Lets add +10 yrs to each time frame. This will give most probablistic timelines. No no dont hate me for being realistic. Untill unless we have supply chains ready for major components(Engines, Ejection Seat, HMD&CS) which goes in plane - development is going to be affected by geopolitical, domestic political and armed forces mood swings.
AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft
- Thread starter fire starter
- Start date
Lets add +10 yrs to each time frame. This will give most probablistic timelines. No no dont hate me for being realistic. Untill unless we have supply chains ready for major components(Engines, Ejection Seat, HMD&CS) which goes in plane - development is going to be affected by geopolitical, domestic political and armed forces mood swings.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2024
- Messages
- 490
- Likes
- 1,373
User trials by 2030-33. But metal cutting ceremony already happened, right? It should take 4-5years average to roll out prototype.
BTW, IDK how old is the pic but external pod will destroy the idea of 5th gen. Electronics have become compact enough. We should learn from past mistakes done in 1990s, 2000s, 2010s with all 5th gen jets so far.
It is amazing to see so many entities working on AMCA project but still frustrating to see pace of work.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2024
- Messages
- 1,956
- Likes
- 17,004
AMCA will be inducted and mass produced only around 2040s it seems.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2024
- Messages
- 1,225
- Likes
- 2,607
no doubt but i have taken bets on economy if it rise 7% avg then the rnd and other budgets would also increase accordingly each year
i still feel drdo lacks manpower (in terms of scientists) which the amount of things they produce
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2024
- Messages
- 314
- Likes
- 2,345
Lol, if a war happens before 2030 kiss good bye to it
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2024
- Messages
- 490
- Likes
- 1,373
View: https://x.com/alpha_defense/status/1765992284020170866
Well, we will need more than HD dual band DAS. May be 4K FPA (Focal Plane Array) is required for not just extended range timely detection of adversary jets & weapon launch but ID ground objects & targets also.
If a car's camera can do so much real-time image processing, classification then imagine what a military grade mainframe/super computer onboard can do.
IDK if there is any static model displayed at Aero-India showing DAS, IRST. Just a wind-tunnel model shows them.
Let's hope that AMCA will have a stealthy DAS & IRST.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2024
- Messages
- 54
- Likes
- 360
I think it's very clear at this point & we can safely conclude that subsonic efficiency is more than supersonic efficiency (SuCr/AB).
But now we should take the discussion of fuel/distance/speed efficiency a little further if we want to really come to a decisive conclusion on this topic.
In this discussion of speed/distance efficiency, we kept on stressing on two terms that are supersonic & subsonic.
When an aircraft travels slower than mach 1, it is said to fly at subsonic speeds. E.g, mach 0.6, mach 0.7, mach 0.8 etc.
When an aircraft exceeds mach 1, it is said to fly at supersonic speed. E.g mach 1.2, mach 1.3, mach 1.8 etc.
So one thing we are certain of is this: When aircraft "A" travels at supersonic Speed (any mach value above mach 1, but below mach 5. Mach 5 & beyond is considered as hypersonic speed) and aircraft "B" travels at subsonic speed (anything below mach 1 is considered as subsonic speed) then aircraft "A' is faster than "B", there is no doubt about it here at all.
So my point is, when using the term Supersonic & Subsonic, we are just comparing two speeds of an aircraft.
Point to be noted: In subsonic speed simulation that we may do in our discussion of any aircraft be it civilian or military, we can't go way too low, why? For e.g let's take the example of mach 0.01, is it subsonic speed? yes it is because its less than mach 1 but no fighter aircraft/civilian aircraft will travel at this speed simply because the aircraft will stall at this speed as there won't be enough lift generated by the wings.
So the range of speed that we will use for any mach value in subsonic regime for any plane would be like this.
A number line from X to Y. Where:
X=> Minimum speed the aircraft can travel, any lower and the aircraft will stall. All the numbers between A & B will be mach values.
Y=> Right before Mach 1. Right before Mach 1 is more apt for fighter aircraft because top speed of most civilian airliners cannot cross mach 1. Their top speed is right before Mach 1. One exception is Airbus A380 whose max speed is 1,185 km/h or roughly mach 1.2.
Now we should discuss this. This is what I had brought up in a previous post of mine.
In what kind of a configuration can the absolute maximum ferry range of an aircraft be achieved? This will finally answer the question of efficiency of supersonic vs subsonic. For this we will perform a HFT.
In our hypothetical flight test (HFT) we will use an F-16.
F-16 can travel at both subsonic as well as supersonic speed. As we will use an F-16 for the HFT, we won't need to do the same for other aircraft such as F/A-18, F-22, F-35, Rafale, Su-30, EF-2000, Tejas, Airbus, Boeing, etc because we will come to the same conclusion of Speed/fuel/distance efficiency because all of them are planes at the end of the day. Unless you want to gauge out the specific numbers (e.g, exact range, exact speed, exact drag characteristics etc) that will be a lot more difficult and take a lot of time to do so.
If someone gave me the chance to pilot an F-16 and asked me:
"How would you pilot this aircraft so that you can cover the absolute maximum amount of range?"
Then I would go about the following>
An F-16 is a fighter aircraft, it can carry a variety of payloads ranging from weapons, fuel tanks to sensors.
Please note that the above chart may not be the most accurate, you can find other charts on the internet, mine is rather more generic.
In aerodynamics, any aircraft which carries a lot of payload will be very heavy itself. Heavier the aircraft, more the lift will be required, and to generate more lift, we will need more thrust. When you add more missiles, pods & other external attachments on the aircraft's pylons then not only are you increasing the overall weight of your aircraft, you are also increasing the overall drag. The case would have been different if the F-16 had internal bays to store missiles, bombs internally to deal with the issue of drag but it doesn't. Irrespective of internal carriage, weight will still be added while drag can be taken out of the equation.
The F-16 I will pilot should have no payload like sensor pods weapons, only fuel & drop tanks. I am trying to cut down on as much drag as I possibly can. Yes I will be considering CFTs in the HFT, they will increase drag but not as much as adding AMRAAMs, Sidewinders, Pythons, Rocket pods, ARMs like HARMs etc.
Let's name our F-16 that will use for the HFT as F-16 HFTF. Where HFTAF stands for Hypothetical Flight Test Frame.
Before that I will use three F-16s, lets mark them as F-16 #1, F-16#2, & F-16#3. All three will have the M61A1 Vulcan 6-barrel rotary cannon in them. None will use CFT, and will fly solely on internal fuel.
F-16#1 will carry 6 AIM-120 AMRAAM + targetting pods (any kind, F-16 can carry more than one type).
F-16#2 will carry 4 AIM-9 Sidewinder.
F-16#3 will carry just two AGM-88 HARM.
So which will have the maximum range? It's very simple, it would be F-16#3. Just two AGM-88 on F-16#3 will give less drag & weight than what 6 AIM-120 +Targetting Pod & AIM-9 will give on F-16#1 & F-16#2. More drag & weight for same speed need to be compensated with higher thrust which in result consumes more fuel & at a faster rate.
Now coming to F-16 HFTF.
When piloting the F-16, I will remove out the M61A1 Vulcan 6-barrel rotary cannon to reduce weight, I won't be needing the cannon during this test at all, unless I am going to use it in combat & this HFT won't involve combat at all.
I won't be carrying anything on the pylons with the exception of CFTs which I will ditch/eject as soon as they run out. Because they have no more use to me, rather they impose unnecessary drag and weight on my aircraft which is counterproductive in aerodynamics.
Now let's take a brief look at T/W ratio. Correct me if I am wrong but the T/W ratio of any aircraft improves with time because while the fuel does get depleted, the weight goes down too because the fuel is being used up (fuel weight is also accounted for in T/W) and when the T/W ratio improves, the engine has to generate less thrust to push less weight and when less thrust is used, the rate of depletion of fuel goes down and you can use more fuel over the course of your flight which automatically translates into more range.
And I will fly the F-16 at the minimum speed needed for it to achieve lift. I think you will understand why I am doing this, because fuel consumption increases greatly with speed.
If I used the same F-16 HFTF and travelled at Mach 1 till I ran out of fuel, the range I will cover will still be less than what I would cover if I flew the F-16 HFTF at Mach 0.8 till I ran out of fuel.
I think you will understand why I would choose to fly the F-16 at the absolute minimum speed till I run out of fuel, there is no question of me flying any slower because I will immediately stall and crash.
I think we can finally conclude that not just efficiency of subsonic is better than Supersonic but rather the efficiency of slower speed is better than faster speed!
But I am sure that you will find more satisfactory answers in flight manuals. Flight manual of aircraft like F-16, F-18, F-4, MiG-21, MiG-23 etc are available but not the flight manuals of aircraft like Su-57, J-20, F-22 or F-35. But like I said, using just one aircraft as an example can help us gauge the same conclusion of other planes unless you want to get the specific numbers which is a lot more difficult and involves a lot of calculations.
Feel free to correct me if I may have made a mistake anywhere, this is the best I could come up with after thinking about it for a few days. I am happy to learn from my mistakes.
You mentioned the example of F-22 and SR-71 when speaking of fuel efficiency in terms of distance & economics. Both SR-71 & F-22 are military aircraft. Yes there are always compromises to be made. You will have to compromise between things. You cannot have everything at once.
Now we will have to make the comparison between military and civilian jetliners based on priority when it comes to cost to efficiency.
For military, cost is not a priority but for civilian airlines, cost is a priority. Civillian airlines want to make profit from passengers, and I think the word profit itself answers on whether the fact that efficiency decreases at higher speed is more important to military or civilian airlines.
Sir, I have this habit of apologizing too much to others even when I may not have done anything to offend anyone. Not a lot of people in real-life interact with me, and whenever I get the chance to get into a conversation, I get in but at the same time I stay at their mercy & agree with most of their points even if I may have a differing opinion, in short=> I am desperate to have company of any sorts. Hopefully I will be less of the apologetic kind with time.
You didn't say anything on DFI & neither am I talking about you at all. I was talking about someone else, not you or me. He is a very knowledgeable engineer and he can contribute a lot to our discussion, at my request he has joined the site. I assure you that you will enjoy his presence here because of his tech oriented discussions. I learnt a lot about radars, aircraft, missiles, warships, aerodynamics, turbofan engines etc from him since I first started speaking to him in 2021/22.
Interesting but nowadays I don't watch discovery channel, Discovery science, or any other documentary channels. I mostly depend on my mobile phone for searching about anything such as quora, Reddit, X, YouTube, or forums like this one. And I am sure that in today's modern digital age where almost everyone has access to a smartphone will use that to get any information on a certain topic rather than sit in front of a TV & watch hour long documentaries.
Nice to see you here too, you are the same Bhartiya Sainik from erstwhile DFI, By the way my actual name is "Neil" but you can call me whatever you feel like, "Super Flanker" or "Neil". It's up to you. This is most likely going to be my permanent username on DFB. And my strategy of staying passive need not necessarily mean that I don't actively participate in any given discussion, rather I try and understand what is going in the discussion, and add points that may help all the participants to reach a definitive answer.
- I discuss what I can & not what I cannot.
- I comprehend what I can & ignore what I cannot.
- I don't ignore what I can understand & ignore what I cannot/don't understand.
In the past you said you weren't a fan of PCM during your schooling/college years. In my case, I like mathematics & physics a lot more than chemistry. I dislike chemistry the most out of P,C,M especially OC (Oraganic Chemistry) which goes above my head whenever I try to understand it. I find maths & physics more interesting. That said, I have never hated any subject completely at all, I have always liked/enjoyed some aspects of a subject while disliking other aspects of the subject.I am sure 2 people who don't like advanced maths can discuss well
On a side note, I think we have written a lot of posts about Jet-engines, I do not think that these posts should be on the AMCA Thread at all. @Bhartiya Sainik @scholar of war
- I think we should request the mods to move the necessary posts to this thread:
- Thread 'Understanding Jet Engine Technology' https://defenceforumbharat.com/threads/understanding-jet-engine-technology.403/
- Thank you for opening this thread though @Bhartiya Sainik.
- Also thanks for opening this thread.
- Just another request, please open a thread for J-20 Mighty Dragon, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Su-57/PAKFA too.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2024
- Messages
- 490
- Likes
- 1,373
Mother nature has put limits on exploitable physical aspects but the definition of efficiency will change as per technology evolution, requirement, application, complexity, cost, availability, affordability, etc.
I will still use the words like "Most probably yes", "Apparently yes", etc, bcoz all of us agree on the thermal, mechanical, friction, etc kinds of losses in real world. But for us enthusiasts the situation is like "neither confirm nor deny", until we see a graph plot of speed/distance Vs fuel used which will differ as per airframe design, # of engines, engine model, etc, Civil Vs Civil, Military Vs Military. Like i said, priorities & objectives of Civil Vs Military jets are different.
That's very nice initial approach. F-16 is a very famous, versatile jet with good speed, payload config, only one engine, big exports, used in variety of experiments also.
I guess you want a comparisn of weight b/w ferry config & external weapons config.
In short, it is all the game of thrust Vs drag, lift vs weight from gen-1 > gen-2 > gen-3 > gen-4 > gen-5 > gen-6 > future. Technology evolves, so does onboard components, propulsion technique, airframe design. All these things modify way of attacking/fighting, the priorities & objectives.
1> All 5th gen jets also have ferry config, but ferry config is just to transfer a jet to another location. But Fighter jet performance has to be compared as per war time config.
2> It is not accurate to compare 4th & 5th gen jets as their design priorities & methods are different due to stealth & other characteristiics.
3> 5th gen jet's clean config empty IWB also may have extra weight & is not a straight formula as per payload that 6 AAMs IWB will weigh say 800 Kg to 1,500 Kg, it depends on design how IWB is created in Fuselage. 4th gen jets have advantage to avoid empty IWB weight.
- So whether the IWB is created hanging below the fuselage with closely spaced engines like in f-22, J-20, F-35, AMCA, TFX, KFX, J-31/35?
- or the engines have been separated to created IWB in center of airframe cross section?
4> The CAP (Combat Air Patrol) load of jets may vary as per airframe weight category, generation, etc. AAMs could be 4/6/8.
5> I also said that 4th gen jets have full freedom to use variety of wing config, control surfaces, auxilliary methods to manipulate air flow like strakes, vortex generators, wing fence , etc which cannot be enjoyed by 5th gen needing alternatives.
6> The depleting fuel reducing weight is a point. But different jets carry different internal fuel. At how much fuel % the comparion should be made - 80/60/40%? General compariison are made with 50% fuel & 4-6 AAMs.
7> Spherical coverage of EO-DAS, RF-DAS, MAWS, jammers, EOTS decide situational awareness, 1st look, 1st shot, 1st kill. If AWACS/ISTAR jets are taken out then fighter jet should be capable in stand-alone mode. Hence 5th gen jets make these components compulsary. With time electronics have become very compact, efficient, light. The airframe of 4th gen jet may not accomodate ALL these components, hence creating need for airframe, creating a gen leap.
8> At an engine level also, any gen jets engine can be compared. But same engine in same quantity could be used in 4th & 5th gen jets, still the 2 airframes are difficult to compare. Like 2x F414 used in F-18 E/F cannot be compared to AMCA at all. Gripen using 1 F414, very different than AMCA.
Tejas MWF Vs Gripen, TEDBF Vs Rafale, Future KF-21 with IWB VS AMCA would be very good comparison.
9> F-22 was made with limited AG capability using JDAM & SWB w/o EOTS Vs F-35. However, EOTS doesn't add a panicking weight. F-35 EOTS also performs exact IRST function like that of Russian ones. Now F-22 MLU might include IRST+EOTS pylod-pod. And F-35 is getting AETP-ECU which might allow it to SuCr, let's see.
10> The 6th gen is going to add more compulsary weight due to more powerful variable-cycle engines, more fuel, spherical EO+RF coverage, DEW-CIWS, more EW, etc.
Hence for initial approach we can compare any 2 similar performing jets, but just for initial & superficial understanding.
Civil planes started with Turbo-prop, then came turbojet, then Turbofan. Then SST like Tu-144, Concorde were made whose tickets were very costly only for rich people. Rich people live highly inefficient (luxury) life, but that's their demand. Similarly, Fighter jet & Supercruise only for military, that's their demand.
But R&D going on X-59 quite supersonic flight, variable cycle engines, pre-cooled engines, air-breathing rocket engines, pulse detonation wave engines, etc.
SST will return, evolve into HST if world won't be destroyed by military exploitation & global wars.
That's why i use verifiable pics, graphs, diagrams, links, etc.
Good. I already raised so many queries, still unanswered, awaiting motivated members with patience & simplified presentation skills
for low IQ people like me. 
Yes, that's exactly why i opened those threads on engine & airframe.On a side note, I think we have written a lot of posts about Jet-engines, I do not think that these posts should be on the AMCA Thread at all. @Bhartiya Sainik @scholar of war
Will resume the discussion after the posts are moved to the other thread. Thank you.
- I think we should request the mods to move the necessary posts to this thread:
- Thread 'Understanding Jet Engine Technology' https://defenceforumbharat.com/threads/understanding-jet-engine-technology.403/
- Thank you for opening this thread though @Bhartiya Sainik.
- Also thanks for opening this thread.
- Just another request, please open a thread for J-20 Mighty Dragon, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Su-57/PAKFA too.
What happens is members discuss about airframe like AMCA here - which engine is best for it, which engines we can get due to diplomacy, not get due to geopolitical issues. People guess capabilities of design with existing products.
Otherwise there is nothing much left to discuss about somenthing which neither exists nor the makers reveal much.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2024
- Messages
- 212
- Likes
- 421
Not only. HAL is a lazier company also....
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2024
- Messages
- 1,225
- Likes
- 2,607
Hal has limitations too since its a govt owned org but suppliers play a big part in deliveries not much in rnd though
Developement of AMCA is not being done by HAL but ADA. HAL is just the productionizing agency. Be it HAL /ADA or even pvt enterprises - they can only do little - if lack of aviation/avionics manufacturing enablers retards the progress speed. Actually ADA and defence PSU recruits brightest of lot. I know the kind of research they do, they get readily snapped by BiG names in defence inc for R&D.
There is only little you can do if you do not get tools to do your job. Many bright get frustrated by the same and leave. Some soldier on. Top of all - Their org get managed by pen pushers non technical Buerocrats then thats double whammy.
Case in point lets talk Engines. If India had invested in flying testbeds and more engine testing equipments which folks at GTRE and HAL have been asking for ages TODAY, then we could keep some hope that by 2035 they shall have some form of working engine. Other wise all these dates are sloganeering.
The way the things are - relations with US will go further south, if Demos win. If Repubs win, any deals done with them anyway get trashed by next demo win. US loves the pull every leverage it can to put spanner in works if it can eliminate any remote competition ecen if tiny bit. You as french know better about your close ally. We get even more rough end of the deal than you guys.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2024
- Messages
- 34
- Likes
- 114
I agree Drdo, isro etc. recruit the brightest minds.
I can't name the DRDO lab, the institute or the person's name.
But one of the person I know who works at DRDO got all india rank 5 in gate exam when the competition was at it's peak. He also got gold medal in M.Tech at one of the best IIT.
He got 94 in a subject taught by one of the worst instructor where the class average was 30. His marks were higher than Any UG,PG or PHD student.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2024
- Messages
- 490
- Likes
- 1,373
My college senior who worked on LCA (what exactly IDK) told us about some internal issues 20 years back.
Senior people like Mr. Samjay Sharma resigned recently. They can reveal the problems which they faced. The problems are also highlighted by Youtube channels like "Tarmak Media House" by Dr Anantha Krishnan Muralidharan Nair, Phd in IDK what, journalist, Branding & Corporate Communication Consultant, Communist as per his profile.
Another channel "Bharat Shakti" hosted by journalist Nitin Gokhale shows about private sector companies. He visits & shows their campuses.
Any big project requires all types & levels of professionals. But there are many types of problems in our country - social, political, financial, etc & they start right at early age at school/college level.
> Population explosion, 6+ times in 120 years, unable to get properly absorbed into industries.
> Lack of adequate R&D in any sector. Global data available online.
> Education syllabus updated slowly. Industrial visits & tie ups not there.
> Lack of proper career counseling. Seniors don't come back to school & college to tell how industry is, what kinds of projects are there, how a project is run, what should students learn, etc.
> Bad attitude of laziness, gossiping, backbyting, jealousy, covetous, discouraging, misleading, bootlicking, etc. Some well qualified people, both tech & non-tech, are autocratic in nature having superiority complex. While some are very nice & caring, true leaders.
> MBA fever just after college w/o experience for quick big salary, resulting in greedy & covetous managers just managing login/logout/leaves, questioning & ordering, giving unrealistic deadlines. I have so many PCM toppers among my schoolcollege mates/seniors/juniors who were all-rounders, topped in everything, everywhere, did BE/BTech them MBA then became direct managers in banks or firms doing non-tech jobs, not even semi-tech.
> TV ads have glorified managers far more than staff.
> In IT field for example, most PCM toppers in school,college, office are not interested in coding but just directing. So only PCM grades are not enough.
> Office politics everybody knows, what to say more. There is a modern saying in private sector - "people leave managers, not projects/companies". People like me who don't like PCM are surviving in IT by private courses & certifications by MS, Cisco, creating demand. Otherwise corrupted, jealous, gossiping, backbyting people would be happy to see us dead.
Anyways, let's all do our part here in forums to share what we can, try to make things conceptually understandable so that common citizens can question better what is happening to our income tax & we won't be bullied by anyone saying we don't know or undertand anything.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2024
- Messages
- 12
- Likes
- 7
Hi everyone, new member here...
What we really need to do is reduce the number platforms that we have in the inventory since it's the age of multirole fighters.
Right now we have Mirage, Mig 29, 21, 27 Jaguar, Tejas , Rafale , Su30.
With Tejas mk2 on the way as well.
The number is so high that at this point, that it is laughable.
Having these many platforms creates a huge implication on the logistics for spares and weapons.
We really need to bring this down.
I know it's just wishful thinking but I want Tejas mk2 to replace all the legacy platform, leaving just Tejas mk1A/2, Rafale and Su30 mki with Amca eventually replacing the Su30mki.
And just maybe transfer the Rafales to Navy for their shore based requirements keeping commonality with their Rafale Marine in mind and then induct more Amca and Tejas mk2.
What we really need to do is reduce the number platforms that we have in the inventory since it's the age of multirole fighters.
Right now we have Mirage, Mig 29, 21, 27 Jaguar, Tejas , Rafale , Su30.
With Tejas mk2 on the way as well.
The number is so high that at this point, that it is laughable.
Having these many platforms creates a huge implication on the logistics for spares and weapons.
We really need to bring this down.
I know it's just wishful thinking but I want Tejas mk2 to replace all the legacy platform, leaving just Tejas mk1A/2, Rafale and Su30 mki with Amca eventually replacing the Su30mki.
And just maybe transfer the Rafales to Navy for their shore based requirements keeping commonality with their Rafale Marine in mind and then induct more Amca and Tejas mk2.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2024
- Messages
- 212
- Likes
- 421
You are right : multirole fighters now are able to do several tasks, sometimes in the same mission.
But IAF, as all air force in the world, try to have the same number of multirole bird than old platform before. They will not succeed !
But even if they are multirole, there is a minimum number to have because of the time of overhaul, the number of flying hours each bird can do, and the number of tasks to do at the same time.
Inducing more Amca and Tejas 2 ? The main problem so far is that these 2 birds are only paper projects !
Tejas Mk2 maybe in 6 to 8 years, Amca probably 10.
And as seen with Rafale, or F35 : the first standard are always weak. The multirole aspect is obtained several years after ! Take the South Korean KF-21, a good looking bird, it will be able to perform only limited air to air missions for years.
In Chili the competition between a fully mature Rafale and a young, pretty but young KF21 will be interesting...
See Mirage 2000 in IAF : they are now quite old, with a classical (but powerfull) weapon system (no AESA !) but remain a backbone of the IAF. => Maturity is a quality.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2024
- Messages
- 171
- Likes
- 358
Well said, we need to get rid of those obsolete pieces of junk that we still fly like mig 21, mirage2000 and SEPECAT Jaguar.
I think tejas mk1a alone is enough to replace all 3 of the above.
When we get a lot of mk1a's rolling out, Jaguar and mirage will soon have 0 purpose except checking the quota for nuclear triad by being able to carry nuclear gravity bombs.
AMCA and tejas mk2 could very well easily replace the su30MKIs.
The super sukhoi program should be able to let those jets hang in there until a significant number of AMCA and tejas mk2 could be built, probably by 2035 (generous estimate).
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2024
- Messages
- 12
- Likes
- 7
I am happy for the Tejas mk1A that it is a modern fighter and is being inducted in good numbers and the possibility of upgrading the existing mk1 to m1a standard but still it is an incomplete fighter without Maws and internal spj.
I think F404 is again to blame here as 404 was chosen just for the td phase and not the production version. Afaik Kaveri which was the intended engine was significantly shorter and being forced to use the longer 404s, Tejas was robbed off of its crucial internal volume.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2024
- Messages
- 12
- Likes
- 7
Orca would not have been the right fit as Amca is in the same class, similiar cost, has already been in development for quite some time and will far superior than orca.
What should have been the ideal case-
AF and Navy should have been onboard for Amca af and Amca marine from day one.
For a country like India with limited resources and manpower, 3 projects ie Tejas mk2, Orca and Amca is just plain stupidity.
Also for Navy to have three platforms ie mig 29k, Rafale and Orca all in extremely limited numbers is also beyond comprehension.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2024
- Messages
- 12
- Likes
- 7
Yes Amca and mk2 will be available around 2035, Mk2 a bit earlier than Amca.
So just keep inducting Mk1A and Rafales till then.
What India desperately needs is 120-130kn engine that will be a common engine for Amca and Tejas mk2.
Usaf is able to maintain a massive fleet not just because of funds but also because of massive commonality in avionics, engines and weaponry.
India needs to follow this route as well. I pray that we have a common engine for Amca and Tejas future variants.
Latest Replies
-
Indian Navy Developments & Discussions
- Ayan Barat
-
Tracking Indian Judiciary: News, Updates & Discussions
- silentassassin265
-
Modernisation of Indian Army Infantry
- Ayan Barat
-
Indo US Relations
- Suryavanshi
-
DRDO and PSU's
- Indianhawk
-
Indian Special Forces
- jaijaganath
-
Indian Economy- FalconSlayers
