AMCA configuration in final stages

[sancho]

Problem of adding FGFA is that--
--It is much big, so maintenance/operational even manufacturing cost is high.
--Although building the quality is good but sometimes quantity also matters. AMCA can give that quantity factor in lesser money.
--PAKFA will be a air superiority fighter so same FGFA will also. While AMCA will give serious ground attack/counter offensive capability in form of 5 gen fighter.

I can see too many reason for AMCA in IAF.

Operating a stealth fighter is very expensive, not matter what class of fighters it is, but operating different types of fighters, with different spares, logistics, training... makes it only more costly. Not to forget that you left our the development costs for AMCA, which don't have to be included on follow FGFA orders anymore.

Both fighters are multi role fighters and with FGFAs advantage in weapon load and range, it will be the prime deepstrike choice anyway, next to AURA UCAV, that's why AMCA don't offer any operational advantage to IAF either.

 

[ANPP]

Operating a stealth fighter is very expensive, not matter what class of fighters it is, but operating different types of fighters, with different spares, logistics, training... makes it only more costly. Not to forget that you left our the development costs for AMCA, which don't have to be included on follow FGFA orders anymore.

Both fighters are multi role fighters and with FGFAs advantage in weapon load and range, it will be the prime deepstrike choice anyway, next to AURA UCAV, that's why AMCA don't offer any operational advantage to IAF either.

Yes, Operating a stealth fighter is very expensive. But big the thing, bigger the problem. And also dont forget that there are too many small forward air bases from where operating FGFA will be difficult as we are facing it with MKI.

If we give the order of ~300 AMCA than development cost can be negligible upto 1-2 crrors per fighter. Although India is emerging country, we dont have too much money like China/USA, so that we can afford so many heavy fighters.

Although different fighter give maintenance problem but give decisive operational advantage over the enemy. Adding AMCA will give edge here.

Every morden fighters are multi role, but they are primarily design for some specific job & than optimized for other tasks. PAKFA is primarily air superiority fighter. BTW FGFA will be configure as swing role fighter according to IAF. Thats why IAF introducing twice of prototype in inventry i.e. PAKFA & FGFA.
Same AMCA is developing for mainly strike role, although can serve as multirole plateform.

 

[sancho]

And also dont forget that there are too many small forward air bases from where operating FGFA will be difficult as we are facing it with MKI.

Which is why we are ordering close to 300 light and medium class fighters, which are replacing older light and medium class fighters.
There is not even a requirement to order 100 AMCAs, since the only fighter left to be replaced will be jags and they are dedicated strike aircrafts, which can be replaced with AURA more effectively.

Although different fighter give maintenance problem but give decisive operational advantage over the enemy. Adding AMCA will give edge here.

Not really, even former air chief Naik said, that if possible, IAF should operate only a single type of fighter, that can do it all and to maximise the benefits of commonality. Adding another type only makes sense, when it offers certain advantages, but that is not the case for AMCA.
In operational terms it would fill the same roles of FGFA, but in the weight class of Rafale, while it will be less capable in A2A and A2G than FGFA and far more costly than Rafale.

 

[anonymus]

IAF don't need it, because FGFA will offer us anything needed in this regard, with Rafale, Super 30s and LCAs backing it up in A2A. If we need more stealth fighters, simply adding more FGFA is the easiest and best way to go.
IN don't have such a luxury, that's why they need AMCA more than they need N-LCA.

well,

Developing a fighter also serves a purpose of rejuvenating R&D and indigenous industry.If our defense establishment does not try to manufacture a fifth gen plane on their own,how would they manufacture anything that comes after this.

 

[mridul]

If DRDO and HAL work on the project..AMCA will be inducted in the Indian Air Force somewhere in 2070...that too after spending billions of tax payers money.

 

[faithfulguy]

If DRDO and HAL work on the project..AMCA will be inducted in the Indian Air Force somewhere in 2070...that too after spending billions of tax payers money.

I think India should focus on PAKFA for an operational 5th generation fight. At the same time, focus on basic material, aeronautics and electronics research. Don't try to develop a 5th generation plane immediately. And forget about TOT from Rafale to help with a 5th generation plane design. Why relying on the technology for a 4th generation plane for a brand new 5th generation plane?

well,

Developing a fighter also serves a purpose of rejuvenating R&D and indigenous industry.If our defense establishment does not try to manufacture a fifth gen plane on their own,how would they manufacture anything that comes after this.

India should develop its economic and focus on basic research. First learn how to walk before learn how to run.

 

[ANPP]

Which is why we are ordering close to 300 light and medium class fighters, which are replacing older light and medium class fighters.
There is not even a requirement to order 100 AMCAs, since the only fighter left to be replaced will be jags and they are dedicated strike aircrafts, which can be replaced with AURA more effectively.

AMCA will be operational after 2025. We gave order to replace older migs by 2025. Upto that time we have ~200 fighters which also want replacement from service. IAF just not want replace older platform but also increase the strength.
300 FGFA+ 270 MKI+180 Rafale+200 LCA+ AURA, thats the figure you are thinking right now. So no need of AMCA. But upto the time when we middle of delivering FGFA, same time MKI will want replacement. Upto my concern half of MKI will be retire by 2035 or flying like bisons. So MKI# surely will decrease. By 2030 Rafale will be pretty much outdated platform which too risky for front line. So hence requirement of new fighter will take birth around here.
AURA is a good replacement, but I dont think that it can match the capabilities of man-fighters. So AURA will be added in extra # rather than replacing the fighter.
Atleast 150 fighter will be need by 2030, yes we can put more FGFA to supress these requirement but there are too many problem as state earilier.

Not really, even former air chief Naik said, that if possible, IAF should operate only a single type of fighter, that can do it all and to maximise the benefits of commonality. Adding another type only makes sense, when it offers certain advantages, but that is not the case for AMCA.
In operational terms it would fill the same roles of FGFA, but in the weight class of Rafale, while it will be less capable in A2A and A2G than FGFA and far more costly than Rafale.

Well although our air chief support one fighter theory, but I have real doubt on one fighter concept. Fighters are one of those few machines which are capable of changing course of war by its own so called MATCHWINNER>
AMCA operational assignment are completely different from FGFA, dont confuse with multirole term. It will have better A2G capability compare to FGFA & perhaps better than Rafale & I have too much reason that it will not be soo much costly as Rafale.

 

[sancho]

well,

Developing a fighter also serves a purpose of rejuvenating R&D and indigenous industry.If our defense establishment does not try to manufacture a fifth gen plane on their own,how would they manufacture anything that comes after this.

True, but do it for the right reasons and the right requirements! That's why I want an AMCA developed for INs requirement, but not for IAF, or why I want an N-LCA tech demo program only, which is enough to gain experience in naval fighter designing, but don't go for a fully fledged N-LCA version.

If our industry would develop LCA only for IAF and AMCA only for IN, they still would highly benefit, because the earlier one sets the base, the latter gets them to the next level, while both forces would be better as well!

All these silly pride reasons of ADA/DRDA to develop an indigenous carrier fighter now, or a NG fighter for IAF, although they get FGFA is actually counterproductive for India. It simply makes the developments too complicated and as long as they reject partners, delays and failures are foreseeable.

 

[sancho]

AMCA operational assignment are completely different from FGFA,

No it's not, since both are twin engine fighters, will have AESA radar, 360° ECM/ESM features, are aimed to have TVC and to SC, the only difference is, that FGFA will outclass AMCA in all these fields.

F22 and F35 are different fighters, since they are aimed on different roles by design and with different capabilities, not to mention that the one is a twin, the other a single engine fighter. So our case is way different and has nothing to do with it, that's why it would be smarter, if we do it like the Chinese! J20 for the air force, J31 for the navy, possibly exports.

It will have better A2G capability compare to FGFA

http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...-updates-news-discussions-79.html#post3881863

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/TCUxvh3lWEI/AAAAAAAAKus/vUFSqU1ebms/s600/MCA+CUTAWAY+2.JPG

 

[ANPP]

No it's not, since both are twin engine fighters, will have AESA radar, 360° ECM/ESM features, are aimed to have TVC and to SC, the only difference is, that FGFA will outclass AMCA in all these fields.

F22 and F35 are different fighters, since they are aimed on different roles by design and with different capabilities, not to mention that the one is a twin, the other a single engine fighter. So our case is way different and has nothing to do with it, that's why it would be smarter, if we do it like the Chinese! J20 for the air force, J31 for the navy, possibly exports.







http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...-updates-news-discussions-79.html#post3881863

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/TCUxvh3lWEI/AAAAAAAAKus/vUFSqU1ebms/s600/MCA+CUTAWAY+2.JPG

The truth about mul tirole fighters----
fighter air-frames are usually exceptionally well suited to one task, reasonably good at a range of other tasks, and marginal for some tasks.

The availability of sophisticated radars with integrated air-to-air and air-to-ground modes, mission management computers, automated weapon delivery and navigation systems, and digital map systems, PGMs, among other technologies, have permitted fighter aircraft to undertake a
wider range of tasks than they were originally intended for.

So AMCA airframe is intended for the strike role, so avionics will be more fructified for AMCA for strike role. While PAKFA also posses good A2G capability but its air-frame is dedicated for A2A. So AMCA will be better for strike role & if it will inducted in time than it will be most promising for counter offensive/SEAD role in IAF, even include AURA.


BTW this time in IAF----The IAF’s MiG-27 and Jaguar squadrons, currently, are intended exclusively for the air interdiction mission at either the theater or the battlefield level. The Mirage 2000 and the Su-30MKI squadrons also have these same missions as a secondary responsibility, and some of the older MiG-21 squadrons are tasked with performing the close air support role when required.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

 

[sancho]

So AMCA airframe is intended for the strike role, so avionics will be more fructified for AMCA for strike role. While PAKFA also posses good A2G capability but its air-frame is dedicated for A2A.

That's what you claim, but can't prove it with any valuable point right? Infact most ground attack fighters have also good low speed handling, a field where the LERX of FGFA might give a clear advantage over AMCA.
And when you look at what how much importance A2A capabilities have for ADA:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QjR9RGarjwA/TVlRetBjafI/AAAAAAAAAQc/R8s0fxmzDZ0/s1600/Image+%2838%29.jpg


Or how DRDO sees the future strike scenario:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yv3-Nw0dZcg/T-gUA63MDJI/AAAAAAAAQl4/UJB13FyAvU8/s1600/1111.jpg


...it gets clear, that the only operational difference is the size, which also relates into lower payload capabilities of AMCA, otherwise both fighters are meant for the same roles and if AURA UCAV is available, it will take over most of the strike special strikes anyway, while LCA and Rafale would be the main choices for CAS.

P.S. Check the latest video from ADA that Water Car Engineer posted and you will see that that there is not a single remark about a focus on strike either.

BTW this time in IAF----The IAF’s MiG-27 and Jaguar squadrons, currently, are intended exclusively for the air interdiction mission at either the theater or the battlefield level. The Mirage 2000 and the Su-30MKI squadrons also have these same missions as a secondary responsibility

Maybe 2 decades ago, but not today. It's is not without a reason why MKI and Mirage 2000s (2 fighters designed for A2A) currently are the first choices for the nuclear strike role and the more they increase their capabilities, the less importance will the Mig 27 and Jags have (let alone when Rafale will be available).

 

[Speeder 2]

why i have a feeling that DRDO & HAL will launch a AMCA Mark II pronto?

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

I think India should focus on PAKFA for an operational 5th generation fight. At the same time, focus on basic material, aeronautics and electronics research. Don't try to develop a 5th generation plane immediately. And forget about TOT from Rafale to help with a 5th generation plane design. Why relying on the technology for a 4th generation plane for a brand new 5th generation plane?



India should develop its economic and focus on basic research. First learn how to walk before learn how to run.

India already walking fast , Tejas airframe and technologies is far ahead from China JF-17, LCA tejas use composite airframe , which JF-17 still uses old technology metal airframe jointed with rivets. , US also uses old technology metal airframe.

US should learn from India about Composite airframe (Next Gen.) Technology.

why i have a feeling that DRDO & HAL will launch a AMCA Mark II pronto?

Yes , Just like when WS-10 failed you bring WS-10A and WS=13 failed you bring WS-13B engine , the your J-10A failed , you bring j-10B

 

[faithfulguy]

India already walking fast , Tejas airframe and technologies is far ahead from China JF-17, LCA tejas use composite airframe , which JF-17 still uses old technology metal airframe jointed with rivets. , US also uses old technology metal airframe.

US should learn from India about Composite airframe (Next Gen.) Technology.



Yes , Just like when WS-10 failed you bring WS-10A and WS=13 failed you bring WS-13B engine , the your J-10A failed , you bring j-10B

why even compare with the US. Are you just being outrageous to deflect the fact that India is failing left and right on various projects?