AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

randombully said:
So amca will DAS on its body for 360° coverage, also IRST( will also fulfill FLIR role for IR terrain mapping), but laser designator is still left out,
Does it has integrated laser designator? Or will have to carry external pods for that?
Click to expand...
I'm not DoD, IDK what our DoD will do & in what timeline.
But every 5gen jet needs high resolution EO-DAS which perform role of MAWS, ground object ID & track.
EOTS has gimbal for LD (Laser Designator), that's how it targets.
F-35's EOTS also performs IRTS, its aperture sweeps in azimuth just like Russian IRSTs, clearly seen in videos.
1739212149231.webp
1739212274936.webp
1739212180052.webp
1739212187896.webp
 
Bhartiya Sainik said:
I'm not DoD, IDK what our DoD will do & in what timeline.
But every 5gen jet needs high resolution EO-DAS which perform role of MAWS, ground object ID & track.
EOTS has gimbal for LD (Laser Designator), that's how it targets.
F-35's EOTS also performs IRTS, its aperture sweeps in azimuth just like Russian IRSTs, clearly seen in videos.
View attachment 24818
View attachment 24821
View attachment 24819
View attachment 24820
Click to expand...
But we're not going f35 route.
We going mix russian-35 route.
Where we have irst on amca like su57, the irst should also do the role of flir.

As for the crystal eots like dome of amca, it seems more like a DAS, and we do seem to be going for 360° coverage with Das also on spine if amca.

So with that Said laser designator seems left out, which shouldn't be because it's not hard to integrate it.
 
randombully said:
But we're not going f35 route.
We going mix russian-35 route.
Where we have irst on amca like su57, the irst should also do the role of flir.

As for the crystal eots like dome of amca, it seems more like a DAS, and we do seem to be going for 360° coverage with Das also on spine if amca.

So with that Said laser designator seems left out, which shouldn't be because it's not hard to integrate it.
Click to expand...
I never tell to follow countries - USA, Russia, EU, etc. Follow technology no matter who does it 1st.
A future jet, manned or unmanned, need true RF+EO spherical coverage with zero blind spots. And multi-role capability has become a usual thing.

Some ground radars are rotating to give 360 degree coverage, some are fixed with 3-4 antennas.
Same thing with EO-DAS/IRST principle.
FLIR, DLIR, LDP were dedicated H/w components. Now they have become functions fused into same H/w.
DAS sensors are fixed, can perform FLIR/DLIR/ULIR/RLIR/LLIR/BLIR + IRST + MAWS.
EOTS components are on gimbal, can perform FLIR/DLIR/RLIR/LLIR/BLIR + LDP + IRST.
Su-35/57 & MiG-35 IRSTs have big blind spots in lower hemisphere at higher altitudes due to nose if their forward-lower DAS don't perform IRST role also. Otherwise ok.
Similarly F-35's EOTS cannot sweep upper hemisphere at lower altitudes due to nose, so its fixed forward-upper DAS must do it.

Not deviating but, Kaan will have EOTS + stealthy upper IRST + DAS + LWR + stealthy DIRCM.
1739255503814.webp

J-20 might upgrade with DIRCM.
A complete J-35 with all these components can roll out any time.
K-21 future models might catch up.
So AMCA cannot afford to lag behind.
 
Everyone is asking where is EOTS on the AMCA

But no-one is asking what is the need for loitering over an enemy airspace to keep shining a laser so that your munitions can land accurately in 2030. You've far superior IIR, GNSS and mmW guided stand-off and fire-n-forget munitions. And even in SAL munitions, most of time they're guided by forward observer and not the launch platform itself.
 
Ayan Barat said:
Everyone is asking where is EOTS on the AMCA

But no-one is asking what is the need for loitering over an enemy airspace to keep shining a laser so that your munitions can land accurately in 2030. You've far superior IIR, GNSS and mmW guided stand-off and fire-n-forget munitions. And even in SAL munitions, most of time they're guided by forward observer and not the launch platform itself.
Click to expand...
High jamming environment, gps/navic spoofing
 
Bleh said:
Compare with the Chinos who started WS-10 development in mid-90s.
Click to expand...
Tbh for them too their first proper engine took them like 30-40 years to develop. WS-10 was their 2nd or 3rd attempt. Their first attempt was WP-5 which was copy of Russian Klimov RD-500 in 1950s. Their 2nd attempt were engine based on RD-9 and R-13 in the 60s-70s. Meanwhile Kaveri is literally India's first attempt at developing a turbofan jet engine. We started too late that is our problem.
 
Last edited:
randombully said:
High jamming environment, gps/navic spoofing
Click to expand...
Y-code, frequency hopping, redundant INS...you've multiple ways of dealing with GPS jamming-spoofing instead of staying above an airspace for an extended period, that too close to the target to illuminate it.

Don't take it from me; just look at the trend in PGMs during the last 5 years and also the next 5.
You'll see how more and more of the larger munitions are ditching SAL for things like IIR. SAL is now predominantly used only in smaller munitions like ATGMs, SDBs and UAV-dropped bombs...basically for things designated as LVTs.
 
Ayan Barat said:
Y-code, frequency hopping, redundant INS...you've multiple ways of dealing with GPS jamming-spoofing instead of staying above an airspace for an extended period, that too close to the target to illuminate it.

Don't take it from me; just look at the trend in PGMs during the last 5 years and also the next 5.
You'll see how more and more of the larger munitions are ditching SAL for things like IIR. SAL is now predominantly used only in smaller munitions like ATGMs, SDBs and UAV-dropped bombs...basically for things designated as LVTs.
Click to expand...
Fair point.
 
Bhartiya Sainik said:
I never tell to follow countries - USA, Russia, EU, etc. Follow technology no matter who does it 1st.
A future jet, manned or unmanned, need true RF+EO spherical coverage with zero blind spots. And multi-role capability has become a usual thing.

Some ground radars are rotating to give 360 degree coverage, some are fixed with 3-4 antennas.
Same thing with EO-DAS/IRST principle.
FLIR, DLIR, LDP were dedicated H/w components. Now they have become functions fused into same H/w.
DAS sensors are fixed, can perform FLIR/DLIR/ULIR/RLIR/LLIR/BLIR + IRST + MAWS.
EOTS components are on gimbal, can perform FLIR/DLIR/RLIR/LLIR/BLIR + LDP + IRST.
Su-35/57 & MiG-35 IRSTs have big blind spots in lower hemisphere at higher altitudes due to nose if their forward-lower DAS don't perform IRST role also. Otherwise ok.
Similarly F-35's EOTS cannot sweep upper hemisphere at lower altitudes due to nose, so its fixed forward-upper DAS must do it.

Not deviating but, Kaan will have EOTS + stealthy upper IRST + DAS + LWR + stealthy DIRCM.
View attachment 24845

J-20 might upgrade with DIRCM.
A complete J-35 with all these components can roll out any time.
K-21 future models might catch up.
So AMCA cannot afford to lag behind.
Click to expand...

randombully said:
High jamming environment, gps/navic spoofing
Click to expand...

I forgot to add that all types of weapon guidance & their counter-measures are relevant in different situations. That's why all major nations are making all of them for weapons & launching platforms, including India.
- Active/Passive RF, home on jam Vs RWR, jamming, decoys, active cancellation, etc.
- Passive IIR Vs DIRCM, thermal camo.
- LGB Vs LWR, smoke screen.

And most weapons are coming now with combo/subset of SatCom, INS, GPS, TERCOM, etc for mid-course phase.

RAM, Thermal camouflage paints, cloth, etc have been developed by various nations incl. India.

BAe has even made active adaptive IR camouflage.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzpVkhm-Otk


No matter what seeker type the weapon uses, VShoRADS (in general), APS (Active Protection System), ground-DEW, even micro-missiles are developed by DRDO also.

Smoke-screen grenades, canisters against laser are short-lived. Fuel injected smoke producing agents also rely on wind, highly unreliable actually.
1739264380045.webp

To engage certain moving vehicles, buildings & structures, in natural terrain & urban areas, Laser guidance is best suited where RF, IR, GPS guidance are inappropriate or sub-optimal.
A target with RF+IR camo is immune to RF/IR seekers.
Sometimes a target area/object might be impossible to access or too risky, too deep/far, too time-taking to reach by troops for laser illumination, hence LDPs were designed & now fused with IRST to become EOTS.

EOTS = IRST + LD. Removing LD will make it simply IRST. But F-35, J-20, J-35, Kaan are going for it.

When F-22 & F-35 have retractable chaff/flare/decoy launchers/doors, DAS already conformal, then 6gen might have retractable or conformal EOTS, DIRCM, DEW to maintain RCS.

So b/w all types of multi-spectral seeker Vs target in different situation, it is an eternal Tom & Jerry game🐱🐭, Sword Vs Shield.⚔️🛡️:fencing:
There cannot be any gap on either side or the other side will take advantage & succeed.
The best combat jet, manned or unmanned needs to be prepared to attack & defend, in comprehensive or modular ways.🤷‍♂️
 
Bhartiya Sainik said:
I forgot to add that all types of weapon guidance & their counter-measures are relevant in different situations. That's why all major nations are making all of them for weapons & launching platforms, including India.
- Active/Passive RF, home on jam Vs RWR, jamming, decoys, active cancellation, etc.
- Passive IIR Vs DIRCM, thermal camo.
- LGB Vs LWR, smoke screen.

And most weapons are coming now with combo/subset of SatCom, INS, GPS, TERCOM, etc for mid-course phase.

RAM, Thermal camouflage paints, cloth, etc have been developed by various nations incl. India.

BAe has even made active adaptive IR camouflage.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzpVkhm-Otk


No matter what seeker type the weapon uses, VShoRADS (in general), APS (Active Protection System), ground-DEW, even micro-missiles are developed by DRDO also.

Smoke-screen grenades, canisters against laser are short-lived. Fuel injected smoke producing agents also rely on wind, highly unreliable actually.
View attachment 24863

To engage certain moving vehicles, buildings & structures, in natural terrain & urban areas, Laser guidance is best suited where RF, IR, GPS guidance are inappropriate or sub-optimal.
A target with RF+IR camo is immune to RF/IR seekers.
Sometimes a target area/object might be impossible to access or too risky, too deep/far, too time-taking to reach by troops for laser illumination, hence LDPs were designed & now fused with IRST to become EOTS.

EOTS = IRST + LD. Removing LD will make it simply IRST. But F-35, J-20, J-35, Kaan are going for it.

When F-22 & F-35 have retractable chaff/flare/decoy launchers/doors, DAS already conformal, then 6gen might have retractable or conformal EOTS, DIRCM, DEW to maintain RCS.

So b/w all types of multi-spectral seeker Vs target in different situation, it is an eternal Tom & Jerry game🐱🐭, Sword Vs Shield.⚔️🛡️:fencing:
There cannot be any gap on either side or the other side will take advantage & succeed.
The best combat jet, manned or unmanned needs to be prepared to attack & defend, in comprehensive or modular ways.🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

From this,it seems LD will have niche use, then how about putting it in one of the varients of cats warrior?
 
randombully said:
From this,it seems LD will have niche use, then how about putting it in one of the varients of cats warrior?
Click to expand...
Just like some of us have carried laser pointer key-chain, a LD among numerous other systems, today has become something usual now for a combat jet, nothing exotic luxurious OMG stuff.
On UAV/CATS thread i've already said that CATS/MUMT is good system the world is persuing but design of this current Warrior & all other identical UAVs globally are highly inappropriate, very less payload, can't execute high AoA, no afterburner, can't fly supersonic, can't dogfight, will end up as good target practice objects for not only 5/6gen jets but also 4.5 gen jets.
 
Bhartiya Sainik said:
Just like some of us have carried laser pointer key-chain, a LD among numerous other systems, today has become something usual now for a combat jet, nothing exotic luxurious OMG stuff.
On UAV/CATS thread i've already said that CATS/MUMT is good system the world is persuing but design of this current Warrior & all other identical UAVs globally are highly inappropriate, very less payload, can't execute high AoA, no afterburner, can't fly supersonic, can't dogfight, will end up as good target practice objects for not only 5/6gen jets but also 4.5 gen jets.
Click to expand...
Bhartiya Sainik said:
On UAV/CATS thread i've already said that CATS/MUMT is good system the world is persuing but design of this current Warrior & all other identical UAVs globally are highly inappropriate, very less payload, can't execute high AoA, no afterburner, can't fly supersonic, can't dogfight, will end up as good target practice objects for not only 5/6gen jets but also 4.5 gen jets.
Click to expand...
They are supposed to be low cost and expendable compared to fighter jets.
If you try Making them larger, more faster, more manurable, more advance and power full avionics, more payload while still maintain stealth, you will basically end up with "unamanned/AI piloted" amca.
And unamanned capability for fighter jets is being developed.

Let's say one manned manned followed by two unmanned amca and 6-8 cats warriors form one singular unit.
 
Bhartiya Sainik said:
Just like some of us have carried laser pointer key-chain, a LD among numerous other systems, today has become something usual now for a combat jet, nothing exotic luxurious OMG stuff.
On UAV/CATS thread i've already said that CATS/MUMT is good system the world is persuing but design of this current Warrior & all other identical UAVs globally are highly inappropriate, very less payload, can't execute high AoA, no afterburner, can't fly supersonic, can't dogfight, will end up as good target practice objects for not only 5/6gen jets but also 4.5 gen jets.
Click to expand...
"On thread i've already said that MUMT is good system the world is persuing but design of this current loyal wingman & all other identical UAVs globally are highly inappropriate, very less payload, can't execute high AoA, no afterburner, can't fly supersonic, can't dogfight, will end up as good target practice objects for not only 5/6gen jets but also 4.5 gen jets"

Opinions needed
<@146682054782877697>"




dunno where they're getting the idea that a design like that wouldn't be able to do high aoa or perform air combat maneuvering
but generally you don't need all of them to do that
not all UCAVs are created equal
some are multirole which means a reduction in capability in one aspect or another
EW/ISR/INT models don't need to do any of that

they would be more focused on endurance

and some a mixture of those

""""Look pretty small for endurance, plus can they keep with faster fighter jets?""""

some can
others don't need to
operationally you just need them to be in front and/or around the controller
that can be achieved with simple launch timing and formations
cruise missiles aren't supersonic either yet they hit targets at the same time as normal missiles


"""""But will larger cca's, with larger payload and speed and more powerful and advanced sensors have any place?
Ones that can use their own radar to lock on to the traget and fire the missile"""""

right now we're not really sure that they would because the whole idea of CCAs are for them to be attritable and mass produced
with that design we would essentially be making an unmanned fighter
and if we're gonna do that it's gonna come with all the bells and whistles

"""""Now that I think about it, aren't all future jetz being made/upgraded to also fly unamanned with AI along with manned flight"""""
optionally manned yeah, it's one thing that's being considered
we can already do it


generally a human boosts machine performance by a lot
it's why CCAs need a human controller, you're pairing their reaction, logic and execution time with a human that can think abstractly as well as assess the situation and dynamically change it
the machines can respond to whatever input they're given but they can't conduct large scale warfare operationally to that level
at least not these machines




The """" """" are the questions I asked and the guy who answer these had a hand in jsf(f35) program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bhartiya Sainik
AHCA (Advanced Heavy Combat Aircraft) concept, 5/5.5/6gen? Su-30MKI replacement? TEDBF 2.0?
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
6K
Bhartiya Sainik
Bhartiya Sainik
johny_baba
ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter
18 19 20
Replies
391
Views
36K
randombully
randombully

Latest Replies

Featured Content

Trending Threads

Share this Site

Back
Top