ADA AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

[Innominate]

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.
View attachment 32363

EOTS has IRST capability.

-The EOTS uses a staring midwave 3rd generation FLIR that provides superior target detection and identification at greatly increased standoff ranges. EOTS also provides high-resolution imagery, automatic tracking, infrared-search-and-track, laser designation and rangefinding, and laser spot tracking. Sharing a Sniper legacy, it provides high reliability and efficient two-level maintenance.

 

[randomradio]

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.

It doesn't matter how it's advertised, the hardware is still better than EODAS, it's newer.

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.

AMCA Mk1's avionics will be inferior to Rafale F5. It's more along the lines of what the F-35 will get over the next 3 years.

And you are making too many assumptions.

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

It's pretty much the same. Their enemy is stronger than ours in fact, although that's changing pretty fast.

As opposed to a Rafale with M88s?

Or any other IAF jet?

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

Yes, they agree. 'Cause Rafale's stealth comes from EW, not shaping. For shaping, it's essential that even the engine is stealthy.

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.

You are practically arguing against ADA and IAF rather than me.

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.

What's strategic or not got to do with it? You argued that we need 90 jets to get any sort of production going, and I pointed out that Dassault plans final assembly in India. And once we get enough order, hence enough ToT, then the production will be paid for in rupees, 'cause Dassault plans to produce 100% of the airframe and engine in India.

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.

Why would the IAF not bother about AMCA? Rafale is an import, AMCA is a domestic project, they are not in competition. AMCA Mk2 will come with next gen capabilities.

You are just bringing in irrelevant things into the discussion.

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?

AMCA saw some significant changes after the IAF learned about the Rafale's capabilities post MMRCA. The new MRFA also takes such things into account, which the IAF have admitted publicly versus when they created MMRCA's requirements.

And AMCA's necessary for self-reliance.

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.

Yeah, AMCA Mk1 FOC is necessary to get the ball rolling on Mk2. But the real program is Mk2. The IAF is not interested in Mk1 outside of supporting the industry's research.

Take the F-35 as an example. The F in Block 3F means "Final." But the real warfighting capabilities come with Block 4. AMCA's going through the same process.

 

[randomradio]

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.
View attachment 32363

That's just referring to a software unlock for the EODAS.

EODAS initially came with general missile detection and tracking and launch point detection. It works at very short ranges. Then they introduced search and track, which is also short range.

Most images shown on the Internet are from development aircraft.

 

[Parthu]

It doesn't matter how it's advertized, the hardware is still better than EODAS, it's newer.

We don't know anything about the system other than what's advertised. Drawing inference from logic is better than just assuming newer is better.

AMCA Mk1's avionics will be inferior to Rafale F5. It's more along the lines of what the F-35 will get over the next 3 years.

AMCA will be receiving upgrades post induction just like all jets. It's not as if AMCA's config remains frozen forever while Rafale keeps getting upgrades.

Any kind of computation or software update you can drop-in on Rafale powered by M88s, you can drop in on AMCA as well. It's just a question of cost-benefit. Which will be the case for Rafale as well.

It's pretty much the same. Their enemy is stronger than ours in fact, although that's changing pretty fast.

Their enemies are not on their borders. They're not fighting them alone.

Yes, they agree. 'Cause Rafale's stealth comes from EW, not shaping. For shaping, it's essential that even the engine is stealthy.

There's no such thing as EW stealth. If there was, they wouldn't have bothered with SCAF and we wouldn't have bothered with AMCA.

What's strategic or not got to do with it? You argued that we need 90 jets to get any sort of production going, and I pointed out that Dassault plans final assembly in India. And once we get enough order, hence enough ToT, then the production will be paid for in rupees, 'cause Dassault plans to produce 100% of the airframe and engine in India.

It's only strategic if you control the IP & the money stays in your system.

It's not for no reason that we have prioritized indigenization. The import scene isn't as rosy as you think it is.

Why would the IAF not bother about AMCA? Rafale is an import,

I thought you said we'd be building them 100% locally? If Rafale has everything we need and the French were willing to share all of that we'd have already gone in for the 100+ jet order.

It been just 3 years since first LCA Mk-1A order and already IAF is close to signing the follow-on for 97 more. It's been nearly a decade since Rafale orders and still not even a squeak about follow-on.

Read the tea leaves.

AMCA is a domestic project, they are not in competition.

A domestic stealth project.

What's the need to create an entirely new R&D ecosystem around low-observable technologies if the French are ready to share their supposed EW stealth?

Either it doesn't exist - or if it does exist, we're not gonna have any access to it.

That's why we're going with AMCA. It's the only way to obtain a survivable stealthy plane.

AMCA Mk2 will come with next gen capabilities.

If it's just the engine that matters as you say, just develop that and re-engine Rafale with it. No need to waste money on proving a new airframe.

Yeah, AMCA Mk1 FOC is necessary to get the ball rolling on Mk2. But the real program is Mk2. The IAF is not interested in Mk1 outside of supporting the industry's research.

Nobody disputed that. All I was saying was about what would happen in case Mk2 fails. It should be obvious that more Mk1 configs will be built in that case. That's the reason we're even taking that config to FOC. We intend it to be a fully combat-capable configuration.

We don't plan on building more than 40 of them, but if it comes down to it, we'll be in a position to rapidly expand those numbers on that production line. Which on any day would be a better option than importing Rafales.

Take the F-35 as an example. The F in Block 3F means "Final." But the real warfighting capabilities come with Block 4. AMCA's going through the same process.

There's nothing 'not real' about current F-35's capabilities - it just isn't the full capability intended from the platform is all.

That doesn't stop them from being used on the frontlines (they're flying around in Ukraine as we speak), or if war happens tomorrow, from being used in war.

That's why even USAF took the current F-35 config to FOC standard.

"You may not always get what you want" is as true a statement for USAF as it is for IAF. Welcome to the real world.

 

[randomradio]

We don't know anything about the system other than what's advertised. Drawing inference from logic is better than just assuming newer is better.

No, we do. You just don't understand how it works.

AMCA will be receiving upgrades post induction just like all jets. It's not as if AMCA's config remains frozen forever while Rafale keeps getting upgrades.

So it needs the new engine. As per you, the engine cannot even power DAS, never mind all this new stuff.

Their enemies are not on their borders. They're not fighting them alone.

That doesn't matter, 'cause that's irrelevant.

It's only strategic if you control the IP & the money stays in your system.

That's not what the IAF believes.

It's not for no reason that we have prioritized indigenization. The import scene isn't as rosy as you think it is.

It's for a very different reason from what you think.

I thought you said we'd be building them 100% locally? If Rafale has everything we need and the French were willing to share all of that we'd have already gone in for the 100+ jet order.

It been just 3 years since first LCA Mk-1A order and already IAF is close to signing the follow-on for 97 more. It's been nearly a decade since Rafale orders and still not even a squeak about follow-on.

Read the tea leaves.

Not the IAF's choice.

What's the need to create an entirely new R&D ecosystem around low-observable technologies if the French are ready to share their supposed EW stealth?

They won't be giving us the tech for use elsewhere. They are giving it with the Rafale. We will have to develop it on our own.

That's why we're going with AMCA. It's the only way to obtain a survivable stealthy plane.

BUt you don't want that. You want a non-stealth AMCA with F414.

If it's just the engine that matters as you say, just develop that and re-engine Rafale with it. No need to waste money on proving a new airframe.

That's their plan.

Nobody disputed that. All I was saying was about what would happen in case Mk2 fails. It should be obvious that more Mk1 configs will be built in that case. That's the reason we're even taking that config to FOC. We intend it to be a fully combat-capable configuration.

We don't plan on building more than 40 of them, but if it comes down to it, we'll be in a position to rapidly expand those numbers on that production line. Which on any day would be a better option than importing Rafales.

AMCA with only F414 is a dud. The only way the IAF will buy it is if it's forced on them politically.

There's nothing 'not real' about current F-35's capabilities - it just isn't the full capability intended from the platform is all.

Nothing real on it works today without the TR-3 upgrade.

That doesn't stop them from being used on the frontlines (they're flying around in Ukraine as we speak), or if war happens tomorrow, from being used in war.

That's why even USAF took the current F-35 config to FOC standard.

It's still not at FOC config.

"You may not always get what you want" is as true a statement for USAF as it is for IAF. Welcome to the real world.

I think you need to return to it. AMCA with only F414 is a dud. If the IAF is forced to buy it, then they will have to continue using the Rafale as their main jet until the next capability arrives. Or a stopgap solution is exercised.

 

[Parthu]

So it needs the new engine.

Not necessarily. Just like they don't necessarily need to replace the M88s to keep upgrading Rafale.

I'm just saying even in case the engine doesn't come , AMCA will still have an upgrade path ahead of it - not one as aggressive as what can be achieved with the next-gen engine, but still comparable if not better than what can be achieved for Rafale without re-engining.

That doesn't matter, 'cause that's irrelevant.

Whatever you say buddy.

They won't be giving us the tech for use elsewhere. They are giving it with the Rafale.

If they are 'giving' it with Rafale, we don't need to bother developing our own along an entirely different path.

We just need to focus on indigenizing Rafale and it can fill the shoes of AMCA, as per you.

The fact that we're pursuing AMCA clearly spells it out: Either AC doesn't work as you think it does (necessitating our program to pursue passive stealth), or if it does work, we won't be getting full access to it so we'd be dependent on foreign approval to buy & use it.

That's not acceptable to us.

BUt you don't want that. You want a non-stealth AMCA with F414.

What I want is the AMCA Mk2 with NG engine.

But if that doesn't come and I'm left to choose between AMCA Mk1 w/ F414 & Rafale w/ M88 to build numbers in the meantime, I'm choosing AMCA Mk1. Cuz it'll be more survivable, faster to deliver, it'll be tech we fully control & cheaper in the end as well. It's a no-brainer.

It's a simple decision.

That's their plan.

If so, why isn't it our plan as well?

Why are we pursuing the NG engine program with the intention of putting it on AMCA instead of Rafale?

 

[marich01]

 

[Rajput Lion]

This is the result of computer run simulation of F-35 in different EM frequencies:

Source of the above image: https://www.researchgate.net/figure...-function-of-the-viewing-angle_fig6_259503614

Now why did I post it here? Well because as per @randomradio, AMCA MK1 won't be stealth from rear aspect. However, if we look at this RCS simulation on this is very clear is that F-35 isn't that stealthy from side aspect as it is from front/rear even in X-Band. I think all aspect broadband stealth is ONLY going to be available in the 6th gen platforms.

5th gen pilots need to maintain proper angles towards hostile emitters to show their best aspect in terms of RCS to hide. It literally is the game of cat and mouse.

@randomradio, @Parthu, @vstol Jockey, @Ashwin your opinion on the above!

 

[Parthu]

This is the result of computer run simulation of F-35 in different EM frequencies:

View attachment 32413

Source of the above image: https://www.researchgate.net/figure...-function-of-the-viewing-angle_fig6_259503614

Now why did I post it here? Well because as per @randomradio, AMCA MK1 won't be stealth from rear aspect. However, if we look at this RCS simulation on this is very clear is that F-35 isn't that stealthy from side aspect as it is from front/rear even in X-Band. I think all aspect broadband stealth is ONLY going to be available in the 6th gen platforms.

5th gen pilots need to maintain proper angles towards hostile emitters to show their best aspect in terms of RCS to hide. It literally is the game of cat and mouse.

@randomradio, @Parthu, @vstol Jockey, @Ashwin your opinion on the above!

That is true - however, it's still all extremely relative. What a stealth jet might consider a high return angle might still be far lower in terms of absolute signature compared to a non-stealth aircraft from a similar angle.

Even a relatively high(er) signature may get lost among clutter if operating in a high EW/degraded-sensor environment.

Only one thing is constant: A shaped & treated airframe with internal weapons is ALWAYS going to be much harder to detect or track in any environment compared to a non-shaped airframe with external loads.

 

[Rajput Lion]

That is true - however, it's still all extremely relative. What a stealth jet might consider a high return angle might still be far lower in terms of absolute signature compared to a non-stealth aircraft from a similar angle.

Even a relatively high(er) signature may get lost among clutter if operating in a high EW/degraded-sensor environment.

Absolutely. No amount of RAM/RAS or Active Cancellation can match true shaped passive stealth. That's why every country is striving to have their own VLO fighters.

Only one thing is constant: A shaped & treated airframe with internal weapons is ALWAYS going to be much harder to detect or track in any environment compared to a non-shaped airframe with external loads.

Nope. Rafale with 6 missiles and 3 drop tanks is going to be much stealthy than AMCA MK1 because of Active Cancellation. Nah........just kidding

 

[Arpit]

Absolutely. No amount of RAM/RAS or Active Cancellation can match true shaped passive stealth. That's why every country is striving to have their own VLO fighters.

Nope. Rafale with 6 missiles and 3 drop tanks is going to be much stealthy than AMCA MK1 because of Active Cancellation. Nah........just kidding

Active cancellation is not a magic wand. What if enemy is employing ultra-low side lobe method of LPI. How would you know in which direction you need to do active cancellation. In which direction a jet is sitting silently employing such methods of LPI, btw which exist in Uttam and Netra both.

Then you be active cancelling the incoming frequency in 360 degrees? The power requirement going to be insane for such.

And if you know IAF war tactics, they are moving toward total silent OPs through fighters, and getting Air Situation Picture through AEW&C and employing LPI where one jet be trasnmitting and other be listening silently (in case C/L-band datalinks are jammed).

Otherwise why asking for LPI in Tejas Mk1A, and why developing ultra low side lobe antenna in Uttam radar series.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA246315.pdf

And btw, if frenchies are doing active cancellation, then be assured americans are doing it,, and we be doing it with incoming jammers, especially in MKI.

 

[screambowl]

What if enemy is employing ultra-low side lobe method of LPI.

You should know the radar location of enemy through other means, prior to any raid. Or have capability to break the the joint coding waveform process through emp.

 

[Arpit]

You should know the radar location of enemy through other means, prior to any raid. Or have capability to break the the joint coding waveform process through emp.

That’s totally different topic on ISTAR, but detecting a platform which doing no emission and also VLO, is hugely difficult.

Further, breaking the joint coding waveform and discrete frequency coding, is highly improbable if not impossible. It’s all comes down to intelligence.

But after all in Cold War, CIA stolen whole engineering package of A-50 Beriev, maybe that’s how Ukrainians shot it down.

 

[vstol Jockey]

This is the result of computer run simulation of F-35 in different EM frequencies:

View attachment 32413

Source of the above image: https://www.researchgate.net/figure...-function-of-the-viewing-angle_fig6_259503614

Now why did I post it here? Well because as per @randomradio, AMCA MK1 won't be stealth from rear aspect. However, if we look at this RCS simulation on this is very clear is that F-35 isn't that stealthy from side aspect as it is from front/rear even in X-Band. I think all aspect broadband stealth is ONLY going to be available in the 6th gen platforms.

5th gen pilots need to maintain proper angles towards hostile emitters to show their best aspect in terms of RCS to hide. It literally is the game of cat and mouse.

@randomradio, @Parthu, @vstol Jockey, @Ashwin your opinion on the above!

AMCA, KAAN and KF-21 will all have stealth similar to F-35.

 

[Rajput Lion]

AMCA, KAAN and KF-21 will all have stealth similar to F-35.

What about MK1 version with GE-F414 engines especially from rear aspect?

 

[vstol Jockey]

What about MK1 version with GE-F414 engines especially from rear aspect?

Same as all those airframes.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Same as all those airframes.

Not sure about KAAN & KF-21's rear aspect RCS, but the simulation I posted in the previous page had F-35's rear RCS as very low in X-Band. If our AMCA MK1 can achieve similar rear aspect RCS then it's great news for us

 

[vstol Jockey]

Not sure about KAAN & KF-21's rear aspect RCS, but the simulation I posted in the previous page had F-35's rear RCS as very low in X-Band. If our AMCA MK1 can achieve similar rear aspect RCS then it's great news for us

F-35 engine has RCS suppressors in the exhaust but F414 has not been designed with such supressors.

 

[Rajput Lion]

F-35 engine has RCS suppressors in the exhaust but F414 has not been designed with such supressors.

In that case @randomradio is correct that AMCA MK1 won't have VLO RCS of F-35 from behind.

Just hope that at least we modify the circular nozzles with some sort of serrated nozzles(LOAN) in AMCA MK1 itself. It will reduce the RCS from rear aspect if we do so.

 

[screambowl]

F-35 engine has RCS suppressors in the exhaust but F414 has not been designed with such supressors.

Due to lack of proper dedicated engine technology , Marut program faced set back as it had speed issues, LCA program faced set back as it faced thrust and weight issues and now the country is on the same path of getting set back on AMCA as well, since no proper stealth engine is available.

Without any proper engine dedicated for stealth aircraft AMCA will be just another 4.5 gen aircraft. This is what engineering says.