AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

[Ayan Barat]

Question ye he ki, iaf do shorter side weapons bay or to lengthen the iwb ki requirement kyu nahi rakh rahi?

01123010400
01123010800

Must have slept by now, connect in morning

 

[Patriots]

1If india can , then install more radars for stealth fighters ,
2. then order more s400 if it can destroy 5g fighter jets ,
3. induct more indigenous sam systems like akash , akash ng , mrsam, vlsrsam , mpdms etc .
4. Upgrade your fighter jets with stand off weapons , like Astra mk3, Astra mk2 ,saaw , tara
5. Upgrade to aesa radar ...
6. 5-6 years , develop and fly amca , there is no way of sitting idle , as china has 5g fighter jets and paf will have soon


Or
Buy russian or americN fighter jets ...in limited numbers just like rafale ..and forget about indigenous jets.

 

[vampyrbladez]

Told you so, HAL shys away from rapid prototyping so we don't see them putting out frames faster. HAL has the capability to put out a flying prototype without the necessary sub system but that's does not fit into HAL Philosophy of manufacturing

So in effect this is a dry run for the AMCA prototype roll out in 2026-2027.

The prototype/'mock up' looks to be an empty composite shell for now.


View: https://x.com/prudhvitej32/status/1891088195900625258

 

[Azaad]

Reading twitter youthiyas and their take one would feel like US would only have 5 and 6 th gen in its inventory by 2040-50.
Same goes for china's 6 th gen, it isn't something that changes the dynamics of Aerospace but it's name is being paraded regardless. Indian twitter youthiyas have a humiliation fetish and so they channel it via their ignorance.

Traditional 4th gen aircraft are here to stay and I don't see then going away till the end of this century. 5 and 6th Gen are blade of the spear they aren't the spear themselves. You still need 4th gen aircraft to do CAP and dominate a semi contested airspace.

Don't think they'd last till the end of the century but definitely so for the foreseeable future which is the next 25-30 years , give or take.

As far as 5th Gen + tech goes - both developmental & mfg tech aren't substantially mature. For eg , the RAM paint is usually applied after every flight . More so if the FA used its reheat aka AFB or even if it super cruises. It's that sensitive . Then it has to be kept in a conditioned environment.

Going ahead you'd see a lot of developments in these & other tech . Once 5th Gen + becomes more maintenance friendly , acceptability will increase.

By all means I see no reason to gaze over tejas, TBDEF, ORCA.

There is such a thing as a 4.5 gen fighter regardless of however inconvenient it sounds.

In our part of the world 4th Gen FA will be relevant for another 30-40 years. I'm not too bothered about Paxtan getting either the J-35 or the KAAN. The latter will be a long way off from being 5th Gen & the former will be an export version of a quasi 5th Gen FA at best .

By the 2030s we'd be fielding Rafales , Mk-1a , Mk-2 & Super Sukhoi upgraded MKIs. More than enough to tackle Paxtan twice over.

The threat here is only China but not many here may agree with me , this time 2033 whatever we'd have to face against China will be over by then , one way or another.

Tejas employs a lot of composites and some form of anti Radar coating is to be used in the future as well, which puts it apart from traditional 4th gen.
But the most ignored aspect of 5th Gen is its electronics and sensor fusion. Indian youthiyas see a plane like that Turkish 5th Gen jet and think it's the end of the world but they never ask what's under the hood. A major focus of HAL has been development of electronics and we have been quite successful at it as well. 4.5 gen will incorporate a decent amount of sensor fusion in it to edge out the gaps between generations.
In fact this has always been our aerospace philosophy. The statement that AMCA, TBDEF Tejas will all share subsystem literally means maximum possible usage of advance 5 th gen tech in all type of air frames.

Agreed.

no more than 30 to 40% of the airforce of any country will 5 th gen.

Agreed.

 

[Spitfire IX]

AMCA now near to death, no hope. Only hope coming from LCA variants.

Why we giving tax, if money going into import.

No hope for MCA Mk1? I thought the the project director just said at Aero 2025 it would fly 2028.

AMCA prototype to be ready by 2026-27, first flight in 2028: Project Director Neeli

India unveils 5.5-generation stealth aircraft at Aero India 2025, showcasing advanced technology and aiming for self-reliance in aerospace.

www.thehindubusinessline.com

 

[Azaad]

And what's Indian school of thought?
So now it's clear that there's this 90% load failure thing and there'd be some redesigning. But still no-one would bother going some extra miles to use this redesigning opportunity to add maybe two Conformal Weapons Bay or increase the dimensions of IWB.
Nope, pita jee ki patlun do bilang to bas do bilang hi chhoti hogi. This is our philosophy

Except for DRDO's missile division, I don't think anyone here even knows the concept of foresight

To begin with the Chinese aren't using brute force to realise their products . They're following the same path of incrementalism though they're less risk averse as opposed to our guys who're more conservative & prefer realising the product substantially .

This is also a function of adequate funds being made available & support from the very top . The post of mine you've quoted from literally cites a GTRE official stating flight tests of the engine commencing immediately after FTB tests in Russia & this was 20 years ago.

Here leave aside FTBs & HATB , GTRE / DRDO's demand for a MKI or a UPG or a LCA has been pending since quite a few years now . That's the Indian school of thought.

Besides that example of AMCA you're citing @
So now it's clear that there's this 90% load failure thing and there'd be some redesigning ,
how're you so sure it is meant for first prototype & not its successors ?

Besides how do you know there'd be no IWB & if that's indeed the case , how are you so sure this wasn't at the express wish of the IAF ? The IAF still clears the CDR before it goes thru for sanction by the CCS doesn't it ?

 

[vampyrbladez]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSPPyK6gWek

 

[Ayan Barat]

Besides how do you know there'd be no IWB & if that's indeed the case , how are you so sure this wasn't at the express wish of the IAF ?

> ASQR for MCA released
> ADA starts working on multiple iteration, all aligned with end user's ask. Some of them had CWB some didn't
> Suddenly CWB vanished from subsequent models

What exactly are we supposed to infer from this? Either IAF initially wanted a 2x CWB + 1x IWB configuration but later downgraded it to just 1x IWB. Or maybe the requirements were just a certain payload in internal bay irrespective of number of IWBs and at some point ADA decided to abandon it because of complexity.

But whatever it was, it's moot to discuss that now. Because now we're looking at it retrospectively knowing China already has atleast four different stealth platforms, this was not the case while the redesigning decision was taken. So be it IAF removing CWB because maybe they wanted a "medium fighter" or ADA doing it for simplicity, it doesn't matter...we simply can't afford to pour in billions for a perfect plane but with just four AAMs when we're literally in a David Vs Goliath fight. It's better to waste an year and few million in "up-gunning" it than to making a surprised Pikachu face after realising you've inducted an already obsolete platform in terms of magazine depth.

Besides that example of AMCA you're citing @
So now it's clear that there's this 90% load failure thing and there'd be some redesigning ,
how're you so sure it is meant for first prototype & not its successors ?

You've a single completed cookie and a cookie cutter. Whatever redesigning, R&D and tweaking we talk about are more concerned with the designing of the cookie cutter and not the cookie itself.

Here also, the good chunk of work would go on things like dies, moulds, jigs and fixtures. So it's irrespective of whether it's the first prototype or the subsequent

 

[Azaad]

> ASQR for MCA released
> ADA starts working on multiple iteration, all aligned with end user's ask. Some of them had CWB some didn't
> Suddenly CWB vanished from subsequent models

What exactly are we supposed to infer from this? Either IAF initially wanted a 2x CWB + 1x IWB configuration but later downgraded it to just 1x IWB. Or maybe the requirements were just a certain payload in internal bay irrespective of number of IWBs and at some point ADA decided to abandon it because of complexity.

But whatever it was, it's moot to discuss that now. Because now we're looking at it retrospectively knowing China already has atleast four different stealth platforms, this was not the case while the redesigning decision was taken. So be it IAF removing CWB because maybe they wanted a "medium fighter" or ADA doing it for simplicity, it doesn't matter...we simply can't afford to pour in billions for a perfect plane but with just four AAMs when we're literally in a David Vs Goliath fight. It's better to waste an year and few million in "up-gunning" it than to making a surprised Pikachu face after realising you've inducted an already obsolete platform in terms of magazine depth.

You've a single completed cookie and a cookie cutter. Whatever redesigning, R&D and tweaking we talk about are more concerned with the designing of the cookie cutter and not the cookie itself.

Here also, the good chunk of work would go on things like dies, moulds, jigs and fixtures. So it's irrespective of whether it's the first prototype or the subsequent

I suggest you go thru the video above your post # 1,101 followed by this one


View: https://www.youtube.com/live/XoY1KbqE_nQ?si=x8wrkZzGD0J8F9uQ

Both address the issues you're raised in the quoted post & your previous posts to an extent.

 

[Corvus Splendens]

we simply can't afford to pour in billions for a perfect plane but with just four AAMs when we're literally in a David Vs Goliath fight. It's better to waste an year and few million in "up-gunning" it than to making a surprised Pikachu face after realising you've inducted an already obsolete platform in terms of magazine depth.

I concur, only 4 AAMs internally is grossly inadequate. They need to hang two more from the bay doors.

Squeeze them a third of the way between the gaps and push the primary drop pylons deeper to let the bay doors close.

And let them hang out from door mounted rails.

Sincerely hoping they take this opportunity to revise the design.

 

[Ayan Barat]

I concur, only 4 AAMs internally is grossly inadequate. They need to hang two more from the bay doors.
View attachment 25386
Squeeze them a third of the way between the gaps and push the primary drop pylons deeper to let the bay doors close.
View attachment 25387
And let them hang out from door mounted rails.
View attachment 25388
Sincerely hoping they take this opportunity to revise the design.

And even before all these, they need to do something with the wings of Astra ASAP.

This R-77-esque wings are grossly inefficient for internal carry

They should either go with stub wings like newer AMRAAMs

Or perhaps the most elegant and advanced solution; modified VL-SRSAM for air-to-air carry


Man! A piece of me does harakiri everything I see those Boeing 777 wings on Astra

 

[Corvus Splendens]

And even before all these, they need to do something with the wings of Astra ASAP.

This R-77-esque wings are grossly inefficient for internal carry
View attachment 25391
They should either go with stub wings like newer AMRAAMs
View attachment 25392
Or perhaps the most elegant and advanced solution; modified VL-SRSAM for air-to-air carry
View attachment 25393

Man! A piece of me does harakiri everything I see those Boeing 777 wings on Astra

Not a hard ask. My gripe is, in none of the official renders we see AAMs with folded fins. Packing 6 BVRAAMS in that bay should be achievable.

 

[Hari Sud]

AMCA has to be speeded up. It has to be removed from Babu control of HAL. Service rules have to be modified to force discipline and accountability.

Either privatize it or bring AMCA development under PMO.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

The USAF is already conducting a program to turn F-16s into an autonomous CCA .

https://www.defensenews.com/air/202...self-flying-f-16s-to-test-drone-wingmen-tech/

Purane kachre pe hi to experiment hota hai, F-22/35 pe thodi
For them that's nothing new except the AI part. Since long they have used their remote controlled jets (just the flying body) as target practice objects & R&D purposes.
But how many nations have that AI progress on a full-scale jet?

In other news much before this development , the USAF hopes to run the F-16s & F-15s in their various iterations upto 2050-60.

> They have global market for their legacy jets & will continue to have it for most lagging nations who can't afford 5gen.
> They designed their 5gen 45 years back, flew them 35 years back, but we'll fly it after few years & induct again after few years when they'll be flying 6gen.
> Their 6gen protorype has already flown secretly & allegedly under re-design after J-36/50 revealed, while we only have 1 line on 6gen roadmap by IAF chief.

So they can use their legacy jets like toys or garbage for as long as they want.
IMO for beyond 2050-60 they'll come up with F-22 successor NGAD & F-35 successor NGAD & F/A-XX + variety of UCAVs replacing their legacy jets.

Not all wars or engagements demand the kind of sophistication that an F-22 , F-35 or a B-21 & their analogues provide. Besides these FAs are supposed to be the tip of the spear . Lesser generations will be needed to comprise the rest of the body of the spear .

Obviously, legacy jets won't be tip of spear bcoz they simply can't be, bcoz they are garbage already from 6gen PoV, worth only for brooming & mopping, hence part of body of spear behind.
And, they need 6gen only for Russia & China. In certain Middle East & other hostile nations, they may not require even 5gen. USA has developed hostility with variety of nations against some their MLUed 4.5gen are enough.
But in our case our 4.5gen jets are result of delays due to corruption, procrastination, ignorance, arrogance. After 1990, 35 years also less to give stealth geometry to MWF & TEDBF.
And China surprised 1st with 5gen J-20/35 but we sat quitely, then with better ones J-36/50. Hence MRFA updated for 5gen jets.

Besides the USAF is haemorrhaging thru its rear maintaining the F-22 & especially the F-35 which is the reason they revised their plans & ordered more F-15s ( don't remember the exact version) recently . Then there's the question of the F-35 not been able to attain FOC which will come only with Block 4 .

> IOC, FOC, MLU are just technically 3 levels w.r.t. time, that's all. So it depends on maker's capabilities. A good quality maker's FOC can be a bad quality maker's MLU.
> Leave FOC, their 2005 F-22 IOC standards are also high for us & 10 years away, that's 30 years gap.
> USA after being capitalist free market economy & leader in many technologies, there are some -ve points & crunches also. The private firms charge as they like. They do get scolding from govt. but govt. has very few choices for a top critical jet tech lke LM, NG, Boeing. Boeing has comercial products to compensate, so LM & NG play the military game with govt.

> And like i said above there will be global market for leagcy jets. The Govt./USAF will get revenue by that.

> Another point which people forget is that continous R&D can result in technical breakthoughs any time.
For example, we have developed Adrishya & NiRaLa RAM paints & RAS materials & claiming them to be very pocket friendly & less maintenance. And USA is like 30-40 years ahead. So F-22 & F-35 might have been costly but with B-21 they are claiming unparalled stealth in an economicla way.
So it is still possible that NGAD might turn out to be economical as well.

> I've always repeated that gen leap is said to have occured when MLU is not possible or very costly or just inappropriate. That could be case with F-22 & F-35 entire skin if changed with NGAD skin. Similar case with other components & MLU.

> I've also repeated that F-35 is like an intentional blunder due to international JSF vs F-22 export ban.

So our AMCA should not be costly like F-22/35.
And if we can make stealthy AMWF then it can become very economical, otherwise there could be Su-75 import tender.

All this costs a ton of money . If thIs is the plight of the USAF you can well imagine what the other air forces across the world would be facing even if their forces are a fraction of the size of the USAF.

I've explained this many times that overall situation of a country depends on geography, geopolitics, economic model, education, trade, currency value, global competency & ranking, R&D, etc. So IAF Vs USAF comparison on 4/5/6gen can't be done either ways.
But like i said above about tech breakthoughs, that our RAM, RAS & other components are claimed to be pocket & maintenance friendly. Same thing for them.

I'm dead sure they'd be re looking their plans in the next couple of years to procure 2000+ F-35s . To think the original plan was to replace all the F-15s F-16s & F-18s with the F-35s by the 2030s. It's just not feasible .

If they do that the test of the programs suffer not to mention supplementary warfare platforms like drones , counter drones , CCAs LMs , etc all of which are / will be vital components of a modern Air Force.

Again i said long back that USAF will 1 day become UCAV-AF but transition will take 1 gen. So legacy jets will get replaced by F-35, less costly NGAD version & system of variety of UCAVs.


I hope people will keep all these points in mind before comparing economy & military of India & USA again.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Mere hisab se agar iaf requirement rakhegi tabhi hoga, seeing how things work.
Question ye he ki, iaf do shorter side weapons bay or to lengthen the iwb ki requirement kyu nahi rakh rahi?

This model of IAF initiating requirement/RFI/RFP is clearly not working properly. What more evidence is required? IAF is just an operator. The requirement has to come looking at global tech advancements. If USA looked at its neighbors for requirements, they would have remained little better than south American countries.

 

[randombully]

This model of IAF initiating requirement/RFI/RFP is clearly not working properly. What more evidence is required? IAF is just an operator. The requirement has to come looking at global tech advancements. If USA looked at its neighbors for requirements, they would have remained little better than south American countries.

I would love to Go and tell the iaf that this model Is not working.
But unfortunately right now this model is the one in place, iaf will need put the requirements of side bays for it to be incorporated

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

I would love to Go and tell the iaf that this model Is not working.
But unfortunately right now this model is the one in place, iaf will need put the requirements of side bays for it to be incorporated

I support you on that but it would be a big new "tamasha" b/w IAF, ADA, DRDO & HAL. In past the ADA & HAL have already accused IAF of changing requirement many times fast. Similar thing for other wings of army & navy.

 

[Migflug]

I concur, only 4 AAMs internally is grossly inadequate. They need to hang two more from the bay doors.
View attachment 25386
Squeeze them a third of the way between the gaps and push the primary drop pylons deeper to let the bay doors close.
View attachment 25387
And let them hang out from door mounted rails.
View attachment 25388
Sincerely hoping they take this opportunity to revise the design.

In the latest Indigenization Appreciation Hour with Saurav Jha, it was hinted that a large weapons bay was not a priority due to the changing nature of the battlefield. Now we have a more integrated battle arena, wingmen, etc and since no system is standalone, the large internal bay with 2 extra side bays does not make any large difference.

 

[Spacemarine]

To be fair AMCA when put in service will hardly be matching current F-35 A’s capabilities its good to have local fighters to put in numbers but still that time is more than a decade away, if India starts seriously thinking to take up Trump offer lets go for couple of squadrons off the shelf and +2 option …

If we decide to go ahead and something if finalised by the time Trump visits for QUAD we might get one starting from 2028 end or 2029

 

[Anants]

In the latest Indigenization Appreciation Hour with Saurav Jha, it was hinted that a large weapons bay was not a priority due to the changing nature of the battlefield. Now we have a more integrated battle arena, wingmen, etc and since no system is standalone, the large internal bay with 2 extra side bays does not make any large difference.

When were our forces so advanced in thinking? This decision is going to force them back to drawing boards and a point for future Airforce chiefs to criticize HAL/ADA on. Infact deep IWB allows for more future armaments and attachments. Thats precisely why modern designs be it from US, Russia or China all have large IWB's . Wingmen have to go long way in reaching usability in contested scenario. It requires quite advancement in Inference AI. ADA is repeating same mistakes of Marut, Tejas, Kaveri - Taking on lofty goals which it will take eons to achieve, forcing IAF to flog their old horses.