ADA AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

[Parthu]

Flying an underpowered AMCA is not an option either.

It's not a preferred option, but it's an option if things go south.

Just like F35 without AETP or J-20 without the next-gen engine were options that were exercised by the respective air forces. China built over a hundred J-20s with the old engine. US is building over a thousand F-35s with the F135.

At some point, you have to realize a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. It's the job of Air Forces to prepare for war. Wars aren't fought in perfect conditions with everything just the way you like it. If you have to make do, you have to make do.

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.

If it's fitted for but not with, then it won't draw any power.

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?

DAS is much more than a simple MAWS. It's essentially half a dozen IRSTs.

It's possible they'll go with the regular DC-MAWS already developed by DARE, which will use far less power - but conversely will have less capability. The IRST-like ability of future DAS-HD/DB will be absent, it'll be very basic, like what you'd find on Tejas Mk2. This is provided they already made space in the internal layout for these LRUs in the Mk1 but omitted DAS because they don't think the system itself will be ready in time for Mk1. If that's not the case, it's also possible they'll go for a podded solution for the time being, which will only be carried on specific missions but not on others, as per need.

The survivability of AMCA as an airframe is far higher than MKI thanks to its low observability. The equation won't be the same when it comes to the sheer necessity of having Missile Warning. MKI with MAWS will be less survivable than AMCA without them.

There's a reason even the Koreans have omitted MAWS on the KF-21's first iteration.

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.

It's impossible for Rafale to successfully employ AC against multitudes of powerful AESAs in A2A combat. That's not even the kind of thing AC was meant to do.

AMCA/F-22 when releasing weapons would be stealthier than Rafale when it's simply carrying them.

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.

I would have believed that if the French weren't going for a stealthy airframe with IWBs in the SCAF. But they are. Think about it, if an airframe like Rafale can go VLO with AC (even when releasing weapons) as you say, why bother?

And there's no reason why we can't develop AC (assuming we aren't already working on it as part of AMCA's planned EW suite). Our first-generation attempt won't be as good as what the French have developed after several iterations - but it won't need to be, because AMCA's airframe would be doing most of the work hiding it's signature, which anyway would be much smaller than Rafale's to begin with. So much easier to manage.

At 11:25, Revellin-Falcoz says...

Of course, we're in some confidential territory, but let's say that the Rafale's signature (RCS), viewed from the front, it's the signature of a sparrow.

At what load? It's not hard to imagine a low RCS for Rafale with a clean load. But in that state it's combat-ineffective so there's no point.

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...

www.strategicfront.org

There's no indication it was authorized for export. They don't even give NCTR mode on the radar for export even though they talk about it - we had to add that in ISEs. No other Rafale customer got it.

And if it is exported, there's no indication we have been given full access to the system to modify the signature management library to conform with our payloads. If we can't do that, it's useless.

You are assuming too much here. These are highly classified technologies whose keys aren't just handed off to anyone.

AMCA's not been designed for F414, it's been designed for the notional engine.

AMCA is not a notional design. It's a detailed design that passed CDR.

How can you do detailed design around a notional engine? There's a reason SCAF will remain in demonstrator phase until the next-gen engine design is finalized. That's why the SCAF in its FOC form won't arrive till the 2040s.

We plan to take AMCA to FOC with the 414.

The F414 is simply the interim engine for the initial stage of the program, like the 117 is for the Su-57.

We plan on at least 40 jets in FOC config with the F414, and in all likelihood there will be more.

AMCA Mk1 with F414 is not some development config - it's a planned capability set that's specifically developed to work with that engine. There's a reason we are omitting certain things from the Mk1 that we know 414 won't be able to power. Like the DAS.

ADA already knows what dimensions their engine will be and how the interfaces will integrate with the aircraft.

Then ADA must be better than Dassault at designing planes. As they have the ability to look into the future.

The IAF needs all of the capabilities, else they will have to bring in a new jet to compensate, which is my point.

A new procurement process will take at least 10-15 years to get the first jets in country. What do you suppose they will do in the meantime?

Procure additional Mk1s which will still be able to penetrate defended airspace with help from decoys & MUMT? Or sit on their behind cuz they don't want to half-a$$ anything?

You only need to look at what we're doing with Tejas Mk-1A orders to get your answer. That thing cannot even fire it's gun. Yet we are buying 180 of them aren't we?

If the full capability is unavailable due to any reason, they will gladly take at least some capabilities in order to put airframes in the sky & have a chance at putting up a fight. As will USAF, as will RuAF, or any other respectable air force. But thanks to the way we have designed the program from the start, IF AND WHEN that happens, the process of building & operationalizing additional squadrons with the F414 config will be much easier as we'd have already certified that config for FOC capability by that point.

From that point on, if we get our hands on more power-efficient avionics, we can add further capabilities and call it AMCA Mk1A or something.

We don't wish for that situation to arise - it's just a failsafe to save ourselves some time & money if things go south. I don't understand why you're so angry that IAF has designed in a failsafe for the program, you should be happy.

They were lied to.

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.

If things can go wrong in the US, they can go wrong in India as well.

A shift in geopolitics that makes foreign partners reluctant to provide tech-transfer, an economic crisis, a war that forces us to build out numbers instead of quality, or just sheer mismanagement of the program. Anything can happen.

De-risking is always a wise move.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

including an American talking about it in a French conference.

At the time I didn't translate everything he said, but from memory it was:

We focused on passive stealth and neglected electronic warfare, whereas you are arguably the masters in this field, so we're ten years behind, but in the future we'll need both.

I would add that this explains why we decided to have more stealth for the NGF than for the Rafale, and no doubt the Americans will have more electronic warfare for the NGAD. I say electronic warfare and not active stealth, because active stealth is just one of the ways of using SPECTRA's capabilities, unlike passive stealth where you only have one operational option, and it's always the same, to use it (which seems to be its biggest flaw).

 

[Saaho]

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.

Its just my hunch but, AMCA MK1 will go have its first flight with F414, same as LCA MK2. But it will be introduced with F414-EPE, most likely GoI footing the bill of EPE engine development and certification with some IPR thrown at GoI while GE still retaining the crown jewels. Two F414-EPE will give AMCA enough juice to match F-35 kind of thurst to weight. Even in dry mode, 2 F414-EPE will give about 130 KN of thurst ... more than enough for AMCA MK1. F414 EPE is about 15% higher thurst. So 55.6 * 1.15 * 2 = 127 KN. If it gives 20% higher thurst then its 133 KN. Given GE has 7-8 years do develop and certify F414-EPE, it will fit the schedule. AFAIK, 130 KN dry thurst is enough to make AMCA supercruise even with MTOW. AMCA, after all is a bit lighter than F-35 (25,000 vs 28,000).

AMCA MK2 will see the real fifth gen engine (as planned with some collaborator) with likely TVC and real thermal and IR management. IIRC, they want AMCA to fly at altitude of 20,000 meters. So naturally without TVC you will not have enough agility to point your nose toward targets quickly enough as atmosphere is thinner. F-35 has its ceiling at 15,000 meter. IIRC even J-35 etc are not aiming for 20,000 meter ceiling limit. There is a reason why F-22 really needs TVC and so does J-20. They both aim to fight at 20,000 meters.

One more point, it is likely, EPE will come with reduced engine life. But given we were flying russian engines anyways with much shorter lifespan, it will still fit into our operational plans of AMCA. We will just have to stock up on engines a bit more and ensure changing engines is more streamlined.

 

[Saaho]

Is there any news about sensors on AMCA?
I know :

1. DAS is certainly there.
2. Is IRST a separate sensor on AMCA or are we trying to go for a F-35 style EOTS which works as a IRST too?
3. Is EOTS even planned for MK1?

I will REALLY HATE if they ended up putting that damn bulb like IRST in AMCA MK1. Or may be just darn omit it completly. If they do, then AMCA can not do precision ground strikes.

 

[Saaho]

@Picdelamirand-oil There were rumors of India being invited to join FCAS. Were they just rumors or there was some truth to it? India does not bring any technological capability but it can provide funds.

 

[randomradio]

It's not a preferred option, but it's an option if things go south.

Just like F35 without AETP or J-20 without the next-gen engine were options that were exercised by the respective air forces. China built over a hundred J-20s with the old engine. US is building over a thousand F-35s with the F135.

At some point, you have to realize a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. It's the job of Air Forces to prepare for war. Wars aren't fought in perfect conditions with everything just the way you like it. If you have to make do, you have to make do.

It's not an option at all. The USAF screwed up. AMCA with F414 is a bird in hand, but it's not alive, it's dead.

If it's fitted for but not with, then it won't draw any power.

So you think it will stay the same forever? Are you really arguing for an AMCA with F414 but without electronics?

DAS is much more than a simple MAWS. It's essentially half a dozen IRSTs.

DAS, the version currently in circulation is inferior to what was planned for the MKI with DC-MAWS. Even the F-35's IRST is currently outdated.

What's special about the F-35 is sensor fusion and MMI. The sensors are all old and outdated by modern standards today. Including the AESA radar and EW suite. Thankfully it's all being upgraded. But there's really nothing special on the F-35 today. Would have been impressive in 2014 though.

The survivability of AMCA as an airframe is far higher than MKI thanks to its low observability. The equation won't be the same when it comes to the sheer necessity of having Missile Warning. MKI with MAWS will be less survivable than AMCA without them.

Er... Not without stealth engines. The F414 isn't anything special in terms of RCS or heat treatment compared to the AL-31FP.

There's a reason even the Koreans have omitted MAWS on the KF-21's first iteration.

They don't have the tech. It's one of the things the Koreans thought the Americans would transfer to them.

It's impossible for Rafale to successfully employ AC against multitudes of powerful AESAs in A2A combat. That's not even the kind of thing AC was meant to do.

It will have more than enough. In fact, greater the number of enemy radars, the harder it is for AMCA, not the Rafale, if the AMCA doesn't compensate for the difference with EW.

AMCA/F-22 when releasing weapons would be stealthier than Rafale when it's simply carrying them.

Today, the F-22 is more stealthy than the Rafale. But 10 years down the line, we don't know. 20 years later, the F-22 could be far worse.

I would have believed that if the French weren't going for a stealthy airframe with IWBs in the SCAF. But they are. Think about it, if an airframe like Rafale can go VLO with AC (even when releasing weapons) as you say, why bother?

SCAF is meant for the 2050+ world. We are talking about 2030+.

And there's no reason why we can't develop AC (assuming we aren't already working on it as part of AMCA's planned EW suite). Our first-generation attempt won't be as good as what the French have developed after several iterations - but it won't need to be, because AMCA's airframe would be doing most of the work hiding it's signature, which anyway would be much smaller than Rafale's to begin with. So much easier to manage.

I'm sure we will. But then AMCA with F414 will be useless in terms of passive stealth. We will have to use AC/EW for survivability, which is the point I made right off the bat.

At what load? It's not hard to imagine a low RCS for Rafale with a clean load. But in that state it's combat-ineffective so there's no point.

As per Picdel, SPECTRA maintained the Rafale's clean RCS of <0.1m2 when it was first released, while carrying payload. Then, 2020+, via DEDIRA it was improved to 0.0001m2 class clean, but with weapons it drops down to 0.01-0.001m2.

There's no indication it was authorized for export. They don't even give NCTR mode on the radar for export even though they talk about it - we had to add that in ISEs. No other Rafale customer got it.

And if it is exported, there's no indication we have been given full access to the system to modify the signature management library to conform with our payloads. If we can't do that, it's useless.

You are assuming too much here. These are highly classified technologies whose keys aren't just handed off to anyone.

Then why would they advertise it?

And, in the case of India, if Rafales fail versus China, it will crush their aerospace industry for decades. So while your agument may work on some other export customers, it would make sense for the French to give India as much capability as possible to deal with China.

AMCA is not a notional design. It's a detailed design that passed CDR.

How can you do detailed design around a notional engine? There's a reason SCAF will remain in demonstrator phase until the next-gen engine design is finalized. That's why the SCAF in its FOC form won't arrive till the 2040s.

We plan to take AMCA to FOC with the 414.

Ha! Trapped. So you admit AMCA has been designed for its main engine...

The FOC is for the airframe. More orders are subject to the new engine.

We plan on at least 40 jets in FOC config with the F414, and in all likelihood there will be more.

AMCA Mk1 with F414 is not some development config - it's a planned capability set that's specifically developed to work with that engine. There's a reason we are omitting certain things from the Mk1 that we know 414 won't be able to power. Like the DAS.

How do you expect the IAF to buy more AMCAs without DAS?

Then ADA must be better than Dassault at designing planes. As they have the ability to look into the future.

There's nothing special in doing that. AMCA's CDR was a procedural hurdle, 'cause the IAF cleared the technical part long ago.

A new procurement process will take at least 10-15 years to get the first jets in country. What do you suppose they will do in the meantime?

An emergency purchase will be quick. Rafale F3R took 1.5 years from initiation to signature, and only 'cause they were waiting for the monsoon.

You only need to look at what we're doing with Tejas Mk-1A orders to get your answer. That thing cannot even fire it's gun. Yet we are buying 180 of them aren't we?

As I said, you can't compare LCA with high-end capabilities.

If the full capability is unavailable due to any reason, they will gladly take at least some capabilities in order to put airframes in the sky & have a chance at putting up a fight. As will USAF, as will RuAF, or any other respectable air force. But thanks to the way we have designed the program from the start, IF AND WHEN that happens, the process of building & operationalizing additional squadrons with the F414 config will be much easier as we'd have already certified that config for FOC capability by that point.

From that point on, if we get our hands on more power-efficient avionics, we can add further capabilities and call it AMCA Mk1A or something.

We don't wish for that situation to arise - it's just a failsafe to save ourselves some time & money if things go south. I don't understand why you're so angry that IAF has designed in a failsafe for the program, you should be happy.

Mate, even the ADA is not as enthusiastic about it as you are.

If things can go wrong in the US, they can go wrong in India as well.

A shift in geopolitics that makes foreign partners reluctant to provide tech-transfer, an economic crisis, a war that forces us to build out numbers instead of quality, or just sheer mismanagement of the program. Anything can happen.

De-risking is always a wise move.

F414 will not de-risk the program. The alternative is to look for another engine from the import market or develop a whole new engine or both.

Both France and Britain will have 11T engines that we can directly import. The SCAF demonstrator will be powered by an M88 derivative with 11T thrust. Britain could follow suit.

 

[randomradio]

@Picdelamirand-oil There were rumors of India being invited to join FCAS. Were they just rumors or there was some truth to it? India does not bring any technological capability but it can provide funds.

India has far more technical expertise than both Germany and Spain. And as a partner, we are more likely to invest in more jets, while Germany and Spain may cut numbers as the program progresses. We also have pretty much the same requirements, nuclear, carrier etc alongside our lone wolf diplomacy.

It's a no-brainer that Dassault will want to partner with India over the other two.

The main hurdles are the IAF's requirement for total self-reliance, and the insanely high Western R&D costs.

 

[randomradio]

Its just my hunch but, AMCA MK1 will go have its first flight with F414, same as LCA MK2. But it will be introduced with F414-EPE, most likely GoI footing the bill of EPE engine development and certification with some IPR thrown at GoI while GE still retaining the crown jewels. Two F414-EPE will give AMCA enough juice to match F-35 kind of thurst to weight. Even in dry mode, 2 F414-EPE will give about 130 KN of thurst ... more than enough for AMCA MK1. F414 EPE is about 15% higher thurst. So 55.6 * 1.15 * 2 = 127 KN. If it gives 20% higher thurst then its 133 KN. Given GE has 7-8 years do develop and certify F414-EPE, it will fit the schedule. AFAIK, 130 KN dry thurst is enough to make AMCA supercruise even with MTOW. AMCA, after all is a bit lighter than F-35 (25,000 vs 28,000).

AMCA MK2 will see the real fifth gen engine (as planned with some collaborator) with likely TVC and real thermal and IR management. IIRC, they want AMCA to fly at altitude of 20,000 meters. So naturally without TVC you will not have enough agility to point your nose toward targets quickly enough as atmosphere is thinner. F-35 has its ceiling at 15,000 meter. IIRC even J-35 etc are not aiming for 20,000 meter ceiling limit. There is a reason why F-22 really needs TVC and so does J-20. They both aim to fight at 20,000 meters.

One more point, it is likely, EPE will come with reduced engine life. But given we were flying russian engines anyways with much shorter lifespan, it will still fit into our operational plans of AMCA. We will just have to stock up on engines a bit more and ensure changing engines is more streamlined.

There's a more advanced F414 in development than EPE that uses CMCs, provides enough thrust along with life.

Anyway, let's see who we have as a partner.

 

[Saaho]

There's a more advanced F414 in development than EPE that uses CMCs, provides enough thrust along with life.

Anyway, let's see who we have as a partner.

Is there any clarity over what sensors are going in mk1?

I hope we get integrated EOTS. DAS should be there because it is already under test AFAIK.

 

[Parthu]

It's not an option at all. The USAF screwed up. AMCA with F414 is a bird in hand, but it's not alive, it's dead.

It if wasn't an option we wouldn't have bothered taking it to FOC. We'd have used 414 just for the demonstrator phase, and then sit tight for whenever the next-gen engine arrives, IF it arrives, before beginning LRIP & IOC/FOC process, followed by Series Production. But in case the engine program failed, we'd have to wrap up the AMCA project, with 0 operational stealthy airframes delivered to IAF.

And hope that <10 years down the line, we'd be inducting some foreign stealth jet to fill the numbers, on which we'll have zero IP control.

Doesn't sound like a very smart plan does it?

So you think it will stay the same forever? Are you really arguing for an AMCA with F414 but without electronics?

It will have the basics, very possibly including DC-MAWS. If Tejas Mk2 with a single F414 can power it, AMCA with 2x of those shouldn't have a problem.

It won't be fully next-gen, it'll just be a stealthy platform not very different from F-22 in terms of sensor capability (if not better, thanks to IRST).

Still better than a non-stealthy non-next gen plane.

DAS, the version currently in circulation is inferior to what was planned for the MKI with DC-MAWS. Even the F-35's IRST is currently outdated.

DC-MAWS is just a MAWS. It operates in a slightly wider spectrum of MWIR is all. Functionally it's no different to the AN/AAR-47 on Navy's MH-60Rs or the Elbit PAWS on IAF birds.

DAS is an exponentially better capability. It can project imagery onto the pilot's HMD. It can search & track any heat signature you tell it to, it can even perform target ID by its infrared signature. MAWS on the hand other don't even register anything that doesn't explicitly look like a solid-fuel missile plume, so as to avoid false alarms. An enemy fighter could be flying 500 meters from you but unless it fires a missile, MAWS won't even tell you about it.

It's like comparing a rotary phone to a Galaxy Note.

DAS gives you this on your HMD:

MAWS gives you nothing but a bearing & a vector on a readout like this:

Only thing that comes close to F-35's EODAS in terms of capability is the Rafale's DDM-NG. Unfortunately it does not cover all-aspect like EODAS does. Only 2 apertures (3 if you include FSO-IRST) compared to F-35's six. And it's housings are not flush with the airframe, so not stealthy.

Er... Not without stealth engines.

What amount of time in a typical mission do you think an AMCA would be exposing it's rear aspect? Compared to an MKI which is non-stealthy in 360 degrees? Combat outcomes are all about probabilities. You fire a missile, there's no guarantee it'll hit. You just have a Ph and Pk is all, which increases or decreases based on several variables. Same for aircraft operating in a given theatre. AMCA has a much better ability to stay under the ambient SNR in any given environment compared to any IAF jet inducted before it.

The F414 isn't anything special in terms of RCS or heat treatment compared to the AL-31FP.

We don't know yet what treatment 414 on AMCA will have, given the application is a low-observable platform.

Remember, we'll be getting 80% of the ToT on the engine. The 20% they'll withhold is likely to do with the critical core hot section components...not stuff like the nozzle. We'll be free to modify the nozzle as we want.

Any specialized nozzle design we come up with that we intend for the next-gen engine (like saw-toothed edges etc), we can put on the F414 as well, no one's stopping us. As of heat treatment - the F414 on AMCA is far more well-shrouded from all directions compared to MKI, or even the Su-57 whose nacelles are horribly exposed. Or even Rafale for that matter. It's nozzles are fully exposed from the side due to lack of tail planes. AMCA's are mostly shrouded, the return is still minimized:

^^ CGI based on official CDR design.

They don't have the tech. It's one of the things the Koreans thought the Americans would transfer to them.

They don't have any import restriction either. They were free to import a foreign MAWS and install it - had they considered it truly necessary for the application.

It will have more than enough. In fact, greater the number of enemy radars, the harder it is for AMCA, not the Rafale, if the AMCA doesn't compensate for the difference with EW.

Now you're just talking nonsense buddy. To perform AC against a dozen radars, you need to transmit back signals equivalent to a dozen radars.

That means up to 12,000 different frequencies (if each one is an FCR-sized AESA) that need to be simultaneously countered.

This is ridiculous! Rafale doesn't even have that many transmitting elements to keep up, neither does any other plane.

Today, the F-22 is more stealthy than the Rafale. But 10 years down the line, we don't know. 20 years later, the F-22 could be far worse.

If a 4.5 gen airframe like Rafale can become stealthier than F-22 in 20 years, then why bother?

All they needed to do was build the next-gen engine, jam it in the Rafale airframe and they'd be good to go. Heck, use a Airbus A330 to launch missiles. AC should make it stealthier than F-22 right? Why bother developing a new airframe with all the same VLO principles that the Americans had pioneered?

You have to realize that computational advantages won't be happening only on your side. The enemy's systems will get more advanced as well. A frontline fighter has to worry about not only other aircraft but also ground-based surveillance & tracking radars, which often don't have the same power & computation limits imposed on an airplane due to limited space & power on tap.

A fighter is not going to have the electrical output to impose it's AC on an entire battlespace, there's a reason why even most high power jammers are carried in a pod with their own dedicated power supply. At most AC can manage one or two specific radars (or as the case might be, missile seekers) at a time. Which is incidentally what AC was designed for.

It's a means of doing Electronic Support/Counter Measures that can make the targeted sensor momentarily lose it's track by making your signature dip below ambient SNR, and hopefully use the opening to evade incoming attacks.

It's not a means of turning non-stealthy airframes into VLO planes. That' s pure hogwash.

The world isn't filled with fools that are wasting their billions (including the French) designing stealthy airframes when all they had to do was invest in AC. In the end you cannot beat the physics of a radar wave getting deflected into a different direction than where it's receiver is located. There is no more effective or cheaper way to achieve stealth than that.

SCAF is meant for the 2050+ world. We are talking about 2030+.

If the effectiveness of passive stealth i.e. airframe shaping gets worse with time as you say, this makes no sense.

They want to design a fighter with all the aerodynamic & payload restrictions that a VLO-shaped airframe brings - to serve at a time when its utility will be worse than it is now? Your theory doesn't make any sense.

As per Picdel, SPECTRA maintained the Rafale's clean RCS of <0.1m2 when it was first released, while carrying payload. Then, 2020+, via DEDIRA it was improved to 0.0001m2 class clean, but with weapons it drops down to 0.01-0.001m2.

None of these scenarios are realistic. There is no context.

What kind of radar was being targeted by AC? Because in this case, your RCS depends not on the total surface area that's reflecting back to the enemy from a given aspect angle, but on how effectively your AC is blinding the enemy radar. If the radar gets even slightly more advanced (it gets faster at frequency-hopping than you are at changing the freq of your return signal), your AC will fail spectacularly.

Unless there is evidence that Rafale can perform AC against multiple 1,000+ TRM AESA-FCRs constantly, it's useless in modern A2A combat as a means of making a non-stealthy plane stealthy for the duration of a mission.

I'm surprised it hasn't dawned on you - the sheer absurdity of an entire battlespace being blinded by a single EW suite that's drawing from the same pool of power as a FCR & DDM-NG, that too with only 3 tiny transmitters.

It's not only beyond the realm of plausible - it's a total joke. I hope you realize how physically impossible this is.

Then why would they advertise it?

F-35 was showed off at Aero India doesn't mean it's on offer to us.

And, in the case of India, if Rafales fail versus China, it will crush their aerospace industry for decades. So while your agument may work on some other export customers, it would make sense for the French to give India as much capability as possible to deal with China.

Our selection of the platform itself has already given them multitudes of customers in the Middle East - many of whom bought way more Rafales than we did so far. It's already an export success.

They will chalk up any failure of Rafale in our hands to the incompetence of IAF pilots, not a fault of the platform.

Ha! Trapped. So you admit AMCA has been designed for its main engine...

There is no main/next-gen engine, yet. So we can't design for it. Once we finalize the ToT, IP & cost negotiations, we will sign with the selected partner, with whom we will work for about ~5 years or so to finalize the definitive design of the next-gen engine. At that point, we will begin the process of Design Reviewing AMCA Mk2. If it turns out the final design of the new engine requires any modifications to the airframe, we will have to address those problems before going to CDR.

Designing & developing a 5th gen engine, especially if it's going to be a new core, is an extremely long & expensive process. It's going to be a 10-year effort for the development & testing alone, on top of the design period. That means if we sign the engine deal today, it'll be ~2039 by the time the first engine is produced & ready to be put on AMCA Mk2.

The FOC is for the airframe. More orders are subject to the new engine.

FOC is for the entire system.

You can't be serious if you think we don't have a plan for a low-observable airframe to enter service in FOC form until 2039.

The F414 AMCA is a very real capability set - which we fully planned for, & which we fully intend to procure in considerable numbers.

How do you expect the IAF to buy more AMCAs without DAS?

Cuz they won't have a choice - IF the next-gen engine program fails.

Additional Mk1/Mk1A AMCAs are a given in that case.

An emergency purchase will be quick. Rafale F3R took 1.5 years from initiation to signature, and only 'cause they were waiting for the monsoon.

You can procure AMCA Mk1s quicker than that (and for cheaper) because we'll be paying in Rupees.

Plus we won't have to wait years for Dassault's order backlog to clear before they can get to producing our birds. The AMCA production line would exist for one purpose - building for IAF.

If you want to build larger numbers of cheaper planes even quicker (depending on the type of war we're fighting & for how long), we can order as many Tejas Mk2 as we want. We'll be building the entire plane locally, save for 20% of the engine. Plus we'll be paying in Rupees again.

F414 will not de-risk the program. The alternative is to look for another engine from the import market or develop a whole new engine or both.

Both France and Britain will have 11T engines that we can directly import. The SCAF demonstrator will be powered by an M88 derivative with 11T thrust. Britain could follow suit.

None of those options will give you what you wanted in the engine JV - which is ToT & control over IP.

If you are ready to compromise on that, then there's no point in even wasting time with joint development. Just ask for import right away & build Mk1 itself based on the foreign design.

The problem is, the foreign next-gen engines aren't ready either. And they won't be till the late 2030s earliest.

The more you study the problem, the more you realize IAF's genius in asking to build two AMCA configs - one around a proven engine which we can build right away & which will allow us to get our hands on a stealthy airframe ASAP, and another which we'll hold off on till our engine program is sorted & results in a finished product we're satisfied with - whenever that may be.

 

[randomradio]

It if wasn't an option we wouldn't have bothered taking it to FOC. We'd have used 414 just for the demonstrator phase, and then sit tight for whenever the next-gen engine arrives, IF it arrives, before beginning LRIP & IOC/FOC process, followed by Series Production. But in case the engine program failed, we'd have to wrap up the AMCA project, with 0 operational stealthy airframes delivered to IAF.

And hope that <10 years down the line, we'd be inducting some foreign stealth jet to fill the numbers, on which we'll have zero IP control.

Doesn't sound like a very smart plan does it?

We need to prove the airframe, it's our first attempt.

It will have the basics, very possibly including DC-MAWS. If Tejas Mk2 with a single F414 can power it, AMCA with 2x of those shouldn't have a problem.

It won't be fully next-gen, it'll just be a stealthy platform not very different from F-22 in terms of sensor capability (if not better, thanks to IRST).

Still better than a non-stealthy non-next gen plane.

Then it will end at 40.

DC-MAWS is just a MAWS. It operates in a slightly wider spectrum of MWIR is all. Functionally it's no different to the AN/AAR-47 on Navy's MH-60Rs or the Elbit PAWS on IAF birds.

DAS is an exponentially better capability. It can project imagery onto the pilot's HMD. It can search & track any heat signature you tell it to, it can even perform target ID by its infrared signature. MAWS on the hand other don't even register anything that doesn't explicitly look like a solid-fuel missile plume, so as to avoid false alarms. An enemy fighter could be flying 500 meters from you but unless it fires a missile, MAWS won't even tell you about it.

It's like comparing a rotary phone to a Galaxy Note.

DAS gives you this on your HMD:

MAWS gives you nothing but a bearing & a vector on a readout like this:

Only thing that comes close to F-35's EODAS in terms of capability is the Rafale's DDM-NG. Unfortunately it does not cover all-aspect like EODAS does. Only 2 apertures (3 if you include FSO-IRST) compared to F-35's six. And it's housings are not flush with the airframe, so not stealthy.

DC-MAWS also gives you the same. It's better than the current EODAS. DDM-NG is also a generation behind DC-MAWS.

What's really special about the F-35 is they put the display right in front of the pilot's eyes with a panoramic view. That's about it. The F-35 also gets the same pic as the second one. The former is to make decisions, the latter is required for the aircraft to display the decisions it makes.

What amount of time in a typical mission do you think an AMCA would be exposing it's rear aspect?

Pretty much all the time. You yourself said there are multitude of AESA radars watching the jet.

You create a scenario and then stop applying it immediately to make your next point where the scenario makes your point useless.

We don't know yet what treatment 414 on AMCA will have, given the application is a low-observable platform.

It's the standard F414. ADA is not gonna risk AMCA on an unproven engine.

Remember, we'll be getting 80% of the ToT on the engine. The 20% they'll withhold is likely to do with the critical core hot section components...not stuff like the nozzle. We'll be free to modify the nozzle as we want.

Any specialized nozzle design we come up with that we intend for the next-gen engine (like saw-toothed edges etc), we can put on the F414 as well, no one's stopping us. As of heat treatment - the F414 on AMCA is far more well-shrouded from all directions compared to MKI, or even the Su-57 whose nacelles are horribly exposed. Or even Rafale for that matter. It's nozzles are fully exposed from the side due to lack of tail planes. AMCA's are mostly shrouded, the return is still minimized:

View attachment 32327

^^ CGI based on official CDR design.

Sure. But you are basically saying we should modernize the F414. I've said the same thing. It's an option if the new engine fails.

They don't have any import restriction either. They were free to import a foreign MAWS and install it - had they considered it truly necessary for the application.

The sensor fusion and MMI aspect of EODAS is what's stopping them, not the hardware.

Now you're just talking nonsense buddy. If this is true, it means Dassault has forgotton about what Rafale can do and are wasting time & money designing a VLO airframe for SCAF.

As per both Picdel and Trappier, France doesn't need SCAF. They are fine with a Super Rafale, a slightly bigger Rafale. The SCAF is being pursued for political reasons with the Germans.

A Super Rafale is their go-to solution if SCAF fails. In fact, Dassault is not too keen about SCAF.

You can ask @Picdelamirand-oil yourself.

If a 4.5 gen airframe like Rafale can become stealthier than F-22 in 20 years, then why bother?

Dassault believes the same.

All they needed to do was build the next-gen engine, jam it in the Rafale airframe and they'd be good to go.

That's actually what they want to do.

A fighter is not going to have the electrical output to impose it's AC on an entire battlespace, there's a reason why even most high power jammers are carried in a pod with their own dedicated power supply. At most AC can manage one or two specific radars (or as the case might be, missile seekers) at a time. Which is incidentally what AC was designed for.

Future fighters will be part of a system.

None of these scenarios are realistic. There is no context.

What kind of radar was being targeted by AC? Because in this case, your RCS depends not on the total surface area that's reflecting back to the enemy from a given aspect angle, but on how effectively your AC is blinding the enemy radar. If the radar gets even slightly more advanced (it gets faster at frequency-hopping than you are at changing the freq of your return signal), your AC will fail spectacularly.

Unless there is evidence that Rafale can perform AC against multiple 1,000+ TRM AESA-FCRs constantly, it's useless in modern A2A combat as a means of making a non-stealthy plane stealthy for the duration of a mission.

I'm surprised it hasn't dawned on you - the sheer absurdity of an entire battlespace being blinded by a single EW suite that's drawing from the same pool of power as a FCR & DDM-NG, that too with 3 tiny transmitters.

It's not only beyond the realm of plausible - it's a total joke. I hope you realize this.

You don't understand how the system works. It's kinda like an invisibility cloak, it only affects itself. This doesn't require a lot of power because signal power that's traveled dozens to hundreds of kms doesn't have a lot of power, which is why signal strength is calculated using decibels which works on a lograthmic scale. A radar signal has to travel twice the distance as an EW signal, so the power transmitted by EW is really small, measured in watts.

It's the same with EODAS, it's not a power-hungry system. It's just a camera. Cooling it requires way more power than operating it.

F-35 was showed off at Aero India doesn't mean it's on offer to us.

It apparently is. But without ToT. Of course, strings attached. It doesn't matter though, if we buy American with strings attached, it's going to have to be on the level of NGAD, B-21, Virginia etc. Rafale F5 is the obvious bet.

Our selection of the platform itself has already given them multitudes of customers in the Middle East - many of whom bought way more Rafales than we did so far. It's already an export success.

They will chalk up any failure of Rafale in our hands to the incompetence of IAF pilots, not a fault of the platform.

People are not that dumb. India has a history of fighting and winning with inferior jets and PAF capability is very well-known within NATO circles, especially in primarily Rafale markets like the ME. If India fails with the Rafale, then they will expect not to fare any better. Europe will actually lose marketshare in the ME and SEA.

There is no main/next-gen engine, yet. So we can't design for it. Once we finalize the ToT, IP & cost negotiations, we will sign with the selected partner, with whom we will work for about ~5 years or so to finalize the definitive design of the next-gen engine. At that point, we will begin the process of Design Reviewing AMCA Mk2. If it turns out the final design of the new engine requires any modifications to the airframe, we will have to address those problems before going to CDR.

You don't design an aircraft after the engine is ready. You have multiple paper designs ready, and once an engine is selected, you choose the corresponding airframe design and put it into production. And right now it's just the TD.

FOC is for the entire system.

You can't be serious if you think we don't have a plan for a low-observable airframe to enter service in FOC form until 2039.

The F414 AMCA is a very real capability set - which we fully planned for, & which we fully intend to procure in considerable numbers.

The FOC is for limited capabilities provided by the engine. It's being done this way to prove the airframe, not the whole aircraft.

You can procure AMCA Mk1s quicker than that (and for cheaper) because we'll be paying in Rupees.

We will be paying in rupees for the Rafale as well. That's the point of indigenous production and ToT.

None of those options will give you what you wanted in the engine JV - which is ToT & control over IP.

Beggars can't be choosers.

If you are ready to compromise on that, then there's no point in even wasting time with joint development. Just ask for import right away & build Mk1 itself based on the foreign design.

The problem is, the foreign next-gen engines aren't ready either. And they won't be till the late 2030s earliest.

The more you study the problem, the more you realize IAF's genius in asking to build two AMCA configs - one around a proven engine which we can build right away & which will allow us to get our hands on a stealthy airframe ASAP, and another which we'll hold off on till our engine program is sorted & results in a finished product we're satisfied with - whenever that may be.

There's nothing genius about what's being done. It's a poor man's gambit. Not in money, but in tech.

 

[randomradio]

Is there any clarity over what sensors are going in mk1?

I hope we get integrated EOTS. DAS should be there because it is already under test AFAIK.

Pretty much everything planned for Mk2 will be on Mk1. Because there is no Mk2 and Mk1, there's only AMCA.

Meaning, there's only one airframe design. They will just release different blocks with new hardware and software on the same airframe.

We will see a new airframe only if AMCA fails, or if the IAF is happy with the design and want a modernization after the first 150 are built. Or perhaps the export market is interested.

 

[Parthu]

Then it will end at 40.

No because we'll need more airframes. The kind of enemies we face, we need both numbers & quality to beat.

If we fail at procuring quality, we at least need numbers.

That will apply to both manned & unmanned future aircraft.

DC-MAWS also gives you the same. It's better than the current EODAS. DDM-NG is also a generation behind DC-MAWS.

No it's not. According to DARE itself, DC-MAWS is specifically designed to detect nothing except the characteristic plume of a solid-fuel missile. Even a liquid-fueled missile will not trigger it (because the computer will determine that such missiles are probably not aimed at the aircraft so need not bother), let alone being used as an IRST. It doesn't even register anything that's slightly colder than a burning solid rocket exhaust.

It's just a MAWS. We developed it so as not to be dependent on imports.

EODAS on the other hand is a multi-tool. It can detect & track anything you tell it to. Aircraft in the sky, vehicles on the ground, ships on the sea.

DC-MAWS is not even comparable to EODAS or DDM-NG. It's comparable to the original DDM however (which was on Rafale before NG replaced it).

What's really special about the F-35 is they put the display right in front of the pilot's eyes with a panoramic view. That's about it. The F-35 also gets the same pic as the second one. The former is to make decisions, the latter is required for the aircraft to display the decisions it makes.

MAWS don't even have the image processing to translate what they see into a visual - that's not what their purpose is. That's the job of an IRST or FLIR.

Each of F-35's EODAS sensors are IRSTs. They can even be slaved to the radar (or vice versa).

If someone breaks into your house, MAWS sends you an SMS saying someone's broken in. EODAS shows you the video of them breaking in, and also runs facial ID on them & gives you their names.

Pretty much all the time. You yourself said there are multitude of AESA radars watching the jet.

You create a scenario and then stop applying it immediately to make your next point where the scenario makes your point useless.

So the multitude of AESAs are specifically focused on the one aspect angle where AMCA isn't stealthy, but when it comes to Rafale or MKI which aren't stealthy from any angle, it doesn't matter & their survivability becomes the same as AMCA's?

Ok.

It's the standard F414. ADA is not gonna risk AMCA on an unproven engine.

Sure. But you are basically saying we should modernize the F414. I've said the same thing. It's an option if the new engine fails.

Modifying the nozzle isn't the same as modernizing the engine. Considering that the non-afterburning Kaveri will go on the stealthy Ghatak UCAV, it's likely we're already working on serrated-edge nozzles of the scale that F414 can also use with a bit of re-engineering.

The sensor fusion and MMI aspect of EODAS is what's stopping them, not the hardware.

I'm talking about regular MAWS. Why didn't they bother putting them in? They're straightforward systems that don't require any cutting edge software or hardware. Even JF-17 has them.

As per both Picdel and Trappier, France doesn't need SCAF. They are fine with a Super Rafale, a slightly bigger Rafale. The SCAF is being pursued for political reasons with the Germans.

A Super Rafale is their go-to solution if SCAF fails. In fact, Dassault is not too keen about SCAF.

You can ask @Picdelamirand-oil yourself.



Dassault believes the same.



That's actually what they want to do.



Future fighters will be part of a system.

One can invent any story about a future plane in order to sell a current one.

Watch what they do, not what they say.

You don't understand how the system works. It's kinda like an invisibility cloak, it only affects itself.

No it doesn't. It's all about the enemy radar(s). You have to study & tailor each AC transmission to the specific kind of incoming wave & ensure it goes back to that specific bearing & no other. Otherwise AC will fail & you'll be yelling "here I am" to people who weren't even shooting radar in your direction.

And that's for a mechanically scanned doppler radar. If you're facing an AESA with 1,000 TRMs each operating in a slightly different frequency, you HAVE to transmit back in those 1,000 frequencies as well, otherwise AC will fail. Now add another AESA. And another.

Now add an S-band airspace surveillance radar with 5,000 TRMs.

How many individual transmitting elements does Rafale have that it can make use of to send it's individually tailored AC signals to all these thousands & thousands of transceivers?

This doesn't require a lot of power because signal power that's traveled dozens to hundreds of kms doesn't have a lot of power, which is why signal strength is calculated using decibels which works on a lograthmic scale. A radar signal has to travel twice the distance as an EW signal, so the power transmitted by EW is really small, measured in watts.

If the radar is far away & not much energy is reaching you to begin with, you don't have to transmit much either to account for the return. A closer radar (or a more powerful radar) will demand a comparatively higher power output in order to match the requirement, you don't have a choice in this.

But the bigger problem is the number of transmissions you have to counter. Like I said, it's the lack of sufficient radiating elements on the Rafale's EW suite in order to transmit that many interleaved frequencies which is the limiting factor.

The SPECTRA suite has about as many transmitting elements as your average SPJ. You're asking an SPJ to do what amounts to the job of a wideband escort jammer here. Except far more complicated.

It's the same with EODAS, it's not a power-hungry system. It's just a camera. Cooling it requires way more power than operating it.

Cooling is part of the system. Same goes for a radar. It all takes power - unless you're air-cooling them, but that's not very effective.

It apparently is. But without ToT. Of course, strings attached. It doesn't matter though, if we buy American with strings attached, it's going to have to be on the level of NGAD, B-21, Virginia etc. Rafale F5 is the obvious bet.

Not according to any official channels. Not difficult for the Americans to come out & say we'd be willing to sell the F35 if it wasn't for the S400. They're already saying as much publicly in the case of Turkey.

Now would be the perfect time to come out with it. News of PAF's impeding acquisition of FC-31. Enough crap injected in the media about the apparent failings of S400 in Ukraine. PLAAF continuing to build out J-20s. AMCA still over a decade away, and that's only the Mk1.

You don't design an aircraft after the engine is ready.

Engine need not be ready for use. But the design needs to be. You need to provide information regarding critical factors. How can you even design a plane's CoG without knowing exactly how much one of the heaviest components is going to weigh? How do you design the inlets without knowing how much air it needs?

You have multiple paper designs ready,

There isn't going to be a paper design for the next-gen engine for at least half a decade from now.

The FOC is for limited capabilities provided by the engine. It's being done this way to prove the airframe, not the whole aircraft.

You don't need FOC to just prove the airframe. FOC proves every single designed capability for that configuration.

It's a waste of time unless you fully intend to use that configuration in war. Which we absolutely do.

We will be paying in rupees for the Rafale as well. That's the point of indigenous production and ToT.

We'll talk about it when & if it happens.

If you ask me, we're going to buy 36 more for the Air Force (besides 26 for Navy), and then call it quits.

After that it's just Tejas Mk1A, Tejas Mk2, AMCA Mk1 & Mk2.

Beggars can't be choosers.

It's a poor man's gambit. Not in money, but in tech.

Exactly my point.

Additional AMCA Mk1s aren't a preference, but they are intended to be the fallback until we can figure something out.

 

[Rajput Lion]

AMCA MK1 is going to be much more(read magnitudes) more stealthy from every single aspect/angle versus MKI or Rafale even with F414. There is no question about it.

Second stage engine is required to give it F-22 like high altitude performance and kinematics to tackle enemy ASFs like J-20. It would also allow AMCA to supercruise over Mach 1.5. Of course, new engine will also reduce its radar/thermal stealth vis-a-vis F414. But most importantly, new engine will allow us full on IP control which means we're free from any foreign pressure and we can achieve full-on predictive maintenance.

Both @randomradio and @Parthu have merit in their argument, but like always truth is found in the middle ground and not extremes.

 

[vstol Jockey]

There's a more advanced F414 in development than EPE that uses CMCs, provides enough thrust along with life.

Anyway, let's see who we have as a partner.

The F-18Blk-3 uses F414 with thrust rating of 75.75/116 KN. The same engine is fit for 80/128 Kn as well. It has been limited to 75.75/116KN due to the intake limitation of F-18 SH which can suck in only 85kgs/sec airflow.

 

[Ashwin]

The F-18Blk-3 uses F414 with thrust rating of 75.75/116 KN. The same engine is fit for 80/128 Kn as well. It has been limited to 75.75/116KN due to the intake limitation of F-18 SH which can suck in only 85kgs/sec airflow.

You keep saying this but its not true. There is no engine upgrade in Block 3.

 

[Saaho]

You keep saying this but its not true. There is no engine upgrade in Block 3.

F/A-18 Super Hornet

Boeing has developed the Block III Super Hornet to complement existing and future air wing capabilities. The upgrades have evolved to complement other U.S. Navy aircraft to effectively operate together in the air wing for decades to come.

www.boeing.com

Gurudev @vstol Jockey is right....

Each engine on F/A-18E is having a thurst of 17,000 pounds of force. Thats is 75.6 KN. This is NOT wet thrust.

 

[randomradio]

No because we'll need more airframes. The kind of enemies we face, we need both numbers & quality to beat.

If we fail at procuring quality, we at least need numbers.

That will apply to both manned & unmanned future aircraft.

An aircraft without DAS? What about radar, EW suite etc, which actually need the new engine?

No it's not. According to DARE itself, DC-MAWS is specifically designed to detect nothing except the characteristic plume of a solid-fuel missile. Even a liquid-fueled missile will not trigger it (because the computer will determine that such missiles are probably not aimed at the aircraft so need not bother), let alone being used as an IRST. It doesn't even register anything that's slightly colder than a burning solid rocket exhaust.

It's just a MAWS. We developed it so as not to be dependent on imports.

EODAS on the other hand is a multi-tool. It can detect & track anything you tell it to. Aircraft in the sky, vehicles on the ground, ships on the sea.

DC-MAWS is not even comparable to EODAS or DDM-NG. It's comparable to the original DDM however (which was on Rafale before NG replaced it).

That's the limit of the software, not the hardware.

We neither have the software, nor is the computer capable of processing all that information.

MAWS don't even have the image processing to translate what they see into a visual - that's not what their purpose is. That's the job of an IRST or FLIR.

What do you think MAWS is?

So the multitude of AESAs are specifically focused on the one aspect angle where AMCA isn't stealthy, but when it comes to Rafale or MKI which aren't stealthy from any angle, it doesn't matter & their survivability becomes the same as AMCA's?

Ok.

'Cause the Rafale's stealth is different from AMCA's, without applying the same measures. AMCA with Rafale's tech will be even more capable.

Modifying the nozzle isn't the same as modernizing the engine. Considering that the non-afterburning Kaveri will go on the stealthy Ghatak UCAV, it's likely we're already working on serrated-edge nozzles of the scale that F414 can also use with a bit of re-engineering.

It's not our own engine. And we are not gonna do that unless AMCA's engine fails. You are basically arguing my point.

One can invent any story about a future plane in order to sell a current one.

Watch what they do, not what they say.

It's not up to them. Dassault's hoping for SCAF's failure. The Super Rafale is their replacement.

No it doesn't. It's all about the enemy radar(s). You have to study & tailor each AC transmission to the specific kind of incoming wave & ensure it goes back to that specific bearing & no other. Otherwise AC will fail & you'll be yelling "here I am" to people who weren't even shooting radar in your direction.

And that's for a mechanically scanned doppler radar. If you're facing an AESA with 1,000 TRMs each operating in a slightly different frequency, you HAVE to transmit back in those 1,000 frequencies as well, otherwise AC will fail. Now add another AESA. And another.

Now add an S-band airspace surveillance radar with 5,000 TRMs.

How many individual transmitting elements does Rafale have that it can make use of to send it's individually tailored AC signals to all these thousands & thousands of transceivers?

You just have to deal with the main beams of all these radars, the number of TRMs don't matter. 5000 TRMs can be split into 5 main beams, ie, 5 radars. So, based on how much power reaches the aircraft, the Rafale has to respond only with that many TRMs. So if the power necessary is 50 W, then 5 TRMs producing 50 W in total is enough. With GaN, it gets even better, maybe just 1 is enough.

If the radar is far away & not much energy is reaching you to begin with, you don't have to transmit much either to account for the return. A closer radar (or a more powerful radar) will demand a comparatively higher power output in order to match the requirement, you don't have a choice in this.

But the bigger problem is the number of transmissions you have to counter. Like I said, it's the lack of sufficient radiating elements on the Rafale's EW suite in order to transmit that many interleaved frequencies which is the limiting factor.

The SPECTRA suite has about as many transmitting elements as your average SPJ. You're asking an SPJ to do what amounts to the job of a wideband escort jammer here. Except far more complicated.

It is well within the SPJ's capabilities. Or it wouldn't have worked.

Cooling is part of the system. Same goes for a radar. It all takes power - unless you're air-cooling them, but that's not very effective.

On stealth jets, you need more bleed air from the engine to cool avionics. You can't use RAT systems, so this makes the new engine far more important than a non-stealth jet. This point favors AMCA's new engine. Meaning, the new engine is required to run and cool the avionics, a standard engine will not be enough.

Not according to any official channels. Not difficult for the Americans to come out & say we'd be willing to sell the F35 if it wasn't for the S400. They're already saying as much publicly in the case of Turkey.

Now would be the perfect time to come out with it. News of PAF's impeding acquisition of FC-31. Enough crap injected in the media about the apparent failings of S400 in Ukraine. PLAAF continuing to build out J-20s. AMCA still over a decade away, and that's only the Mk1.

They have already sent out feelers through backdoor channels and media shills. They cannot offer until we officially ask for it.

For example, in MRFA we haven't asked for the F-35, but they can offer it if they are fine with the ToT requirements. Otherwise, we haven't asked for it through any other means.

Engine need not be ready for use. But the design needs to be. You need to provide information regarding critical factors. How can you even design a plane's CoG without knowing exactly how much one of the heaviest components is going to weigh? How do you design the inlets without knowing how much air it needs?

All that is already known. Once they know what they need, ie, RFP, companies work out designs and proposals and ADA gets to choose the best design. ADA is not choosing blind. It's a competition.

There isn't going to be a paper design for the next-gen engine for at least half a decade from now.

The final production design, maybe 2 years. But that's not necessary.

You don't need FOC to just prove the airframe. FOC proves every single designed capability for that configuration.

Yes. But it's limited to the technologies decided for FOC. The engine is not a factor 'cause it's not definitive. Meaning they are not expecting the Mk1 to supercruise or have full stealth.

We'll talk about it when & if it happens.

If you ask me, we're going to buy 36 more for the Air Force (besides 26 for Navy), and then call it quits.

After that it's just Tejas Mk1A, Tejas Mk2, AMCA Mk1 & Mk2.

Okay, but we need 200. If those 36 keep coming in batches, then Dassault will produce it on their own in India 'cause they then get to make more profit. 20% cheaper, they say.

Additional AMCA Mk1s aren't a preference, but they are intended to be the fallback until we can figure something out.

The IAF didn't make such a concession even for LCA. Any standard F414-equipped AMCA bought in numbers more than 40 is because the IAF wasn't allowed to have a choice. And the IAF will not use these AMCAs for what they were intended to, they will rely on the other 200 Rafales to perform OCA. They will be forced to use AMCA as a semi-stealth strike jet with limited capabilities, worse than today's Jaguars. The LCA Mk2 will likely perform better.

 

[Ashwin]

F/A-18 Super Hornet

Boeing has developed the Block III Super Hornet to complement existing and future air wing capabilities. The upgrades have evolved to complement other U.S. Navy aircraft to effectively operate together in the air wing for decades to come.

www.boeing.com

Gurudev @vstol Jockey is right....

View attachment 32343

Each engine on F/A-18E is having a thurst of 17,000 pounds of force. Thats is 75.6 KN. This is NOT wet thrust.

It says "up to" if the customer opts for it. Its a marketing page. USN did not go for it. The same is the case for CFT; it was offered but never chosen.

In fact, EPE is a bad deal as it decreases the overall life of the engine and the mean time between overhauls (MTBO) considerably. People only look at thrust increase but forget it comes with significant downside.

 

[randomradio]

The F-18Blk-3 uses F414 with thrust rating of 75.75/116 KN. The same engine is fit for 80/128 Kn as well. It has been limited to 75.75/116KN due to the intake limitation of F-18 SH which can suck in only 85kgs/sec airflow.

But the EPE is not proven, so it's unlikely ADA will use it for a development program, be it TEDBF or AMCA. It may become an option for production jets if the new engine fails. Particularly the CMC one, which I believe is what they are offering for the AMCA deal.

We have made deals with both the Americans and French, hundreds of F404/F414 (even LM2500) on one side and 62 Rafales on the other, so I can't tell which of the two will be our partner. And both have fallback engines for AMCA.