AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

[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.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

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.

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.
View attachment 25394
View attachment 25395

Even w/o modifying official dimension of IWB, 6 staggered short-fin AAMs can fit.
I hope you didn't miss my post on that.

 

[BHARAT KA BETA]

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.

Absolutely....I completely agree with you....at least 6 hardpoints are required inside the INTERNAL WEAPON BAY...even side mounted weapon bay for small WVR Air to Air missiles can be a good addition.

 

[Migflug]

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.

I think if our AMCA fructifies, we can keep involving it over the next few iterations.At least 2 are already planned, MK1 and MK2. If the need arises, we can have a 3rd one with more powerful engines and larger internal bay/side bays in the 40s.
But the need of the hour is to make a decent 5th as quickly as possible.

 

[AbRaj]

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.

It was what USAF thaught during Viatnam war and got a spectacular ass-whooping by more traditional soviet jets.
iAF has a history of unlearning of their own mistakes, forget about learning from other’s blunders.

PS: If you are a following Indian Armed forces, one thing must be clear by now that Indian Armed Forces are antithesis of Modern Defence forces. Its a chronically primitive organisation that has its own future vision and aims and objectives. They are not here to fight a proactive war and win it. its like a huge MNREGA scheme for social welfare and it works quite well if you look at it in that way.

 

[randombully]

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.

Having two cca/wvr missiles is useful if you somehow find yourself alone against an enemy drone/ fighter at wvr ranges.
The chances of it happening I himalayas are more than plains.

 

[ArjunMK1A]

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.

Bruh. F-22 which enters service in 97 period can carry six in iwb and 2 in swb.

Total 8 mizziles. Coming in 2032 we will have AMCA with just 4 Astra mk3 is joke.

Atleast 6 is benchmark. But we should go for 8 with (6 BVR and 2 WVR).

Otherwise cats warrior max with htfe engine can do the same job if we want 4 mizziles.