ADA AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

[_Anonymous_]

It may not necessarily be ADA's fault. I suspect the MoD/IAF have asked for such specs in order to allow room for the import of a heavier aircraft. Whether it's Su-57 or something else.

Based on AMCA's internal bay specs, it can't carry bigger and heavier weapons, whereas the FGFA has been designed to carry 2 extra missiles internally, along with long range cruise missiles. In simpler words, AMCA doesn't even meet MMRCA payload specs while FGFA kills MMRCA payload specs thereby clearly drawing the line between the two aircraft. From the IAF's perspective, DRDO won't be able to veto imports since there's a clear class difference between the two.

Bigger IWBs on AMCA will remove the need for FGFA. Of course, it's a different story whether ADA can actually deliver such an aircraft. Especially now, with the aircraft already having been designed.

Vstol's MSA is a different beast, completely murders AMCA, and comes with more flexible payload options than FGFA. But its main drawback is safety. It's a single engine design and both IAF and IN may not be comfortable operating it over difficult terrain like mountains, deserts and oceans. Although this argument has slowly been getting less and less important as engine technology has improved, including improved safety from bird hits.

Given the history of the relationship between the IAF & the ADA , do you seriously expect us to believe that the IAF would draw up a sub standard PSQR for the ADA to fulfill & the ADA would willingly walk into such a trap with eyes wide shut? Won't the ADA have immediately raised the issue with the MoD, especially if they've to remain relevant beyond Tejas for future programs , knowing the IAF is gunning for them? You're not making sense with these conspiracy theories.

 

[randomradio]

Given the history of the relationship between the IAF & the ADA , do you seriously expect us to believe that the IAF would draw up a sub standard PSQR for the ADA to fulfill & the ADA would willingly walk into such a trap with eyes wide shut?

Uh, yes. Of course. Initially, IAF didn't even ask for supercruise and the stealth requirement was lesser. It was ADA that decided AMCA will be a full fledged stealth aircraft with supercruise.

This was no different from the LCA program. IAF had initially asked for a basic fighter similar to the JF-17. It was ADA that unilaterally increased specs later on, to make it similar to the M2000. The IAF argument was an easier project is more easily deliverable, while more important capability can be imported, the M2000. They repeated the same with AMCA. It's because FGFA was still on at the time.

Won't the ADA have immediately raised the issue with the MoD, especially if they've to remain relevant beyond Tejas for future programs , knowing the IAF is gunning for them? You're not making sense with these conspiracy theories.

The IAF doesn't want to cut off all roads of retreat. They want to keep their options open in case ADA fails. So the payload requirements obviously reflect that, it's right in your face actually. The fact is the AMCA design is such that you can't build your air force around just one type. You now need an aircraft that can complement it in terms of payload.

The F-22 also came with a smaller requirement for payload because the USAF wanted to build a much larger strike version with more payload. If the F-22 was designed like the Su-57 right from the beginning, then the USAF's FB-22 wouldn't even get a serious look from the USG. A lot of such things are done deliberately. The forces and MIC juggle between requirements, capability and R&D capacity in order to get the maximum benefits.

AMCA = F-22
FGFA = F-22 + FB-22

But the IAF is not interested in a one-trick pony strike aircraft like the FB-22. So the only option is a bigger aircraft that does the same thing as AMCA, but with more payload.

So even if the AMCA is a success, be on the lookout for an IAF requirement for a bigger aircraft with more payload in the future. AMCA's limited payload will allow the IAF to hold a competition between an FGFA Mk2, the French NGF, British Tempest and an American equivalent, like the USN's F/A-XX, if not the PCA. All because AMCA can only hold 1.5T in a small main bay with no side bays. Otoh, a properly designed AMCA with a larger IWB would completely remove the need for us to import any other aircraft. An Mk2 would take care of future advancements, while a new type is designed.

Apart from IAF's requirements, the MoD is also interested in holding such competitions in order to curry favour because we are not part of the P5. So this cycle is unlikely to end anytime soon.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Uh, yes. Of course. Initially, IAF didn't even ask for supercruise and the stealth requirement was lesser. It was ADA that decided AMCA will be a full fledged stealth aircraft with supercruise.

This was no different from the LCA program. IAF had initially asked for a basic fighter similar to the JF-17. It was ADA that unilaterally increased specs later on, to make it similar to the M2000. The IAF argument was an easier project is more easily deliverable, while more important capability can be imported, the M2000. They repeated the same with AMCA. It's because FGFA was still on at the time.



The IAF doesn't want to cut off all roads of retreat. They want to keep their options open in case ADA fails. So the payload requirements obviously reflect that, it's right in your face actually. The fact is the AMCA design is such that you can't build your air force around just one type. You now need an aircraft that can complement it in terms of payload.

The F-22 also came with a smaller requirement for payload because the USAF wanted to build a much larger strike version with more payload. If the F-22 was designed like the Su-57 right from the beginning, then the USAF's FB-22 wouldn't even get a serious look from the USG. A lot of such things are done deliberately. The forces and MIC juggle between requirements, capability and R&D capacity in order to get the maximum benefits.

AMCA = F-22
FGFA = F-22 + FB-22

But the IAF is not interested in a one-trick pony strike aircraft like the FB-22. So the only option is a bigger aircraft that does the same thing as AMCA, but with more payload.

So even if the AMCA is a success, be on the lookout for an IAF requirement for a bigger aircraft with more payload in the future. AMCA's limited payload will allow the IAF to hold a competition between an FGFA Mk2, the French NGF, British Tempest and an American equivalent, like the USN's F/A-XX, if not the PCA. All because AMCA can only hold 1.5T in a small main bay with no side bays. Otoh, a properly designed AMCA with a larger IWB would completely remove the need for us to import any other aircraft. An Mk2 would take care of future advancements, while a new type is designed.

Apart from IAF's requirements, the MoD is also interested in holding such competitions in order to curry favour because we are not part of the P5. So this cycle is unlikely to end anytime soon.

What makes you think the present configuration of the AMCA is the definitive one? Wasn't the project delineated into 2 phases at the very onset with 2 TDs each in both the phases? Isn't it completely within the realms of the possible that the first phase would be just to define stealth & see if the eco system here is not only capable of designing such an aircraft but also delivering on it's design without any compromises on it. This may also result in a few orders a la LCA - Tejas - Mk1.

The second phas would see the definitive AMCA - Mk2 with all the characteristics of a typical stealth fighter with adequate internal & external load, optimised TWR & max MTOW.

Isn't that how the Korean 5 gen program is being pursued.

What's the connection between setting up the AMCA to fail & getting the Su-57? Isn't it already a given that we'd be opting for the latter once they come up with their definitive version with a duly validated & certified brand new engine & AESA radar in the mid to late 2020's , given that the Chinese would have then gained mastery over their 5 gen technologies & fielded their 5 gen aircrafts in large nos which we are bound to counter, not with the AMCA for obvious reasons but some other contender which has to be the Su-57.

 

[Aniruddha]

What makes you think the present configuration of the AMCA is the definitive one? Wasn't the project delineated into 2 phases at the very onset with 2 TDs each in both the phases? Isn't it completely within the realms of the possible that the first phase would be just to define stealth & see if the eco system here is not only capable of designing such an aircraft but also delivering on it's design without any compromises on it. This may also result in a few orders a la LCA - Tejas - Mk1.

The second phas would see the definitive AMCA - Mk2 with all the characteristics of a typical stealth fighter with adequate internal & external load, optimised TWR & max MTOW.

Isn't that how the Korean 5 gen program is being pursued.

What's the connection between setting up the AMCA to fail & getting the Su-57? Isn't it already a given that we'd be opting for the latter once they come up with their definitive version with a duly validated & certified brand new engine & AESA radar in the mid to late 2020's , given that the Chinese would have then gained mastery over their 5 gen technologies & fielded their 5 gen aircrafts in large nos which we are bound to counter, not with the AMCA for obvious reasons but some other contender which has to be the Su-57.

Has the AMCA internal weapons bay been redesigned and have sidebays been added?
In it's current configuration it can carry only 4 A2A missiles or 2 A2A missiles and 2 bombs with no sidebays for additional weapons storage which is pathetic to say the least.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Has the AMCA internal weapons bay been redesigned and have sidebays been added?
In it's current configuration it can carry only 4 A2A missiles or 2 A2A missiles and 2 bombs with no sidebays for additional weapons storage which is pathetic to say the least.

Weren't there reports which also suggested that the same AMCA would be available in stealth & non stealth roles depending on the mission undertaken which would obviously mean external Hardpoints to carry fuel & ammo?

 

[randomradio]

What makes you think the present configuration of the AMCA is the definitive one? Wasn't the project delineated into 2 phases at the very onset with 2 TDs each in both the phases? Isn't it completely within the realms of the possible that the first phase would be just to define stealth & see if the eco system here is not only capable of designing such an aircraft but also delivering on it's design without any compromises on it. This may also result in a few orders a la LCA - Tejas - Mk1.

The second phas would see the definitive AMCA - Mk2 with all the characteristics of a typical stealth fighter with adequate internal & external load, optimised TWR & max MTOW.

I doubt there are significant changes in airframe design between the two. Changing the IWB design requries a full redesign of the airframe.

Isn't that how the Korean 5 gen program is being pursued.

The Korean program is completely different. Right now they are developing a Korean Typhoon and will use that as a template to design a stealth design later on. We are going straight to the stealth design. And they are also importing the F-35.

What's the connection between setting up the AMCA to fail & getting the Su-57? Isn't it already a given that we'd be opting for the latter once they come up with their definitive version with a duly validated & certified brand new engine & AESA radar in the mid to late 2020's , given that the Chinese would have then gained mastery over their 5 gen technologies & fielded their 5 gen aircrafts in large nos which we are bound to counter, not with the AMCA for obvious reasons but some other contender which has to be the Su-57.

No, it's not a given. AMCA can replace the Su-57 if necessary, but they haven't designed it that way.

It's because of AMCA's payload deficiency that we have to opt for the Su-57. Otherwise we don't need it, except in the form of a silver bullet force with 2 squadrons, because it will be available 5-10 years sooner. Now, we need a full fleet of at least 6 squadrons just because AMCA has a small IWB. And then, in the end, people will wonder why IAF has bought so few AMCAs.

Weren't there reports which also suggested that the same AMCA would be available in stealth & non stealth roles depending on the mission undertaken which would obviously mean external Hardpoints to carry fuel & ammo?

What's the point? Rafale will be able to carry more in that same configuration. It's just 5T of external payload in total. Rafale can carry 3.5T on each wing. AMCA is similar to the MWF with external load.

As I said, AMCA can only carry 1 Brahmos-M and 1 800L drop tank on each wing. That's pathetic. MWF can also do that.

What AMCA needs is an IWB that can carry 2.5T of weapons internally. The IWB dimensions should be enough to handle a 4m missile with a diameter of 0.5m at the bare minimum. And it should have small side bays for 2 WVR missiles.

The most basic payload configuration is 2+2+2 for multirole missions. This is common sense. But AMCA can only do 2+2. In other words, with just IWB, the AMCA is no different from the LCA. That's pretty ridiculous. Even if they don't manage to make the main bay bigger, at least they should add side bays. Or else this program is headed towards failure right from the beginning.

 

[Quicksilver]

AMCA has been designed to fail, so that IAF can ask for FGFA Mk2 after 2025.

The internal load is just 1.5T and external load is 5T. When it carries 2 Brahmos-M, all it can carry on the wings is 2 800L tanks, completely insufficient, and just 4 missiles inside the IWB.

I disagree with this.

let me explain my reason:
the LCA started with much lower specs and is evolving into bigger/more useful platform.
the pinaka started life at a much lower level platform
the akash SAM also in its earliest avatar was "not state of the art" to put it mildly, but it has grown to be a useful platform
same with weapons locating radars

the way India goes about its business/ the way china goes about its business, the way US goes about its business can be summed up in 3 wrods:
1) quality
2) speed
3) cost

if you pick quality, speed - then its very expensive - USA way
if you pick speed and low cost then quality is bad - Chinese way
if you pick quality and low cost - it goes very very slow - the India way

case in point - our first in house sub was small.. but within the same class, it slowly is a bigger platform.

AMCA will go the same way. this will be iteration one to validate systems, then we will increase the usage + weapns bay slowly.

 

[randomradio]

I disagree with this.

let me explain my reason:
the LCA started with much lower specs and is evolving into bigger/more useful platform.

It ended up with even lower specs. What you are seeing now is merely damage control. That's why there's the Mk2 and later MWF.

the pinaka started life at a much lower level platform

That's evolution. AMCA will need 30 years to go through such an evolution.

the akash SAM also in its earliest avatar was "not state of the art" to put it mildly, but it has grown to be a useful platform
same with weapons locating radars

That's evolution as well.

AMCA will go the same way. this will be iteration one to validate systems, then we will increase the usage + weapns bay slowly.

By then your children will have children working on this AMCA. I'm talking about just the next 10-15 years. AKA, Pinaka Mk1, Akash Mk1 etc. We are still in the Mk1 stage for AMCA, and that will take 10 years. An Mk2 will take 10 more years. An Mk3 will be ready only in 2050. Mk3 is where the modern Pinaka and Akash are today, so you can't compare a successful program and try to apply the same rule to a program that is yet to exist.

Due to the problem with the internal bay design, the AMCA Mk1 and Mk2 will be inadequate, and will need a complementary aircraft to support it. I'm not talking about an Mk3, by then we will also have a new type in flight tests, making AMCA Mk3 similar to Su-35 or F-15X today.

When it comes to aircraft design, the rules are simple, you get it right the first time or you are screwed. It's because the R&D gestation period is far too long, almost 15-20 years. Only if you can get your first design right can you bother with making modernised versions. Or you go for a whole new design. Nobody cares about getting something right 30 years after you begin a program, the world won't stop and wait.

Don't forget, we are not yet an advanced country when it comes to aerospace, nor do we have the kind of money to simply throw it around willy-nilly. Every little detail has to be considered and planned for. AMCA has been designed like an F-22, but carries weapons like the F-35B. Most of the problems would go away if they manage to fit the side bays at the very minimum.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Don't forget, we are not yet an advanced country when it comes to aerospace, nor do we have the kind of money to simply throw it around willy-nilly. Every little detail has to be considered and planned for. AMCA has been designed like an F-22, but carries weapons like the F-35B. Most of the problems would go away if they manage to fit the side bays at the very minimum.

That's okay. When we started LCA, even modernised versions of the F-16, Gripen and M-2000 were in service before LCA's first flight.

With MWF and ORCA, we will achieve parity with existing tecnologies in Europe before 2030, which is a significant achievement. AMCA will rapidly reduce that gap, including the ones we have with Russia and later America. You can say that whatever comes after AMCA will be on par with the rest of the world, including hopefully engine tech.

 

[randomradio]

...

I don't know why people keep getting confused about all the different things I say and try to relate it to something else I didn't say. What does anything I said about IWB have anything to do with the stuff I said in the stuff you quoted?

AMCA is indeed a very good aircraft. It will put us on par with the rest of the world, that won't change.

But without the sidebays, or a bigger main bay, it won't be our primary one-type aircraft, we will need to continue importing, like FGFA or NGF etc, to make up for any design deficiency on AMCA. Just like how the Americans operate the F-22 and F-35. This literally has nothing to do with what's in the quote. Stop trying to simply fighter jets, people. Every single aspect of a fighter jet has good and bad points.

Compared to the F-22, the F-35 is crap. Compared to the F-35, the F-22 is crap. I wonder how many can explain this.

 

[_Anonymous_]

AMCA is indeed a very good aircraft. It will put us on par with the rest of the world, that won't change.

AMCA has been designed to fail, so that IAF can ask for FGFA Mk2 after 2025.

The internal load is just 1.5T and external load is 5T. When it carries 2 Brahmos-M, all it can carry on the wings is 2 800L tanks, completely insufficient, and just 4 missiles inside the IWB.

 

[randomradio]

...

Oof.

This is what happens when dealing with those who are ignorant.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Oof.

This is what happens when dealing with those who are ignorant.

So, at times, I give the scientist's perspective, sometime's the user's, sometimes the outsider's, which can get confusing if all one has is only the outsider's perspective.

Perhaps, if you could tell us which perspective are you giving, we'd be able to appreciate your PoV better.

 

[randomradio]

Perhaps, if you could tell us which perspective are you giving, we'd be able to appreciate your PoV better.

I already said it.

Compared to the F-22, the F-35 is crap. Compared to the F-35, the F-22 is crap. I wonder how many can explain this.

If you can explain this, then things will get easier. You will actually understand what I'm trying to say.

Vstol had no issues with what I said, he understood where the problem is. It's you guys who don't get it even after explaining. It just means you lack the foundation to understand how this drawback impacts a mission.

 

[_Anonymous_]

I already said it.

Compared to the F-22, the F-35 is crap. Compared to the F-35, the F-22 is crap. I wonder how many can explain this.

If you can explain this, then things will get easier. You will actually understand what I'm trying to say.

Vstol had no issues with what I said, he understood where the problem is. It's you guys who don't get it even after explaining. It just means you lack the foundation to understand how this drawback impacts a mission.

Instead of wasting band width how about you elaborate on your statement.

 

[randomradio]

Instead of wasting band width how about you elaborate on your statement.

What's the point elaborating on something you don't understand, even after I have already elaborated with significant amounts of detail already? And then all you have to offer is snarky comments. You're gonna have to piece it all together on your own.

 

[_Anonymous_]

What's the point elaborating on something you don't understand, even after I have already elaborated with significant amounts of detail already? And then all you have to offer is snarky comments. You're gonna have to piece it all together on your own.

The problem with being too loqacious is you often blurt out what you think without evaluation on what are essentially stream of consciousness thoughts. That's not how posts/ arguments / PoV are constructed.

That requires thoughts being channelised to construct a foundation upon which a super structure is erected. That calls for coherence, constistency, evaluation, rejection of superfluousness till all you are left with are bare boned facts beyond reproach.

If you were a defense attorney, you'd tie yourself in knots with your many theories, each cancelling out the previous one till you've forgotten your brief.

All you do with such mindless comments is paint a bulls eye on your self & then complain when someone aims & shoots.

 

[randomradio]

The problem with being too loqacious is you often blurt out what you think without evaluation on what are essentially stream of consciousness thoughts. That's not how posts/ arguments / PoV are constructed.

That requires thoughts being channelised to construct a foundation upon which a super structure is erected. That calls for coherence, constistency, evaluation, rejection of superfluousness till all you are left with are bare boned facts beyond reproach.

If you were a defense attorney, you'd tie yourself in knots with your many theories, each cancelling out the previous one till you've forgotten your brief.

All you do with such mindless comments is paint a bulls eye on your self & then complain when someone aims & shoots.

As I said, the subject itself is far too complex. This has nothing to do with the way I've formulated my posts, it's the reader's capacity to understand the post that's lacking. My posts are actually so simple that even a child can understand them, as long as that child has a foundation to understand it, and I still try to dumb it down even more, including repeating the same point in different ways.

You don't even have the foundation to understand this statement...
Compared to the F-22, the F-35 is crap. Compared to the F-35, the F-22 is crap. I wonder how many can explain this
...so how are you expected to understand everything else I've posted? Hell, I've explained this statement dozens of times in various places with a lot of hand-holding and spoon-feeding, and you've still not understood it.

You don't realise it, but to someone who already has the foundation your posts are actually funny. It's only that I have the patience to try and explain, most people don't care. I don't think I'm gonna do that anymore. Next time, I'm just gonna get my piece in and get out.

 

[Indianhawk]

As I said, the subject itself is far too complex. This has nothing to do with the way I've formulated my posts, it's the reader's capacity to understand the post that's lacking. My posts are actually so simple that even a child can understand them, as long as that child has a foundation to understand it, and I still try to dumb it down even more, including repeating the same point in different ways.

You don't even have the foundation to understand this statement...
Compared to the F-22, the F-35 is crap. Compared to the F-35, the F-22 is crap. I wonder how many can explain this
...so how are you expected to understand everything else I've posted? Hell, I've explained this statement dozens of times in various places with a lot of hand-holding and spoon-feeding, and you've still not understood it.

You don't realise it, but to someone who already has the foundation your posts are actually funny. It's only that I have the patience to try and explain, most people don't care. I don't think I'm gonna do that anymore. Next time, I'm just gonna get my piece in and get out.

Humor me if you have time. You insist amca is deliberately limited so that iaf can later import fgfa.

But wasn't that always the case? We were already working on two programs fgfa with Russia and amca on our own. Infact amca has medium in its name it was never supposed to be in heavy category like fgfa or f22! So even if amca internal payload was improved in design ( to 2ton+ instead of 1.5 ton claimed now) still it didn't threaten fgfa.

What cancelled fgfa was Russian delays and Russian refusal to share more work afaik. So if the original scheme of things was to have both fgfa and amca then how does your theory that amca design is sabotaged to secure fgfa hold true?

Because if Russian were on time with fgfa and offered more work to India we will still be running both programs and amca would still have same internal bay capacity! No? Please explain.

 

[Saaho]

In it's current configuration it can carry only 4 A2A missiles or 2 A2A missiles and 2 bombs with no sidebays for additional weapons storage which is pathetic to say the least.

Isn't F-35 the same? Only now there is a talk of a missile rack which will allow 6 A2A missiles.