AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

[SKC]

Poor @SKC when he wakes up
View attachment 24991

 

[Ayan Barat]

Daaayum! So much chatter going on about LWs and it seems even the basic concept is somehow misunderstood.

We as human wants things to do everything with equal effectiveness but because of all the constraints of physics, especially that damned SWaP we are forced to compromise by focusing on some core competencies and letting others get degraded.

Infact the whole paradigm of weapons design is a compromise. In snipers you get accuracy and long range but lose volume of fire. In submarines you get unprecedented stealth but lose air defence. In F-35 you get one the most sophisticated aircraft in terms of sensors and processor but lose magazine depth.

Every single thing is designed to address one or two specific requirements. So the question is; what exactly is a Loyal Wingman supposed to bring on the table?
Low cost and attrition rate, PERIOD.
No maneuverability, no aerodynamic, no heebie jeebie...

• Australian AF has invested around $620M for 13 Ghost Bat, including R&D cost. Per unit cost comes to around $48M.
• F-35, after full rate production of more than 1,000 and an order book of around 2,500 more is still around $82M.
• This price is even lower than some HALE drones.

Now coming to attrition. Loyal Wingman project is perhaps the first large scale military project where one of the primary requirements is to have a dark factory. Absolute automation in manufacturing and a manufacturing rate so high that it can out-match the attrition rate of a LSCO.

Another important point; dogfight has become obsolete. If you're in the visual range of an enemy fighter then it means you've already broken some RoEs or have already done multiple mistakes. Unless an untill we develop an airframe (I guess we've had a long discussion about it) that can sustain maneuverability beyond the yield strength of current aircraft and more importantly, the human pilot...dog fight is not returning for LSCO. At max, it'd be limited to just shooting down CMs and LMs like we've seen in Ukraine because of the cost advantage.

Perhaps the best possible definition of a Loyal Wingman that I can come up with would be "Splitting a Su-30MkI/F-15"
You take a traditional two seater fighter in which you've a pilot and a WSO sharing the workload and split it into three separate planes; with a manned stealth fighter being the "pilot" and an onboard AI being the "WSO" controlling two UAVs.
A Hypothetical Multi-Domain Operation Against a Near-Peer Adversary

> Mission Objective: A joint strike package consisting of 4x manned stealth fighter (Spear) and 8x Loyal Wingman (Bug) is deployed to neutralize ADS, eliminate HVTs, engage enemy fighters in case retaliated and conduct real-time ISR in contested airspace.

> Loadout: Spear1 and 3 purely AD with 6x BVR-AAMs and 2x WVR-AAMs each. Spear2 and 4 are multirole with 2x BVR-AAMs, 2x 1000lbs and 2x WVR-AAMs.
Bug1 has SAR and multi-spectral sensor, Bug2 - 3 carry EW payload, Bug4 - 5 has 4x SDB with PRH seeker and Bug6 - 8 with 2x BVR-AAMs each.

> Formation: Bug1 leading a box with Spear1 being the box man, Bug2 and Bug4 being number 2 and 3. Trailing them is Spear2 with Bug3 and Bug5 in an inverted Vic. Followed by Spear4 with Bug6 - 8 dispersed around it at different altitude and separation. At the very rear and maximum ceiling is Spear3 providing overwatch.

> Phase 1: Ingress & Reconnaissance
Bug1 is way ahead of the package acting as scout and doing ISR with EW support from Bug2. Primary mission is to map all SAM emissions and jam them in case fired upon. Any surprise bogie would be dealt by Spear1.

> Phase 2: SEAD
Once mapped, Bug4 will engage radars with SDBs.

> Phase 3: Ground Attack
Spear2 would use it's PGMs to neutralize HVTs like C2 centres or runaways. Bug3 and 5 would deal with any remaining radar.

> Phase 4: Anti-Air
At this point, sufficient enemy aircraft would have been scrambled. Spear4's primary objectives would be to provide the offensive air capability with 3x LWs at its disposal armed with BVR-AAMs. The primary objective of these three would be just "absorbing" enemy fire while acting as a stand-off missile truck for the actual manned fighters. Secondary objective of this package would be ground attack in case Spear2 is not affirmative about neutralization.

> Phase 5: Egress
After contact is made, Spear4 will ensure the successful egress of all the manned fighters acting as both the anti-air commander and a mini AWACS.

> Phase 6: Post Mission
Bug1 would be the last to leave the airspace even if it means losing it. By staying it'll provide persistent ISR and also the primary BDA data.

This is the realistic scenario in which Loyal Wingman would be used instead of whatever...

 

[randombully]

Australian AF has invested around $620M for 13 Ghost Bat, including R&D cost. Per unit cost comes to around $48M.

That $48M also includes development cost, without it those 13 will be even cheaper.

Australians are actual targeting bringing the cost down to 10M per peice.

We can probably bring the cost of CATS warrior to 5-8 million per peice.
Not to mention Harsh Vardhan Thakur stated in recent interview that CATS warrior cost same as a "surface to surface missile".

 

[Azaad]

That $48M also includes development cost, without it those 13 will be even cheaper.

Australians are actual targeting bringing the cost down to 10M per peice.

We can probably bring the cost of CATS warrior to 5-8 million per peice.
Not to mention Harsh Vardhan Thakur stated in recent interview that CATS warrior cost same as a "surface to surface missile".

Development & mfg in India as compared to Australia is definitely cheaper . If the Aussies are targeting a 10 million USD price tag we should be targeting a price tag at least a third of it.

 

[randombully]

Development & mfg in India as compared to Australia is definitely cheaper . If the Aussies are targeting a 10 million USD price tag we should be targeting a price tag at least a third of it.

The cheapness decreases as product gets more technologically advanced.

For example.
If we had same industry as US, then if we produce the f35 with same rate and order as US we can do it 25-30% max 40% cheaper.
We can't do it as 1/3 the cost.

So for loyal wingman 5-8 million per peice is reasonable assumption.

You can also look at tejasmk1a 40-45 million per peice for the order of 87
If USA was producing it, it would have costed 60-70 million per peice for 87, but not 135million per peice( 3 times the price).

 

[Azaad]

The cheapness decreases as product gets more technologically advanced.

For example.
If we had same industry as US, then if we produce the f35 with same rate and order as US we can do it 25-30% max 40% cheaper.
We can't do it as 1/3 the cost.

So for loyal wingman 5-8 million per peice is reasonable assumption.

You can also look at tejasmk1a 40-45 million per peice for the order of 87
If USA was producing it, it would have costed 60-70 million per peice for 87, but not 135million per peice( 3 times the price).

The reason I gave that particular price point is coz this is a low tech system where practically all the sub systems down to components / sub component levels can be sourced from within the country plus mfg would be in bulk quantities or at least it should be so given the operating philosophy of these systems.

Not true about the LCA program or any such program with higher degrees of sophistication in technology. As you climb up the value chain the price becomes directly proportional to the value. Obviously quantities also matter in deciding the price point in such cases

 

[randombully]

The reason I gave that particular price point is coz this is a low tech system where practically all the sub systems down to components / sub component levels can be sourced from within the country plus mfg would be in bulk quantities or at least it should be so given the operating philosophy of these systems.

Not true about the LCA program or any such program with higher degrees of sophistication in technology. As you climb up the value chain the price becomes directly proportional to the value.

Nothing except dumb bombs can be considered low tech in airforce.
For example let's take astra mk1 air to air missile, it's 30+% cheaper compared to other air to air missiles of same category
And relatively astra mk1 is low tech compared to warrior.

And with more order cost of astra can be brought down to 500k from current 700k dollars per unit,but that's the limit.
Even With high orders aim 120c will be in 800k-900k price range.
So at most with similar order and production rate we can make astra mk1 30-40% cheaper than it's contemporary american missiles, but that's thd limit we can't go 1/3 the price of american missiles for astra.

 

[vicky]

Post from Tarmak Media House #TMH

This is possibly the first image or model of India's #AMCA seen outside an exhibition area or lab, engaged in real development activities. Here, #AMCA is at ...

youtube.com

This is possibly the first image or model of India's #AMCA seen outside an exhibition area or lab, engaged in real development activities.Here, #AMCA is at #DRDO National Test Facility -- the Aeronautical Test Range (#ATR) in Challakere, near Chitradurga, Karnataka.In this undated image, an #AMCA scale model is undergoing testing at the ATR facility, under the command of the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE).

 

[randombully]

Daaayum! So much chatter going on about LWs and it seems even the basic concept is somehow misunderstood.

We as human wants things to do everything with equal effectiveness but because of all the constraints of physics, especially that damned SWaP we are forced to compromise by focusing on some core competencies and letting others get degraded.

Infact the whole paradigm of weapons design is a compromise. In snipers you get accuracy and long range but lose volume of fire. In submarines you get unprecedented stealth but lose air defence. In F-35 you get one the most sophisticated aircraft in terms of sensors and processor but lose magazine depth.

Every single thing is designed to address one or two specific requirements. So the question is; what exactly is a Loyal Wingman supposed to bring on the table?
Low cost and attrition rate, PERIOD.
No maneuverability, no aerodynamic, no heebie jeebie...

• Australian AF has invested around $620M for 13 Ghost Bat, including R&D cost. Per unit cost comes to around $48M.
• F-35, after full rate production of more than 1,000 and an order book of around 2,500 more is still around $82M.
• This price is even lower than some HALE drones.

Now coming to attrition. Loyal Wingman project is perhaps the first large scale military project where one of the primary requirements is to have a dark factory. Absolute automation in manufacturing and a manufacturing rate so high that it can out-match the attrition rate of a LSCO.

Another important point; dogfight has become obsolete. If you're in the visual range of an enemy fighter then it means you've already broken some RoEs or have already done multiple mistakes. Unless an untill we develop an airframe (I guess we've had a long discussion about it) that can sustain maneuverability beyond the yield strength of current aircraft and more importantly, the human pilot...dog fight is not returning for LSCO. At max, it'd be limited to just shooting down CMs and LMs like we've seen in Ukraine because of the cost advantage.

Perhaps the best possible definition of a Loyal Wingman that I can come up with would be "Splitting a Su-30MkI/F-15"
You take a traditional two seater fighter in which you've a pilot and a WSO sharing the workload and split it into three separate planes; with a manned stealth fighter being the "pilot" and an onboard AI being the "WSO" controlling two UAVs.
A Hypothetical Multi-Domain Operation Against a Near-Peer Adversary

> Mission Objective: A joint strike package consisting of 4x manned stealth fighter (Spear) and 8x Loyal Wingman (Bug) is deployed to neutralize ADS, eliminate HVTs, engage enemy fighters in case retaliated and conduct real-time ISR in contested airspace.

> Loadout: Spear1 and 3 purely AD with 6x BVR-AAMs and 2x WVR-AAMs each. Spear2 and 4 are multirole with 2x BVR-AAMs, 2x 1000lbs and 2x WVR-AAMs.
Bug1 has SAR and multi-spectral sensor, Bug2 - 3 carry EW payload, Bug4 - 5 has 4x SDB with PRH seeker and Bug6 - 8 with 2x BVR-AAMs each.

> Formation: Bug1 leading a box with Spear1 being the box man, Bug2 and Bug4 being number 2 and 3. Trailing them is Spear2 with Bug3 and Bug5 in an inverted Vic. Followed by Spear4 with Bug6 - 8 dispersed around it at different altitude and separation. At the very rear and maximum ceiling is Spear3 providing overwatch.

> Phase 1: Ingress & Reconnaissance
Bug1 is way ahead of the package acting as scout and doing ISR with EW support from Bug2. Primary mission is to map all SAM emissions and jam them in case fired upon. Any surprise bogie would be dealt by Spear1.

> Phase 2: SEAD
Once mapped, Bug4 will engage radars with SDBs.

> Phase 3: Ground Attack
Spear2 would use it's PGMs to neutralize HVTs like C2 centres or runaways. Bug3 and 5 would deal with any remaining radar.

> Phase 4: Anti-Air
At this point, sufficient enemy aircraft would have been scrambled. Spear4's primary objectives would be to provide the offensive air capability with 3x LWs at its disposal armed with BVR-AAMs. The primary objective of these three would be just "absorbing" enemy fire while acting as a stand-off missile truck for the actual manned fighters. Secondary objective of this package would be ground attack in case Spear2 is not affirmative about neutralization.

> Phase 5: Egress
After contact is made, Spear4 will ensure the successful egress of all the manned fighters acting as both the anti-air commander and a mini AWACS.

> Phase 6: Post Mission
Bug1 would be the last to leave the airspace even if it means losing it. By staying it'll provide persistent ISR and also the primary BDA data.

This is the realistic scenario in which Loyal Wingman would be used instead of whatever...
[/QUOTE]
What about swift and ghatak?
Will they be used separately for ISR and stealth tactical bombing missions.
Or for example ghatak also can be used as higher end loyal wingman.

 

[Ayan Barat]

What about swift and ghatak?
Will they be used separately for ISR and stealth tactical bombing missions.
Or for example ghatak also can be used as higher end loyal wingman.

Just ignore SWiFT, it's not a "real" plane. The only way it can ever see combat is if we're in a dire situation of war and we need everything we can.

Making a weapon is a multistage process that starts from problem recognition and eds with the feedback of lifecycle support process. If not done properly then this whole process can get so long that at the point your first prototype rolls out, the requirements on which you're manufacturing it has already gone obsolete.

We're filled with examples of this
• In 1970s, there was a GSQR to develop a MBT with a rifled gun and that time rifled guns were considered better because multi-axis stabilization was in its infancy and rifling gave sniper like accuracy. In 2025 when we'd be receiving the latest Mk-1As then also they would be having a rifled gun when in this 50 years period everyone else has pretty moved to a smooth-bore.
• I've discussed in detail this same issue with LCH Prachand
• This was pretty much the exact case with Tejas, forcing us to expedite the development of improved Mk-1A.
• JVPC was developed on a 2002 GSQR, when SCHV PDWs were the hottest thing in the market and it was cleared for adoption in 2020. And in this two decades of time the whole concept of PDW itself became obsolete.

It's not something related to us or just defence & aerospace, every single industry in manufacturing, even computer softwares faces this challenge. But there are two distinct ways of dealing with this problem. The Western school of thought focuses on overmatch and tries to address the challenges that might arise in future; so even if their developmental process goes out of schedule then also the product is not that obsolete. The Chinese school of thought is using brute force to shorten this developmental cycle to unimaginable level; today USAF tests a new hypersonic missile and in mere 10-15 months PLAF would have a prototype ready.

Enough of a tangent, let's come back to Ghatak. Ghatak started as AURA in 2009; the sake time period when everyone was playing with this concept...Taranis, nEUROn, X-45; a small, stealth, UCAV "bomber" that'll be used in either of these two scenarios. One, it'll go undetected into enemy territory and drop a bomb to take out the terrorist leader during a COIN operation and even if it's downed by enemy air-defence then also it's just a drone. Second, in case of a LSCO it'll form the first wave of attack that'll degrade enemy air-defence so that the following waves of conventional manned fighters can operated with ease.

The problem with Ghatak is that it can definitely be used as a Loyal Wingman but in the current configuration it's still aligning more with that old doctrine. It'll need considerable modification like onboard radar, better engine, cost reduction measures to be a Loyal Wingman.

 

[randombully]

Just ignore SWiFT, it's not a "real" plane. The only way it can ever see combat is if we're in a dire situation of war and we need everything we can.

Making a weapon is a multistage process that starts from problem recognition and eds with the feedback of lifecycle support process. If not done properly then this whole process can get so long that at the point your first prototype rolls out, the requirements on which you're manufacturing it has already gone obsolete.

We're filled with examples of this
• In 1970s, there was a GSQR to develop a MBT with a rifled gun and that time rifled guns were considered better because multi-axis stabilization was in its infancy and rifling gave sniper like accuracy. In 2025 when we'd be receiving the latest Mk-1As then also they would be having a rifled gun when in this 50 years period everyone else has pretty moved to a smooth-bore.
• I've discussed in detail this same issue with LCH Prachand
• This was pretty much the exact case with Tejas, forcing us to expedite the development of improved Mk-1A.
• JVPC was developed on a 2002 GSQR, when SCHV PDWs were the hottest thing in the market and it was cleared for adoption in 2020. And in this two decades of time the whole concept of PDW itself became obsolete.

It's not something related to us or just defence & aerospace, every single industry in manufacturing, even computer softwares faces this challenge. But there are two distinct ways of dealing with this problem. The Western school of thought focuses on overmatch and tries to address the challenges that might arise in future; so even if their developmental process goes out of schedule then also the product is not that obsolete. The Chinese school of thought is using brute force to shorten this developmental cycle to unimaginable level; today USAF tests a new hypersonic missile and in mere 10-15 months PLAF would have a prototype ready.

Enough of a tangent, let's come back to Ghatak. Ghatak started as AURA in 2009; the sake time period when everyone was playing with this concept...Taranis, nEUROn, X-45; a small, stealth, UCAV "bomber" that'll be used in either of these two scenarios. One, it'll go undetected into enemy territory and drop a bomb to take out the terrorist leader during a COIN operation and even if it's downed by enemy air-defence then also it's just a drone. Second, in case of a LSCO it'll form the first wave of attack that'll degrade enemy air-defence so that the following waves of conventional manned fighters can operated with ease.

The problem with Ghatak is that it can definitely be used as a Loyal Wingman but in the current configuration it's still aligning more with that old doctrine. It'll need considerable modification like onboard radar, better engine, cost reduction measures to be a Loyal Wingman.

We probably should, though I do think dry Kaveri with 48kn should be enough, given that ghatak will have 10-13 tons mtow
Russian okhotnic is basically intended as a high end cca for su57, France announced similar plans for neuron recently.
Plus more AI autonomy in future for it just like other cheaper cca's.
Because in its current configuration it seems underutilization of its potential to restrict it as a small tactical stealth bomber.

 

[Spitfire IX]

May not prove to be true but indiandefenceupdates claims that GTRE will soon make its recommendation for AMCA engine co-development partner. Apparently Safran offers limited IP transfer while RR offers complete IP transfer. That makes RR the more likely recommendation, I presume.

A query regarding the time required to jump over the bureaucratic hurdles involved: once GTRE passes on its recommendation, how long would it take to receive the go ahead from CCS? I hope that the proposed engine project will not come to nothing because GOI cannot stomach the bill involved.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhKAQbAdUUQ

 

[randombully]

May not prove to be true but indiandefenceupdates claims that GTRE will soon make its recommendation for AMCA engine co-development partner. Apparently Safran offers limited IP transfer while RR offers complete IP transfer. That makes RR the more likely recommendation, I presume.

A query regarding the time required to jump over the bureaucratic hurdles involved: once GTRE passes on its recommendation, how long would it take to receive the go ahead from CCS? I hope that the proposed engine project will not come to nothing because GOI cannot stomach the bill involved.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhKAQbAdUUQ

One official also said In aero india that jv decision will be taken by the end of this year

 

[Asmodeus]

D*mb <REDACTED> dissing the AMCA have been watching lot of clickbait media, and then take out their fustration on ADA..


View: https://youtu.be/yTflOvReuDY?si=W_XF9tA6PAVEIOde

 

[fire starter]

View: https://x.com/alpha_defense/status/1890219848149659878?t=uIt-2OlmGEJT1Md7C79PcA&s=19

 

[pipebomb]

AMCA can work even with a relatively small 1.5 ton IWB if ADA can incorporate 2 separate mini compartments for WVR missiles. 2 WVR missile should be mandatory given AMCA doesn't have a gun. A separate compartment will free IWB for mission specific load out

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Last 2 days of Aero-India.
Someone please ask about 2 cylindrical external pods along with EOTS.
Are they jammer or DEW pods?
Why not stealthy hexagonal shaping?
Even if the enemy on ground in low intensity area cannot fire up, the RCS could be visible to enemy jet in air beyond 50-100 Kms & possible incoming missiles. Overconfidence can lead to disaster. We can't assume our strategies idealistically that only we can surprise enemy & they can't, when they are already ahead & have surprised the world with mutiple better weapons.
IAF saying on news this "chalta hai" attitude has to stop.
Also ask about 6 staggered short-fin AAMs in IWB instead of 4 big-fin AAMs.

 

[Asmodeus]

they can't, when they are already ahead & have surprised the world with mutiple better weapons.

Who they?? Chinkies haven't suprised anyone. Infact they should be near par with US given their economy and control over which domain to prioritise in funds. Porks have suprised themselves rather than the world..

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

AMCA can work even with a relatively small 1.5 ton IWB if ADA can incorporate 2 separate mini compartments for WVR missiles. 2 WVR missile should be mandatory given AMCA doesn't have a gun. A separate compartment will free IWB for mission specific load out

This should also be asked to the program heads.
If IWB has only 4 AAMs & no SWB then only 2 big-fin BVR-AAMs + 2 CCMs can fit.
It shows again a "chalta hai" attitude, assuming 100% PK & enemy would not have tactics & countermeasures.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Who they?? Chinkies haven't suprised anyone. Infact they should be near par with US given their economy and control over which domain to prioritise in funds. Porks have suprised themselves rather than the world..

China is aiming to be at par with USA & they will 1 day within our lifetime. Americans are not aliens or helped by aliens at Area-51 but they are determined, management oriented people. Either they do or get things done by others. Unfortunately they aren't very trust-worthy yet.
I work in international MNC environment, Humans are same everywhere. So I'm not 1 of those people who reflexively ignore & belittle adversaries & think only we are best when our products actually lag. China makes cheap crap for world but not for themselves. J-20, J-35, J-36, J-50, Dark Sword UCAV, etc are not cola cans.