AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (HAL)

[Cruise missile]

View attachment 74201

For AMCA it says 2030 *

* is labeled as "Start ..." rest is blocked

So then , 2030 is date of first roll out / first flight ???

It means that AMCA mk2 will take first flight by 2030.

 

[mokoman]

It means that AMCA mk2 will take first flight by 2030.

First LCA mk1a is supposed to "roll out" in 2023 ...

so first AMCA "roll out" will be in 2030

Roll out means start of production or first flight ?

I am guessing "Start of Production" , which what was labelled in presentation.

this is impressive .

 

[Killbot]

I already posted the pic 5 months back

A much better pic with the visible rear unlike the one above , the view is from below the aircraft.

View attachment 74187

Heard the news on TEDBF so came back for a moment.

Welcome back...

 

[SavageKing456]

View attachment 74201

For AMCA it says 2030 *

* is labeled as "Start ..." rest is blocked

So then , 2030 is date of first roll out / first flight ???

Enter production

 

[SavageKing456]

First LCA mk1a is supposed to "roll out" in 2023 ...

so first AMCA "roll out" will be in 2030

Roll out means start of production or first flight ?

I am guessing "Start of Production" , which what was labelled in presentation.

this is impressive .

Roll out means the aircraft will have first flight soon and then trials after trials the deal will be signed and then it would be produced and then inducted ig

 

[Vamsi]

I think it's related to 110KN engine

 

[Aniruddha Mulay]

Is the internal weapons bay of the AMCA going to remain the same as the previous models or is it likely to be improved coz the provision to carry 4 BVR missiles or 2 BVR missiles + 2 PGM seems pretty less to me.

 

[kurup]

Is the internal weapons bay of the AMCA going to remain the same as the previous models or is it likely to be improved coz the provision to carry 4 BVR missiles or 2 BVR missiles + 2 PGM seems pretty less to me.

All Medium LO aircrafts have just 4 internal hard points be it the F35 or J31 .

 

[BON PLAN]

Is the internal weapons bay of the AMCA going to remain the same as the previous models or is it likely to be improved coz the provision to carry 4 BVR missiles or 2 BVR missiles + 2 PGM seems pretty less to me.

This king of configuration is only usefull for the very first days of a high intensity war. After that, you will se huge load under the wings ! And because a jet is mainly used without any weapon, for training, peace time flight.... it's better not to carry an empty bay without nothing but with a great penalty on flight caracteristics. As F35....
So a bay just for some AAM is enough.

 

[BON PLAN]

All Medium LO aircrafts have just 4 internal hard points be it the F35 or J31 .

J31 is not very well known so far.
F35 seems to ba able to carry up to 6 AMRAAM.

 

[Coalmine]

Instead of Tedbf and orca ADA/HAL should go directly for Naval AMCA.
Tedbf wont be stealthy, similarly a half stealthy Naval Amca will be sufficient and subsequent upgrades can be done on NAMCA for more stealth.
HAL has too many projects in its hands, Tejas MK1a, MWF, Tedbf, AMCA

 

[Killbot]

Instead of Tedbf and orca ADA/HAL should go directly for Naval AMCA.
Tedbf wont be stealthy, similarly a half stealthy Naval Amca will be sufficient and subsequent upgrades can be done on NAMCA for more stealth.
HAL has too many projects in its hands, Tejas MK1a, MWF, Tedbf, AMCA

TEDBF, MWF and AMCA are ADA. HAL is working on Mk.1A. MWF will be produced by HAL, AMCA by private sector and TEDBF is TBD. Workload is pretty okay, considering it will be at least 2040 by the time all of these are delivered.

Plus AMCA will take beyond 2040 to be reconfigured to naval version. Even beyond to getting to production. Thus TEDBF.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Instead of Tedbf and orca ADA/HAL should go directly for Naval AMCA.
Tedbf wont be stealthy, similarly a half stealthy Naval Amca will be sufficient and subsequent upgrades can be done on NAMCA for more stealth.
HAL has too many projects in its hands, Tejas MK1a, MWF, Tedbf, AMCA

TEDBF, MWF and AMCA are ADA. HAL is working on Mk.1A. MWF will be produced by HAL, AMCA by private sector and TEDBF is TBD. Workload is pretty okay, considering it will be at least 2040 by the time all of these are delivered.

Plus AMCA will take beyond 2040 to be reconfigured to naval version. Even beyond to getting to production. Thus TEDBF.

I feel like Navy might try to skip fifth gen fighters altogether. The first sixth gen fighters are expected in the 2035-2040 timeframe and the Indian Air Force is already trying to figure out the roadmap to sixth gen. TEDBF will get inducted by 2035, meaning it will remain in service for at least 15 years i.e. 2050. So even if ADA starts preliminary design phase of a sixth generation fighter program in 2035, we could see an Indian sixth gen fighter rolling out by 2045 and entering service in 2050, 10 years behind leading world powers. Not bad considering that we were 41 years behind in 4th generation aircraft and 25 years behind in 5th generation aircraft.
France is leapfrogging to Sixth generation, so it would make sense for Indian Navy to also make that jump.

 

[Killbot]

I feel like Navy might try to skip fifth gen fighters altogether. The first sixth gen fighters are expected in the 2035-2040 timeframe and the Indian Air Force is already trying to figure out the roadmap to sixth gen. TEDBF will get inducted by 2035, meaning it will remain in service for at least 15 years i.e. 2050. So even if ADA starts preliminary design phase of a sixth generation fighter program in 2035, we could see an Indian sixth gen fighter rolling out by 2045 and entering service in 2050, 10 years behind leading world powers. Not bad considering that we were 41 years behind in 4th generation aircraft and 25 years behind in 5th generation aircraft.
France is leapfrogging to Sixth generation, so it would make sense for Indian Navy to also make that jump.

ADA could begin the 6th gen program sooner right? They aren't involved in production. And they will be designing only AMCA Mk.2 in 2030, which would involve 6th gen tech. They can start a 6th gen program in parallel, right? Around 2030..

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

ADA could begin the 6th gen program sooner right? They aren't involved in production. And they will be designing only AMCA Mk.2 in 2030, which would involve 6th gen tech. They can start a 6th gen program in parallel, right? Around 2030..

Problem is that the kind of technologies that sixth gen fighters would be outfitted with from the get go are not yet defined. How all those new capabilities will interact to produce a next generation system are also not well defined. The rulebook for what will constitute sixth gen fighters will again be written by USA before anyone else. As we can see that USN and USAF already have different ideas regarding what the 6th gen will look like: Penetrating Counter Air program for USAF and Next Generation Air Dominance for USN.

I don't think IAF and IN will give a firm ASQR/NSQR about the Indian sixth gen program to ADA before US military selects the winning design and makes its capabilities public. That would happen in 2035.

So till 2035, other DRDO labs (CAIR, MTRDC, LASTEC, CHESS, DYSL-QT, DMRL, GTRE, RCI, LRDE, DARE, CABS, etc) should continue to work on technologies we know will be key to sixth gen program. But the final development of an air warfare system of systems i.e. a sixth gen architecture for waging air campaigns will only begin once USA has lead us to a path into the future.

 

[tsunami]

Google. You'll find multiple sources.

Contradicting versions exist on internet, as it's not known... This says internal 6.5t (but i think the mistook it with external payload), most estimates scale it at max 4t.
I remember my info from something like a Defexpo placard. 4×450kg HSLD bombs would weigh 1.8t, so I find that reasonable.

Evean that is still less than 2 tons. And that will make it just a bomb truck as there are no internal A2A missile, which is not a very realistic payload, is it?

Now if you look at dimensions of AMCA they are bigger than F-35, with AMCA being sleek design. But that is because F-35 can carry bigger bombs internally and have over 8 tons of fuel.

AMCA will have less internal fuel than F-35 but no way it is going as low as 4 tons. A 12 tons empty weight with 5 tons internal fuel and 17.5 loaded weight class fighter will make it aprox 28-29% internal fuel capacity. With just 3.8 tons it will hv less internal fuel than Tejas Mk1. IAF never gonna accept it.

 

[Marliii]

Unlike tejas IAF is in all designing AMCA with HAL .so if IAF finded any problem in design it would be immediately changed.

 

[Bleh]

Evean that is still less than 2 tons. And that will make it just a bomb truck as there are no internal A2A missile, which is not a very realistic payload, is it?

Now if you look at dimensions of AMCA they are bigger than F-35, with AMCA being sleek design. But that is because F-35 can carry bigger bombs internally and have over 8 tons of fuel.

AMCA will have less internal fuel than F-35 but no way it is going as low as 4 tons. A 12 tons empty weight with 5 tons internal fuel and 17.5 loaded weight class fighter will make it aprox 28-29% internal fuel capacity. With just 3.8 tons it will hv less internal fuel than Tejas Mk1. IAF never gonna accept it.

Unlike tejas IAF is in all designing AMCA with HAL .so if IAF finded any problem in design it would be immediately changed.

We're going too off-topic with this.

But a stealthy bomb truck can be very good strike payload. Safer too, as it will not have to sacrifice low observability. It can completely avoid detection/contact by enemy while carrying 1.8t bombload!.. 500km-odd range is good enough.
I think it was asked for by IAF only, as ADA did away with the side bays & enlarged the inner one, then splite it into 2, as in present iteration.

AMCA Mark1's (Mark2 will have 110kN engines) loaded weight from runway is 25t+... so 12+4+2 will be no sweat.

17.5t is for MWF, you might have confused the numbers.

 

[tsunami]

We're going too off-topic with this.

But a stealthy bomb truck can be very good strike payload... safer too as it will not have to sacrifice low observability. I think it was asked for by IAF only, as ADA did away with the side bays & enlarged the inner one, then splite it into 2, as in present iteration.
View attachment 74440View attachment 74439
AMCA Mark1's (Mark2 will have 110kN engines) loaded weight from runway is 25t+... so 12+4+2 will be no sweat.

17.5t is for MWF, you might have confused the numbers.

17.5t is max weight category for MWF. There is a difference in both. Anyway till there is a first flight all these calculations are useless. No way it's gonna be as low as 3.8t internal fuel. That's what I believe.

 

[Bleh]

17.5t is max weight category for MWF. There is a difference in both. Anyway till there is a first flight all these calculations are useless. No way it's gonna be as low as 3.8t internal fuel. That's what I believe.

I put no stock in beliefs. That's what I know from available sources... May change later, or may not.

But remember, the MiG-29 has a ferry range of 1500 km without external fuel tanks, with similar internal fuel of 4ton... AMCA has better engines, better aerodynamics & will face no drag penalty at its max internal bombload of 1.8ton.
Even being conservative, I don't see why it won't fly comfortably fly go & return 700km without refueling.