ADA AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

[randomradio]

I let you reply to yourself in this case:

The situation is entirely opposite.

For one, the engine is a VCE, so better fuel economy and greater engine power. The airframe is lighter than the Flanker and also carries as much or more fuel. Stealth, internal bays, supercruise. The basic known specs on paper alone make it better than the Flanker.

It's entirely unlike our pilots who claimed the LCA is as good as M-2000 without any real basis. Less fuel, less TWR, less payload, lower G limits and so on.

You're gonna have to dissect it rationally.

I am Skeptical about ADA.

As any rational person should be.

Sure, but you get the gist, implications of delays for AMCA is going to be its extinction.

But I don't believe it's going to be like the Mk1 screw-up. When Mk1 started, they didn't know anything, have anything, there were no foundation technologies at all. ADA has all of that now.

 

[randomradio]

Disagree, it's to evaluate the structural changes and optimization needed for FGFA variant, wherein India wants joint development.

But no actionable data can be gathered through this process with current prototypes. The ones with old engines will all fall short of performance expectations. Any actual flight tests can only be conducted after 2021 or 2022. The engine IOC is expected only in 2024.

And the only real way you can get radar signature data is to make a 1:1 model of your design and then test it in an RCS facility.

It's like the IAF asking for a limited series production of the AMCA for tests before beginning the fabrication of the first TD to ensure they are getting their money's worth.

 

[Milspec]

The situation is entirely opposite.

For one, the engine is a VCE, so better fuel economy and greater engine power. The airframe is lighter than the Flanker and also carries as much or more fuel. Stealth, internal bays, supercruise. The basic known specs on paper alone make it better than the Flanker.

It's entirely unlike our pilots who claimed the LCA is as good as M-2000 without any real basis. Less fuel, less TWR, less payload, lower G limits and so on.

You're gonna have to dissect it rationally.

Because you have tested the LCA Mk1 and found those numbers to "Validate" the comparisons. All of the Russian specs remains just claims until they let us test it.

But I don't believe it's going to be like the Mk1 screw-up. When Mk1 started, they didn't know anything, have anything, there were no foundation technologies at all. ADA has all of that now.

As always , you have more faith than me. On a different rant, ADA's structure is poor, and it literally has PM's who are show-runners, it's a people dependent organisation rather than being a process dependent organisation. The team that had delivered the first prototype were very effective driven guys, after those guys retired the project went to the helm of individuals who lacked the same spirit and the project suffered. I am not sure that the situation has changed much, thus I remain skeptical until I see the prototype flying.

 

[Milspec]

But no actionable data can be gathered through this process with current prototypes. The ones with old engines will all fall short of performance expectations. Any actual flight tests can only be conducted after 2021 or 2022. The engine IOC is expected only in 2024.

And the only real way you can get radar signature data is to make a 1:1 model of your design and then test it in an RCS facility.

It's like the IAF asking for a limited series production of the AMCA for tests before beginning the fabrication of the first TD to ensure they are getting their money's worth.

It's just to validate what they are claiming at this point of time. If we can crosscheck thier finding, we can at least be assured that the project is on track. there are some serious concerns about the RCS and IR signature by IAF. Denial of a prototype by a 50:50 project partner seems to be odd, raising suspicion on all of the functional specs on the prototype.

 

[advaidhya]

As always , you have more faith than me. On a different rant, ADA's structure is poor, and it literally has PM's who are show-runners, it's a people dependent organisation rather than being a process dependent organisation. The team that had delivered the first prototype were very effective driven guys, after those guys retired the project went to he helm of individuals who lacked the same spirit and the project suffered. I am not sure that the situation has changed much, thus I remain skeptical until I see the prototype flying.

It has been told in several places that the funds were not released for development and sanctions were not given. The motivation of ADA is not the problem.

 

[Milspec]

It has been told in several places that the funds were not released for development and sanctions were not given. The motivation of ADA is not the problem.

Well those imo are BS claims, over and over again. ADA/DRDO Capital requisition goes through a AOP process, ADA as an organisation did not have adequate capital planning and prject delivery goals. Without deliverable's , and proper capex requisitions, no one gets money, not HAL, not Drdo, not MDL - No One.

Have you ever wondered why does ADA and GTRE have problems with AOP while ISRO, ARDE, DRDL never have such issues?

 

[advaidhya]

Well those imo are BS claims, over and over again. ADA/DRDO Capital requisition goes through a AOP process, ADA as an organisation did not have adequate capital planning and prject delivery goals. Without deliverable's , and proper capex requisitions, no one gets money, not HAL, not Drdo, not MDL - No One.

Have you ever wondered why does ADA and GTRE have problems with AOP while ISRO, ARDE, DRDL never have such issues?

These are not private organisation to have independent planning process. Do you have reason to tell that ADA did not do the best it can within the jurisdiction it had?

Tejas MK2 was announced in 2010 but even in 2015, no concrete plan or specification was available. Do you think ADA was simply sitting shamelessly? If no assistance comes from MoD or IAF, there is hardly anything ADA can do. MoD decides everything, even to sanction a project or to continue development of some other project.

Tejas MK1 is being made into MK1A by HAL, not ADA. Don't mistake.

 

[Milspec]

Sorry things got mixed up, I copied my post from Other Forum forum and I didn't mean to add government part here.

What I mean was that all the gentlemen in this video are very much on the same page as far as the progress on the SU-57 is concerned hence I asked your take whether does it make sense to go for Su-57 or to add more Rafale squadrons and in the meanwhile speedup the AMCA development.

Rafale in @randomradio 's words is a 5th gen without stealth shaping ( slightly pregnant ) ; if that really is how capable the rafale is, and PAKFA is slightly inferior 5th gen, then maybe they come into a similar block. Then it comes to pricing issues which is another 20 pages of discussion. And then if we throw the AMCA into the equation, it still is a paper plane and we have no idea when it comes to fruition.

Discounting ADA's AMCA, what you are suggesting brings two tangible platforms in competition Proven Rafale vs un-tested Pakfa. I am tempted to agree with your proposition, but then if PAKFA does comeback to deliver 5th gen performance, it will steam roll the competition.

@randomradio, what do you think.

 

[Milspec]

These are not private organisation to have independent planning process. Do you have reason to tell that ADA did not do the best it can within the jurisdiction it had?

Off-course they do. Who told you this. AOP exercise starts in August for the next fiscal year, an entire list of expense items and capital items are submitted from every DRDO lab individually. DRDO leadership assigns grades on priority matrix, and submits it to SCD, SCD then submits lumpsum to MOD and FM, FM commits to number which usually is less the required budget, but FM/MOD does not deliberate on any specific project. Lets Say DRDO asks for 18Kcr and FM comes back with 13KCr, it does not cut projects, it sanctions a full 13Kcr to DRDO, now DRDO leadership decides on which projects to cut from the AOP for that fiscal years.

T
Tejas MK2 was announced in 2010 but even in 2015, no concrete plan or specification was available. Do you think ADA was simply sitting shamelessly?

Yes....

Shamelessly? > Definately

If no assistance comes from MoD or IAF, there is hardly anything ADA can do. MoD decides everything, even to sanction a project or to continue development of some other project.

That has never been the case. MoD and SCD can suggest capabilities, and DRDO does another document called SLRP - Strt long rang Planning, which includes like things missile systems, vehicles etc. and attaches projects in AOP associated with the scheme; but MoD does not micro manage individual project budgets.

Tejas MK1 is being made into MK1A by HAL, not ADA. Don't mistake.

Thank heavens for that. ;
And what is ADA doing right now? twidlling thumbs
@advaidhya also a disclaimer, because this is the first time i think i am interacting with you I am Ex-HAL and do have a HAL bias.

 

[randomradio]

Because you have tested the LCA Mk1 and found those numbers to "Validate" the comparisons. All of the Russian specs remains just claims until they let us test it.

But if you want actual data, you will have to wait for the Russians to finish the development process anyway.

As always , you have more faith than me. On a different rant, ADA's structure is poor, and it literally has PM's who are show-runners, it's a people dependent organisation rather than being a process dependent organisation. The team that had delivered the first prototype were very effective driven guys, after those guys retired the project went to the helm of individuals who lacked the same spirit and the project suffered. I am not sure that the situation has changed much, thus I remain skeptical until I see the prototype flying.

Of course, nothing is real until we see something tangible.

It's just to validate what they are claiming at this point of time. If we can crosscheck thier finding, we can at least be assured that the project is on track. there are some serious concerns about the RCS and IR signature by IAF. Denial of a prototype by a 50:50 project partner seems to be odd, raising suspicion on all of the functional specs on the prototype.

There's no way you can get RF and IR signature data from current prototypes. Also, all development programs go by trust. Not to mention, not all prototypes will perform the same. And you can't give up a prototype anyway. You need extensive training before you are allowed to fly a prototype in the first place, if you don't, you won't know what to do in an emergency. Getting a prototype for having data tested is useless, it's much more possible on LSPs instead, especially the last 2. And you can't put a different pilot on a single seat prototype anyway.

Rather, my suggestion, and has always been so, is to simply wait for the PAK FA to finish development, and then work on a 6th gen version for a post 2030 induction, like what we did with MKI. If the Russian version itself is good, then we can simply order a few squadrons during the time the FGFA undergoes development. If the PAK FA doesn't meet our expectations, then we will not go for it. This is significantly less risky, and will allow the IAF to induct Rafale in the meantime.

 

[Milspec]

There's no way you can get RF and IR signature data from current prototypes. Also, all development programs go by trust. Not to mention, not all prototypes will perform the same. And you can't give up a prototype anyway. You need extensive training before you are allowed to fly a prototype in the first place, if you don't, you won't know what to do in an emergency. Getting a prototype for having data tested is useless, it's much more possible on LSPs instead, especially the last 2. And you can't put a different pilot on a single seat prototype anyway.

Rather, my suggestion, and has always been so, is to simply wait for the PAK FA to finish development, and then work on a 6th gen version for a post 2030 induction, like what we did with MKI. If the Russian version itself is good, then we can simply order a few squadrons during the time the FGFA undergoes development. If the PAK FA doesn't meet our expectations, then we will not go for it. This is significantly less risky, and will allow the IAF to induct Rafale in the meantime.

You are right, But I think HAL has a legit demand to ask for t50 proto. They never asked to fly it, they can send their CTP. ARDC had thier own test plan to start working on FGFA. We evaluated Su30k, before freezing MKI specs.

 

[randomradio]

Rafale in @randomradio 's words is a 5th gen without stealth shaping ( slightly pregnant ) ; if that really is how capable the rafale is, and PAKFA is slightly inferior 5th gen, then maybe they come into a similar block. Then it comes to pricing issues which is another 20 pages of discussion. And then if we throw the AMCA into the equation, it still is a paper plane and we have no idea when it comes to fruition.

Discounting ADA's AMCA, what you are suggesting brings two tangible platforms in competition Proven Rafale vs un-tested Pakfa. I am tempted to agree with your proposition, but then if PAKFA does comeback to deliver 5th gen performance, it will steam roll the competition.

@randomradio, what do you think.

One of our air chief's said that the FGFA will be a generation ahead compared to the Rafale. And even Parrikar admitted Rafale is a generation ahead compared to the MKI.

So I am not very worried about all this in terms of technical capabilities. All the worries right now are about numbers, money, ToT etc.

 

[randomradio]

You are right, But I think HAL has a legit demand to ask for t50 proto. They never asked to fly it, they can send their CTP.

HAL will gain nothing through that though. It's a whole lot easier and better to build scale models and test it in wind tunnels and RCS facilities. Even a basic 1:10 model will give you RCS information. After that you can use your own expertise to decide whether you can actually build something like it. But we should wait for the new engine before such a decision is made.

The problem isn't the airframe or the engine, it's the avionics. But we should already know quite a bit about it due to the Super MKI program.

Anyway, HAL claims they can use the same facility as the MKI to build the FGFA. So they have all the information they need to know already.

 

[Milspec]

Anyway, HAL claims they can use the same facility as the MKI to build the FGFA. So they have all the information they need to know already.

Thats for manufacturing, Sure We can build Rafales in the same facility if needed, there is no limitations (minus productivity) to the Nashik division.

 

[Milspec]

One of our air chief's said that the FGFA will be a generation ahead compared to the Rafale. And even Parrikar admitted Rafale is a generation ahead compared to the MKI.
.

What if that statement is inaccurate, and PAKFA ends up being marginally better than the Rafale.

 

[randomradio]

Thats for manufacturing, Sure We can build Rafales in the same facility if needed, there is no limitations (minus productivity) to the Nashik division.

They have the paper design of the FGFA, so they already know RCS and other performance red lines of the aircraft. And they already know the construction process, so that's taken care of. Basically, HAL has the capability to build an FGFA airframe of their own, they have that much data. So they basically have all the information necessary to know if they want to go ahead with the project or not, since the PDP is complete.

What they do not know is whether the aircraft is what they say it is, and for that, the best option is to wait for the Russians to finish a significant amount of work on their own.

But if someone's saying the aircraft's RCS is not good enough, that's a stupid statement since PDP wouldn't have happened if that were the case. You should know the RCS you are set out to achieve before the PDP even begins in the first place.

 

[randomradio]

What if that statement is inaccurate, and PAKFA ends up being marginally better than the Rafale.

That won't be the case. In terms of performance metrics, it beats all existing aircraft comfortably. Even payload and range.

In terms of stealth, since the FGFA's PDP is complete, we know what the aircraft will look like once it becomes operational. The ACM said that statement well after FGFA's PDP was done.

As for avionics, that's up in the air right now when you consider open source. But HAL knows everything that's going on all three jets offered to us. HAL knows about the MMRCA with its future growth configuration, Super Sukhoi configuration and PAK FA/FGFA configuration, as does the air force for obvious reasons.

PAK FA's current avionics configuration is almost on par with what's being developed for Rafale F4 in 2025. Even with the current airframe and engine, 117, the aircraft is significantly superior to the Rafale in many areas, although maturity is a different story.

 

[Proud_Indian]

Rather, my suggestion, and has always been so, is to simply wait for the PAK FA to finish development, and then work on a 6th gen version for a post 2030 induction, like what we did with MKI. If the Russian version itself is good, then we can simply order a few squadrons during the time the FGFA undergoes development. If the PAK FA doesn't meet our expectations, then we will not go for it. This is significantly less risky, and will allow the IAF to induct Rafale in the meantime.

@Milspec this is exactly what I was suggesting!

 

[Milspec]

That won't be the case. In terms of performance metrics, it beats all existing aircraft comfortably. Even payload and range.

In terms of stealth, since the FGFA's PDP is complete, we know what the aircraft will look like once it becomes operational. The ACM said that statement well after FGFA's PDP was done.

As for avionics, that's up in the air right now when you consider open source. But HAL knows everything that's going on all three jets offered to us. HAL knows about the MMRCA with its future growth configuration, Super Sukhoi configuration and PAK FA/FGFA configuration, as does the air force for obvious reasons.

PAK FA's current avionics configuration is almost on par with what's being developed for Rafale F4 in 2025. Even with the current airframe and engine, 117, the aircraft is significantly superior to the Rafale in many areas, although maturity is a different story.

Its good to know that PAKFA's avionics configuration is that good, I was not aware of that.

Super Sukhoi is still meh, the MLU refit for MKI is going to be a Game changer btw. There is interest by Russians, Israeli's and the French to upgrade the system. Russians are being quite co-operative on this. MKI single-handedly did more marketing for the SU 30 platform than what Russians could have ever achieved. by mid 2019 the specs will come out for MKI MLU.

 

[Milspec]

They have the paper design of the FGFA, so they already know RCS and other performance red lines of the aircraft.

We'll see.

And they already know the construction process, so that's taken care of. Basically, HAL has the capability to build an FGFA airframe of their own, they have that much data. So they basically have all the information necessary to know if they want to go ahead with the project or not, since the PDP is complete.

In theory yes, in manufacturing reality no, Will pick that up later.

But if someone's saying the aircraft's RCS is not good enough, that's a stupid statement since PDP wouldn't have happened if that were the case. You should know the RCS you are set out to achieve before the PDP even begins in the first place.

Yes, but untill entire ELC is complete there is no validation of claims. If Russians were upfront with t50 results and were transparent about deliverable by the LSP and SP's. IAF wold have nothing to doubt.