Imagine an actual shooting war with an adversary with overwhelming number of VLO airframes. It could well become something like air engagements in gulf war.
MKIs were on CAP defending our airspace. If they were on the offense then head-on look first, shoot first matters, which AMCA MK1 shall provide us. Of course, when the fight begins you've to maneuver in all directions to gain a better firing position or to dodge missile or just cranking to increase your survivability. But by then the enemy already knows your presence.
J-20 also isn't full-on VLO with AL-31F and WS-10 engines, yet Chinese procured over 150 of them. Even now WS-15 may not be ready for serial production. USAF has similarly included plethora of F-35s without its definite version(Block-4) or definitive engine(AETP). Even undercooked J-20 and F-35 are better than mature J-16 and F-16.
So, we'll need to adapt a similar approach to the Chinese. We need a stealth fighter of our own at any condition. No amount of Rafale can substitute a VLO fighter. Having said that I've always been a great admirer and supporter of Rafale and still believe we'll end up with over 100 of them. But AMCA even in MK1 version is required very badly as PLA-AF VLO fleet is increasing very quickly.
Won't happen against an airforce that is fully networked. Modern IADS has become so advance that even VLO fighters can't guarantee full air superiority. So, if one has a strong IADS network tagged with their airborne assets then even VLO can be tackled.
We can't half-*censored* AMCA like we did with LCA. It won't work for high-end capabilities.
If AMCA is only stealthy from front, then it's a semi-stealth jet suitable only for strike missions, what was initially planned for the first AMCA design.
MKI replacement has to be Indian, we don't have a choice on that matter. Once we cross 2035, we can no longer rely on imports for the high end. Particularly in this segment because the jet will be designed a decade after SCAF and GCAP, to be current or more advanced than US and Chinese jets of the time. It will also be an opportunity for us to take the lead. This obviously cannot be achieved with an import.
I'm not comparing the F-35 with AMCA, I'm saying if the engine is insufficient, then the entire program will fail, 'cause the entire program is dependent on the engine.
AMCA will carry far more electronics that are more power hungry than the F-35. It's obvious the F414 will not be enough. Jets of the time will require 500-1000 kW.
Anyway, the F135, as a big engine, has room for 2 80 kW power generators which is upgradeable. F414 has only 1 which is 60 kW. It's not sufficient even by SH standards. Tempest will generate 1 MW with one of its engines. So even we will need to pull power directly from the compressor.
It doesn't matter even if the Rafale's RCS is bigger, it will be optimized.
Here's an example of optimization. PC vs PS5.
Just watch the 2 min of the Environmental Detail section and you will get the point. Even with a 10th gen i9 and 4090, the PC couldn't do as well as the PS. It's all about the hardware and software communicating with each other perfectly.
Also, with F414 it's not a VLO jet in the first place.
AMCA without its main engine is just a failure. The IAF will be forced to build them, but an alternate import will also have to be made, with focus switching to the MKI replacement by then.
In any case, if the West fails to provide us with what we want, we will go to the Russians.
That doesn't matter. You still have to climb up, down, bank left, right. Every maneuver you make exposes your engine.
CAP is also part of air combat. Even if you perform fighter sweep, you still expose yourself to enemies on the side and rear.
Your ASF needs 360 deg stealth or it's not stealth. 'Cause once you break through the first wave, then the first wave is "behind" you.
Why do you think the IAF wanted a rear-facing radar for the FGFA? Or why the Rafale is also getting 360 deg radar? The enemy is everywhere.
In fact, during CAP you are the safest, and you will still expose your engine during the fight. And to expose the engine, it's just a slightly different angle.
Their new engine is stealthy. Their next engine will give them supercruise. And unlike us, the Chinese build mission-specific aircraft, so they don't need to have everything on one jet.
What I'm saying is if the AMCA fails, then we can only rely on the Rafales, until an MKI replacement comes in. An AMCA with F414 won't replace the real AMCA. The Rafale is the better alternative for a failed AMCA. And a stopgap jet will have to be bought, primarily Russian.
AMCA Mk1 is useless for air combat.
We don't want to. I'm saying, that remains a possibility. Any number of things can go wrong.
I'm saying that's why it was a good idea to de-risk the program by going with F414 as interim option that at least allows us to get a few squadrons of stealthy jets in hand, and more if and when it comes to it - especially as even Pakistan will be inducting FC-31s not long from now. We cannot afford to completely lose the shoot-first opportunity on both fronts.
The Mk-1 certainly not.
AMCA will have 2 x F414s. It won't hold a candle to Western jets - but by no means a slouch against likes of J-20/31.
But that's besides the point. If we are forced to build additional squadrons of Mk1 AMCA, that would be because we have no other choice.
BruhYou cannot 'optimize' away physical attributes of an airframe.
That is why internal carriage of stores is such a big deal. Missiles & drop tanks were not designed to be low observable. It's like carrying a Luneberg lens into combat.
A Rafale with 2 x AAMs on the fuselage stations will be able to look & shoot first against a Rafale with 6 x AAMs on its wing stations & 2 x drop tanks. A Rafale with a clean load will be able to look first against a Rafale with 2 x AAMs on fuselage stations. It just can't shoot first cuz it has no weapons.
An AMCA with 4 x AAMs in internal bays will be able to look & shoot first against anything that's carrying stores externally.
You are underestimating just how huge the drop in RCS is going to be compared to a non-LO aircraft, in a combat config. And that's not just because of the airframe shaping, DSI & trapezoidal wings, we're working on advanced RAM coatings for the bird as well.
Forget Rafale, if an F-22 shows up with it's transit tanks out like this, AMCA will look & shoot it first:
AMCA may not be VLO in all-aspect, but it is virtually guaranteed to have a considerably lower RCS than Rafale in any imaginable aspect.
F414 is not an interim option at all. We can buy more than 40, but it's entirely predicated on the fact that the new engine will become available.
Yes, it will. It's a pretty big aircraft, the airframe is highly optimized for internal carriage. More importantly, it will carry all GaN. Sure, the F-35 will catch up, but requires significant modernization for that.
The J-20/31 are getting next gen engines.
You cannot 'optimize' away physical attributes of an airframe.
Of course you can. AMCA's physical attributes for stealth are not significantly different from the F-35.
That is why internal carriage of stores is such a big deal. Missiles & drop tanks were not designed to be low observable. It's like carrying a Luneberg lens into combat.
A Rafale with 2 x AAMs on the fuselage stations will be able to look & shoot first against a Rafale with 6 x AAMs on its wing stations & 2 x drop tanks. A Rafale with a clean load will be able to look first against a Rafale with 2 x AAMs on fuselage stations. It just can't shoot first cuz it has no weapons.
An AMCA with 4 x AAMs in internal bays will be able to look & shoot first against anything that's carrying stores externally.
You are underestimating just how huge the drop in RCS is going to be compared to a non-LO aircraft, in a combat config. And that's not just because of the airframe shaping, DSI & trapezoidal wings, we're working on advanced RAM coatings for the bird as well.
Forget Rafale, if an F-22 shows up with it's transit tanks out like this, AMCA will look & shoot it first:
AMCA may not be VLO in all-aspect, but it is virtually guaranteed to have a considerably lower RCS than Rafale in any imaginable aspect.
Rafale achieves LO/VLO electronically. It's unclear when AMCA will achieve stealth electronically, but with F414, it won't be stealthy. Every single part of a jet needs to be stealthy for stealth to work. And as I said, if the F414 is used, then the AMCA will have to use EW to hide, like the Rafale does. And in this case, a proven and optimized jet like the Rafale will gain the upperhand.
The new engine is most definitely necessary for AMCA to surpass the capabilities of the Rafale. And with F414 alone, it will be superior in very few areas, but mostly inferior in areas that count, like air combat. We can upgrade to the EPE, but the program is pretty much dead before it takes to the air. It will be a very expensive salvage operation instead.
That's why IAF opted out of FGFA program cause they didn't consider it stealthy with AL-41F1 engines. See the points @randomradio is making. He is stating exactly what and how IAF thinks.
IAF won't compromise on stealth of AMCA, period.
I think we might already have decided about the engine of AMCA MK2. Post elections we may even sign a deal. Of course, AMCA MK1 isn't the definitive version. That's why IAF has capped it at just 40 number. Without next-gen engine it won't be inducted en masse.
PS: Even F-22 and F-35 aren't as stealthy from side aspect as they are from front. All aspect stealth will only come with 6th gen tailless fighters. So even with second gen engine AMCA still may be detected from side like all tailed fighters. We'll need to wait for a proper MKI replacement to achieve full-on ASF against our adversaries and all aspect stealth.
PS2: USAF new report on Ukraine war talks about limited air superiority against modern SAMs. The days of full-on aerial domination are gone as per them even with stealth fighters.
What is electronic stealth? . If it was indeed effective then the whole world wouldn't be developing stealth aircraft. Everyone knows that 5th gen aircraft are less maneuverable due to stealth.
Active cancellation. Only the French have achieved this to a significant extent. It's not yet as good as passive stealth, but it will get there in time, and perhaps even surpass it. Rafale's current frontal RCS is that of a sparrow when clean and increases by a factor of 10-100 with external weapons. The F5 could improve on that, perhaps enough to match the F-22/F-35 by 2030, perhaps more.
On the F4 and below, the main effects are in the front and rear, not much from the sides.
If AMCA gets this tech early on, then it can make do with the F414 for some time. But its stealth shaping will be largely useless if that happens, in most cases. TEDBF would be the better bet then, but may not be as good as the Rafale F5 'cause of maturity.
The world is developing both technologies.
Incorrect. 5th gen like the F-22 is far more maneuverable than older jets. The only difference is the F-22 is not more agile than it could have been had it not been for the stealth requirement. So when they say that, it's all relative to itself, not other jets.
So, the F-22 is less maneuverable due to stealth, but is more maneuverable than the Flanker and Eagle.
Some journos are just using this argument as an excuse to cover for the F-35's weaknesses.
It's the same as the J-20 has canards so it's not stealth argument. It's less stealthy only relative to itself, but it's still more stealthy than the F-15 and Su-27, very likely more maneuverable too. The only question is if it matches up with the F-22 or not.
The IAF will be forced to buy it, with the promise of a new engine during MLUs.
That's in reference to China, not others. We are yet to see the Russians catch up, if they become serious about building a proper 1500/2000-fighter air force.
All that AMCA in its Mk1 config will have is an FCR & an IRST. It's going to be broadly the same setup as on Tejas Mk2. It won't even have DAS.
So no, it's power needs for feeding avionics will be far far lesser than the F-35's, which not only has an FCR but also what amounts to 6 x IRSTs (in the form of EODAS), an internally-powered Laser Designation Pod (in the form of EOTS), and a computationally intensive GUI that renders the data gathered from all sensors onto the pilot's HMD, overlaid with all tactically relevant elements to interact with. AMCA would be using a traditional HMD with a HUD as backup.
Having GaN does not imply that the power needs of the FCR go up. While a GaN FCR would be theoretically capable of outputting more power, it's not necessary to be the case. On the flip side, more often than not, having GaN is a means of allowing you to be far more power-efficient than GaAs.
So in fact, in order to do the same job (i.e. detect the same target at the same range), AMCA's Uttam Mk2/3 would actually need to use less power than APG-81, not more.
'Nextgen' in the Chinese context is not the same as nextgen in the Western context.
Active cancellation can work satisfactorily against legacy radars with singular radiating elements and no real ability to frequency hop. Perhaps even those small gapfiller radars you deploy around valleys & gorges that Rafale is trying to do a nap-of-earth deep strike through, where you often are only in the line of sight of one radar at a time, where even tackling an AESA can be done (provided you have pre-existing ELINT of that radar's freq-hop algo).
In air-to-air combat with a non-stealthy airframe, where you are being simultaneously painted by half a dozen AESA-FCRs each with 1,000+ elements operating in slightly different frequencies, not to mention the giant AESA AEW&C backing them up & several dozen MUMT sensor drones - all looking at you from different angles & altitudes to one another, each requiring you to present a slightly different output - that's too much to ask for any computer short of something with several sets of qubits in it.
You cannot fool modern airborne AESAs through Active cancellation alone - it quickly becomes a game of diminishing returns. Not to mention the slightest miscalculation will end up being counterproductive, making you look like a bigger target than you actually are.
There's a reason the French are moving toward a stealthy airframe with IWBs on the SCAF. You NEED your airframe shape to do most of the heavy lifting, otherwise even the most advanced computers cannot help you remain stealthy.
Specifically on the topic of active cancellation, AMCA will actually need far less power & computation to achieve it than Rafale. Simply because it has a far smaller signature that it has to cancel out, not to mention there are far less variables to account for. Every time the Rafale fires a missile or drops a spent tank, the variables it has to calculate for change, AMCA's needn't as the loads are internal & the signature presented on the outside remains constant.
The Americans do as well, they just don't talk about it as some holy grail that negates the need for stealthy airframes. That's hogwash.
The AN/APR-50 ESM system on the B-2 was performing active cancellation 30 years back.
F-22, F-35, B-21 probably have something far more advanced. But the reason it works on stealthy airframes is because they have far less of a spectrum of energy to worry about. For example. they need not even bother countering X-band emissions before they get within a certain range of an enemy emitter, at a certain angle.
Rafale has to worry about emitters at far longer ranges, from ANY angle. It's just not efficient. The 'optimization' argument you presented earlier actually works against Rafale.
Again, active cancellation is a form of ESM - it does not negate the need for a stealthy airframe.
Not only does a stealthy airframe not 'become useless' if active cancellation in working, if there is no stealthy airframe that's helping your computers to efficiently manage the ESM output, your active cancellation is going to quickly become overwhelmed & useless. In fact it'll become worse - it will be counterproductive, making you a more conspicuous target than before unless you turn it off.
How on earth does this help your argument? You're basically saying Mk1 will be crap that cannot power anything worthwhile right off the bat. You are making my argument for me.
In any case, Mk1 will get all the Mk2 avionics, unless the program fails, never mind the engine.
When it comes to radar, if everything else is the same, the power needed for GaN will be the same as any other radar, 'cause the signal has to push through the same atmosphere on the same planet. GaN doesn't defy physics. And the point of GaN is to use more power over a wider bandwidth.
Not true at all. In fact, they are very likely gonna take the lead in the 2030s 'cause of their significantly higher investment.
As long as you have equal or better hardware, AC will work against anything.
The echo may be smaller, but the signal power and density of the carrier signal will be the same as the cancelation signal.
Expending a weapon and risking detection is a problem for AMCA, not the Rafale. 'Cause it's easy to prepare for your own actions, but when AMCA opens its weapons bay, it's exposing itself to the enemy, even if for a brief moment.
They don't have it yet on tactical fighters, or they are getting them now. SH B3 and F-15EX may have it now, the F-35 doesn't work yet.
Sure. But AMCA with F414 is not a stealth jet. Semi-stealth, yes, definitely not stealth.
It's funny that people think the Su-57 is not stealthy 'cause of a temporary engine that's not only custom-built for it but even has stealth treatment, but AMCA will be fine even with a normal 4th gen design. And then, the Varthaman Commission, that received 100% accurate information on both jets, and the Rafale, pointed out that the IAF needs both jets, not just one or the other.
So IAF experts say all three jets are necessary. But other people say we will be fine cutting the other two and half-arsing the last one. I have no idea how that works.
It's not a dig on the Mk1 not powering anything - I'm saying there won't be much to power to begin with. Just sufficient to do the basics (generate firing solutions, perform IFF, perform target identification). Mk1 is a de-risked platform, not a useless platform.
Not unlike how the first iteration of the KF-21 doesn't even have weapon bays. That was the Koreans' strategy at de-risking. Development of a stealthy jet is a hugely complicated affair - especially when so much stuff is dependent on you being on good terms with the 1 or 2 foreign vendors who are even capable of supplying what you want.
DAS is going to be a Mk2 exclusive. Plus, AMCA in all likelihood will not be having an EOTS.
I'm not talking about the output power needed, I'm talking about efficiency. 10kW siphoned from the engine does not translate into 10kW going out through the phased array in the form of a signal. Throughout the system there are efficiency losses, in the form of heat, resistance, noise etc.
A GaN system will have far fewer efficiency losses compared to an older GaAs setup. It's like going from an incandescent bulb to an LED. The amount of power you need to siphon from the engine to get 10kW output power through a GaAs is going to be much higher than what a GaN setup will draw for that same output.
AC doesn't just blast a false signal of the entire aircraft - it specifically manages the errant returns from certain areas that are prone to generate a high SNR, like the engine inlets or weapon stores. On the AMCA there are far fewer such zones that generate a high SNR thanks to its airframe shaping + IWBs. So far less output is needed to counter the returns. Even on the Mk1, the only area that might really need AC is the rear aspect, which I believe will be managed through the systems housed in the tail cone:
Why can't AMCA prepare for the action of opening it's bay?
The SNR of the AMCA with its weapon bay open is still lower than that of a Rafale with external loads. Only difference is, the AMCA can choose the time & place it wants to increase it's signature. Rafale's signature is huge 24x7.
It's the opposite to what you said. The AMCA is far more optimized than the Rafale if you want to use AC to hide either of them.
More than likely they do. There's no reason to assume they don't, considering they had it on B-2 before anyone else did.
A lot of such features are not advertised on brochures. Even if openly talked about, it's unlikely to be available for exports. For example, it's only recently that the Americans started mentioning NCTR mode in export brochures of AESA-FCRs, even though the technique has been in use for over 20 years on US AESAs, they only started talking about it openly after countries like India already began implementing it on home-grown radars like Uttam.
Rafale doesn't openly advertise AC either - we just know about it through conversations on forums. And we still do not know if they authorized the tech for export or not. We don't know if IAF Rafale has the ability to do AC.
Even just exporting the system isn't enough - we need full access to change & add to the library of signatures it has to manage. Because in our case, we'll be using several Indian/third party payloads on our Rafales whose signatures the system won't know how to counter - unless they gave us full access, AC is useless to us unless in cases where it's flying completely with a French payload.
It's going to be stealthiest manned platform we have access to. Hence, our best shot at getting the job done.
Just like how in our current inventory, Rafale represents the best shot. Because even though it's not even semi-stealth, it's still the toughest target among all our other jets to detect or track.
And the options that a low-vis plane like AMCA opens up for us are tremendous compared to doing the same mission with a non-LO airframe like Rafale:
I never said that. We need AMCA Mk2 with the next-gen engine.
Just like we needed up to 189 MMRCAs. How many did we get?
Things may not always turn out the way we want. We might be forced to go for the next-best thing. And IAF knows this as well - hence the de-risking of the program with a proven engine.
All I'm saying is that in case the next-gen fails - it's not a total loss, we will still be continuing to induct a platform that is far more survivable than anything else we inducted before. But how we fill the capability gap that will remain will depend on what our options are at that time.
Either way, buying additional Rafales at that point, instead of additional AMCA Mk-1s, would be foolish.
Last edited:
You're just talking about a Day 1, Year 1 version. MLU is Year 25. So you really think the IAF will be happy flying an underpowered jet for 25 years?
The Koreans are working for a different objective, they are doing a little less than what we originally planned.
AMCA will have both EODAS and IRST. Even Mk1 will carry them.
That's a design trade-off. Gotta suck it up.
That's subjective to Rafale's improvements. If the Rafale stays the same, then AMCA will beat it (not with F414). But if Rafale improves by another magnitude, then it will match the AMCA, F-35 etc. If it can get to that level, then it can be improved further to surpass AMCA, F-35 etc.
It's easier to assume they don't. A tactical fighter has far more problems than a bomber. It doesn't do 9G for example, never mind the external payload.
Dassault has revealed it multiple times officially.
Things don't turn out the way they do, hence an AMCA engine failure means the whole program is toast.
And no, buying an operationally proven jet is always better than a lemon. It's all 'cause AMCA hasn't been designed with F414 in mind. If ADA had taken the KF-21 route with F414 first and then a Block 2 upgrade, then your argument would make sense. But AMCA is entirely dependent on the new engine. It's that or bust.
Until last year, I was of the opinion that an upgraded F414 powered AMCA will be enough to compensate for more Rafales, but I was wrong. It's an upgrade over the LCA and MKI, but not over the Rafale.
Basically, we have no choice but to buy Rafales in large numbers for now. That cannot be overstated. Then we gotta wait for AMCA to pan out. If the airframe fails, then they will work on an actual Mk2. If the engine fails, then they will have to modernize the F414, and reduce its mission load. In both cases, the IAF will have to import a stopgap system. It's of course also possible the IAF will not buy more than 40 AMCAs at that point, like they have done with LCA. And an Mk1A type option isn't available for AMCA 'cause they are not looking for a Mig-21/27 replacement. Unlike LCA, AMCA is supposed to give the IAF new capabilities.
Simply put, AMCA Mk1 is not a replacement for Mk2. The only option then is to use AMCA for strike missions, continue using Rafales for air superiority, import a 2-3 squadron stopgap to compensate for any deficiencies in the Rafale (whether it's NGAD, Tempest or Su-57), and focus on MKI-replacement.
Doesn't matter. We aren't talking about the ideal situation here.
They aren't happy with just 2 squadrons of Rafale etiher. What can we do? It's been 8 years since the first order & still there's no follow-on.
Not according to most trustworthy defence watchers. Including Saurav Jha. If you have any up-to-date information that shows otherwise, do present it.
Not a trade-off, it's the reality of stealth jet operations. Even F-22 suffers from this.
It's still a far stealthier solution than carrying stores externally - that's the point.
Easier, maybe. But not logical.
The reason they probably don't go ga-ga over it is because they understand that it's hugely inefficient to try hiding a plane like F-15C with AC. They'd rather save that technology for use on airframes that are actually stealthy so it maximizes it's effectiveness. The French don't have a LO/VLO airframe to lean on so they don't have that luxury. They are forced to go down the inefficient path to at least give the Rafale a fighting chance at avoiding detection.
True LO/VLO airframes that have lower signatures to begin with are exponentially stealthier than Rafale with AC.
Show me.
That's the only engine AMCA is designed for as of now.
The next-gen powerplant is a notional engine. We don't know anything about it. We don't know the exact thrust, weight, TWR, airflow requirements, electrical output, etc.
You cannot do detailed design on a plane and pass CDR without knowing anything about the powerplant. Only reason AMCA in its current iteration passed all those things is because it was made with F414 in mind.
That's exactly what we're doing.
Even the idea that next-gen engine will be a drop-in fit is a notional concept. That's the ideal we'll be aiming for, but there's no guarantee it will be met. It's entirely possible that AMCA Mk2 will require significant changes to the design & realignment of internal LRUs in order to accommodate the next-gen engine.
In case that happens, leading to a significant delay in Mk2, we have the option of ordering additional numbers of the Mk1 config with F414, both to keep the production line humming & to continue building up the squadron strength. Same goes for if instead of just a delay, the whole next-gen program is cancelled. We cannot afford to just sit on our a$$ as we wait ~10 years for the MoD to go through with a new procurement process, we'll have to keep building additional Mk-1s.
The decision we took to build several squadrons of FOC-grade AMCAs with F414 instead of just using it as a development/test-flight engine (like how the French used F404 in Rafale development) is precisely aimed at affording us this option.
If you want to consider the AMCA program as failed if it doesn't get the next-gen engine, that's up to you. But IAF is not ready to give up on the platform just because the 5th gen engine didn't come. They have designed in a failsafe to at least get some of the capabilities in hand if not all.
It's not different to how USAF chose to keep procuring the F-35 with the underpowered F135. If the ADVENT/AETP program fails, do you think they'd abandon the JSF and all the trillion-dollars they spent on it? Or try to salvage what they can with things like the ECU upgrade?
Strategy & Policy: New F-35 Engines: You Can’t Always Get What You Want | Air & Space Forces Magazine
Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall clearly regrets that the service isn’t pursuing an advanced technology engine for the F-35.
www.airandspaceforces.com
AMCA MK1 will have nose mounted IRST(not chin mounted EOTS) and 360° MAWS. It may not work fully like EODAS but still would be much more capable than Rafale's DDM-NG. While we do need more Rafales, AMCA MK1 would swat Rafales in a head on BVR duel without much muster. Hell, once MKI gets Uttam MK3 with 1800+ TRM GaN radar and Astra 3, it would once again surpass Rafale as our number one ASF until AMCA matures.
Flying an underpowered AMCA is not an option either.
DAS is a basic capability all future jets will have. AMCA's will naturally reflect its time compared to LCA Mk2 or even TEDBF. AMCA Mk1 will come fitted for not with, 'cause Mk2 will carry all the computing upgrades necessary, both hardware and software.
Meaning, Mk1 will also carry it.
Or what's the alternative? Recall our debate years ago about MKI's MAWS and how miffed you were about a lack of an internal system? I responded with a pod solution, and that's what we are doing now. So if you think AMCA Mk1 will not come with an internal MAWS, which is what a DAS actually is, then what's your solution, a pod?
By your own words, if AMCA Mk1 doesn't come with this tech or that tech, then how useful is it going to be to the IAF?
That makes it a trade-off. So the AMCA/F-22 are vulnerable with exposed bays, but the Rafale isn't 'cause it's in stealth mode even when firing away missiles, 'cause it knows its RCS even post changes in external stores.
Far stealthier, possible. But it's debatable since we do not know to what extent they will manage signatures on Rafale in the future.
And an AMCA with AC made by French hands could be significantly superior to an AMCA with AC made by Indian hands. So it's the quality of the developer in question.
If they have AC on one jet, then they can put it on every other jet. It's just software.
It calls to question the actual capability of the US vis-a-vis the French. It's very likely that the French could put it on a tactical jet 'cause only they could do it, while the Americans failed, so the best they could do was put it on a jet it was easier to develop for.
At 11:25, Revellin-Falcoz says...
There was also an air show brochure that Dassault released for business visitors that mentioned it. And there have been other mentions here and there, including an American talking about it in a French conference.
You can go through this thread too. Picdel also qualifies as a source.
The Rafale and what you know about it.
I launch this subject to describe things that are not very well known on the Rafale and often of little interest to the general public. I would begin by describing the philosophy of using the Rafale as developed by the French Air Force. This philosophy is quite different from the one underlying...
AMCA's not been designed for F414, it's been designed for the notional engine. The F414 is simply the interim engine for the initial stage of the program, like the 117 is for the Su-57. ADA already knows what dimensions their engine will be and how the interfaces will integrate with the aircraft.
No. We were planning on doing that, then we decided to go the whole distance at once.
AMCA was initially a KF-21 Block 2, a semi-stealth aircraft powered by F414, but designed for strike and was a direct replacement for the Jaguar. It became a full-fledged ASF when they started working on an alternative to FGFA after 2013 or so.
I am not a fan of the move, but it is what it is.
It's not up to me, and even ADA will agree with me, never mind the IAF.
Some of the capabilities is not all of the capabilities. The IAF needs all of the capabilities, else they will have to bring in a new jet to compensate, which is my point.
They were lied to.
If the ADVENT/AETP program fails, do you think they'd abandon the JSF and all the trillion-dollars they spent on it? Or try to salvage what they can with things like the ECU upgrade?
Strategy & Policy: New F-35 Engines: You Can’t Always Get What You Want | Air & Space Forces Magazine
Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall clearly regrets that the service isn’t pursuing an advanced technology engine for the F-35.
Yeah, all the F-35 users were lied to and became victims of fraud. Now they are dealing with the aftereffects.
The Americans have learned their lesson and decided to change their procurement process. The IAF is not in such a miserable position.
See what Kendall has to say about it:
Kendall vows Air Force NGAD program won’t repeat ‘serious mistake’ associated with the F-35
The Air Force is moving forward in its quest to acquire sixth-generation stealth fighter jets. In doing so, it won’t be taking the same approach that led to problems with the fifth-generation F-35, Frank Kendall told reporters.
defensescoop.com
That's a victim of fraud.
If AMCA's engine fails, the IAF will either be forced to keep buying some, or they will just cancel the whole thing. Or they will wait another decade for an engine. They have done the same with LCA after all, waited 2 decades in fact. They will still find use for an AMCA in 2045-50 too, perhaps an AMCA Mk2A.
The engine has to work or the entire program is a bust.