AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

[randombully]

Y-code, frequency hopping, redundant INS...you've multiple ways of dealing with GPS jamming-spoofing instead of staying above an airspace for an extended period, that too close to the target to illuminate it.

Don't take it from me; just look at the trend in PGMs during the last 5 years and also the next 5.
You'll see how more and more of the larger munitions are ditching SAL for things like IIR. SAL is now predominantly used only in smaller munitions like ATGMs, SDBs and UAV-dropped bombs...basically for things designated as LVTs.

Fair point.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

I never tell to follow countries - USA, Russia, EU, etc. Follow technology no matter who does it 1st.
A future jet, manned or unmanned, need true RF+EO spherical coverage with zero blind spots. And multi-role capability has become a usual thing.

Some ground radars are rotating to give 360 degree coverage, some are fixed with 3-4 antennas.
Same thing with EO-DAS/IRST principle.
FLIR, DLIR, LDP were dedicated H/w components. Now they have become functions fused into same H/w.
DAS sensors are fixed, can perform FLIR/DLIR/ULIR/RLIR/LLIR/BLIR + IRST + MAWS.
EOTS components are on gimbal, can perform FLIR/DLIR/RLIR/LLIR/BLIR + LDP + IRST.
Su-35/57 & MiG-35 IRSTs have big blind spots in lower hemisphere at higher altitudes due to nose if their forward-lower DAS don't perform IRST role also. Otherwise ok.
Similarly F-35's EOTS cannot sweep upper hemisphere at lower altitudes due to nose, so its fixed forward-upper DAS must do it.

Not deviating but, Kaan will have EOTS + stealthy upper IRST + DAS + LWR + stealthy DIRCM.
View attachment 24845

J-20 might upgrade with DIRCM.
A complete J-35 with all these components can roll out any time.
K-21 future models might catch up.
So AMCA cannot afford to lag behind.

High jamming environment, gps/navic spoofing

I forgot to add that all types of weapon guidance & their counter-measures are relevant in different situations. That's why all major nations are making all of them for weapons & launching platforms, including India.
- Active/Passive RF, home on jam Vs RWR, jamming, decoys, active cancellation, etc.
- Passive IIR Vs DIRCM, thermal camo.
- LGB Vs LWR, smoke screen.

And most weapons are coming now with combo/subset of SatCom, INS, GPS, TERCOM, etc for mid-course phase.

RAM, Thermal camouflage paints, cloth, etc have been developed by various nations incl. India.

BAe has even made active adaptive IR camouflage.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzpVkhm-Otk


No matter what seeker type the weapon uses, VShoRADS (in general), APS (Active Protection System), ground-DEW, even micro-missiles are developed by DRDO also.

Smoke-screen grenades, canisters against laser are short-lived. Fuel injected smoke producing agents also rely on wind, highly unreliable actually.


To engage certain moving vehicles, buildings & structures, in natural terrain & urban areas, Laser guidance is best suited where RF, IR, GPS guidance are inappropriate or sub-optimal.
A target with RF+IR camo is immune to RF/IR seekers.
Sometimes a target area/object might be impossible to access or too risky, too deep/far, too time-taking to reach by troops for laser illumination, hence LDPs were designed & now fused with IRST to become EOTS.

EOTS = IRST + LD. Removing LD will make it simply IRST. But F-35, J-20, J-35, Kaan are going for it.

When F-22 & F-35 have retractable chaff/flare/decoy launchers/doors, DAS already conformal, then 6gen might have retractable or conformal EOTS, DIRCM, DEW to maintain RCS.

So b/w all types of multi-spectral seeker Vs target in different situation, it is an eternal Tom & Jerry game, Sword Vs Shield.
There cannot be any gap on either side or the other side will take advantage & succeed.
The best combat jet, manned or unmanned needs to be prepared to attack & defend, in comprehensive or modular ways.

 

[randombully]

I forgot to add that all types of weapon guidance & their counter-measures are relevant in different situations. That's why all major nations are making all of them for weapons & launching platforms, including India.
- Active/Passive RF, home on jam Vs RWR, jamming, decoys, active cancellation, etc.
- Passive IIR Vs DIRCM, thermal camo.
- LGB Vs LWR, smoke screen.

And most weapons are coming now with combo/subset of SatCom, INS, GPS, TERCOM, etc for mid-course phase.

RAM, Thermal camouflage paints, cloth, etc have been developed by various nations incl. India.

BAe has even made active adaptive IR camouflage.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzpVkhm-Otk


No matter what seeker type the weapon uses, VShoRADS (in general), APS (Active Protection System), ground-DEW, even micro-missiles are developed by DRDO also.

Smoke-screen grenades, canisters against laser are short-lived. Fuel injected smoke producing agents also rely on wind, highly unreliable actually.
View attachment 24863

To engage certain moving vehicles, buildings & structures, in natural terrain & urban areas, Laser guidance is best suited where RF, IR, GPS guidance are inappropriate or sub-optimal.
A target with RF+IR camo is immune to RF/IR seekers.
Sometimes a target area/object might be impossible to access or too risky, too deep/far, too time-taking to reach by troops for laser illumination, hence LDPs were designed & now fused with IRST to become EOTS.

EOTS = IRST + LD. Removing LD will make it simply IRST. But F-35, J-20, J-35, Kaan are going for it.

When F-22 & F-35 have retractable chaff/flare/decoy launchers/doors, DAS already conformal, then 6gen might have retractable or conformal EOTS, DIRCM, DEW to maintain RCS.

So b/w all types of multi-spectral seeker Vs target in different situation, it is an eternal Tom & Jerry game, Sword Vs Shield.
There cannot be any gap on either side or the other side will take advantage & succeed.
The best combat jet, manned or unmanned needs to be prepared to attack & defend, in comprehensive or modular ways.

From this,it seems LD will have niche use, then how about putting it in one of the varients of cats warrior?

 

[fire starter]

Dedicated data link for amca.

View: https://x.com/Defencematrix1/status/1889271753551093885?t=S3CcOPlSQZFoelCXBvPyPw&s=19

 

[randombully]

Dedicated data link for amca.

View: https://x.com/Defencematrix1/status/1889271753551093885?t=S3CcOPlSQZFoelCXBvPyPw&s=19

So our version of MADL

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

From this,it seems LD will have niche use, then how about putting it in one of the varients of cats warrior?

Just like some of us have carried laser pointer key-chain, a LD among numerous other systems, today has become something usual now for a combat jet, nothing exotic luxurious OMG stuff.
On UAV/CATS thread i've already said that CATS/MUMT is good system the world is persuing but design of this current Warrior & all other identical UAVs globally are highly inappropriate, very less payload, can't execute high AoA, no afterburner, can't fly supersonic, can't dogfight, will end up as good target practice objects for not only 5/6gen jets but also 4.5 gen jets.

 

[Bleh]

Not too bad...


View: https://x.com/Defence_Squad_/status/1889282901629395231

 

[randombully]

Just like some of us have carried laser pointer key-chain, a LD among numerous other systems, today has become something usual now for a combat jet, nothing exotic luxurious OMG stuff.
On UAV/CATS thread i've already said that CATS/MUMT is good system the world is persuing but design of this current Warrior & all other identical UAVs globally are highly inappropriate, very less payload, can't execute high AoA, no afterburner, can't fly supersonic, can't dogfight, will end up as good target practice objects for not only 5/6gen jets but also 4.5 gen jets.

On UAV/CATS thread i've already said that CATS/MUMT is good system the world is persuing but design of this current Warrior & all other identical UAVs globally are highly inappropriate, very less payload, can't execute high AoA, no afterburner, can't fly supersonic, can't dogfight, will end up as good target practice objects for not only 5/6gen jets but also 4.5 gen jets.

They are supposed to be low cost and expendable compared to fighter jets.
If you try Making them larger, more faster, more manurable, more advance and power full avionics, more payload while still maintain stealth, you will basically end up with "unamanned/AI piloted" amca.
And unamanned capability for fighter jets is being developed.

Let's say one manned manned followed by two unmanned amca and 6-8 cats warriors form one singular unit.

 

[randombully]

Just like some of us have carried laser pointer key-chain, a LD among numerous other systems, today has become something usual now for a combat jet, nothing exotic luxurious OMG stuff.
On UAV/CATS thread i've already said that CATS/MUMT is good system the world is persuing but design of this current Warrior & all other identical UAVs globally are highly inappropriate, very less payload, can't execute high AoA, no afterburner, can't fly supersonic, can't dogfight, will end up as good target practice objects for not only 5/6gen jets but also 4.5 gen jets.

"On thread i've already said that MUMT is good system the world is persuing but design of this current loyal wingman & all other identical UAVs globally are highly inappropriate, very less payload, can't execute high AoA, no afterburner, can't fly supersonic, can't dogfight, will end up as good target practice objects for not only 5/6gen jets but also 4.5 gen jets"

Opinions needed
<@146682054782877697>"




dunno where they're getting the idea that a design like that wouldn't be able to do high aoa or perform air combat maneuvering
but generally you don't need all of them to do that
not all UCAVs are created equal
some are multirole which means a reduction in capability in one aspect or another
EW/ISR/INT models don't need to do any of that

they would be more focused on endurance

and some a mixture of those

""""Look pretty small for endurance, plus can they keep with faster fighter jets?""""

some can
others don't need to
operationally you just need them to be in front and/or around the controller
that can be achieved with simple launch timing and formations
cruise missiles aren't supersonic either yet they hit targets at the same time as normal missiles


"""""But will larger cca's, with larger payload and speed and more powerful and advanced sensors have any place?
Ones that can use their own radar to lock on to the traget and fire the missile"""""

right now we're not really sure that they would because the whole idea of CCAs are for them to be attritable and mass produced
with that design we would essentially be making an unmanned fighter
and if we're gonna do that it's gonna come with all the bells and whistles

"""""Now that I think about it, aren't all future jetz being made/upgraded to also fly unamanned with AI along with manned flight"""""
optionally manned yeah, it's one thing that's being considered
we can already do it


generally a human boosts machine performance by a lot
it's why CCAs need a human controller, you're pairing their reaction, logic and execution time with a human that can think abstractly as well as assess the situation and dynamically change it
the machines can respond to whatever input they're given but they can't conduct large scale warfare operationally to that level
at least not these machines




The """" """" are the questions I asked and the guy who answer these had a hand in jsf(f35) program.

 

[Ayan Barat]

Hey @randombully don't stress too much

> The fighter flies at even supersonic speed and enters a code into the laser guided munition's mission computer
> Releases the bombs, doesn't even look back and continues his dash; he needs to get out of there as soon as possible
> The munitions continues towards the target using its INS until it detects a laser reflection matching its modulation code and from here it's a straight line dive/glide
> Most of the times this reflected signal comes from GLTDs (Ground Laser Target Designators) or even HLTDs (Handheld...) carried by SpecOps squad that has infiltrated close to the enemy position

> This role is so important that serious forces like USAF maintain a separate division called TACP or Tactical Air Control Party whose whole training is just doing this

> In recent years this role is being complemented more and more by UAVs as it's far less risky. The whole idea of UAV is that it'd either be so small that even if it gets shot while designating then also the loss would be insignificant or fly so high (10km+) that it'd be out of range for most of the SHORADs.
Both are pictured below

Whatever I wrote is pretty much the SoP for using Laser Guided Munitions for more than a decade or so.

Not every pilot's a Maverick who can both guide a bomb and also do evasive maneuvers, hence you need a WSO who's job is just guiding it while the pilot focusses on saving the plane. In cases where it's just the pilot, you'd find the aircraft being very slow like A-10 so that he can do both. But with time more and more planes are being just single seater so it's becoming more important to "offload" this duty to someone else.

Now coming to the use case of LGBs.
You can't use it on anyone who has the capability to detect them getting "tagged" by a laser...as soon a MBT would sense laser using its LWR, it'd deploy a smokescreen. This is the reason why almost all of the newer ATGMs like Brimstone, AGM-114L/Ns and JAGM have some alternate guidance to complement the SAL. Same goes in bombs; earlier it was just SAL (Paveways), then came GPS+SAL (Laser JDAM) and the newest ones are GPS+SAL+IIR/mmW (StormBreaker). The use of laser guided munitions is now getting predominantly limited to Low Value Targets in COIN Ops like a F/A-18E/F engaging an ISIS truck with laser guided ATGMs or in LSCOs when the area has been "sanitized" like Azerbaijani Bayraktars doing a turkey shoot of Armenian ground troops using MAM-L/Ms. That's it.

And here's the thing, if they're being used predominantly in low intensity operations then it won't matter much when the AMCA would be carrying an external laser pod. Because no matter how much the RCS increases, the target won't be shooting back at you.

I hope this helps a bit

 

[randombully]

Hey @randombully don't stress too much

> The fighter flies at even supersonic speed and enters a code into the laser guided munition's mission computer
> Releases the bombs, doesn't even look back and continues his dash; he needs to get out of there as soon as possible
> The munitions continues towards the target using its INS until it detects a laser reflection matching its modulation code and from here it's a straight line dive/glide
> Most of the times this reflected signal comes from GLTDs (Ground Laser Target Designators) or even HLTDs (Handheld...) carried by SpecOps squad that has infiltrated close to the enemy position
View attachment 24890
> This role is so important that serious forces like USAF maintain a separate division called TACP or Tactical Air Control Party whose whole training is just doing this
View attachment 24891
> In recent years this role is being complemented more and more by UAVs as it's far less risky. The whole idea of UAV is that it'd either be so small that even if it gets shot while designating then also the loss would be insignificant or fly so high (10km+) that it'd be out of range for most of the SHORADs.
Both are pictured below
View attachment 24894
Whatever I wrote is pretty much the SoP for using Laser Guided Munitions for more than a decade or so.

Not every pilot's a Maverick who can both guide a bomb and also do evasive maneuvers, hence you need a WSO who's job is just guiding it while the pilot focusses on saving the plane. In cases where it's just the pilot, you'd find the aircraft being very slow like A-10 so that he can do both. But with time more and more planes are being just single seater so it's becoming more important to "offload" this duty to someone else.

Now coming to the use case of LGBs.
You can't use it on anyone who has the capability to detect them getting "tagged" by a laser...as soon a MBT would sense laser using its LWR, it'd deploy a smokescreen. This is the reason why almost all of the newer ATGMs like Brimstone, AGM-114L/Ns and JAGM have some alternate guidance to complement the SAL. Same goes in bombs; earlier it was just SAL (Paveways), then came GPS+SAL (Laser JDAM) and the newest ones are GPS+SAL+IIR/mmW (StormBreaker). The use of laser guided munitions is now getting predominantly limited to Low Value Targets in COIN Ops like a F/A-18E/F engaging an ISIS truck with laser guided ATGMs or in LSCOs when the area has been "sanitized" like Azerbaijani Bayraktars doing a turkey shoot of Armenian ground troops using MAM-L/Ms. That's it.

And here's the thing, if they're being used predominantly in low intensity operations then it won't matter much when the AMCA would be carrying an external laser pod. Because no matter how much the RCS increases, the target won't be shooting back at you.

I hope this helps a bit

It seems more of disagreement between you and Bhartiya Sainik

I forgot to add that all types of weapon guidance & their counter-measures are relevant in different situations. That's why all major nations are making all of them for weapons & launching platforms, including India.
- Active/Passive RF, home on jam Vs RWR, jamming, decoys, active cancellation, etc.
- Passive IIR Vs DIRCM, thermal camo.
- LGB Vs LWR, smoke screen.

And most weapons are coming now with combo/subset of SatCom, INS, GPS, TERCOM, etc for mid-course phase.

RAM, Thermal camouflage paints, cloth, etc have been developed by various nations incl. India.

BAe has even made active adaptive IR camouflage.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzpVkhm-Otk


No matter what seeker type the weapon uses, VShoRADS (in general), APS (Active Protection System), ground-DEW, even micro-missiles are developed by DRDO also.

Smoke-screen grenades, canisters against laser are short-lived. Fuel injected smoke producing agents also rely on wind, highly unreliable actually.
View attachment 24863

To engage certain moving vehicles, buildings & structures, in natural terrain & urban areas, Laser guidance is best suited where RF, IR, GPS guidance are inappropriate or sub-optimal.
A target with RF+IR camo is immune to RF/IR seekers.
Sometimes a target area/object might be impossible to access or too risky, too deep/far, too time-taking to reach by troops for laser illumination, hence LDPs were designed & now fused with IRST to become EOTS.

EOTS = IRST + LD. Removing LD will make it simply IRST. But F-35, J-20, J-35, Kaan are going for it.

When F-22 & F-35 have retractable chaff/flare/decoy launchers/doors, DAS already conformal, then 6gen might have retractable or conformal EOTS, DIRCM, DEW to maintain RCS.

So b/w all types of multi-spectral seeker Vs target in different situation, it is an eternal Tom & Jerry game, Sword Vs Shield.
There cannot be any gap on either side or the other side will take advantage & succeed.
The best combat jet, manned or unmanned needs to be prepared to attack & defend, in comprehensive or modular ways.

 

[Ayan Barat]

It seems more of disagreement between you and Bhartiya Sainik

Matlab kalesh karwa ke hi maanega...

 

[Spitfire IX]

I understand that years ago Turkiye set out to implement development facilities for its TF-X project including the following:

• Near Field Radar Cross Section Measurement
• Lightning Strike Safety Measurement
• Electromagnetic Compatibility in a Fully Reflection-Free Environment
• Establishment of Large-Scale Structural Strength/Fatigue Test Infrastructure
• Engine/APU Integration and Qualification Test Setups
• Hydraulic/Fuel/Electric/Pneumatic/Avionics Integration and Qualification Test Setups
• Establishment of Climate Control System Design and Integration Laboratories
• Development Test Centers for Uniquely Developed Components (avionics computers, helmet, generator, pump, landing gear, hook, gearbox, oxygen/nitrogen systems, etc.)

Has India done the same sort of thing (invested in the facilities required to develop a fast jet)? I recall recently Tejas Mk2 inlets were wind tunnel tested in France.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

It seems more of disagreement between you and Bhartiya Sainik

Why are you trying to set memebrs on collision course?
Why telling to analyse individuals on social media?
Are you school/college student?
Enthusiasts can range from school students to retired people, from different academic backgrounds, with different comprehension & knowledge, views, opinions, conclusions. That's natural & ok.
DoD not consulting us. We're doing time pass here. Can't 2 siblings, cousins, friends, relatives, etc have difference of opinions?

I always tell not to agree with me but with technology. I can be inaccurate & wrong, but i give pics, diagrams, graphs, tables, basic calculations, whatever i collected in last 30 years & whatever can be verified publicly.
Didn't i tell to focus directly on technology rather than who said what?

I also mentioned that all weapon makers make all type of guidance for different scenarios.

And all decisions have consequences, good or bad, favorable or unfavorable.
History is evident that nations who procrastinate, are ignorant, arrogant, don't research & develop, on time, suffer invasion, defeat, losses.
And we have suffered 1000+ years already.

 

[randombully]

Why are you trying to set memebrs on collision course?
Why telling to analyse individuals on social media?
Are you school/college student?
Enthusiasts can range from school students to retired people, from different academic backgrounds, with different comprehension & knowledge, views, opinions, conclusions. That's natural & ok.
DoD not consulting us. We're doing time pass here. Can't 2 siblings, cousins, friends, relatives, etc have difference of opinions?

I always tell not to agree with me but with technology. I can be inaccurate & wrong, but i give pics, diagrams, graphs, tables, basic calculations, whatever i collected in last 30 years & whatever can be verified publicly.
Didn't i tell to focus directly on technology rather than who said what?

I also mentioned that all weapon makers make all type of guidance for different scenarios.

And all decisions have consequences, good or bad, favorable or unfavorable.
History is evident that nations who procrastinate, are ignorant, arrogant, don't research & develop, on time, suffer invasion, defeat, losses.
And we have suffered 1000+ years already.

Calm down ho jao bhai.
Your point was it's good to have LD integrated.
@Ayan Barat was saying there's no need to integrate LD.

That's the disagreement I'm talking about.
Not any fued or war