With AMCA, we don't need Su-57. Or at least in large numbers, only to serve as a stopgap. The same with F-35, with the added problem of fully integrating it into our network.
With AMCA, we don't need Su-57. Or at least in large numbers, only to serve as a stopgap. The same with F-35, with the added problem of fully integrating it into our network.
FGFA should have a more compatible design for a rear-ward facing radar vs Su-57. But I don't think this program will happen. Our dependency options are running out alongside our economic growth. We are going to have to butt heads with a lot of big countries in 10 years. Meaning, it will become increasingly difficult for us to sit on the sidelines with popcorn, pressure will be applied on us in terms of our position on global issues. And our future importance will be determined by such decisions, which will then impact our economy.
Short fin AAMs, yes; Ramjet AAMs, depends on missile body like i showed.
Under current IWB door config, either the CCM would have to be launched in LOAL mode or 2 panel door have to be implemented for CCM to hang out for LOBL mode.
Agreed with Su-57. We should comapre cost of 1-2 squads of Su-57 Vs upgrading Super-Su-30MKI.
But USA unreliable, loves arm-twisting. If F414 engines can impact AMCA, TEDBF, MWF then an entire jet can impact entire country & war.
> Many diagrams mention the rear antenna to be short range radar.
> Leave the Chinese flankers or any 4gen jet. All sensors can be positioned during design phase not to interfere with each other.
> EW antenna helps in jamming, attenuation, cancellation, but not scanning, tracking, locking.
> Today's & future jet must have spherical tracking at least making impossible to sneak up on it.
> Rear firing AAM will have -ve velocity initially. They might need an aerodynamic nozzle cap. If fired from rail launcher then it can destabilize the aircraft. If fired from ejector then it needs to wait for 1-2 seconds before igniting to get away safely avoiding accidental collision, might work for BVR-AAMs but not good for CCMs.
Atleast on the MKI, there are 2 RWR antennae on either side of the tail sting. There couldn't possibly be a rear-facing radar inside it.
If there was, I'm sure atleast the IAF wouldn't have been so secretive about it. They have been flying the MKI for over 25 years now.
About Su-57, I honestly don't know. It's still a WIP platform.
Why're you repeatedly bringing in 4gen Flanker in AMCA thread comparing to Su-57?
Let it be WIP but the aim is to learn, fill the design gaps & SURVIVE. Pilot life is priceless & jet is also costly. The rich nations talk about attriable assets but we can't afford to be casual about attrition.
So there are many diagrams which label the rear antenna as radar. Whether it is or not, modern missiles switch rapidly b/w active, passive, home-on-jamming modes. So if we put RWR or passive EW then both sides are passive but ultimately the missile will hit the jet. So we need smart multi-band/broad-band, multi-function antennas. For shorter range, shorter wavelength or higher frequency is said to be better, so X, Ku, K, Ka band antennas can be used, IDK about V & W bands application.
So the same should be done in AMCA.
And all this coverage should not just be in azimuth or horizontal plane but spherical bcoz the jet has to maneuver rapidly & missiles can approach from any angle.
Beyond some initial numbers, I don't think Astra family will be the main missile for AMCA. We will need a brand new modular system, kinda like what the Americans are developing via LREW.
Yeah. Snap fire is not possible in the current system. But it's possible the IAF is not interested in it.
MKI upgrade is necessary, but Su-57 can be bought only if AMCA ends up excessively delayed. I think once MRFA is completed, AMCA would have progressed enough to figure out whether a stopgap is necessary or not. There's the Mig-41 coming up too.
Because the Su-57 is essentially an off-shoot of the same design philosophy as Su-30/35. The tail sting is a standard feature across them all. Anyways, AMCA will likely use EODAS like Western 5G jets.
I was wondering it is likely to be shared, ie they will use all options since AMCA itself will be both stealth and non stealth config. esp the mk1 with the 414, that can not be very much stealth oriented. In non stealth config both astra mk1 rail launched and mk2 ejector launch can be done like other jets. A modular system is ok but without one available they will use all kind of practical config as much possible ?
There's a pretty long time gap between now and when the definitive version of AMCA will be ready. That's enough time for a new missile.
Older missiles will also naturally be used. All air forces have a hi-lo component for weapons.
After being an offshoot also it is very different. We are talking very very specifically. In MRFA if Russians project pic of Su-57 but talk about Su-35-S then? I compared AMCA Vs Su-57. So, Flanker means Flanker, Felon means Felon. Don't make noodles.
EODAS is important for sensor fusion, hence a standard feature in every 5gen fighter jet, north, south, east, west.
When RAM & RAS have been developed & AMCA has planform shaping then why you say that MK1 will be non-stealth or not very much stealthy?
Non stealth configuration with weapon loads. Besides, with older gen engines it will have certain limitation wrt optimised IR signature no matter how much RAM coating you apply elsewhere. More important parts are the maturity in passive sensor suite and a better optimised engine suitable to the need. Any jet can maintain certain degree of stealth as long as it is not emitting signals that the adversary can pick up.
I would always love to have Russian Jets in our arsenal which offers cost effective jets at a reasonable price. Yes, there are some issues with electronics, but we can do what we did with Su 30 MKI. We can install our own or western or Israeli stuff into it. Su 57 being a bigger platform allow enough space to accommodate all electronics. We are developing many stuff for super Sukhoi program which may go into Su-57 such as AESA, Mission computer, RWR, EW etc. Weapons such as Astra Mk1, Mk2, MK3, All Rudram, Brahmos NG, Sudarshan SAAW etc can go into it.
So you're talking about beast mode with external load?
RF & IR spectrum are different, they can't compensate for eachother. Controlling IRS is another topic altogether.
So focussing only on RF stealth you mean MK1 will have less active/passive sensors than MK2?
For that Russia must agree for cutomizations & proper warranty & servicing for its own remaining parts, in cost-effective way.
But if they think like - Oh! India left us earlier, so this time we'll milk them badly, then.....
Beast feast I do not care for, normal weapon load on wing pylons.
Yes.
So pylons can be there on any version of any jet. What's the difference b/w Mk1 & Mk2?
I hope you don't mean that MK1 won't have IWB
So how will MK1 be less stealthy
bcoz less sensors mean less emmissions means more stealthy.
External stores once you load out will give radar returns. This is true for mk1 or mk2 both. Hence they say stealth & non stealth config where likely irrespective of mk1 mk2 the jet will use iwb and no outside load on any pylon in stealth config and will have stores in outside pylons in non stealth config as per their own SOP.So pylons can be there on any version of any jet. What's the difference b/w Mk1 & Mk2?
I hope you don't mean that MK1 won't have IWB
A fighter jets stealth is combination of various factors, aerodynamic stealth shaping, passive sensor suits, IR and heat suppression measure etc all play own part. When a jet is out in the open, it will try to use all factors accordingly to be as stealthy as possibly as per their training. It is not that the enemy would check only one metric like radar return alone. So if an existing engine version that is customised for Indian condition is used in the jet, it is possible that there may not be as much stealth increasing measures as compared to a new engine specifically purposed for a stealth jet. Hence the mk1 might be like that, the small shortfall can be overcome via other operational method.So how will MK1 be less stealthy