AMCA News and Discussion

[Indos]

IAF wanted a more realistic set of technologies to be used whereas DRDO, HAL and ADA wanted to use the program to develop technologies where India had been lagging behind the West (especially) since 3 decades of not having designed anything since HF-24 Marut.

HF-24 Marut is designed by German right ? Not Indian

 

[MirageBlue]

Cost has nothing to do with size, but manufacturing processes and at what scale you are producing decide the price.

A DEF can be as cheaper as a SEF, even for lifetime cost.

Navy Buys 17 Super Hornets in $1.1B Deal, Last Planned Contract Secures Technical Data Packages - USNI News

The Navy this week issued a $1.1 billion contract modification to Boeing for the final 17 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and the technical data package in a win for the service following stalled negotiations last year. “This modification procures 10 F/A-18F Lot 46 aircraft, as well as two F/A-18F and...

news.usni.org

F/A-18 SH is much more cheaper than Tejas Mk1A.

PS : Most of export sales happen at inflated prices.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

F/A-18 E/F acquisition cost is not that low. Airframe and engine costs are negotiated separately with Boeing and General Electric. If Super Hornet were acquired instead of Rafale Ms, it would still have cost us almost as much since we have no infrastructure to support Super Hornets, no sims, no MROs, nothing.

 

[MirageBlue]

HF-24 Marut is designed by German right ? Not Indian

Not exactly. Kurt Tank came to India with his small team of German designers, but it was hundreds of HAL engineers and designers who worked along with him and did the detail designs. But yes, he led the team.

It's not like Kurt Tank alone sat and did all the designs on his own, there's just too much that goes into a fighter for a small team to be able to do it. It is a truly multi-disciplinary exercise.

 

[Indos]

Not exactly. Kurt Tank came to India with his small team of German designers, but it was hundreds of HAL engineers and designers who worked along with him and did the detail designs. But yes, he led the team.

It's not like Kurt Tank alone sat and did all the designs on his own, there's just too much that goes into a fighter for a small team to be able to do it. It is a truly multi-disciplinary exercise.

Do you know the proper number of design engineers to start developing any fighter jet at current time with all of available software and latest technology ?

 

[MirageBlue]

Do you know the proper number of design engineers to start developing any fighter jet at current time with all of available software and latest technology ?

It won't be a small number that's for sure. Just look at the number of things that need to be designed for fighters nowadays. Back in the days of the HF-24 Marut the avionics, sensors, etc. were rudimentary. But now, just look at how much more complex it has gotten:

Airframes are much more complex to build now. Much more precise engineering in design and that helps with precision during manufacturing. Then there's radar, mission computers, MFDs, HUD, IRST, sensor fusion, electricals, FBW controls, hydraulics, landing gears, environment control systems, fuel transfer systems, and almost all of it is controlled by software (which is critical). If you just look at how fuel transfer is controlled on these fighters, it's a feat of engineering.

Several hundred designers across all these domains would be needed for sure.

 

[Ak01]

Just for simplicity

View attachment 100229

Answer the question.

 

[kaku]

Answer the question.

It is the answer, not going to deduce it for you.

 

[Ak01]

It is the answer, not going to deduce it for you.

If you're refusing to answer, it sounds like your only intent was to troll and bait...

 

[JamD]

Apparently it was an "engineering mockup", most likely built to test RCS at the ORANGE facility. But the moment I saw it, I knew that this was an older design and not the final one; The model itself isn't built particularly well either.

Fact is there isn't the marketing budget to build a full-scale mockup just for Aero India. It costs a few crores to build and isn't really needed since India isn't scouting for partners to join the AMCA program, at least not yet.

The actual AMCA dimensions are more in the KF-21 category. Fairly large.

The most accurate model is this one. It is the final frozen design.

Regarding the LCA design being small. I agree, it should've been at least 1m longer. But from what I've read elsewhere, when the LCA design was being done during the Project Definition Phase (PDP) in 1989 or thereabouts, the requirement was to be able to use Hardened Shelters and Sheds designed to house the hundreds of MiG-21s in the IAF at it's forward air bases.

I have no qualms about the accuracy of the mockup. I know how they can be totally misleading. I was more concerned with the specifications on the brochure that point to a small aircraft. I haven't followed the AMCA program so I was wondering what the ASR was.

I would imagine that the realities of 1989 do not apply to the current day.

 

[Deino]

I have a suspicion that this was the earlier AMCA full scale model that was built for RCS measurement at the Open Range (ORANGE) facility. It is not actually fully accurate when compared to the last known AMCA design which is even seen on the DRDO brochure.

So dimension-wise as expected almost comparable to the J-35A!




Length: 18.00m (AMCA) vs. 17.60m (J-35A)
Span: 11.13m (AMCA) vs 13.40m (J-35A)
Height: 4.50m (AMCA) vs. 4.80m (J-35A)

 

[Indos]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Nilgiri]

Prototype and Production Timeline: 00:00Number of Prototypes and Building Frequency: 00:42Maturity Level of Stealth Technology: 02:47Maturity Level of Flush Sensors and Antennas: 03:39Budget Allocation for Prototype Building and Technology Development: 05:06Capabilities of Each Prototype: 06:11Internal Weapon Bay Capacity: 07:08Weapon Development Status and Integration: 08:59EOTS (Electro-Optical Targeting System) Development: 09:31Rollout and First Flight in 3 Years: 10:30Optional Manning in Second Version: 11:42Compute Capacity, Hardware, and Power Requirements: 12:39Second Prototype Flight Confidence: 13:42Learning from Other Programs (Korean, Turkish): 14:27Production Plans and Private Sector Involvement: 15:29Design Work and Private Sector Contribution: 16:47AMCA Team Strength and Manpower: 18:36Engine Clarity and GE414 Selection: 19:19Naval Version (TEDBF) and Engine Power: 20:12

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Oscar]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Hold a minute - TEDBF resembles little to AMCA based on AI25 models or did I mix things up?

 

[Indos]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Thanks for this, really helpful to breakdown important information taken from the long interview where you also provided each time the different topic is started being discuss during this long interview

 

[kaku]

If you're refusing to answer, it sounds like your only intent was to troll and bait...

Hurted your ego? I know your intentions why you asked it, even though you knew very well what was the answer from that graph.

Again, not going to answer to you. You can award any number of infractions for it, if not answering your stupid questions meant to be a ban, then so be it.