ADA AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

[randomradio]

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.

It was so in the beginning, when FGFA and AMCA were supposed to be two complementary programs. But the AMCA specs have changed since then to become as advanced as possible. So it turned from a passable next gen aircraft (Rafale++) into a true next gen aircraft (F-22++).

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?

What actually killed FGFA was DRDO's claim that AMCA will be enough.

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.

The IAF wanted to enter a JV program with Russia for two reasons. One was to get the capability, obviously, and the other was to help the Indian industry make headway into the next gen. That's also why AMCA was a much more simpler design in the beginning. Later they realised Indian industry under HAL was incapable of delivering even the 25% workshare as promised, which is obvious since only DRDO has developed the capabilities to contribute to the program. So when DRDO was approached, they said they have the technology to develop such an aircraft inhouse. AMCA's design itself went through many iterations since the beginning of the decade to what it has become today.

Anyway, AMCA has been designed as a system of systems. What it really means is if more and heavier weapons are necessary, the AMCA doesn't need to carry it by itself, all it needs is enough air defence missiles, and the rest can come from drones and other aircraft. For example, a winged drone can carry 4 missiles and/or some types of bombs that can help the AMCA accomplish missions that it cannot do by itself, especially missions which are extremely dangerous with low chances of survival. Future drones will even be able to take over dogfighting. Dropping a 2000lb bomb can be very risky business, because the type of target that requires a 2000lb bomb is a very dangerous target, and this danger can be passed on to a drone that's specifically designed to drop such a bomb, like the Ghatak. Considering all this, AMCA's IWB is fine. AMCA has been specifically designed to make use all next gen capabilities to the minimum, thereby removing the need for FGFA altogether.

Right now, considering the aircraft alone as a unit, the AMCA lacks swing role capability just like the F-35 (a ridiculously huge drawback for an aircraft that's been designed as an air superiority aircraft), and low internal and external payload (which is actually not such a big problem versus the swing role capability). The difference between having and not having swing role capability is ridiculously large that the AMCA is incapable of escorting itself, just like the Jaguar.

AMCA has been designed to be far superior to the F-22 in terms of stealth and performance. But...

Read this:
More Ambiguous F-35 Remarks by USAF's Gen. Hostage
In fact, Hostage says that it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can handle.

Let this statement sink in, and then ask yourself this. Why does an aircraft as good or better than the F-22 have a payload that's worse than the F-35?

 

[Indianhawk]

Anyway, AMCA has been designed as a system of systems. What it really means is if more and heavier weapons are necessary, the AMCA doesn't need to carry it by itself, all it needs is enough air defence missiles, and the rest can come from drones and other aircraft. For example, a winged drone can carry 4 missiles and/or some types of bombs that can help the AMCA accomplish missions that it cannot do by itself, especially missions which are extremely dangerous with low chances of survival. Future drones will even be able to take over dogfighting. Dropping a 2000lb bomb can be very risky business, because the type of target that requires a 2000lb bomb is a very dangerous target, and this danger can be passed on to a drone that's specifically designed to drop such a bomb, like the Ghatak. Considering all this, AMCA's IWB is fine. AMCA has been specifically designed to make use all next gen capabilities to the minimum, thereby removing the need for FGFA altogether.

That's seems even better. That's what the British tempest concept is , isn't it! System of system . That is the pathway from 5th gen to 6th gen .

Yet IAF can still demand fgfa multiple merits of its own . After all a heavier jet has its own advantages.
Fgfa has much longer lags. 3000km+ on internal fuel only . IAF lacks refuelers as is. Then there are cheek aesa arrays and ability to guide missiles even when being perpendicular to enemy . And it will come faster to counter Chinese j20 . I mean there are lot of arguments for fgfa even if more payload is not the argument.

Why does an aircraft as good or better than the F-22 have a payload that's worse than the F-35?

Simply because it's smaller than f35 ! No.
Data from f35 A says that it's mtow is 31ton.
While AMCA seems to Target 24-25 ton as of now.

Being stealth both f35 and amca prioritize internal fuel over payload.
F35 can carry 2 ton+ internal and 6 ton + external overall 8 ton+
Amca will be 1.5ton+ internal and 4 ton+ external overall 6 ton approx.

But looking at difference in mtow it seems reasonable difference in payload. Now if amca mtow reaches 30 ton+ then it's a different story. In that case I case payload shall increase too adequately.
Afterall with lca specs we know ADA publishes very conservative figures.

the AMCA lacks swing role capability just like the F-35

I was not aware of this. Why would amca lack swing role capability? Any particular reason.

It has more than enough thrust to pull it off even with regular f414 it will have 200kn thrust available for 25 ton mtow compared to 190kn of f35 for 31 ton mtow.
AMCA should be much more agile than f35 .

Or is it related to lack of internal payload and if so will increase internal payload to 2 ton will help? So that it can carry two bombs with 2 bvr and 2 wvr simultaneously??

What actually killed FGFA was DRDO's claim that AMCA will be enough.

We also heard that it was because it didn't meet IAF expectations of stealth. With an rcs of about 0.5 metre square it's not really that much better than rafale in clean configuration. And then item30 was delayed also Russian airforce barely committed to 12 su57 at that time raising huge suspicion about the intention of Russia. It is only after India walked out that Russian air Force committed to fgfa that too only 76 aircrafts over a decade.

 

[Indianhawk]

Read this:
More Ambiguous F-35 Remarks by USAF's Gen. Hostage
In fact, Hostage says that it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can handle

Another thing this analogy doesn't apply to amca and fgfa.

Because if there is a mission for f35 you can send f22 to do it because f22 is even more stealthy and survivable.

But if there is a mission for AMCA you can't send fgfa/su57 to do it because it's less stealthy than amca and hence will be detected much early and will be attacked more effectively by the enemy.

So what's the point of fgfa in that case even with more payload!

 

[randomradio]

That's seems even better. That's what the British tempest concept is , isn't it! System of system . That is the pathway from 5th gen to 6th gen .

All next gen aircraft will be designed around that concept. Even MWF.

Yet IAF can still demand fgfa multiple merits of its own . After all a heavier jet has its own advantages.
Fgfa has much longer lags. 3000km+ on internal fuel only . IAF lacks refuelers as is. Then there are cheek aesa arrays and ability to guide missiles even when being perpendicular to enemy . And it will come faster to counter Chinese j20 . I mean there are lot of arguments for fgfa even if more payload is not the argument.

FGFA will have more range and its next gen engines will further increase it. Its fuel fraction is around 0.4 vs AMCA's 0.35. But we only need a few such aircraft, not a full fleet. That's why I support inducting as much as 2 or 3 squadrons of FGFA/Su-57 once it's ready after 2025. AMCA won't be ready during this time anyway. And if AMCA is designed correctly, we won't need any more FGFA.

Simply because it's smaller than f35 ! No.
Data from f35 A says that it's mtow is 31ton.
While AMCA seems to Target 24-25 ton as of now.

It's not a size problem, it's a design problem.

MSA is a 9T aircraft and has been designed to carry as much as the 17T FGFA internally.

Being stealth both f35 and amca prioritize internal fuel over payload.
F35 can carry 2 ton+ internal and 6 ton + external overall 8 ton+
Amca will be 1.5ton+ internal and 4 ton+ external overall 6 ton approx.

But looking at difference in mtow it seems reasonable difference in payload. Now if amca mtow reaches 30 ton+ then it's a different story. In that case I case payload shall increase too adequately.
Afterall with lca specs we know ADA publishes very conservative figures.

This MTOW thing isn't a problem. AMCA's wings can easily be strengthened to 3.5T on each wing, from the current 2.5T, giving it an overall payload of 8.5T. If not on Mk1, it can be done on Mk2, so it's not such a big problem.

I was not aware of this. Why would amca lack swing role capability? Any particular reason.

You need to carry enough missiles for swing role.

Basic MMRCA requirement for the strike role is 2 BVR missiles, 2 WVR missiles and 2 bombs, plus 2 drop tanks. This will give it the ability to escort itself. So once the bombs are dropped, the aircraft can switch to CAP with its 4 missiles, which is pretty much what swing role really is. AMCA cannot do either of these things because it lacks side bays to carry those 2 extra WVR missiles.

Earlier one had to land and change mission sets on the ground to make a multirole aircraft suited for air superiority or strike. Now we can do that with the flip of a switch. But no matter how many switches you flip, you need to carry enough bombs and missiles to make use of that switch. AMCA's switch is more or less useless without side bays.

So if the definitive design's media release comes with side bays, then that's very, very good news. At least 90% of my grouse against the AMCA will be settled. I'm not really bothered by the lack of a bigger main bay compared to the installation of side bays.

We also heard that it was because it didn't meet IAF expectations of stealth. With an rcs of about 0.5 metre square it's not really that much better than rafale in clean configuration. And then item30 was delayed also Russian airforce barely committed to 12 su57 at that time raising huge suspicion about the intention of Russia. It is only after India walked out that Russian air Force committed to fgfa that too only 76 aircrafts over a decade.

Most of the criticism around Su-57 are based on rumours. The truth is we do not know. During Gaganshakti, the air chief claimed that the FGFA has superior stealth to the J-20. Also, he pointed out that none of these aircraft are actually real stealth aircraft, like the B-2, so the importance of stealth is much more muted in India. But the rumours have been misused by Su-57 critics in the West, and this is what the English-speaking world consumes. The first time Pentagon placed orders for the F-35, they ordered only 2 F-35s. Do you really want to talk about Su-57's committment and delays in front of the F-35?

And Russian committment to the program is pretty good. Most people do not know how the Russians plan their procurement, so people are easily misled. In the West, the govt announces a goal for the program, whereas in Russia they place orders within a fixed term without announcing a goal. They have something like our 5-year plan called the State Armament Programme, the current one is from 2018-27. So from 2018-27, they plan to procure 76 PAK FA. This doesn't mean it stops there. In 2028, they will announce a new plan for the next 10 years, and more PAK FAs will be ordered then.

 

[randomradio]

Another thing this analogy doesn't apply to amca and fgfa.

Because if there is a mission for f35 you can send f22 to do it because f22 is even more stealthy and survivable.

But if there is a mission for AMCA you can't send fgfa/su57 to do it because it's less stealthy than amca and hence will be detected much early and will be attacked more effectively by the enemy.

So what's the point of fgfa in that case even with more payload!

Su-57/FGFA will be a stealthy aircraft. Don't get misled by media reports. Too many rumours.

Also, to do the mission that requires 2 F-22s, versus 8 for F-35, the real reason is not stealth, but the ability to run away. You do this by firing your WVR missiles at the enemy, and then turn and run. The F-35 can't do this, since it lacks both the WVR missiles as well as the ability to run. So it requires top cover and escort in order to engage the enemy, while the strike optimised F-35s run away. The F-22 is also less stealthy than the F-35.

 

[Indianhawk]

This MTOW thing isn't a problem. AMCA's wings can easily be strengthened to 3.5T on each wing, from the current 2.5T, giving it an overall payload of 8.5T. If not on Mk1, it can be done on Mk2, so it's not such a big problem.

With 8.5 T overall payload and 6T internal fuel AMCA will have to be much bigger than rafale in size. It's mtow might be closer to 30 T than 25T . In that case there should also be more space for side bays or bigger main bay. Solving the problem of more internal payload.

It's not a size problem, it's a design problem.

MSA is a 9T aircraft and has been designed to carry as much as the 17T FGFA internally.

My reading is 1.5T internal payload for AMCA is the baseline figure the bare minimum requirements. They will probably be reaching 2T payload .

MSA 1.7 T payload also doesn't solve the problem at hand with swing role capacity.

Basic MMRCA requirement for the strike role is 2 BVR missiles, 2 WVR missiles and 2 bombs, plus 2 drop tanks. This will give it the ability to escort itself. So once the bombs are dropped, the aircraft can switch to CAP with its 4 missiles, which is pretty much what swing role really is. AMCA cannot do either of these things because it lacks side bays to carry those 2 extra WVR missiles.

That's the fair point . It's a real problem. Hopefully it will be addressed before final design is frozen.
Aren't there ways around it though. Couldn't there be dual racks within the internal bay to carry two wvr + two bvr + two 250 kg bombs = overall payload about 1.5 T. Sure firing wvr from main bay won't be as effective as from side bays but it's better than nothing. Another poster here talked about dual racks for f35 .

The first time Pentagon placed orders for the F-35, they ordered only 2 F-35s. Do you really want to talk about Su-57's committment and delays in front of the F-35?

The f35 program already had a lot of joint partners and very large potential orders . So initial orders were not a worry. Not the case with su57. Indian airforce itself questioned commitment of Russian to the program. It looked like Russian wanted to fleece India for initial version with minimum order from there side while India funds it and only when final version is ready will Russian induct it in numbers.

Su-57/FGFA will be a stealthy aircraft. Don't get misled by media reports. Too many rumours.

Also, to do the mission that requires 2 F-22s, versus 8 for F-35, the real reason is not stealth, but the ability to run away. You do this by firing your WVR missiles at the enemy, and then turn and run. The F-35 can't do this, since it lacks both the WVR missiles as well as the ability to run. So it requires top cover and escort in order to engage the enemy, while the strike optimised F-35s run away. The F-22 is also less stealthy than the F-35.

We are discussing it in context of stealth and swing role capacity. A mission which requires both stealth to enter enemy space and then swing role to run away.

Now you say amca will be f22 level stealth so it has much better chance of going undetected for it's mission. On a similar mission fgfa /su57 will be detected much earlier because it's rcs is higher multiple times than amca level. So using fgfa makes the mission more risk prone and more difficult.
Hence this shortcoming of amca can't be used by IAF as a justification for import. Negating your original theory about IAF keeping amca limited to import fgfa.

IAF can still use justification of time , range other su57 capabilities to import fgfa but these difference were always there even before India walked out of fgfa.

The gist of the discussion is that lack of swing role in AMCA will be the reason IAF will use now to import fgfa. Then by your original theory it is the IAF which has stopped add from adding side bays to the design ? Correct ? But isn't IAF shortchanging itself then because fgfa even if imported will be less in numbers than AMCA. Given Russian engines. Fgfa availability will be lesser than AMCA too. Fgfa operating costs will be higher too so will be maintenance time. Given all these issues IAF will ultimately find itself depending more on amca than on fgfa and thus sabotaging itself while limiting AMCA which doesn't make logical sense !

 

[_Anonymous_]

With 8.5 T overall payload and 6T internal fuel AMCA will have to be much bigger than rafale in size. It's mtow might be closer to 30 T than 25T . In that case there should also be more space for side bays or bigger main bay. Solving the problem of more internal payload.




My reading is 1.5T internal payload for AMCA is the baseline figure the bare minimum requirements. They will probably be reaching 2T payload .

MSA 1.7 T payload also doesn't solve the problem at hand with swing role capacity.




That's the fair point . It's a real problem. Hopefully it will be addressed before final design is frozen.
Aren't there ways around it though. Couldn't there be dual racks within the internal bay to carry two wvr + two bvr + two 250 kg bombs = overall payload about 1.5 T. Sure firing wvr from main bay won't be as effective as from side bays but it's better than nothing. Another poster here talked about dual racks for f35 .




The f35 program already had a lot of joint partners and very large potential orders . So initial orders were not a worry. Not the case with su57. Indian airforce itself questioned commitment of Russian to the program. It looked like Russian wanted to fleece India for initial version with minimum order from there side while India funds it and only when final version is ready will Russian induct it in numbers.




We are discussing it in context of stealth and swing role capacity. A mission which requires both stealth to enter enemy space and then swing role to run away.

Now you say amca will be f22 level stealth so it has much better chance of going undetected for it's mission. On a similar mission fgfa /su57 will be detected much earlier because it's rcs is higher multiple times than amca level. So using fgfa makes the mission more risk prone and more difficult.
Hence this shortcoming of amca can't be used by IAF as a justification for import. Negating your original theory about IAF keeping amca limited to import fgfa.

IAF can still use justification of time , range other su57 capabilities to import fgfa but these difference were always there even before India walked out of fgfa.

The gist of the discussion is that lack of swing role in AMCA will be the reason IAF will use now to import fgfa. Then by your original theory it is the IAF which has stopped add from adding side bays to the design ? Correct ? But isn't IAF shortchanging itself then because fgfa even if imported will be less in numbers than AMCA. Given Russian engines. Fgfa availability will be lesser than AMCA too. Fgfa operating costs will be higher too so will be maintenance time. Given all these issues IAF will ultimately find itself depending more on amca than on fgfa and thus sabotaging itself while limiting AMCA which doesn't make logical sense !

Are you @Sancho ?

@Ashwin , can you verify? If he's not, can you request him to return. This quarantine is getting on my nerves.

 

[Indianhawk]

I have seen official ADA renditions with 4 and 6 BVR weapons. India is also moving to a MLRAAMs rather than CCMs. A version of Astra with a IIR seeker is rumored to be in the making.

That statement is by someone in the know on Bharat rakshak . It was in response to a post which claims f35 can already carry 6 missile and planning for 8 missile in future ( internal weapon bay of course.)

So if amca can carry 6 bvr then it could probably carry 2 bvr+ 2 wvr + 2 bombs. That may already be the case. To omit swing role capability from our latest fighter seems to big a blunder to be made.

 

[Indianhawk]

Are you @Sancho ?

@Ashwin , can you verify? If he's not, can you request him to return. This quarantine is getting on my nerves.

Nope I'm not Sancho or anyone else. I'm just indianhawk. You should find some way to soothe your nerves because this lockdown will persist longer.

 

[randomradio]

With 8.5 T overall payload and 6T internal fuel AMCA will have to be much bigger than rafale in size. It's mtow might be closer to 30 T than 25T . In that case there should also be more space for side bays or bigger main bay. Solving the problem of more internal payload.

AMCA is bigger than Rafale. But the wings are too weak for greater payload. But that enhances performance and also improves stealth.

My reading is 1.5T internal payload for AMCA is the baseline figure the bare minimum requirements. They will probably be reaching 2T payload .

Dunno.

MSA 1.7 T payload also doesn't solve the problem at hand with swing role capacity.

MSA has 2.75T IWB. It can carry 4 BVR missiles in side bays. The main bay can carry 2 1000Kg bombs or 5 BVR missiles.

Aren't there ways around it though. Couldn't there be dual racks within the internal bay to carry two wvr + two bvr + two 250 kg bombs = overall payload about 1.5 T.

Of course not. It's a box, not a hardpoint.

The f35 program already had a lot of joint partners and very large potential orders . So initial orders were not a worry. Not the case with su57. Indian airforce itself questioned commitment of Russian to the program. It looked like Russian wanted to fleece India for initial version with minimum order from there side while India funds it and only when final version is ready will Russian induct it in numbers.

Naturally, we cannot commit to orders before the Russians. FGFA is supposed to follow PAK FA, not the other way round after all.

We are discussing it in context of stealth and swing role capacity. A mission which requires both stealth to enter enemy space and then swing role to run away.

Swing role doesn't help you run away. Swing role only helps you switch from A2G mission set to A2A mission set and vice versa. AMCA needs a combination of WVR missile and performance to run away, but right now it only has performance.

Now you say amca will be f22 level stealth so it has much better chance of going undetected for it's mission. On a similar mission fgfa /su57 will be detected much earlier because it's rcs is higher multiple times than amca level. So using fgfa makes the mission more risk prone and more difficult.
Hence this shortcoming of amca can't be used by IAF as a justification for import. Negating your original theory about IAF keeping amca limited to import fgfa.

Stealth comparison doesn't matter. Only weapons load. Performance is similar for both.

IAF can still use justification of time , range other su57 capabilities to import fgfa but these difference were always there even before India walked out of fgfa.

Those are not enough beyond 2 or 3 squadrons. Due to AMCA's deficiencies, it can be restricted to only 150 jets as a replacement to the Jaguar, whereas FGFA can climb to 300+, including replacing the MKI. Original plan was to buy 350 FGFA, while IAF showed interest only in 150 AMCA.

If AMCA's main problem is fixed, we can buy 400+ AMCA and reduce FGFA to just 63 jets.

This is the level of difference we are talking about. It's also possible that we will buy only 63 Su-57, 150 AMCA and some 200-250 French FCAS, which will replace MKI.

Everything is dependent on how good AMCA is designed right from the beginning. Any major drawback will end the program, beyond some piecemeal numbers, like LCA.

The gist of the discussion is that lack of swing role in AMCA will be the reason IAF will use now to import fgfa. Then by your original theory it is the IAF which has stopped add from adding side bays to the design ? Correct ? But isn't IAF shortchanging itself then because fgfa even if imported will be less in numbers than AMCA. Given Russian engines. Fgfa availability will be lesser than AMCA too. Fgfa operating costs will be higher too so will be maintenance time. Given all these issues IAF will ultimately find itself depending more on amca than on fgfa and thus sabotaging itself while limiting AMCA which doesn't make logical sense !

Soviet designs had poor availability, it's not necessary that the FGFA will follow.

And no, IAF is more concerned about capability than cost. If the FGFA is deemed necessary, hundreds will be bought. IAF chose capability over cost when they decided to go for MKI instead of Mirage 2000. And by the time the FGFA/AMCA choice comes up, India will be significantly richer, so cost will play a much more smaller part. Anyway, directly importing Su-57 from Russia today is cheaper than buying LCA Mk1A. It costs only $36M flyaway. AMCA will cost well above $100M.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Nope I'm not Sancho or anyone else. I'm just indianhawk. You should find some way to soothe your nerves because this lockdown will persist longer.

I kind of thought so. Just wanted to make sure. My nerves are normally soothed whenever I'm online right on this forum. Thanks for the concern though. It's very touching.

 

[vstol Jockey]

MSA has 2.75T IWB. It can carry 4 BVR missiles in side bays. The main bay can carry 2 1000Kg bombs or 5 BVR missiles.

The mainbay can carry 4xBVRAAMs or 2xBVRAAM+2xWVRAAMs. in addition 2xWVRAAMs on wingtips. The configuration can be changed from LO to VLO with change of wingtips with removal of wingtip missile rails. In every configuration it exceeds the ASQR laid down for MMRCA 2.0 in internal bays only.

 

[randomradio]

The mainbay can carry 4xBVRAAMs or 2xBVRAAM+2xWVRAAMs. in addition 2xWVRAAMs on wingtips. The configuration can be changed from LO to VLO with change of wingtips with removal of wingtip missile rails.

Okay, so the 5 MICA plan for the main bay is gone?

In every configuration it exceeds the ASQR laid down for MMRCA 2.0 in internal bays only.

Yep.

 

[Indianhawk]

Naturally, we cannot commit to orders before the Russians. FGFA is supposed to follow PAK FA, not the other way round after all.

Yet we were to fund it even before it enters in large numbers in vvs. And Russian were not interested in our priorities which is more stealth.

MSA has 2.75T IWB. It can carry 4 BVR missiles in side bays. The main bay can carry 2 1000Kg bombs or 5 BVR missiles.

Where can I read more about this MSA . Any links please.

AMCA is bigger than Rafale. But the wings are too weak for greater payload. But that enhances performance and also improves stealth.

I was talking weight Wise. At 24-25 ton mtow it is similar to rafale. Being stealthy it carries more internal fuel than rafale at the cost of external payload. Now if it goes to 28-30ton I believe airframe will have to be much bigger too.

Of course not. It's a box, not a hardpoint.

But there are methods to put more missile into the box. Next gen missile will be designed for internal payloads specifically.

Here f35 carrying 6 missile. One each on side door too. Something like that can be worked up for AMCA.

Stealth comparison doesn't matter. Only weapons load. Performance is similar for both.

Why not. In our case china will have very advanced air defense and Pakistan will get copies of it from china. ( Of course years into future.)
A less stealthy aircraft might not penetrate the air space in first place forget about wvr and swing role. Isn't that why we need amca at f22 level of stealth.

Those are not enough beyond 2 or 3 squadrons. Due to AMCA's deficiencies, it can be restricted to only 150 jets as a replacement to the Jaguar, whereas FGFA can climb to 300+, including replacing the MKI. Original plan was to buy 350 FGFA, while IAF showed interest only for 150 AMCA.

Fine so the lack of swing role is enough to justify 300 fgfa. Original plan was 250 each for India and Russia and Indian version was supposed to be twin seat.

We wouldn't walk out of development if we wanted 300 fgfa. The moment we walked out it's clear it's not worth buying more than some direct imports.

This is the level of difference we are talking about. It's also possible that we will buy only 63 Su-57, 150 AMCA and some 200-250 French FCAS, which will replace MKI.

Everything is dependent on how good AMCA is designed right from the beginning. Any major drawback will end the program, beyond some piecemeal numbers, like LCA.

Lca is not dead it has evolved to mwf although a bit later than we would have liked. Similarly AMCA design will evolve too with time. Buying fcas in 2040-50 means our designer will be sitting duck after delivering AMCA by 2035? Don't think so . We'll rather build upon AMCA for our own 6th gen jet from 2030 to field it by 2050 to catch up with the rest. We could by few fcas just like rafale but I doubt that .

Soviet designs had poor availability, it's not necessary that the FGFA will follow.

And no, IAF is more concerned about capability than cost. If the FGFA is deemed necessary, hundreds will be bought. IAF chose capability over cost when they decided to go for MKI instead of Mirage 2000. And by the time the FGFA/AMCA choice comes up, India will be significantly richer, so cost will play a much more smaller part. Anyway, directly importing Su-57 from Russia today is cheaper than buying LCA Mk1A. It costs only $36M flyaway. AMCA will cost well above $100M.

Russian engines are more maintenance prone than Western one. That has not changed yet. Item 30 is very much an unknown now it will take years to know it it's more reliable. Similarly the sheer size of su57 much bigger than su30 makes it more maintenance prone. Besides looking at American experience stealth aircraft are more maintenance prone than non stealthy once. Ram coatings need repair almost after every flight the bigger the jet more time to re apply the coat.

IAF never chose su30mki. Su27 was imposed on IAF by govt to bail out Russia after collapse of soviet union. IAF painfully worked with Russian to turn it into mki . Derivative of which Russian gleefully sold to china. IAF never stopped looking for mirage hence the whole mmrca thing. Mirages were always the first choice and now the rafale is. We couldn't afford them upfront so we really chose cost over jets.

India will be richer but it's domestic industry will also be much more capable ( other wise we won't be richer) . Su57 is cheaper upfront but will be costly on upkeep . That's the Russian way . Mig35 is also dirt cheap and yet IAF won't touch it with barge pole.

The mainbay can carry 4xBVRAAMs or 2xBVRAAM+2xWVRAAMs. in addition 2xWVRAAMs on wingtips. The configuration can be changed from LO to VLO with change of wingtips with removal of wingtip missile rails. In every configuration it exceeds the ASQR laid down for MMRCA 2.0 in internal bays only.

So the main bay is similar to AMCA but the advantage is having sidebays for bvr ? Talking purely in terms of internal payload.

 

[vstol Jockey]

Okay, so the 5 MICA plan for the main bay is gone?

Yes. It was dropped long back when I revised the design to the final design. The new design allows me to carry 10 missiles in AD role internally and on wintips. Another 12 can be carried on wing pylons in non stealth mode. So in beast mode a total of 22 missiles can be carried.

 

[randomradio]

Yet we were to fund it even before it enters in large numbers in vvs. And Russian were not interested in our priorities which is more stealth.

Rumour.

Where can I read more about this MSA . Any links please.

Right now there's not much content.

Here's the latest discussion between Vstol and me about engine choices. Post 279 onwards.
PAK-FA / Sukhoi Su-57 - Updates and Discussions

I was talking weight Wise. At 24-25 ton mtow it is similar to rafale. Being stealthy it carries more internal fuel than rafale at the cost of external payload. Now if it goes to 28-30ton I believe airframe will have to be much bigger too.

No. Only the wings have to be strengthened.

But there are methods to put more missile into the box. Next gen missile will be designed for internal payloads specifically.View attachment 15087
Here f35 carrying 6 missile. One each on side door too. Something like that can be worked up for AMCA.

AMCA will carry 6 missiles from the very beginning in the main bay. 4 BVR + 2 WVR. But once bombs come in, AMCA can carry only 2 missiles of whatever type.

Why not. In our case china will have very advanced air defense and Pakistan will get copies of it from china. ( Of course years into future.)
A less stealthy aircraft might not penetrate the air space in first place forget about wvr and swing role. Isn't that why we need amca at f22 level of stealth.

Having a 10 or 20 times difference won't matter. Only having a 1000 times difference will matter.

We wouldn't walk out of development if we wanted 300 fgfa. The moment we walked out it's clear it's not worth buying more than some direct imports.

You have too many things confused. IAF will simply go back to the Su-57 if AMCA fails. If the AMCA drawback isn't fixed, AMCA will be dumped. Su-57 can be procured through license production also. There is no need to develop FGFA. There's also the French FCAS.

Russian engines are more maintenance prone than Western one. That has not changed yet. Item 30 is very much an unknown now it will take years to know it it's more reliable. Similarly the sheer size of su57 much bigger than su30 makes it more maintenance prone. Besides looking at American experience stealth aircraft are more maintenance prone than non stealthy once. Ram coatings need repair almost after every flight the bigger the jet more time to re apply the coat.

All that's going to be irrelevant when compared with capability.

I already gave you the math. With FGFA, you will need only 2 aircraft to perform a strike mission. With AMCA without side bays, you will need 6-8. Check your math now.

AMCA will suffer pretty much the same maintenance issues as any next gen aircraft.

IAF never chose su30mki. Su27 was imposed on IAF by govt to bail out Russia after collapse of soviet union. IAF painfully worked with Russian to turn it into mki .

No.

Derivative of which Russian gleefully sold to china.

Obviously no. They bought Flankers long before Su-30MKI was even in the design phase.

IAF never stopped looking for mirage hence the whole mmrca thing. Mirages were always the first choice and now the rafale is. We couldn't afford them upfront so we really chose cost over jets.

No.

Su57 is cheaper upfront but will be costly on upkeep .

It's currently cheaper than Rafale, both purchase and maintenance.

That's the Russian way .

No.

[/quote]Mig35 is also dirt cheap and yet IAF won't touch it with barge pole.[/quote]

Nothing to do with cost.

So the main bay is similar to AMCA but the advantage is having sidebays for bvr ? Talking purely in terms of internal payload.

No. AMCA's payload is inferior to MSA in every single way.

 

[randomradio]

Yes. It was dropped long back when I revised the design to the final design. The new design allows me to carry 10 missiles in AD role internally and on wintips. Another 12 can be carried on wing pylons in non stealth mode. So in beast mode a total of 22 missiles can be carried.

22 missiles would require racks though. That's killer on drag.

What's interesting is you can get that sort of configuration only if the wing has 4 hardpoints. In comparison all stealth aircraft to date have just 3. Su-57 is a bit weird, but even then it's still 3.

So even with external payload, MSA exceeds all other next gen aircraft.

From left to right, I suspect:
1 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 8 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 1

Even without dual racks and with 2 drop tanks, you still get 14 missiles, which pretty much exceeds all 4th and 5th gen aircraft.

 

[Indianhawk]

Rumour

Not really people I know in the IAF have agreed to these concerns and they were circulated in media too by IAF veterans long before India finally walked out.

Having a 10 or 20 times difference won't matter. Only having a 1000 times difference will matter.

By that logic using rafale in place of su57 also doesn't matter because rafale with 2 bvr + 2 wvr + 2 bombs will still be under 3-4 m2 while su57 with internal payload will still be 0 .5 to 1 m2 . Not even 10 times difference. Perhaps that's why IAF walked out fgfa .

And if you say amca will reach f22 level stealth than the difference between su57 and amca may actually be very substantial.

You have too many things confused. IAF will simply go back to the Su-57 if AMCA fails. If the AMCA drawback isn't fixed, AMCA will be dumped. Su-57 can be procured through license production also. There is no need to develop FGFA. There's also the French FCAS.

It's a national strategic program. We are investing billions into it. It may not be perfect but it can't be abandoned . Like j said before it will overcome shortcoming by evolving in batches. It's already two batch program there can be more if needed.

Going back to su57 means abandoning all vendors of AMCA and putting domestic industry decades back . Not gonna happen . Your views are too simplistic .they are not accounting politics or economic or domestic supply chains.

I already gave you the math. With FGFA, you will need only 2 aircraft to perform a strike mission. With AMCA without side bays, you will need 6-8. Check your math now.

Your math is irrelevant for stealth mission. What good are two fgfa when they will be shot down even before reaching Target. Like a said before for a stealth mission only a more stealthy aircraft can replace less stealthy one. Doing other way around is plan stupid.

BTW why not just use 2 rafale then by your own logic it's stealth is only 7-8 times less than fgfa? You are confused by your own arguments.

No

Saying doesn't change fact of history.

AMCA will suffer pretty much the same maintenance issues as any next gen aircraft.

A heavy bigger jet will need more maintenance. One of Russian origin even more. That's just common sense.

Obviously no. They bought Flankers long before Su-30MKI was even in the design phase.

They later bought su30 mkk which Russian developed using mki program progress.

No

Again saying no doesn't change the fact that despite buying su30 IAF still went for more mirages which resulted in mmrca competition in the first place .

It's currently cheaper than Rafale, both purchase and maintenance.

How do you even know about it's maintenance costs when only 1 is series produced and that too crashed . Not to mention it's much bigger than rafale.

No

Again that is what we have experienced till date with most of Russian products we have buyed . nothing you say will change that .

Nothing to do with cost.

Exactly. So why would we buy fgfa just because it's coming in cheap. There are a whole lot of other factors and not much in favor of fgfa .

 

[vstol Jockey]

From left to right, I suspect:
1 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 8 - 2 - 2 - 1 - 1

Even without dual racks and with 2 drop tanks, you still get 14 missiles, which pretty much exceeds all 4th and 5th gen aircraft.

The inner most wing pylons are stressed for 2tons and can carry 1xmeteor+2xMICA on triple carrier. The mid pylons are stressed for 1.2tons and can carry 2xMICA/Astra on twin carrier. So a total of eight in internal bays and a total of 14 on wing stations including wingtips. The additional fuel will be in combat CFTs. But the internal fuel fraction of 0.4 will ensure that with just one refuelling the aircraft will hit an endurance of above six hours. I will not like to push a single seater beyond six hours in air for pilot fatigue considerations.

 

[Chain Smoker]

Okay, so the 5 MICA plan for the main bay is gone?



Yep.

design of aircraft has been changed so I think that specifications that u r taking are of older one.