ADA AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

[Ashwin]

Cabinet Committee on Security gives go-ahead to indigenous 5th-gen stealth fighter project​

NEW DELHI: India will now finally develop its own ambitious fifth-generation stealth fighter, the swing-role advanced medium combat aircraft (AMCA) capable of achieving supersonic cruise speeds with relative ease, at an initial cost of over Rs 15,000 crore.

The cabinet committee on security (CCS) approved the long-pending full-scale engineering development of five prototypes of the indigenous twin-engine AMCA, along with a structural test specimen, extensive flight testing and certification, by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) of DRDO, sources told TOI.

The CCS also cleared the procurement of 34 more Dhruv twin-engine advanced light helicopters Mark-III, 25 for the Army and nine for the Coast Guard, from Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) for well over Rs 8,000 crore. They will add to the around 300 such 5.5-tonne class choppers already inducted by the armed forces.

The first AMCA prototype, as per projected timelines, will “roll out” in four years, and then make its maiden flight another year after that. “It will take 9-10 years for the actual production of AMCA by HAL to begin after all the development and flight-testing of prototypes. So, IAF will begin inducting them after 2035,” a source said.

Advanced stealth features in the 25-tonne AMCA will range from “serpentine air-intake” and an internal bay for smart weapons to radar absorbing materials and conformal antenna. It will be able to achieve supersonic cruise speeds without the use of afterburners as well as have data fusion and multi-sensor integration with AESA (active electronically scanned array) radars.

IAF currently plans to induct seven squadrons (126 jets) of the expensive AMCA. The first two squadrons will be powered by the GE-F414 engines in the 98 Kilonewton thrust class to be jointly developed with the US. The next five AMCA Mark-2 squadrons, in turn, will have 110 Kilonewton engines. Along with GE, the French Safran and British Rolls-Royce are in the fray for this. “Certain technologies that have to go into the AMCA will first have to be realized on the single-engine 4.5-generation Tejas Mark-2. These include sensor-fusion, sidestick controller, canards and artificial pilot technologies,” a source said.

The only currently operational 5th-Gen jets are the American F/A-22 Raptors and F-35 Lightning-II Joint Strike Fighters as well as the Russian Sukhoi-57s, with China also proclaiming its Chengdu J-20 is in the same class. Turkey’s 5th-Gen fighter called Kaan also made its brief maiden flight last month.
In India, the AMCA will follow the progressive induction of the Tejas Mark-1A and Mark-2 jets, all of which are critical for IAF because it’s currently grappling with just 31 fighter squadrons when 42.5 are authorised to tackle the China-Pakistan threat.

While IAF currently has only 40 Tejas Mark-1 jets powered by GE-F404 engines, deliveries of the 83 improved Tejas Mark-1A fighters for Rs 46,898 crore will soon begin, and will be followed by another 97 such jets for around Rs 67,000 crore.

The CCS in August 2022 had cleared the over Rs 9,000 crore development of the Tejas Mark-2 fighters with the more powerful GE-F414 engines. IAF plans to induct six squadrons (108 jets) of Tejas Mark-2, which will have a longer combat range and greater weapon-carrying capacity than the Mark-1A variant.

“If all goes well, deliveries of the 180 Tejas Mark-1A jets should be completed by around 2032. Tejas Mark-2 deliveries will then begin, followed by the AMCA. HAL, of course, will have to ramp up its production rate to deliver all these aircraft in time,” another source said

 

[randomradio]

Nice, we must have made our engine decision.

 

[Parthu]

Nice, we must have made our engine decision.

For AMCA Mk-2? What is the indication of that happening?

 

[marich01]

For AMCA Mk-2? What is the indication of that happening?

In all seriousness, it is probably the first phase. Quite obvious thee target is to not be in a situation where we can not show any visible proof of not having a 5th gen jet in next 10 years timeframe. Even a running proto program is good for general morale & PR posture.
My cynical view is decision was made already , just being timed with the election. Very much like missile testing. Political influence often behind the reason.

 

[randomradio]

For AMCA Mk-2? What is the indication of that happening?

Without a next gen engine, the AMCA's gonna go the same way as Marut. So from our side, it's crucial. The FOEM partner chosen will be reliable and will very likely stick to the contract, but we do not know what the associated govt will do when things go south.

The threat of India buying Russian if AMCA fails will be on the back of their minds. So we have that going in our favor.

 

[Parthu]

In all seriousness, it is probably the first phase. Quite obvious thee target is to not be in a situation where we can not show any visible proof of not having a 5th gen jet in next 10 years timeframe. Even a running proto program is good for general morale & PR posture.
My cynical view is decision was made already , just being timed with the election. Very much like missile testing. Political influence often behind the reason.

Without a next gen engine, the AMCA's gonna go the same way as Marut. So from our side, it's crucial. The FOEM partner chosen will be reliable and will very likely stick to the contract, but we do not know what the associated govt will do when things go south.

The threat of India buying Russian if AMCA fails will be on the back of their minds. So we have that going in our favor.

But that's why we split the program into Mk-1 and Mk-2.

So that even if the next-gen engine program fails to deliver, we still at least have a VLO airframe on hand in the form of Mk-1 that can still give us shoot-first advantage against most** threats we would be facing in the 2030s.

Point being, CCS clearance for Mk-1 is in no way an indication that the Mk-2 engine partner selection is sorted.

**Barring the PLAAF possibly introducing a 6th gen platform into the conversation.

 

[randomradio]

But that's why we split the program into Mk-1 and Mk-2.

So that even if the next-gen engine program fails to deliver, we still at least have a VLO airframe on hand in the form of Mk-1 that can still give us shoot-first advantage against most** threats we would be facing in the 2030s.

Point being, CCS clearance for Mk-1 is in no way an indication that the Mk-2 engine partner selection is sorted.

**Barring the PLAAF possibly introducing a 6th gen platform into the conversation.

Mk1 and Mk2 are not two different jets, the monikers were made up for the general public. There is only AMCA. To develop Mk1, we need Mk2's engine finalized, then the engine will dropfit into Mk1.

After AMCA enters the TD phase, the engine developers will take a year or two to design the engine, which will be the time required to finalize the final production model of AMCA before IOC. So all 150 jets will be of the same standard.

 

[marich01]

But that's why we split the program into Mk-1 and Mk-2.

So that even if the next-gen engine program fails to deliver, we still at least have a VLO airframe on hand in the form of Mk-1 that can still give us shoot-first advantage against most** threats we would be facing in the 2030s.

Point being, CCS clearance for Mk-1 is in no way an indication that the Mk-2 engine partner selection is sorted.

**Barring the PLAAF possibly introducing a 6th gen platform into the conversation.

Yeah, and after splitting the program even not starting one phase would have seriously posed questions about our own security policy had they waited for all the related tech, materials being developed to mature first. Even parliament standing committee has recommended buying 5th gen platform from outside now, twice, in its report, should it be available to us.

It is true about phase 2, and they are very clear about it because it is the most important part of the program, more than phase 2. Which is why they are taking more time with it.

As for fielding other gen jets, we know chinese habit, their tech level and we know the complexity involved with 5th gen itself. So assuming that mere a stealth shape jet flying is not an upper hand at all. Turkey flies today, Korea also, but unless they are getting proven tech from elsewhere they will face similar hard time maturing 5th gen tech, systems enough. Our IAF always preferred late tranches of fighters because the base subsystems are proven, LRU supply chain in good shape, possible for future upgrades on a mature platform. So we have flexibility in every way as user.

See, chinese turkish systems will always be used against sort of no threat scenario, adversary being highly below ranked in mil tech. But that is not true test against near peer. Once Rus started shoring up short range ad, TB2 started to fall, hence Tb3 and akinci coming to offer better standoff ability. In practical use 5th gen, then 6th gen platforms will be similar, there will always be a counter. Important lesson for us is starting a program and then being able to roll out future upgraded versions. Without that, everything is just plans on paper.
Distributed Aperture System is for AMCA MK-2, will be developed by IRDE with a DcPP. It is a combination of 2 system : + DAS-HD (High Definition)+ DAS-DB (Dual Band)Private and public vendors are competing for it.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1765992284020170866

 

[Parthu]

Mk1 and Mk2 are not two different jets, the monikers were made up for the general public. There is only AMCA. To develop Mk1, we need Mk2's engine finalized, then the engine will dropfit into Mk1.

No we don't. That's the whole point of it.

We are building Mk1 around the F414 alone. We'll be buying at least two squadrons worth of those jets (meaning about the same size as Tejas Mk-1 FOC order). The PDR & CDR of the AMCA as it exists was done with F414 in mind. Not the future engine. We don't even know what the exact dimensions of the next-gen engine are going to be.

We definitely INTEND it to be such that it can drop-fit in the same airframe design as Mk1 without needing any modifications to the airframe (let alone necessitating new-build airframes under a revised Mk2 design), but that is not a given.

Because we do not know what engine we're going to get, how much it's going to weigh exactly, or any critical info like that. Because some of the proposals require new developments. Right now we're still negotiating to see who is going to offer us more control over IP & ToT.

That is the whole reason we went with the Mk1 with proven engine, to de-risk the program. So that just in case the next-gen engine fails, we can just continue building more Mk1s with F414s, which we'll be license-building in India with 80% ToT anyway.

As for fielding other gen jets, we know chinese habit, their tech level and we know the complexity involved with 5th gen itself. So assuming that mere a stealth shape jet flying is not an upper hand at all. Turkey flies today, Korea also, but unless they are getting proven tech from elsewhere they will face similar hard time maturing 5th gen tech, systems enough. Our IAF always preferred late tranches of fighters because the base subsystems are proven, LRU supply chain in good shape, possible for future upgrades on a mature platform. So we have flexibility in every way as user.

It's the best shot we have. Combine that with loyal wingmen & sensor degradation of the enemy, it's highly likely to retain shoot-first advantage.

It's physically smaller than the J-20 and lacks canards, which aren't the best feature for RCS reduction to begin with.

Keep in mind the KF-21 doesn't even have internal weapon bays in it's current iteration, but we plan to have them from the start. We are serious about low observability on the AMCA.

 

[Ashwin]

Still no press release!

 

[randomradio]

No we don't. That's the whole point of it.

We are building Mk1 around the F414 alone. We'll be buying at least two squadrons worth of those jets (meaning about the same size as Tejas Mk-1 FOC order). The PDR & CDR of the AMCA as it exists was done with F414 in mind. Not the future engine. We don't even know what the exact dimensions of the next-gen engine are going to be.

We definitely INTEND it to be such that it can drop-fit in the same airframe design as Mk1 without needing any modifications to the airframe (let alone necessitating new-build airframes under a revised Mk2 design), but that is not a given.

Because we do not know what engine we're going to get, how much it's going to weigh exactly, or any critical info like that. Because some of the proposals require new developments. Right now we're still negotiating to see who is going to offer us more control over IP & ToT.

That is the whole reason we went with the Mk1 with proven engine, to de-risk the program. So that just in case the next-gen engine fails, we can just continue building more Mk1s with F414s, which we'll be license-building in India with 80% ToT anyway.

As per the designers, there won't be any difference. There's just one AMCA. Mk1 and Mk2 do not exist.

We can keep producing more AMCA with F414, but it will lose its value in the eyes of the IAF. They will have to pursue an alternative, like they did with Marut. The F414 won't unlock AMCA's true capabilities, Rafale will be a better option.

 

[Rajput Lion]

As per the designers, there won't be any difference. There's just one AMCA. Mk1 and Mk2 do not exist.

We can keep producing more AMCA with F414, but it will lose its value in the eyes of the IAF. They will have to pursue an alternative, like they did with Marut. The F414 won't unlock AMCA's true capabilities, Rafale will be a better option.

AMCA MK1 will have very low RCS. In an air to air confrontation with PAF and PLAAF, that should enable it to get the first look and shoot advantage.

However, more Rafales is a totally different proposition and we should have over 100 Rafales in any case. I would say even import or assemble 2-seat version of Su-57 in-between, by the time AMCA is ready to fight, i.e., around 2040.

 

[Parthu]

As per the designers, there won't be any difference. There's just one AMCA. Mk1 and Mk2 do not exist.

We can keep producing more AMCA with F414, but it will lose its value in the eyes of the IAF. They will have to pursue an alternative, like they did with Marut. The F414 won't unlock AMCA's true capabilities,

That's the intention. But there's no guarantee it's going to work. As of yet there's so many unknowns. The tech, the know-how transfer, the cost. The whole thing could break down or get delayed indefinitely over any of these issues.

Hopefully it won't, but in case it happens, we need to have a Plan B on hand. Continuation of the config with F414 is that Plan B.

We have no other realistic option for a low observable manned platform. F35 won't be sold to us, we won't buy from the Turks, we've already rejected the Su-57 as inadequate for our needs (and Su-75 probably has the same problems), and the KF-21 is no better than AMCA, if not worse. Any effort to procure likes of GCAP/FCAS will take much longer than AMCA, and cost way more.

Rafale will be a better option.

I doubt it. AMCA will have a considerably bigger radar, and a much smaller RCS (thanks to VLO airframe + internal weapons).

Rafale will have a role to play, especially as a coordinator for MUMT & a carrier for payloads like SCALP etc. But if you want to have the best chance for a look-first, shoot-first opportunity in A2A engagements, AMCA is still the way to go, even if it only comes with F414.

 

[randomradio]

AMCA MK1 will have very low RCS. In an air to air confrontation with PAF and PLAAF, that should enable it to get the first look and shoot advantage.

However, more Rafales is a totally different proposition and we should have over 100 Rafales in any case. I would say even import or assemble 2-seat version of Su-57 in-between, by the time AMCA is ready to fight, i.e., around 2040.

AMCA Mk1 will not be suitable for air combat, it will be more suitable for ground attack.

 

[Rajput Lion]

AMCA Mk1 will not be suitable for air combat, it will be more suitable for ground attack.

With two F414 engines it shall have around ~200KN wet thrust. That should give it decent thrust to weight ratio for proper air combat. Yes, it won't supercruise! But then supercruise isn't 'be all, end all' of air-combat. It should have GaN AESA radar of over 1200TRMs(could be 1400-1500 TRMs as well in final form). Combine that with frontal RCS of -50dBsm or even less, it's going to be a dangerous opponent for even J-20, in fact much more than Rafale.

 

[randomradio]

That's the intention. But there's no guarantee it's going to work. As of yet there's so many unknowns. The tech, the know-how transfer, the cost. The whole thing could break down or get delayed indefinitely over any of these issues.

Hopefully it won't, but in case it happens, we need to have a Plan B on hand. Continuation of the config with F414 is that Plan B.

We have no other realistic option for a low observable manned platform. F35 won't be sold to us, we won't buy from the Turks, we've already rejected the Su-57 as inadequate for our needs (and Su-75 probably has the same problems), and the KF-21 is no better than AMCA, if not worse. Any effort to procure likes of GCAP/FCAS will take much longer than AMCA, and cost way more.

AMCA has no backup plan outside of an import. If the F414 is all it gets, then it's just a 4.5th gen aircraft. Even with a stealth airframe, the engine will kill its stealth. It will then have to rely on EW for survival. Plus the F414 will be insufficient to operate the avionics.

If AMCA fails, then we will continue to rely on imports. We will have to choose a stopgap and hold a competition between SCAF and GCAP, and whatever the Swedish come up with, with the Russians and Americans acting as participants once again. In the meantime, we will have to start from scratch again.

I doubt it. AMCA will have a considerably bigger radar, and a much smaller RCS (thanks to VLO airframe + internal weapons).

On paper, yes. Practically, no. 'Cause AMCA's being designed to be better, it will also need a better engine to both power and cool the avionics. The F-35's radar is bigger than the Rafale's, but the Rafale has greater detection and tracking range currently, primarily 'cause the F135 is underpowered. And this is with merely an underpowered engine, not an engine that's an entire generation behind what AMCA needs.

Rafale will have a role to play, especially as a coordinator for MUMT & a carrier for payloads like SCALP etc. But if you want to have the best chance for a look-first, shoot-first opportunity in A2A engagements, AMCA is still the way to go, even if it only comes with F414.

AMCA won't provide first-look with F414. You are assuming enemy radars are at co-altitude and perpendicular to the aircraft's nose. How is that possible in real life? Aircraft on patrol operate while flying parallel to the border most of the time, they are not always directly headed towards the border. Even so, they still need to make a turn. Or they need to circle around the same point. So aircraft on patrol are always exposed to the enemy from all sides.

And, now radars are moving into space, so the aircraft's being looked at from pretty much every angle.

 

[randomradio]

With two F414 engines it shall have around ~200KN wet thrust. That should give it decent thrust to weight ratio for proper air combat. Yes, it won't supercruise! But then supercruise isn't 'be all, end all' of air-combat. It should have GaN AESA radar of over 1200TRMs(could be 1400-1500 TRMs as well in final form). Combine that with frontal RCS of -50dBsm or even less, it's going to be a dangerous opponent for even J-20, in fact much more than Rafale.

The engine won't have enough electrical power or bleed air to cool the avionics. It will be an outdated engine in the 2030s. Even if we upgrade to the EPE, it won't change the fact that it's not a stealthy engine, so the aircraft itself will not be stealthy. Already explained in my previous post.

 

[Rajput Lion]

The engine won't have enough electrical power or bleed air to cool the avionics. It will be an outdated engine in the 2030s. Even if we upgrade to the EPE, it won't change the fact that it's not a stealthy engine, so the aircraft itself will not be stealthy. Already explained in my previous post.

Point taken. But still in case of head-on BVR combat, AMCA MK1 will be much better than any version of Rafale because of its extremely low frontal RCS. IAF is adamant about the VLO stealth of AMCA. It is going to be very very stealthy.

 

[randomradio]

Point taken. But still in case of head-on BVR combat, AMCA MK1 will be much better than any version of Rafale because of its extremely low frontal RCS. IAF is adamant about the VLO stealth of AMCA. It is going to be very very stealthy.

There is no head-on combat, the aircraft has to maneuver across different altitudes and move in different directions in a BVR fight. Recall that the MKIs had to go cold in 2019, exposing their engines in the process?

The difference between Rafale and AMCA Mk1 will be optimization. Rafale will work, the same argument I make against the F-35, whereas AMCA Mk1 will be insufficient hence unoptimized.

For example, if I have 10% less power than what's necessary, it doesn't mean I'm 10% less performant, it could mean I may not even function.

These are electrical and mechanical systems. If the right amount of power is not delivered, then the performance drop is extremely high. For example, when you face low voltage at home, lights flicker, the fan slows down considerably, and high power computers won't even switch on. So power supply has to be perfect. Same story with mechanical power. You can't move a stopped car in the 5th gear, you gotta drop down to the 1st or 2nd. You can have more power, but not less.

Anyway, AMCA's stealth objective is to match the F-22/F-35. What will be central to the aircraft's superiority will be avionics, not airframe. So the engine needs to be up to spec. Airframe will be a priority in the MKI replacement.

 

[Parthu]

AMCA has no backup plan outside of an import. If the F414 is all it gets, then it's just a 4.5th gen aircraft. Even with a stealth airframe, the engine will kill its stealth. It will then have to rely on EW for survival. Plus the F414 will be insufficient to operate the avionics.

If AMCA fails, then we will continue to rely on imports. We will have to choose a stopgap and hold a competition between SCAF and GCAP, and whatever the Swedish come up with, with the Russians and Americans acting as participants once again. In the meantime, we will have to start from scratch again.

We always have backup plans. A sub-par plane in hand is worth more than a better plane on paper.

That's from where things like Tejas Mk-1A emerged in response to delays in MMRCA & Tejas Mk2.

The European 6th gens can come in as a replacement for MKI in the air superiority role. They are impossible to justify as an alternative to the AMCA in the medium weight, swing-role duties. Even the UK will continue to operate the cheaper F35 in that role, with GCAP taking care of the higher-end duties. For the French it'll be the Rafale F5 + SCAF.

On paper, yes. Practically, no. 'Cause AMCA's being designed to be better, it will also need a better engine to both power and cool the avionics. The F-35's radar is bigger than the Rafale's, but the Rafale has greater detection and tracking range currently, primarily 'cause the F135 is underpowered. And this is with merely an underpowered engine, not an engine that's an entire generation behind what AMCA needs.

The F35 is operating a dozen other sensors simultaneously besides the radar. That's why it's underpowered. Not to mention the single engine setup gives it a smaller margin of error with regard to how much power it's allowed to tap for the avionics.

The sensor requirements on the AMCA are far less demanding + it has twin engines. Things like DAS won't even be implemented in Mk-1, so all that juice is available for the FCR to tap. But those extra sensor apertures will come into play in Mk-2, that's why Mk2 needs the next-gen engine.

AMCA won't provide first-look with F414. You are assuming enemy radars are at co-altitude and perpendicular to the aircraft's nose. How is that possible in real life? Aircraft on patrol operate while flying parallel to the border most of the time, they are not always directly headed towards the border. Even so, they still need to make a turn. Or they need to circle around the same point. So aircraft on patrol are always exposed to the enemy from all sides.

And, now radars are moving into space, so the aircraft's being looked at from pretty much every angle.

It doesn't matter what angle you look from. A Rafale with external loads is NEVER going to be a smaller or less conspicuous target than an AMCA carrying 4 x AAMs in internal bays.

And the Rafale cannot just be blasting radar & still expect to gain a first-look opportunity. The enemy has passive sensors & VLO platforms optimized to defeat X-band. That's a game of diminishing returns.

Beyond a point, having a VLO airframe is a disproportionate advantage in of itself. Especially in a future where unmanned MUMT platforms will be acting as sensor nodes or forward observers. Yes, AMCA without the next-gen engine isn't going to realize it's full potential - but in case that next gen engine fails to realize, it's a no-brainer to continue building airframes of the Mk-1 config with F414s. Will we run a simultaneous competition to acquire a jet from abroad? Probably - but any such offer is unlikely to give you anything that you couldn't get in the engine JV to begin with...in all likelihood you will get far less control over IP in such a competition if it's offering finished solutions. So what would have been the point in ditching the JV?