Involve Israel and Singapore in the MCA project

[jha]

Tshering22 saar...
this is second time you have said something which was later reported in media...
Kya baat hai..?

BTW interesting idea nonetheless..

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Yes india should coz by herself it will take another 2 decades even more just look at the LCA project... it serves a good example.

 

[Tshering22]

Tshering22 saar...
this is second time you have said something which was later reported in media...
Kya baat hai..?

BTW interesting idea nonetheless..

I guess I should start predicting stuff from today onwards. . It'd be more beneficial than a bunch of old coots sucking country's blood and money taking kickbacks and planning like sloths.

 

[Tshering22]

Yes india should coz by herself it will take another 2 decades even more just look at the LCA project... it serves a good example.

I don't think it would take 2 decades, dude. Delays ara possible. LCA was the first time we did so we didn't want to rush things. MCA would be a lot faster just as LCH was from ALH.

 

[sancho]

ADA along with HAL have embarked into developing a 5th generation aircraft all alone , AMCA project has per IAF ASR (Air staff requirement) has to be Fully stealth aircraft and also should be a multirole aircraft able to play role of both Air superiority fighter and also be able to carry precision air strikes ,very similar role which Tejas MK2 might have to carry out when inducted into Air force .

That is exactly what I meant, it's not more geared for strikes and will be too similar to FGFA, but I find it funny that they count LCA for air superiority and strikes.

Israel will also face another problem since it will have to carry out fleet replacement of older F-16 and F-15 in service with them , Israel is second largest operator of F-16 in the region and soon older Blocks will require replacement and Israel might struggle to replace them in one to one basis with F-35 ,and to avoid shriking of aircraft they too will require adding new variant of fighter aircraft or induct more similar aircrafts already in their force .

That's why they are interested in the F15 SE too, which would get commonality to their available F15s and "should" be cheaper than the F35, not to mention that customisations are more possible.
AMCA development on the other hand, would be not a good choice for Israel in this regard, because we need too long to develop it with out present level of know how (hardly 4th gen).

For us a co-development, or partnership with them in any aircraft development is welcomed and because we missed it with LCA, is one of the reasons of the delays. However, Israel would benefit only in the long term from such a partnership, but not anywhere soon.

I don't think it would take 2 decades, dude. Delays ara possible. LCA was the first time we did so we didn't want to rush things. MCA would be a lot faster just as LCH was from ALH.

Not really, once because LCA and MCA are totally different fighters with different techs and design, while LCH is just a redesign of the ALH itself. It uses the same engine, avionics and weapons as the weaponised Dhruv too, which makes LCH development much easier. Secondly, because we still had not mastered LCA in any way, no serial production, no operational service and especially Kaveri and MMR/AESA radar developments are lacking way behind.
The stealth UCAV development instead, could be done faster especially with Israels experience with UAVs!

 

[gogbot]

Not really, once because LCA and MCA are totally different fighters with different techs and design, while LCH is just a redesign of the ALH itself. It uses the same engine, avionics and weapons as the weaponised Dhruv too, which makes LCH development much easier.

But you are forgetting Sancho, much of the infrastructure needed for developing a fighter aircraft was built during the LCA project.

Design and engineering practices developed. As well as actual experience developing a system like this.

Secondly, because we still had not mastered LCA in any way, no serial production, no operational service and especially Kaveri and
MMR/AESA radar developments are lacking way behind.The stealth UCAV development instead, could be done faster especially with Israels experience with UAVs!

By the Time the MCA get's of the design phase, We would has Produced the 40 MkI Tejas aircraft.

And Kaveri would have been incorporated with PV-1.

Not to Mention , integration of the FGFA or PAK-FA into the IAF.
Any work HAL or ADA does on the Aircraft.

The FGAF will be produced in India, that is a lot of ToT right there.


There is certainly enough reasons to show why Work can be done quicker this time.

 

[Tshering22]

Not really, once because LCA and MCA are totally different fighters with different techs and design, while LCH is just a redesign of the ALH itself. It uses the same engine, avionics and weapons as the weaponised Dhruv too, which makes LCH development much easier. Secondly, because we still had not mastered LCA in any way, no serial production, no operational service and especially Kaveri and MMR/AESA radar developments are lacking way behind.
The stealth UCAV development instead, could be done faster especially with Israels experience with UAVs!

Sancho man, you're forgetting that there's going to be a lot of difference between a UAV and a UCAV. The drone tech has not gotten to the level where it can engage and think like a fighter. We will be needing the AMCA to counter J-XX and other fighters in the region. UCAVs can perform precision ground strikes but cannot dogfight or engage in air to air wars whether WVR or BVR..yet.

Even Israel has not pioneered in that field and we are far away. So a manned AMCA is needed to complement PAKFA/FGFA in the future as MRCA complements Sukhois. Tejas cannot be everywhere all the time and from what I see, we're heading for a 850-900+ fighter fleet to have some credible deterrence against PLAAF's massive 1,500+ fighters.

You'd know that PLAAF has already got twice the amount of Sukhois we have. Also they're likely to replace J-7s with FC-1s and J-8s with J-10s. Not to mention the upcoming J-XX stealth fighter.

We already lag behind in numbers but we've to make sure that we compensate that with Israeli air force style training (by getting excellent trainers) and a technologically advanced air force.

 

[!!craft!!]

Yes india should coz by herself it will take another 2 decades even more just look at the LCA project... it serves a good example.

well we kinda missed him hear...

 

[sammar72]

Involving israel means ruling out delays as Israel is full of result oriented, patriotic dedicated society as a whole. While, in India politicians spoils the party. Israel means excess to best quality surveliance equipments. Lot of interdependance and comman enemies hence start of era of india-russia kind. Long live Israel-India partnership

 

[sancho]

But you are forgetting Sancho, much of the infrastructure needed for developing a fighter aircraft was built during the LCA project.

Design and engineering practices developed. As well as actual experience developing a system like this.



By the Time the MCA get's of the design phase, We would has Produced the 40 MkI Tejas aircraft.

And Kaveri would have been incorporated with PV-1.

Not to Mention , integration of the FGFA or PAK-FA into the IAF.
Any work HAL or ADA does on the Aircraft.

The FGAF will be produced in India, that is a lot of ToT right there.


There is certainly enough reasons to show why Work can be done quicker this time.

Of course the infrastructure that was build for LCA would help in any future aircraft production, but not in the development of such a different kind of fighter. For example, although Kaveri development failed so far, the infrastructure to produce such an indigenous engine is already present. However, without foreign help we can't make it work and without other input, we also can't improve it with those capabilities that AMCA should have (Supercruise, TVC).
You have to walk, before you can run, but in this field we are still crawling!

The production and more over induction of LCA MK1 is a first step, but more important will be the changes to MK2 and inducting it in numbers to operational service. Only from 4.5 gen MK2 we really could learn and gain for future AMCA development and just like you correctly pointed out, the FGFA co-development will be even more important for us. But LCA MK2 will start induction (hopefully) in 2014 and around the same time Pak Fa redesign to FGFA (with real involment of Indian partners) will start only. So only when that all started, we will start to learn, get more experience and improve ourselfs and not from testing LCA prototypes, or a small order of 4. gen LCA MK1s.
That's at least how I see it!

Sancho man, you're forgetting that there's going to be a lot of difference between a UAV and a UCAV. The drone tech has not gotten to the level where it can engage and think like a fighter. We will be needing the AMCA to counter J-XX and other fighters in the region. UCAVs can perform precision ground strikes but cannot dogfight or engage in air to air wars whether WVR or BVR..yet.

First of all, AMCA has nothing to do with J-XX, because we will get Pak Fa/ FGFA most likely before J-XX will be reality and will have it in numbers.
Secondly, don't misunderstand me please! I know that a UAV and a UCAV have differences and that we need foreign help for it too, just like we need it for LCA, or AMCA. We both clearly agree on that, but besides that I don't see the need of AMCA besides FGFA, or as a replacement of older fighters, it is way more complicated to build than an UCAV.

A UCAV is of course more difficult to develop than a UAV, but way easier than a stealth fighter, because it has less speciallised systems.

- designed only for stealth, not flight performance
- no high tech radar, or avionics needed
- internal weapon bay only for A2G weapons, not additional carriage of A2A missiles
- no high thrust and high capable engine needed
- unmanned control is not much different from UAV controls

As you can see, especially if we team up with an experienced partner like Israel in terms of UAVs, mainly stealth design is needed and there we will gain from FGFA of course.

Even Israel has not pioneered in that field and we are far away. So a manned AMCA is needed to complement PAKFA/FGFA in the future as MRCA complements Sukhois. Tejas cannot be everywhere all the time and from what I see, we're heading for a 850-900+ fighter fleet to have some credible deterrence against PLAAF's massive 1,500+ fighters.

You'd know that PLAAF has already got twice the amount of Sukhois we have. Also they're likely to replace J-7s with FC-1s and J-8s with J-10s. Not to mention the upcoming J-XX stealth fighter.

We already lag behind in numbers but we've to make sure that we compensate that with Israeli air force style training (by getting excellent trainers) and a technologically advanced air force.

228+42 Su 30 MKIs
40+100 LCA cleared so far
at least 126 MMRCAs
planed 250 Pak Fa / FGFA

=> 786 fighters and that's the least numbers of LCA, MMRCA and FGFA, which are likely to increase. As you can see, even without AMCA, IAF match your numbers easily.!

We will never be able to counter PLAAF in equal numbers, but that is not the point anyway. We need a number of fighters to defend our smaller airspace, that have technical advantages and with MKI, MMRCA and FGFA we are heading exactly to that direction right?

 

[Tshering22]

Of course the infrastructure that was build for LCA would help in any future aircraft production, but not in the development of such a different kind of fighter. For example, although Kaveri development failed so far, the infrastructure to produce such an indigenous engine is already present. However, without foreign help we can't make it work and without other input, we also can't improve it with those capabilities that AMCA should have (Supercruise, TVC).
You have to walk, before you can run, but in this field we are still crawling!

The production and more over induction of LCA MK1 is a first step, but more important will be the changes to MK2 and inducting it in numbers to operational service. Only from 4.5 gen MK2 we really could learn and gain for future AMCA development and just like you correctly pointed out, the FGFA co-development will be even more important for us. But LCA MK2 will start induction (hopefully) in 2014 and around the same time Pak Fa redesign to FGFA (with real involment of Indian partners) will start only. So only when that all started, we will start to learn, get more experience and improve ourselfs and not from testing LCA prototypes, or a small order of 4. gen LCA MK1s.
That's at least how I see it!



First of all, AMCA has nothing to do with J-XX, because we will get Pak Fa/ FGFA most likely before J-XX will be reality and will have it in numbers.
Secondly, don't misunderstand me please! I know that a UAV and a UCAV have differences and that we need foreign help for it too, just like we need it for LCA, or AMCA. We both clearly agree on that, but besides that I don't see the need of AMCA besides FGFA, or as a replacement of older fighters, it is way more complicated to build than an UCAV.

A UCAV is of course more difficult to develop than a UAV, but way easier than a stealth fighter, because it has less speciallised systems.

- designed only for stealth, not flight performance
- no high tech radar, or avionics needed
- internal weapon bay only for A2G weapons, not additional carriage of A2A missiles
- no high thrust and high capable engine needed
- unmanned control is not much different from UAV controls

As you can see, especially if we team up with an experienced partner like Israel in terms of UAVs, mainly stealth design is needed and there we will gain from FGFA of course.



228+42 Su 30 MKIs
40+100 LCA cleared so far
at least 126 MMRCAs
planed 250 Pak Fa / FGFA

=> 786 fighters and that's the least numbers of LCA, MMRCA and FGFA, which are likely to increase. As you can see, even without AMCA, IAF match your numbers easily.!

We will never be able to counter PLAAF in equal numbers, but that is not the point anyway. We need a number of fighters to defend our smaller airspace, that have technical advantages and with MKI, MMRCA and FGFA we are heading exactly to that direction right?

786 fighters and that's the least numbers of LCA, MMRCA and FGFA, which are likely to increase. As you can see, even without AMCA, IAF match your numbers easily.!

Then I guess another 150 AMCAs could do no harm. We get the necessary knowledge from this project for stealthy fighters, we get the infrastructure in the process and also act as an incentive for future aeronautical engineers in this country rather than license manufacturing already-designed stuff like robots.

We don't intend to match PLAAF in terms of numerical superiority but want to surpass them in terms of quality of flying. That's why Hawks, IJTs and basic trainers are being so aggressively fast-tracked. We've already lost valuable IAF fighter pilots and if we don't have a strong aeronautical base, this would not only encourage aeronautical brain drain but also leave us at the mercy of suppliers.

We need the following:

140 Tejas
126 MRCA
250 PAKFA
270 Su-30
150 AMCA

=936 modern fighters. That is a good enough quantity to face the 1500+ PLAAF just in case we might have to. I think now I know why the IAF kept such an weird number of 126 fighters with 74 options in the contract; the insiders of IAF possibly knew that AMCA would be on the way and therefore gettign 300+ 4.5 generation fighters to replace our MiG-29, MiG-27, Jaguars and Mirage 2000 won't be a good investment. I feel that the 74 options will not be realised and this in case IAF is happy with AMCA (the wind tunnel and CAD design looks promising), would order 100-150 of this with the rest for potential export.

I regret GOI's decision to upgrade the Mirage 2000s and MiG-29s. The price of upgrading them is already so high that with that much money plus some more extra added to MRCA or AMCA, they couls simply dump these fighters in the junkyard and get spanking new ones with better technology and capabilities.

Getting Israel onboard further adds teeth to the AMCA and if Singapore is ready, then voila!.

 

[Dash]

=936 modern fighters. That is a good enough quantity to face the 1500+ PLAAF just in case we might have to. I think now I know why the IAF kept such an weird number of 126 fighters with 74 options in the contract; the insiders of IAF possibly knew that AMCA would be on the way and therefore gettign 300+ 4.5 generation fighters to replace our MiG-29, MiG-27, Jaguars and Mirage 2000 won't be a good investment. I feel that the 74 options will not be realised and this in case IAF is happy with AMCA (the wind tunnel and CAD design looks promising), would order 100-150 of this with the rest for potential export.

126 is roughly 7 squadrons, and thats the number they actually wanted to protect the eastern borders if Iam correct.

However the optional 74 will not be realised if AMCA design is viable, is actually against teh tradition of IAF, you know what I mean?...
They have still not considered AMCA in their numbers. In a recent interview IAF chief asked DRDO to give a 4th gen fully equipped fighter first that thinking about 5th gen.

Now coming to 5th gen. I will not worry about it much.

If we look carefully, i will say its a good developement. because by the time we could actually field one, the world will be fielding UCAVs and the so called sixth gen. It makes logical to go with Israel and Singapore, but they actually cant give us any technology that might be needed in 5th gen apart from some radar and avinocs.

It will be a new tech for them too, and by incluing them we can only complicate things.

If we want we can include France, UK or any other nation for that matter.

 

[Tshering22]

126 is roughly 7 squadrons, and thats the number they actually wanted to protect the eastern borders if Iam correct.

However the optional 74 will not be realised if AMCA design is viable, is actually against teh tradition of IAF, you know what I mean?...
They have still not considered AMCA in their numbers. In a recent interview IAF chief asked DRDO to give a 4th gen fully equipped fighter first that thinking about 5th gen.

Now coming to 5th gen. I will not worry about it much.

If we look carefully, i will say its a good developement. because by the time we could actually field one, the world will be fielding UCAVs and the so called sixth gen. It makes logical to go with Israel and Singapore, but they actually cant give us any technology that might be needed in 5th gen apart from some radar and avinocs.

It will be a new tech for them too, and by incluing them we can only complicate things.

If we want we can include France, UK or any other nation for that matter.

But you don't realize that the same IAF has officially given specs for AMCA already to HAL. I think they don't want to draw attention to this along the lines of Arihant and that's why they're all so tight lipped about it. Who told you that world will be fielding UCAVs by 2025-30?

That just a fantasy now and those who think of it real so eaary are only dreamers. Tests would be in full swing but not application. The JSF are there till 2035-40 along with the F-22s in USAF and NATO AFs. PAKFA will be there for 10 more years roughyl with Russians and us and AMCA would be very much there for 20 more years than that. Let's be practical; UK's Taranis UCAV is just a stealth bomber and if other manned stealth fighters detect its presence, its mince meat in the air. The same goes for the French prototype bomber UCAV.

These fighters will be there only to perform clearing operations after manned fighters have cleared enemy airspace: manned fighters are there for another 30years minimum. Even Boeing unveiled its manned 6th gen fighter.

So AMCA has as much better future as the PAKFA/FGFA.

About your apprehensions I don't understand. UK and France are in no position to join this as they are struggling with their own set of fighters right now. They have knowledge but are having their hands full. OTOH, Israel has tried and made a successful competent fighter in the past and has the technical know how while the design for AMCA has already been chosen (see the CAD designs and the wind tunnel model). So we don't need anything more than advanced radars and avionics in terms of contribution. Kaveri has cleared some significant hurdles in Gromov test centre in Russia and is on track for the AMCA.

You're needlessly worrying dude. Every fighter being developed now is a new platform for the entire world. Doesn't mean we can keep worrying and sit with our eyes shut. We have try stuff.

Tejas is done and now focus is naturally to do something that can keep a backup knowledge on how to make stealth fighters. AMCA fills the post just fine and it gets better if Israel and Singapore join the foray.

 

[sancho]

Then I guess another 150 AMCAs could do no harm. We get the necessary knowledge from this project for stealthy fighters, we get the infrastructure in the process and also act as an incentive for future aeronautical engineers in this country rather than license manufacturing already-designed stuff like robots.

So for just 150 additional fighters, which offer nothing the other fighters ouldn't offer is worth the time and costs?

140 + 50 Tejas
126 + 64 MRCA
250 + 50 PAKFA
270 Su-30
100 + 200 UCAV

= 950 fighters and 100 to 200 UCAVs, specially for the strike role

IAF would be more capable and more cost-effective!

I think now I know why the IAF kept such an weird number of 126 fighters with 74 options in the contract; the insiders of IAF possibly knew that AMCA would be on the way and therefore gettign 300+ 4.5 generation fighters to replace our MiG-29, MiG-27, Jaguars and Mirage 2000 won't be a good investment.

It's more likely that they would simply add more LCAs on the lower end, or FGFAs on the top end instead of procuring 300 foreign fighters.

In a recent interview IAF chief asked DRDO to give a 4th gen fully equipped fighter first that thinking about 5th gen.

That's interesting, can you provide the link? Good to hear that he is not falling into the hype of ADA and HAL, which really should focus on LCA development now.

 

[Tshering22]

So for just 150 additional fighters, which offer nothing the other fighters ouldn't offer is worth the time and costs?

140 + 50 Tejas
126 + 64 MRCA
250 + 50 PAKFA
270 Su-30
100 + 200 UCAV

= 950 fighters and 100 to 200 UCAVs, specially for the strike role

IAF would be more capable and more cost-effective!



It's more likely that they would simply add more LCAs on the lower end, or FGFAs on the top end instead of procuring 300 foreign fighters.



That's interesting, can you provide the link? Good to hear that he is not falling into the hype of ADA and HAL, which really should focus on LCA development now.

Face it man, UCAVs are a distant dream. The last thing we want to do is buy foreign stuff again at this juncture. Already 70% of our stuff is foreign. Let's begin SOMWHERE. We can never be a significant power if we don't design and manufacture AMCA like stuff in-house.

We haven't even touched the hem of that UCAV technology and AMCA is the only first step to that. What costs are you talking about? Does this not look like an investment to you?

Fighters will be produced in an assembly line resulting in domestic infrastructure (that China already has of its own and we don't),

India's successful domestic stealth fighter would mean success and incentive for future aeronautical engineers therefore an increase in the field rather than robot-like working on pre-programmed licensed models from foreign countries.

Increased technical know-how and entry into the manufacturing division rather than assembling and maintaining; something we've been doing for the last 50 years.

PAKFA/FGFA still doesn't make it indigenous enough to be free from relying outside. AMCA covers up for that. It has a Russian base and with only 25% of our technical input it only gives us something to learn and assemble; slightly better off then our neighbours' JV on their joint fighter program in terms of learning outcomes. AMCA on the other hand gives us the same leverage that China would reap out of J-XX in terms of knowledge, improving in future, infrastructure for domestic aeronautics rather than a customer to foreign countries, innovation, a strong base for future generations in this field etc.

In short PAKFA completes our on-field requirement but not what's behind the screen required to continue rise in aviation. Tejas and AMCA are the only way which we can gain influence, respect and tangible benefits. Otherwise, we'd simply be called world's largest importers of weapons that's all.

Dude give me another excuse to invest in this field other than AMCA. Assembling license produced jets? I don't think so. We need multiple manufacturing facilities in the country and Tejas has started that which will be carried forward by AMCA. Such ventures as AMCA are the stepping stones where countries step up, rise and mature in specific fields.

Initially, this might look as "costly" but its an investment to future ventures in manned and unmanned aviation both civil and military.