Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft [AMCA] Development | Updates & Discussions.

[SpArK]

Instead of going for Mk-III or even MK-II of the Light fighter, its better to have AMCA non stealthy ....design looks good.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Instead of going for Mk-III or even MK-II of the Light fighter, its better to have AMCA non stealthy ....design looks good.

The funny part is there is no such thing as the AMCA "non-stealthy"!

 

[SpArK]

The funny part is there is no such thing as the AMCA "non-stealthy"!

Its just a term as we have not dished out a name for it yet.

Do you agree on light, medium heavy weight , flyweight categorizing or going for this on full swing all the way with all the resources.

 

[sancho]

Sir I don't agree, what you say is correct but it is better to design such capabilities into the airframe from the start just in case

What's there to design? Any fighter will have external weapon stations, that's nothing special at all. The point is, that ADA / DRDO are not looking at what IAF and IN actually needs and developing AMCA basically on the base of what they see somewhere else! Remember, their main argument for AMCA was the F35 and that the AMCA should be a strike fighter to complement FGFA similarly to how the F35 does it to F22. That however is not even close to be the case!
Neither is AMCA planned as a single engined fighter, which would reduce operational costs, nor does the idea of a limited capable strike fighter fit to IAFs requirements, which is why AMCA now is meant to be a proper multi role fighter, with the usual good flight performance that our forces demands. So that again is contrary to F35 and even to FGFA, since supercruise or TVC capabilities are available in the latter too. Also from the speculated weapon bay configs of AMCA and FGFA, there is no reason to belive that AMCA would offer any advantage to IAF in strike missions. And we both agree that it's a mistake to devlop it as an Air Force fighter again and then go the harder way to navalise a varient, because that's what they already learned in the NLCA development and still they do the same mistake again.

So at the end of the day, AMCA will offer pretty much what FGFA offers, just with less performance, will do lower end A2A and A2G roles at much higher costs than the rest of the fleet can and don't even add any advantage to IN so far.
It couldn't go more against the needs of the forces than this!

 

[possumlot]

That's sadly not how it works in India, since not the forces decide about what developments should be started, it's DRDO and HAL. That's why you have AMCA, AWACS India or HTT 40 in concept stages, while IAF wants / needs none of them. Just why IN is not getting an indigenous 5th gen fighter anytime soon and needs to support a useless N-LCA, although a naval stealth fighter is the need of the hour, but still DRDO is only focusing AMCA as an air force fighter.

DRDO and HAL decides the start of any development because they show LEADERSHIP to start things. That is how it works in the Real World.

The rest of the Losers just bitch and complain. Guess what that makes the IAF ?

Papa's spoilt brat who got the chicks in college stumbles into the real world and finds that its the Nerds who call the shots. The brat is still crying Foul and throwing tantrums with Papa who is soon loosing patience.

 

[sancho]

Instead of going for Mk-III or even MK-II of the Light fighter, its better to have AMCA non stealthy ....design looks good.

Non stealthy would mean without shaped airframe, which would make it even more like EF or Rafale, a twin engine medium class fighter, which can't be "simply" done as a modification of the LCA design unless that was considered from scratch.
LCA MK2 as an upgrade to fix the problems of MK1 was inevitable, but instead of aiming for the minimum needed upgrades, we made it far more complicated again which is why it will come so late. But lets assume you are the Air Chief by 2028 and India is in war, which aircraft would you choose for which mission, by taking capability and operational costs in mind?

Fleet: FGFA, MKI, AMCA, MMRCA, LCA, Jaguar, AURA, Rustom H (weaponized)

Air superiority
Mini AWACS
Deep-, pre-emptivestrike
SEAD
CAS
Reconnaissance

DRDO and HAL decides the start of any development because they show LEADERSHIP to start things.

It's not about who starts a development, but how it is done and on what base? You develop a fighter with a customer in mind and by evaluating it's operational needs. That's howver not what what we see in AMCA, nor AWACS India and even what we have seen in LCA, since several of the airframe changes could had been avoided if it not were designed as "worlds smallest and lightests" fighter. All they take is basic ASR from IAF and IN, while they decide about design or operational idea behind it and that's where the problem starts and where we have to include the forces far more into the development, to get what they need and reduce development problems.

 

[possumlot]

It's not about who starts a development, but how it is done and on what base? You develop a fighter with a customer in mind and by evaluating it's operational needs. That's howver not what what we see in AMCA, nor AWACS India and even what we have seen in LCA, since several of the airframe changes could had been avoided if it not were designed as "worlds smallest and lightests" fighter. All they take is basic ASR from IAF and IN, while they decide about design or operational idea behind it and that's where the problem starts and where we have to include the forces far more into the development, to get what they need and reduce development problems.

IAF is the one who publishes their expectation, which is usually unrealistic. DRDO and HAL works to achieve it while IAF waits for them to fail in the sidelines and then complain and bitch about the failures.

Show me the note that IAF sent to the MOD or any demand they made asking DRDO NOT to make "worlds smallest and lightest fighter".

The Forces pretend to be "customers" which has to be "serviced" by the DRDO and HAL ...... well guess what, both DRDO and HAL are both govt. controlled agencies, just like IAF. There are no "customers" here. That feeling of "smugness" that IAF feels soon melts away when they realize that DRDO and HAL don't give a $hit about them. Then they start howling for attention and complaining.

If IAF does not want to be short changed, it is they who have to take responsibility and integrate themselves into the development program. No one is going to send them an invitation.

You want it ? you come and get it.

Reality is IAF Does NOT want it. They want Foreign maal. Plain an simple. They like short cuts. After all, why bother developing your own aerospace industry ? That is not the job of the IAF ........... for some strange reason people think its the job of the DRDO and HAL.

IAF needs to realize that its a NATIONAL MISSION, not a DRDO pet project. Just like the Indian Navy realized it AGES ago.

 

[SpArK]

. But lets assume you are the Air Chief by 2028 and India is in war, which aircraft would you choose for which mission, by taking capability and operational costs in mind?

Fleet: FGFA, MKI, AMCA, MMRCA, LCA, Jaguar, AURA, Rustom H (weaponized)

.

Air superiority - FGFA , AMCA,MKI
Mini AWACS MKI,FGFA,MMRCA
Deep-, pre-emptivestrike- MMRCA, AMCA,MKI
SEAD - MMRCA, AMCA
CAS - MMRCA, FGFA,MKI
Reconnaissance- AMCA, FGFA, MMRCA

 

[sancho]

Air superiority - FGFA , AMCA,MKI
Mini AWACS MKI,FGFA,MMRCA
Deep-, pre-emptivestrike- MMRCA, AMCA,MKI
SEAD - MMRCA, AMCA
CAS - MMRCA, FGFA,MKI
Reconnaissance- AMCA, FGFA, MMRCA

You have missed the drones!

 

[SpArK]

You have missed the drones!

Im not fond of drones...

In my scheme of things as we assumed , there is no place for LCA.

 

[sancho]

Im not fond of drones...

In my scheme of things as we assumed , there is no place for LCA.

You might be in charge, but have to use the available fleet in the most effective (operational) and efficient (cost wise) way, not just based on your preference.
So you can't move around drones in that time, which makes deep strikes, SEAD, recon and CAS missions in most cases limited to AURA or Rustom H, which are not only more capable in thes roles than manned fighters (lower RCS and detectability, more range and endurance, less risks of loosing a pilot, lower unit and operational costs).
CAS, recon and air policing roles in peace times would be the most useful once for LCA, since it will be the most cost-effective solution in these roles from the manned fighters.
Which leaves just Air superiority and Mini AWACS, were manned fighters will offer crucial advantages, but here again, FGFA, MKIs and MMRCA offer superior or the same capabilities at less costs than AMCA and that exactly is the difference of operational reality in IAF compared to the USAF, or for AMCA and F35.
The one is simply not needed for most of the IAF operations, until the MKI will be phased out, while the F35 is meant to be the frontline fighter that has no manned alternative in the fleet.

 

[SpArK]

You might be in charge, but have to use the available fleet in the most effective (operational) and efficient (cost wise) way, not just based on your preference.
So you can't move around drones in that time, which makes deep strikes, SEAD, recon and CAS missions in most cases limited to AURA or Rustom H, which are not only more capable in thes roles than manned fighters (lower RCS and detectability, more range and endurance, less risks of loosing a pilot, lower unit and operational costs).
CAS, recon and air policing roles in peace times would be the most useful once for LCA, since it will be the most cost-effective solution in these roles from the manned fighters.
Which leaves just Air superiority and Mini AWACS, were manned fighters will offer crucial advantages, but here again, FGFA, MKIs and MMRCA offer superior or the same capabilities at less costs than AMCA and that exactly is the difference of operational reality in IAF compared to the USAF, or for AMCA and F35.
The one is simply not needed for most of the IAF operations, until the MKI will be phased out, while the F35 is meant to be the frontline fighter that has no manned alternative in the fleet.

Im sorry kuttans, at war there is no operational cost for me.....

 

[sancho]

Im sorry kuttans, at war there is no operational cost for me.....

Well that's debatable, but more imortantly is that you can't deny operational effectivity of drones, in the mentioned roles, can you?

 

[SpArK]

Well that's debatable, but more imortantly is that you can't deny operational effectivity of drones, in the mentioned roles, can you?

Depends on the drone's capability... nothing much of what im impressed upon in our arsenal.

 

[sancho]

Depends on the drone's capability... nothing much of what im impressed upon in our arsenal.

Well even if we take basic specs to account for AURA and an armed Rustom H, they share the same advantages over it's manned counterparts AMCA and LCA.

- harder to detect
- more range and endurance
- can carry equal or larger strike loads
- are more cost-effective