5.5m long Rudram-1 NG-ARM. Remember SEAD/DEAD is one of the primary missions of a stealth fighter. The Rudram-1 with its ~250km range is the most potent ARM we have at the moment. Integrating it to the internal weapon bay should be a no brainer. Also a weapon bay that can hold the Rudram-1 should also be able to accommodate the upcoming Astra Mk-2 & Mk-3 BVRAAMs.
Yesterday the DRDO chief was seen briefing the Rajnath Singh on some hydraulic actuators:
It is being speculated that these actuators are for the control surfaces & the weapons bay of the AMCA. It is very likely that DRDO has completed the development of the actuators of the AMCA by now. But we cannot be certain that these ones here are for the AMCA. There are a few other fighter projects ongoing. Still lets keep the photos here for future reference.
You do not use long range standoff weapons from inside weapons bays though. So no issues there. The point of stealth is get close enough to drop a regular PGM on the target from a short distance using the aircraft's sensors instead of relying on fire and forget capabilities.
The Astra Mk-2 & Mk-3 are likely to be bigger than the Mk-1. I hope those are integrated to the IWB even if the Rudram-1 can't be. Long range BVRAAMs are a must for stealth fighters.
The Astra will most definitely fit inside the bays. Since quad-packed PGMs like SAAW are expected to fit, something like Astra will have a lot of space, doesn't matter which version.
The Russians are moving on to electric motors, so we may see the same on later prototypes of the AMCA.
AMCA's intake re-design
Initial version with the diverter:
Diverterless Supersonic Intake (DSI):
Comparison of the internal ducts:
Initial version with the diverter:
Diverterless Supersonic Intake (DSI):
Comparison of the internal ducts:
We should consider it a win if LCA Mk2 achieves full squadron strength and FOC by 2030, and the same for AMCA Mk2 by 2040. Most other dates seem unrealistic.
Ada head or some dept head while giving interview said that, unlike Lca we have all the facilities to build on.. So project has no reason to get delayed.
We ll see how milestone s are achieved
Delays will be expected. You can see that both the US and Russia have their projects delayed even though they have more than we do.
But the delays won't be as ridiculous as it was with LCA.
If they successfully clear flight parameters of the Mk1 by 2025-26 that's more than half the battle won. After all it's supposed to be the real MRFA & in many ways the land based version of the TEDBF which in turn is expected to be certified by 2030-32. So, we've a lot riding on the success of Mk1.
As of now the definitive AMCA i.e the Mk2 is a long way off. We've plenty of time to work on it's complex technologies.
-----------------
Was thinking about navy s plan for TEDBF,
They utilize technology developed for MWF like cockpit, canard etc
Whatever developed for Amca like nose cone, stealthy avionics twin engine configuration etc
N Lca in creating facilities /trainer upfront.
And also have Rafale M for benchmark ( by any chance)
Due to complexity of operations, they ll go less risky , proven technology to have the safe margin for any optimization.
Tedbf is using the entire aviation R&D work done so far.
Wonderful planning.
I believe it ll make surprise entry like LCH...
I'm afraid TEDBF is a whole different ballgame than LCA or AMCA. It's bigger, heavier, more powerful etc than the LCA, while the deck size has remained the same. All other navies operating this class of jet have bigger carriers. The only exception being the French, but they have made their jet for CATOBAR, which means a freakishly strong landing carriage compared to our STOBAR design. The Mig-29K is pretty much a waste of space.
We have no real issues with the engines and avionics, but we have to get the airframe and landing carriage designs on point, or the project will fail. Furthermore, ADA could end up going for a non-Rafale design rather than the Super Rafale design they showed off earlier this year, which would increase risk substantially.
We are basically making a KF-X for a carrier, so the complexity of the project itself is much higher than what the Koreans are facing. And we are working on it as a secondary project, meaning we are not necessarily putting our best scientific resources to work. The navy had already pointed out before that the N-LCA was receiving a stepmotherly treatment, so there will be a palpable fear that TEDBF could follow the same route.
While everything you have pointed out are significant advantages, but they actually are basic requirements for a project like this, whereas the hurdles faced are very different and ridiculously challenging.
It is good & logical to have 2 IRSTs to cover upper & lower hemispheres.
F-16 ES (Enhanced Strategic) prototype was also tested with similar system of 2 IRSTs.
F-16U also had similar arrangement
There was a videogame in late 1990s named "DiD's F-22 Air Dominance Fighter" & follow-on called "F-22 Total Air War". They showed a fictious future upgraded block of F-22 which had 1 nose mounted IRST & 2 belly mounted IRSTs/EOTSs/LANTIRN. But this version of F-22 never manifested due to stealth concerns & it was primarily Air Dominance Fighter. Lockheed Martin was already working with X-35/F-35 having EOTS because of which F-35 is less stealthier than F-22.
Hence the optical sensors must have stealthy covers like F-35 EOTS.
CONTINUED.....
F-16 ES (Enhanced Strategic) prototype was also tested with similar system of 2 IRSTs.
F-16U also had similar arrangement
There was a videogame in late 1990s named "DiD's F-22 Air Dominance Fighter" & follow-on called "F-22 Total Air War". They showed a fictious future upgraded block of F-22 which had 1 nose mounted IRST & 2 belly mounted IRSTs/EOTSs/LANTIRN. But this version of F-22 never manifested due to stealth concerns & it was primarily Air Dominance Fighter. Lockheed Martin was already working with X-35/F-35 having EOTS because of which F-35 is less stealthier than F-22.
Hence the optical sensors must have stealthy covers like F-35 EOTS.
CONTINUED.....
Attachments
Future variants of Su-57 may also have such stealthy covers on nose IRST
So the turret-ball design needs to be replaced by such stealthy covers.
The external pod also needs to be replaced by EOTS
There is 1 more thing required - DIRCM, like on Su-57, very important.
But these positions have been already occupied by IRST/EOTS in AMCA. So other positions for DIRCM can be explored like wing roots, like in F-16 AFTI. The spherical turret-ball can be replaced by angled aperture like in Sniper pod.
Attachments
Does not having a mid-rib bang in the centre of an already cramped IWB limit your choices of weapons? Since it essentially partitions the IWB into two halves. Wouldn't it have been better to mount the hydraulic piping on the IWB roof scattered around the weapons mounts (& do away with the mid rib) to be able to fully utilize the space on offer? Surprisingly, even F-22 & J-20 suffer from the same "compromise":