IMO we should go for Naval AMCA instead of TEDBF
View: https://x.com/prudhvitej32/status/1893007209719832781
IAF would get 200+ AMCA (Reported by ANI)
Navy wants 145 for it's 3 carriers
So if we go with Naval AMCA instead of TEDBF we can have 345 AMCA in TOTO
So production rate would be 36 jets/year
18 jets/year by HAL & 18 jets/year by Pvt line
Those 15,000 Cr for TEDBF Development can be used to develop 120 Kn engine for AMCA
Unit cost of AMCA would go down too....
AMCA for anti ship role can have 4 x Sea breaker in it's IWB
Sea breaker fits perfectly in AMCA IWB capacity (1.6 Tons)
4 x 400 kg Sea breaker = 1600 Kg
View attachment 40353
Navy too wants 5th gen TEDBF & IMO it will be hard for current 4.5 gen tedbf to face chinese 5 th gen Naval fighter's in future....bcoz of our current ski jump aircraft carriers fuel carrying capacity of AMCA will be affected and we might see decreased range
Internal anti ship cruise missiles can reduce drag too so Naval amca would have more range than TEDBF
Currently Government is struggling to get pvt players(private production line) for AMCA program
Let's take Unit cost of each AMCA as 150 Mn so 345 AMCA's would need 52 Bn & 26 Bn would go to private players if they agree for pvt production line.....
26 Bn will attract pvt players
Only risk is
View: https://x.com/Firezstarter1/status/1893058480581259558
Imagine having 345 AMCA's in service
View attachment 40357
AMCA can have 6 x Ground attack missiles in single sortie (2 x Rudram-3 externally and 4 x Sea breaker internally).
1 risky move so we get two benefits....This move is absolute death to fifth gen imports (su57 & f35) and 120 Kn engine problem
Production starting from 2034 and continues till 2044, By 2034 our GDP would be will be 10 Tn and defence budget would be 200-250 Bn so 52 Bn wouldn't trouble much