ADA AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

[vstol Jockey]

It was proposed, engine update and CFT were removed from Block-3.

The Navy Has Received Its First Block III F/A-18 Super Hornets

Operational Navy squadrons are set to begin flying improved Block III Super Hornets by the end of this year.

www.twz.com

It is not so much about F-18 as much it is about the present thrust levels of F414. You stated that I made claims without any proof. So I gave you proof from Boeing website about F-18 dry thrust and also from GE website about 116KN wet thrust of GE F414 engine.

 

[Ashwin]

It is not so much about F-18 as much it is about the present thrust levels of F414. You stated that I made claims without any proof. So I gave you proof from Boeing website about F-18 dry thrust and also from GE website about 116KN wet thrust of GE F414 engine.

You claimed its part of block 3 which its not.

The marketing website is displaying possible configurations, not something that is operational.

 

[vstol Jockey]

You claimed its part of block 3 which its not.

The marketing website is displaying possible configurations, not something that is operational.

Do you know more than Rear Adm Surendra Ahuja (Retd) who was incharge of F-18 SH Blk-3 proposal for IN after retirement. He as test Pilot certified Mig-29K on Vikky and later was incharge of IAC-2. He took premature retirement and joined Boeing company. He is my Flying Coursemate and also squadron Mate from Indian Navy. Everyone seems to be a liar to you when It comes to F-18 Blk-3 thrust. You are not willing to trust anyone, neither Boeing who makes this aircraft nor GE who makes the engine and not even the Pilots who tested this aircraft from ramp in US test facility before offering it to IN for evaluation.

 

[Ashwin]

Do you know more than Rear Adm Surendra Ahuja (Retd) who was incharge of F-18 SH Blk-3 proposal for IN after retirement. He as test Pilot certified Mig-29K on Vikky and later was incharge of IAC-2. He took premature retirement and joined Boeing company. He is my Flying Coursemate and also squadron Mate from Indian Navy. Everyone seems to be a liar to you when It comes to F-18 Blk-3 thrust. You are not willing to trust anyone, neither Boeing who makes this aircraft nor GE who makes the engine and not even the Pilots who tested this aircraft from ramp in US test facility before offering it to IN for evaluation.

Did I say it was not offered? Of course it is on offer for additional money.

Let me reiterate, Engine upgrade or CFT are not part of block 3 which is in production for USN.

 

[vstol Jockey]

Let me reiterate, Engine upgrade or CFT are not part of block 3 which is in production for USN.

The CFT is not part of the upgrade. But increased thrust is as this EPE engine has nearly double the Generator output compared to previous Gen engine as the upgraded Blk-3 needed much higher electrical power. So engine upgrade was specifically asked for by USN and they even funded the development this upgraded engine.
As of now USN is still evaluating the upgrades and have still not placed any new orders for F-18s.

 

[Ashwin]

The CFT is not part of the upgrade.

The original plan had been to include range-extending conformal fuel tanks (CFT) to the Navy’s Super Hornets as part of the Block III package. However, the service uncovered unspecified issues when it sent the test jets to fly from the deck of an actual carrier last year. Boeing subsequently received a stop-work halting continued testing of the CFTs in January and it is unclear when, if ever, they might eventually make their way onto Block III jets

As of now USN is still evaluating the upgrades and have still not placed any new orders for F-18s.

Which is exactly what I was saying, its not in production. According to @randomradio there is separate program to evaluate these engine.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

How do you think the F-35C would have performed?

I don't know exactly, but I've noticed the following:

• It is a single-engine aircraft and IN wanted a twin-engine aircraft capable of handling the incident of an engine shutdown during take-off, either by continuing the take-off if the speed already acquired on two engines is sufficient for the remaining engine to ensure lift-off, or by allowing a safe stop otherwise. So the F-35 C does not comply with the specifications.
• Its empty weight is slightly higher than that of the F-18 SH
• Its thrust is slightly less than that of the F-18 SH with its upgraded engines.

So, from my point of view, it wouldn't have done as well!

 

[vstol Jockey]

I don't know exactly, but I've noticed the following:

• It is a single-engine aircraft and IN wanted a twin-engine aircraft capable of handling the incident of an engine shutdown during take-off, either by continuing the take-off if the speed already acquired on two engines is sufficient for the remaining engine to ensure lift-off, or by allowing a safe stop otherwise. So the F-35 C does not comply with the specifications.
• Its empty weight is slightly higher than that of the F-18 SH
• Its thrust is slightly less than that of the F-18 SH with its upgraded engines.

So, from my point of view, it wouldn't have done as well!

No version of F-35 has ever been offered to India. so it was never in consideration.

Which is exactly what I was saying, its not in production. According to @randomradio there is separate program to evaluate these engine.

My posts were with respect to the engine upgrade and such an upgraded engine is not only available but also flying.
This engin is fit to even hit 132 Kn thrust. read below from GE website a part of which was posted earlier.

 

[Tatvamasi]

No version of F-35 has ever been offered to India. so it was never in consideration.

My posts were with respect to the engine upgrade and such an upgraded engine is not only available but also flying.
This engin is fit to even hit 132 Kn thrust. read below from GE website a part of which was posted earlier.
View attachment 32349

Why are you reading too much into marketing? Show me the USN operating these.

 

[suryakiran]

Why are you reading too much into marketing? Show me the USN operating these.

He is providing his input on the basis of a discussion with his batchmate who has flown an aircraft and works with Boeing. Its like 2 professionals discussing interesting stuff which you wont find in public discourse. Not a marketing brochure.

He believes it and shared it. Someone does not believe it, fine. Lets move on.

 

[randomradio]

The radar, EW suite (even IRST) on AMCA Mk1 will be iterative developments of what's being developed for Tejas Mk2. They don't need a next gen engine to power.

Which means the engine will have to eventually power these new electronics, which it can't.

It's both. MAWS for example cannot zoom in on a target to perform ID as it lacks the required lenses.

DAS can.

How do you know DC-MAWS doesn't have lenses?

What do you think it is?

There's a reason MAWS are classified as part of self-defence suite by the USAF, whereas EODAS is classified as a Sensor system in the same breath as the main radar.

MAWS perform a similar function as RWR, except it watches for a different signature from the enemy (missile plumes instead of radar waves). That's all.

Welcome to the world of marketing.

If we develop a stealthy nozzle, we're going to apply that tech on every stealth platform we operate.

We don't need to mess with the engine to change the nozzle.

Er...

They're not the ones facing PLAAF. And the only way they'd even be facing the Russians is with the USAF by their side (Russia has to plough through half a dozen NATO countries to get to them).

France can even make do with Mirage-2000s if they wanted. But our requirements are far more intense.

We cannot do without a low observable airframe like AMCA.

France is mandated to fight Russia alone. So their technologies are developed for that purpose.

You'll be dealing with combined power amounting to several kilowatts hitting you in a modern battlespace. But that's not even the most egregious problem.

You cannot transmit two frequencies from the same TRM at the same time. Out of a 1000 TRM FCR radar, if even a main beam comprising 400 TRM is hitting you, it's scanning you in 400 frequencies, regardless of how much power is reaching you, you still need to transmit back those same 400 freqs, just out of phase.

For a podded jammer like NGJ, this is not a problem because they don't need to tailor their output to the incoming signal - they just raise the surrounding SNR high enough that your radar return is lost. But doing this is not stealthy and home-on-jam solutions exist. To do this stealthily you need to transmit a signal in all the freqs the enemy is scanning you in, while taking care not to leak anything in a freq he's not transmitting.

A typical AESA-based EW emitter like the ELT-568 we installed on our MiG-29UPG has about 15-16 TRMs per module on each side. With 4 transmitters (2 in front, 2 in back) that's about ~60 TRMs (but they can't all look at the same target, that's besides the point). That's a maximum of 60 frequencies at the same time.

SPECTRA's emitters are roughly the same size as the ELT-568. It cannot transmit in more than a few dozen frequencies at the same time. The other frequencies will be able to see Rafale just fine.

It's like trying to stop the wind with your palm.

It works against old doppler radars or even missile seekers, but modern AESA FCRs are too tough & too smart.

You know, you are making it more and more difficult for AMCA to survive than Rafale.

While Rafale F4 and below may face problems, the F5 will come with all new capabilities, including a 360 deg radar that can also jam.

Notional concepts exist. Nothing is set in stone as far the next-gen engine design is concerned.

You cannot risk the entire future of your Air Force on a notional concept. You have to move ahead with a proven engine in the meantime - which is what IAF is doing.

Russia, China and India are following that route.

How easy do you think it is to design a new engine from scratch? It's not just drawing lines on a paper you know, every step requires R&D - especially when it's going to be the first next-gen engine in the world that can natively start at Himalayan altitudes.

Sure. But it's not necessary for the aircraft to have the final result. They only need dimensions, weight and interfaces.

F414 is the definitive Mk1 engine.

Lol.

Trappier has said they need a minimum 100-jet order at one go in order to justify setting up local production. That's not happening.

It's not necessary. They get 36, they can start a final assembly line. The next order of 36 will justify the production of wings and fuselage parts. The next 36 will justify the production of the entire aircraft.

First, Rafale was better than AMCA Mk1. Then Su-30 was better than AMCA Mk1.

Now Tejas Mk2 is better than AMCA Mk1.

What's next? MiG-21 Bison is better than AMCA Mk1?

That's what it means by optimization. If your aircraft isn't optimized, then it won't function very well. A more optimized aircraft will then win.

F414 will keep AMCA underpowered. It will need a new engine or a significantly upgraded core, like the EPE. Even then, it won't be able to use all its capabilities because it's not the definitive engine.

For example, pretty much all of the hardware on the F-35 is superior to the Rafale, but at this time, Rafale holds all the operational advantages simply due to optimization.

 

[Arpit]

Adding it for context

DRDO actually posted images taken in IR band and UV band from DC-MAWS, that is nowhere close to DAS. MAWS is all about detecting plumes with low false alarm rate, not for situational awareness that able to classify targets.

How do you know DC-MAWS doesn't have lenses?



Welcome to the world of marketing.

If its a marketing gimmick, what stopping them likes of Dassult, Saab, Eurofighter to offer this in there fighter, after all its all about MAWS.

 

[randomradio]

I don't know exactly, but I've noticed the following:

• It is a single-engine aircraft and IN wanted a twin-engine aircraft capable of handling the incident of an engine shutdown during take-off, either by continuing the take-off if the speed already acquired on two engines is sufficient for the remaining engine to ensure lift-off, or by allowing a safe stop otherwise. So the F-35 C does not comply with the specifications.
• Its empty weight is slightly higher than that of the F-18 SH
• Its thrust is slightly less than that of the F-18 SH with its upgraded engines.

So, from my point of view, it wouldn't have done as well!

But the higher L-D ratio should help, right?

And what about the B? Especially so on LHAs, alongside our carriers. The UK may try and sell their carrier to India.

Let's ignore the safety requirement, 'cause the US is doing that too.

 

[jetray]

The UK may try and sell their carrier to India.

no thanks. we should stop buying those rust buckets. We have enuf experience to build one.

 

[Parthu]

Which means the engine will have to eventually power these new electronics, which it can't.

What do you mean eventually? Uttam AESA, IRST and (most likely) DC-MAWS are things AMCA will have from the start (Mk1 config). All of these would be things that would already be proven to work sufficiently on Tejas Mk2 with its single F414.

With 2x F414s, we might even be able increase the capability of the versions we put on AMCA Mk1.

Mk-2 with the next-gen engine will allow us to install even more powerful versions, along with DAS (which might actually allow us to omit the IRST housing from Mk-2, making it stealthier as well).

How do you know DC-MAWS doesn't have lenses?

If they did, they would say so.

Besides, the kind of planes for which we developed DC-MAWS (like MKI & Tejas) simply don't have the electrical output to support a DAS-like capability.

If DC-MAWS already had DAS-like capability, then why are we developing a new system called DAS-DB/HD for AMCA Mk2? Might as well have just called it DC-MAWS Mk2.

Welcome to the world of marketing.

It's not marketing - it's the doctrine on which you train your pilots.

France is mandated to fight Russia alone. So their technologies are developed for that purpose.

Then why are they in NATO?

Unless they go & launch an unprovoked attack on Russia first, which they won't, there is no conceivable scenario where they will be fighting Russia alone.

You cannot compare the threat matrix of India surrounded by enemies on two fronts to that of France who's in a Collective Defence agreement with the US & 31 other countries, and is surrounded by NATO states which means nobody can get to them without already triggering Article 5.

They can afford to be lax with their build-out. They can afford to play pretend with an SPJ thinking it's a magic stealth generator (or at least try to convince unwitting customers that it is so they can make some money).

But we can't. We don't have time for these games.

You know, you are making it more and more difficult for AMCA to survive than Rafale.

No, because AMCA can achieve a smaller signature passively, from ANY aspect. At ALL times, against ANY type of sensor.

While Rafale F4 and below may face problems, the F5 will come with all new capabilities, including a 360 deg radar that can also jam.

The tile radars are a means of achieving increased situational awareness. None of them are going to have the TRM count to manage a main AESA-FCR either. They'll close the gap compared to current SPECTRA emitters, but still not enough.

Not to mention that by the time they come, enemy FCRs are going to develop further. Modules are going to get smaller, more efficient & more powerful. TRM counts are going to increase on their part as well.

So in the end, it's not going to make any difference.

Everything exists for a purpose. At some point you need to stop asking a MAWS to do the job of a DAS, and a SPJ to do the job of an Airframe shape.

Russia, China and India are following that route.

Russians & Chinese are developing their own engines. They know what their capabilities are, and where their R&D roadmap is expected to take them by X year. They can plan & design ahead. We on the other hand do not have access to see the plans and R&D roadmaps of GE, RR or SAFRAN. Our plans are entirely dependent on what they allowed us to see - and we are still negotiating with them to let us see more so we can make better plans.

If the Russians & Chinese find out their engine program is going to cost 5x what they expected, they can afford to pour in the money as in the end they're only paying themselves, their own institutions & their own engineers.

If GE, RR or SAFRAN ask for an amount 5x of what we expected - the whole thing is off. You're comparing apples with oranges.

Sure. But it's not necessary for the aircraft to have the final result. They only need dimensions, weight and interfaces.

We don't have any of those figures yet.

It's just too early. When we get those figures, we can begin work on AMCA Mk2 PDR. Where along with the new engine, we might make internal changes to accommodate any new sensors or upgrades we develop by then.

It's not necessary. They get 36, they can start a final assembly line. The next order of 36 will justify the production of wings and fuselage parts. The next 36 will justify the production of the entire aircraft.

Not according to Trappier.

Dassault has shareholders to look after as well. It's one thing if we provide some sort of sovereign guarantee that we will order X number of airframes eventually, so treat our small order as though it were a big one when it comes to ToT & local production obligations.

But we aren't going to provide anything like that so it's moot.

That's what it means by optimization. If your aircraft isn't optimized, then it won't function very well. A more optimized aircraft will then win.

F414 will keep AMCA underpowered. It will need a new engine or a significantly upgraded core, like the EPE. Even then, it won't be able to use all its capabilities because it's not the definitive engine.

An optimized 10-litre tank still holds less juice than a half-full 100-litre tank.

All I'm saying.

For example, pretty much all of the hardware on the F-35 is superior to the Rafale, but at this time, Rafale holds all the operational advantages simply due to optimization.

Except nobody who has a realistic choice is prepared to buy the Rafale over the F-35.

You'll probably say it's due to American arm-twisting, to which I'd say why doesn't this American arm-twisting work when F-16Vs or F-15EXs are on the table?

Why does it only work when it comes to F-35?

 

[randomradio]

Adding it for context

DRDO actually posted images taken in IR band and UV band from DC-MAWS, that is nowhere close to DAS. MAWS is all about detecting plumes with low false alarm rate, not for situational awareness that able to classify targets.

View attachment 32355


View attachment 32356

DC-MAWS uses MWIR, so it's primarily limited to searching for plumes. That's the same as EODAS. But you can generate even better imagery on DC-MAWS, 'cause the sensor is bigger and newer.

If its a marketing gimmick, what stopping them likes of Dassult, Saab, Eurofighter to offer this in there fighter, after all its all about MAWS.

Gripen E has it. Typhoon has an RF-MAWS, but getting it in the future. Rafale doesn't yet, 360 deg, although the DDM-NG does the same.

This is what the Typhoon's offering in terms of MMI.

The highly sophisticated Striker II technology lets pilots see through the body of the aircraft via a distributed aperture system, giving them a vital advantage when it comes to split-second decision making. Using optical sensors embedded in the aircraft, Striker II immediately calculates the pilot’s exact head position and angle. This means no matter where the pilot is looking, Striker II displays accurate targeting information and symbology, with ‘near zero’ latency.

Gripen:

PAWS Family | Elbit Systems

The PAWS Family of systems is a combat-proven comprehensive solution for all airborne platforms – fixed and rotary, military and civilian, including tankers, VIPs and others.

elbitsystems.com

Enhanced situation awareness via real-time image processing and imaging display
Raw IR video recording and navigation data capabilities in real time

Rafale DDM-NG.

All Thales has to do is use more sensors and display it on the pilot's HMDS.

The problem with older designs is the airframes are older than the tech, so making the necessary holes in the airframe is problematic.

DC-MAWS is newer than some of the above, particulary EODAS. And it sees the same things. It's just been programmed to do much lesser. Higher capabilities are aimed for LCA Mk2 and AMCA. So it's not a camera issue.

 

[randomradio]

no thanks. we should stop buying those rust buckets. We have enuf experience to build one.

Depends. One never knows what sort of decisions can be made suddenly. Although even I don't support it, I think the Chinese will make the decision for us, or for Australia, SoKo or Japan.

 

[randomradio]

What do you mean eventually? Uttam AESA, IRST and (most likely) DC-MAWS are things AMCA will have from the start (Mk1 config). All of these would be things that would already be proven to work sufficiently on Tejas Mk2 with its single F414.

With 2x F414s, we might even be able increase the capability of the versions we put on AMCA Mk1.

Mk-2 with the next-gen engine will allow us to install even more powerful versions, along with DAS (which might actually allow us to omit the IRST housing from Mk-2, making it stealthier as well).

LCA is not a high-end jet, its avionics are different from what's going into AMCA.

If they did, they would say so.

Besides, the kind of planes for which we developed DC-MAWS (like MKI & Tejas) simply don't have the electrical output to support a DAS-like capability.

If DC-MAWS already had DAS-like capability, then why are we developing a new system called DAS-DB/HD for AMCA Mk2? Might as well have just called it DC-MAWS Mk2.

A camera is not power hungry.

It's not marketing - it's the doctrine on which you train your pilots.

Er...

Then why are they in NATO?

Unless they go & launch an unprovoked attack on Russia first, which they won't, there is no conceivable scenario where they will be fighting Russia alone.

You cannot compare the threat matrix of India surrounded by enemies on two fronts to that of France who's in a Collective Defence agreement with the US & 31 other countries, and is surrounded by NATO states which means nobody can get to them without already triggering Article 5.

They can afford to be lax with their build-out. They can afford to play pretend with an SPJ thinking it's a magic stealth generator (or at least try to convince unwitting customers that it is so they can make some money).

But we can't. We don't have time for these games.

The French recently rejoined NATO. Rafale was created long before that. Anyway, their mandate continues to be to develop capabilities that they can use indepdently from NATO. It's in fact one of the reasons why the US tries to obstruct their defense deals.

No, because AMCA can achieve a smaller signature passively, from ANY aspect. At ALL times, against ANY type of sensor.

WIth F414? You know you are arguing against ADA and the IAF right?

Russians & Chinese are developing their own engines. They know what their capabilities are, and where their R&D roadmap is expected to take them by X year. They can plan & design ahead. We on the other hand do not have access to see the plans and R&D roadmaps of GE, RR or SAFRAN. Our plans are entirely dependent on what they allowed us to see - and we are still negotiating with them to let us see more so we can make better plans.

If the Russians & Chinese find out their engine program is going to cost 5x what they expected, they can afford to pour in the money as in the end they're only paying themselves, their own institutions & their own engineers.

If GE, RR or SAFRAN ask for an amount 5x of what we expected - the whole thing is off. You're comparing apples with oranges.

You do realize the cold parts will be Indian right?

Not according to Trappier.

Dassault has shareholders to look after as well. It's one thing if we provide some sort of sovereign guarantee that we will order X number of airframes eventually, so treat our small order as though it were a big one when it comes to ToT & local production obligations.

But we aren't going to provide anything like that so it's moot.

The 26 jets with IN will be assembled in India.

An optimized 10-litre tank still holds less juice than a half-full 100-litre tank.

All I'm saying.

An optimized 80-liter tank holds more juice than a half-full 100-liter tank.

But your argument applies for the F414 on AMCA. You are claiming things even ADA doesn't.

Except nobody who has a realistic choice is prepared to buy the Rafale over the F-35.

You'll probably say it's due to American arm-twisting, to which I'd say why doesn't this American arm-twisting work when F-16Vs or F-15EXs are on the table?

Why does it only work when it comes to F-35?

They have been lied to. All those promises are based on the F-35 actually succeeding. The Australians are junking their plans for the last F-35 squadron.

Furthermore, Europeans tend to buy American even if European systems are superior. Especially so when it comes to French systems. These decisions tend to be political. Basically most of these countries want America to fight for them, so they buy American.

I'm more keen to see a Rafale F5 vs F-35 competition now. Anyway, this is not the topic. Just saying, Dassault would rather continue with Rafale than SCAF. While I'm sure that SCAF will be superior to a Rafale F5/F6 or Super Rafale, it still shows confidence in SPECTRA. It's more than enough for us until the arrival of the MKI replacement by 2050.

 

[Parthu]

DC-MAWS uses MWIR, so it's primarily limited to searching for plumes. That's the same as EODAS. But you can generate even better imagery on DC-MAWS, 'cause the sensor is bigger and newer.



Gripen E has it. Typhoon has an RF-MAWS, but getting it in the future. Rafale doesn't yet, 360 deg, although the DDM-NG does the same.

This is what the Typhoon's offering in terms of MMI.

The highly sophisticated Striker II technology lets pilots see through the body of the aircraft via a distributed aperture system, giving them a vital advantage when it comes to split-second decision making. Using optical sensors embedded in the aircraft, Striker II immediately calculates the pilot’s exact head position and angle. This means no matter where the pilot is looking, Striker II displays accurate targeting information and symbology, with ‘near zero’ latency.

Gripen:

PAWS Family | Elbit Systems

The PAWS Family of systems is a combat-proven comprehensive solution for all airborne platforms – fixed and rotary, military and civilian, including tankers, VIPs and others.

elbitsystems.com

Enhanced situation awareness via real-time image processing and imaging display
Raw IR video recording and navigation data capabilities in real time

Rafale DDM-NG.
View attachment 32357

All Thales has to do is use more sensors and display it on the pilot's HMDS.

The problem with older designs is the airframes are older than the tech, so making the necessary holes in the airframe is problematic.

DC-MAWS is newer than some of the above, particulary EODAS. And it sees the same things. It's just been programmed to do much lesser. Higher capabilities are aimed for LCA Mk2 and AMCA. So it's not a camera issue.

DC-MAWS isn't advertised with any of these capabilities. It's not going to be better just because it's newer.

Besides it's our first attempt at a proper Missile Warning System. We aren't going to try to go too big with it right away.

For us, those capabilities will only come with the DAS-HD/DB system, which as per reputed watchers will be held off till AMCA Mk2.

LCA is not a high-end jet, its avionics are different from what's going into AMCA.

Incremental improvements will be there in Mk1. Exponential difference will only come once the new engine comes.

But those incremental differences will still make it superior to what's on our Rafales, at least in terms of radar. The AMCA Mk1 FCR will still be bigger & capable of scanning in a lot more frequencies, and of carrying out more interleaved operations.

I also doubt if the French have allowed LPI mode to be exported. But on Uttam that will also be present from the start. Not to mention a stealthy plane like AMCA will be able to make far better use of LPI than Rafale.

The French recently rejoined NATO. Rafale was created long before that. Anyway, their mandate continues to be to develop capabilities that they can use indepdently from NATO. It's in fact one of the reasons why the US tries to obstruct their defense deals.

By the time Rafale's capabilities were fully realized (2000s), France was back in NATO so it's moot.

The point is that their threat matrix is nowhere as high as ours. Especially from a tactical perspective.

WIth F414? You know you are arguing against ADA and the IAF right?

As opposed to a Rafale with M88s?

Or any other IAF jet?

Sure. And I'm sure ADA & IAF would agree.

You do realize the cold parts will be Indian right?

We can only design parts of it - not the solution as a whole. A lot will depend on what the foreign partner is willing to provide.

For example we might plan that we need a certain alloy which allows us to keep the weight down. But if the partner isn't gonna provide something that advanced, or if we can't afford it, we might have to settle for a heavier alloy.

All these plans need to be finalized before we can provide definitive figures to ADA around which they can design AMCA Mk2.

It's just too early is all. So the AMCA design as it stands can only be considered definitive as long as you use it with the F414.

The 26 jets with IN will be assembled in India.

Nothing strategic about a CKD/SKD job. We're still gonna be paying the French in Euros to send the stuff to assemble. It would make economic sense if we're gonna be assembling them in triple digits but for small orders, all it does is drive up the flyaway cost further as we'd have to factor in the cost of setting up local facilities instead of taking advantage of established ones in France.

Unless you're going to produce everything (or at least most of it, save for ~20% of the engine) here, straight from raw material stage, we aren't really accruing any monetary or strategic benefits. It's just gonna be an employment scheme is all.

They have been lied to. All those promises are based on the F-35 actually succeeding. The Australians are junking their plans for the last F-35 squadron.

Furthermore, Europeans tend to buy American even if European systems are superior. Especially so when it comes to French systems. These decisions tend to be political. Basically most of these countries want America to fight for them, so they buy American.

I'm more keen to see a Rafale F5 vs F-35 competition now. Anyway, this is not the topic. Just saying, Dassault would rather continue with Rafale than SCAF. While I'm sure that SCAF will be superior to a Rafale F5/F6 or Super Rafale, it still shows confidence in SPECTRA. It's more than enough for us until the arrival of the MKI replacement by 2050.

Yeah, yeah.

Proof of the pudding is in the eating.

IAF knows what the Rafale is capable of. If it was able to perform AC against modern airborne threats as you claim - they wouldn't have bothered with AMCA. They'd just be ordering more Rafales.

You say the French are going with SCAF cuz of German/EU compulsions otherwise Rafale would've been enough. Who's compelling us to go with AMCA if Rafale is so good that it renders stealth shaping useless?

The fact that they are rushing to get AMCA in FOC service ASAP, even with a cut-down version like Mk1, tells you at least one of two things:

1) Rafale is not going to be as survivable as a ground-up low observable airframe in the modern environment.

2) If there really is a tech out there that can make the Rafale as VLO as a stealth plane (purely hypothetical at this point), the French haven't shared it with us.

Either of those options (or both), lead to the same conclusion as far as we're concerned: AMCA is going to be far stealthier, and as a result far more survivable than Rafale. Even in it's Mk1 form with F414.

That's a statement I'm willing to stand by.

 

[Chain Smoker]

What do you mean eventually? Uttam AESA, IRST and (most likely) DC-MAWS are things AMCA will have from the start (Mk1 config). All of these would be things that would already be proven to work sufficiently on Tejas Mk2 with its single F414.

With 2x F414s, we might even be able increase the capability of the versions we put on AMCA Mk1.

Mk-2 with the next-gen engine will allow us to install even more powerful versions, along with DAS (which might actually allow us to omit the IRST housing from Mk-2, making it stealthier as well).



If they did, they would say so.

Besides, the kind of planes for which we developed DC-MAWS (like MKI & Tejas) simply don't have the electrical output to support a DAS-like capability.

If DC-MAWS already had DAS-like capability, then why are we developing a new system called DAS-DB/HD for AMCA Mk2? Might as well have just called it DC-MAWS Mk2.



It's not marketing - it's the doctrine on which you train your pilots.



Then why are they in NATO?

Unless they go & launch an unprovoked attack on Russia first, which they won't, there is no conceivable scenario where they will be fighting Russia alone.

You cannot compare the threat matrix of India surrounded by enemies on two fronts to that of France who's in a Collective Defence agreement with the US & 31 other countries, and is surrounded by NATO states which means nobody can get to them without already triggering Article 5.

They can afford to be lax with their build-out. They can afford to play pretend with an SPJ thinking it's a magic stealth generator (or at least try to convince unwitting customers that it is so they can make some money).

But we can't. We don't have time for these games.



No, because AMCA can achieve a smaller signature passively, from ANY aspect. At ALL times, against ANY type of sensor.



The tile radars are a means of achieving increased situational awareness. None of them are going to have the TRM count to manage a main AESA-FCR either. They'll close the gap compared to current SPECTRA emitters, but still not enough.

Not to mention that by the time they come, enemy FCRs are going to develop further. Modules are going to get smaller, more efficient & more powerful. TRM counts are going to increase on their part as well.

So in the end, it's not going to make any difference.

Everything exists for a purpose. At some point you need to stop asking a MAWS to do the job of a DAS, and a SPJ to do the job of an Airframe shape.



Russians & Chinese are developing their own engines. They know what their capabilities are, and where their R&D roadmap is expected to take them by X year. They can plan & design ahead. We on the other hand do not have access to see the plans and R&D roadmaps of GE, RR or SAFRAN. Our plans are entirely dependent on what they allowed us to see - and we are still negotiating with them to let us see more so we can make better plans.

If the Russians & Chinese find out their engine program is going to cost 5x what they expected, they can afford to pour in the money as in the end they're only paying themselves, their own institutions & their own engineers.

If GE, RR or SAFRAN ask for an amount 5x of what we expected - the whole thing is off. You're comparing apples with oranges.



We don't have any of those figures yet.

It's just too early. When we get those figures, we can begin work on AMCA Mk2 PDR. Where along with the new engine, we might make internal changes to accommodate any new sensors or upgrades we develop by then.



Not according to Trappier.

Dassault has shareholders to look after as well. It's one thing if we provide some sort of sovereign guarantee that we will order X number of airframes eventually, so treat our small order as though it were a big one when it comes to ToT & local production obligations.

But we aren't going to provide anything like that so it's moot.



An optimized 10-litre tank still holds less juice than a half-full 100-litre tank.

All I'm saying.



Except nobody who has a realistic choice is prepared to buy the Rafale over the F-35.

You'll probably say it's due to American arm-twisting, to which I'd say why doesn't this American arm-twisting work when F-16Vs or F-15EXs are on the table?

Why does it only work when it comes to F-35?

Well dedicated irst is having certain advantages over DAS since it is Gimbaled, even Americans are also planning to put irst in future blocks of f35.