AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (HAL)

[Akula]

I think the 42 squadron requirement was done in the 60s, after the 1962 war, mainly to deter a joint threat posed by paf and plaaf.

Many things have changed since then, but this obsession with 42 has remained. Current situation demands 56+ and in the next decade the requirement is only going to rise.

Even IAF chief(during Kargil war) has mentioned that we need 55+ squadrons.

 

[Haldilal]

Even IAF chief(during Kargil war) has mentioned that we need 55+ squadrons.

Ya'll Nibbiars China has 88 Combat Squadron's. The ratio should be atleast 2 : 3.

 

[FalconSlayers]

Ya'll Nibbiars China has 88 Combat Squadron's. The ratio should be atleast 2 : 3.

China in future will be on a Military buying spree. They will puch for atleast 10,000 aircrafts by 2040 as their economy will be more than 1.5 times USA. We never take China seriously, their economy is 5 times the size of our economy.

 

[Gandaberunda]

China in future will be on a Military buying spree. They will puch for atleast 10,000 aircrafts by 2040 as their economy will be more than 1.5 times USA. We never take China seriously, their economy is 5 times the size of our economy.

China will face same issue like they're facing with their navy. Too many ships subs built in haste and no experienced officers to operate... PLAN ships/ subs are operated by inexperienced 25-30 years old officers as caotain ...
If combat occurs any adversaries can roast them with experience officers and tactics...

 

[FalconSlayers]

China will face same issue like they're facing with their navy. Too many ships subs built in haste and no experienced officers to operate... PLAN ships/ subs are operated by inexperienced 25-30 years old officers as caotain ...
If combat occurs any adversaries can roast them with experience officers and tactics...

When they will have huge numbers, it will not matter how good they are or who is operating them, focus on wealth generation and boosting our own GDP and focus on not just military modernisation but also on expansion of our military size and might.

 

[FalconSlayers]

Will AMCA have F-35 like Sensor Fusion?

 

[SavageKing456]

Will AMCA have F-35 like Sensor Fusion?

Yes it should have

 

[FalconSlayers]

Yes

Any sneak peaks?

 

[Gandaberunda]

When they will have huge numbers, it will not matter how good they are or who is operating them, focus on wealth generation and boosting our own GDP and focus on not just military modernisation but also on expansion of our military size and might.

Actually matters who is handling equipments... Pak having pattan tanks couldn't operate effectively. It's always skill and experience triumphs manpower and numbers. Whereas building and boosting own GDP is what all govts do whether its success or failure.

 

[SARTHAK]

Will AMCA have F-35 like Sensor Fusion?

tejas mk2 will hve sensor fusion , level will be equal to f35 or not idk, but yes it will be comparable to rafale sensor fusion ,mind you that automation is not always good the coding becomes too complex and problematic unless you hve deveoped expertise,in that case f35 is still suffering from software issues

 

[Maharaj samudragupt]

Actually matters who is handling equipments... Pak having pattan tanks couldn't operate effectively. It's always skill and experience triumphs manpower and numbers. Whereas building and boosting own GDP is what all govts do whether its success or failure.

Porkkanlar used patton tanks with British tactics such as some thing called as 'leagure' or retreat to initial position even after a successful tank charge.

 

[SARTHAK]

China will face same issue like they're facing with their navy. Too many ships subs built in haste and no experienced officers to operate... PLAN ships/ subs are operated by inexperienced 25-30 years old officers as caotain ...
If combat occurs any adversaries can roast them with experience officers and tactics...

although true ,but this type of attitude brings carelessness and ultimately we underestimate our adversary

 

[Gandaberunda]

although true ,but this type of attitude brings carelessness and ultimately we underestimate our adversary

No one is under estimating enemy. We can't build at the rate china building and we can't enter arms race with them owning to our economy. We are building to our capacity and our own strategic road map. We now have quality weapons over china (Rafale) albeit small numbers in future we'll produce more quality arms than china. In numbers we'll never catch china but in quality we will be more superior or par with them.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

In order to ramp up our production capacity, we need to involve private sector majors like L&T, Tatas, Kalyanis etc.

Right now HAL is struggling to roll out 16 A/C per year, even after years of promising the same. This is despite the fact that major sub assemblies are delivered ahead of schedule.

From now on, every A/C should have 1 or 2 private assembly plants in addition to HAL.

 

[Gandaberunda]

Porkkanlar used patton tanks with British tactics such as some thing called as 'leagure' or retreat to initial position even after a successful tank charge.

Whatever it is Indian army laid ciese of advanced pattan tanks by centurions and created pattan Nagar for world to see. It's always skills tactics experience and how to use the weapon to own advantage matters in warfare than just swarm in numbers.
China lacks in all.... Recent Standoff is prime example once IA mobilised in numbers and matched their deployment they were outsmacked by tactics which came through experience. Chene asked for Disengagement.

 

[Gandaberunda]

In order to ramp up our production capacity, we need to involve private sector majors like L&T, Tatas, Kalyanis etc.

Right now HAL is struggling to roll out 16 A/C per year, even after years of promising the same. This is despite the fact that major sub assemblies are delivered ahead of schedule.

From now on, every A/C should have 1 or 2 private assembly plants in addition to HAL.

People always jump the gun on HAL. Tejas orders were placed recently for 40 IOCs and IAF was hesitant to order untill Parikkar shoved them in their ass. With no orders uncertainty no manufacturer will ramp up production. Also now for 83 Tejas MK1A new production line was inaugurated after signing the order and also measures are taken to sub systems are manufactured by Pvt firms and HAL will do the final assembly of the jet. With firm order in their kitty HAL will start serious manufacturing to keep up with numbers. Even LCH is waiting for 160 orders and can't ramp up production without orders

 

[SARTHAK]

Will AMCA have F-35 like Sensor Fusion?

so guys i am giving several images and disscussion if any body here understands what the below pic by lockhead says do explain it to me ,becoz i am still hazy about what is the difference

i am also posting a description given by a user on f16.net forum (i found it to be best explanation)

"This is my understanding regarding sensor fusion implementations in 4++ gen fighters and 5th gen fighters. AFAIK, all 4++ gen fighters have very similar fusion implementations in principle but exact details might of course be quite different.

First difference is that 4++ gen sensor fusion is what is called track correlation. This means every sensor has to first create a track and then track information is sent to sensor fusion engine where different tracks are correlated and a single track is created by the fusion engine. For example target range might be taken from radar track, angular information (elevation, azimuth) from IRST track and ID information combined from radar (radar NCTR methods) and RWR (radar emissions from target direction) tracks. In 5th gen fighters (at least in F-22 and F-35) the sensors don't create their own tracks at all but rather all the sensor data is fed to sensor fusion engine. Thus sensor fusion engine has access to all the information the sensors generate. Sensor fusion creates a single track from all that data and can use data from sensors that is unavailable in track correlation systems. For example radar (or IRST system) might get infrequent detections which would not be enough to generate or maintain a track. It also generates more information from targets in shorter time as there as time is not wasted in generating tracks with every sensor before sensor fusion gets to work. Downside of 5th gen sensor fusion is that it requires much better network inside the aircraft (from sensors to fusion engine computer) and much more computing power to crunch the data in real time.

Second main difference is that 5th gen sensor fusion is much more autonomous and can truly automatically cue and task all the sensors. This lowers pilot workload and improves situational awareness a lot in complex situations. It also shortens reaction time a lot and can actually do sensor fusion against much larger number of simultaneous targets. For example if RWR detects something in 3 different directions simultaneously, sensor fusion engine can command radar, IRST and IFF systems to probe for more information in very quick order. In 4++ gen systems the RWR would first have to get more information before giving info to pilot who might then have to control all the sensors to do the same. This would take a lot more time and the situation might change drastically during that time.

Third difference is what data can be used for sensor fusion. In 4++ gen systems the sensor fusion uses only data which has been got from sensors (data link is basically a sensor). In 5th gen systems the sensor fusion can (potentially) use much more diverse set of information. It might be able to use things like threat image and dimension data, geographical and spatial data (terrain features, buildings), ATO&ACO level info, weather data etc. It's basically just a matter of having information sources available and software to factor in the information. I doubt all this is currently done or even planned yet. IMO, F-35 sensor fusion in 2045 will have vastly more capabilities than it currently does.

Basically F-35 sensor fusion does things much faster, much more automatically and against many more targets than 4++ gen sensor fusion. That's the reason for the "God's eye of the battlefield" quotes regarding it."

 

[SARTHAK]

so guys i am giving several images and disscussion if any body here understands what the below pic by lockhead says do explain it to me ,becoz i am still hazy about what is the difference
View attachment 82037View attachment 82038

i am also posting a description given by a user on f16.net forum (i found it to be best explanation)

"This is my understanding regarding sensor fusion implementations in 4++ gen fighters and 5th gen fighters. AFAIK, all 4++ gen fighters have very similar fusion implementations in principle but exact details might of course be quite different.

First difference is that 4++ gen sensor fusion is what is called track correlation. This means every sensor has to first create a track and then track information is sent to sensor fusion engine where different tracks are correlated and a single track is created by the fusion engine. For example target range might be taken from radar track, angular information (elevation, azimuth) from IRST track and ID information combined from radar (radar NCTR methods) and RWR (radar emissions from target direction) tracks. In 5th gen fighters (at least in F-22 and F-35) the sensors don't create their own tracks at all but rather all the sensor data is fed to sensor fusion engine. Thus sensor fusion engine has access to all the information the sensors generate. Sensor fusion creates a single track from all that data and can use data from sensors that is unavailable in track correlation systems. For example radar (or IRST system) might get infrequent detections which would not be enough to generate or maintain a track. It also generates more information from targets in shorter time as there as time is not wasted in generating tracks with every sensor before sensor fusion gets to work. Downside of 5th gen sensor fusion is that it requires much better network inside the aircraft (from sensors to fusion engine computer) and much more computing power to crunch the data in real time.

Second main difference is that 5th gen sensor fusion is much more autonomous and can truly automatically cue and task all the sensors. This lowers pilot workload and improves situational awareness a lot in complex situations. It also shortens reaction time a lot and can actually do sensor fusion against much larger number of simultaneous targets. For example if RWR detects something in 3 different directions simultaneously, sensor fusion engine can command radar, IRST and IFF systems to probe for more information in very quick order. In 4++ gen systems the RWR would first have to get more information before giving info to pilot who might then have to control all the sensors to do the same. This would take a lot more time and the situation might change drastically during that time.

Third difference is what data can be used for sensor fusion. In 4++ gen systems the sensor fusion uses only data which has been got from sensors (data link is basically a sensor). In 5th gen systems the sensor fusion can (potentially) use much more diverse set of information. It might be able to use things like threat image and dimension data, geographical and spatial data (terrain features, buildings), ATO&ACO level info, weather data etc. It's basically just a matter of having information sources available and software to factor in the information. I doubt all this is currently done or even planned yet. IMO, F-35 sensor fusion in 2045 will have vastly more capabilities than it currently does.

Basically F-35 sensor fusion does things much faster, much more automatically and against many more targets than 4++ gen sensor fusion. That's the reason for the "God's eye of the battlefield" quotes regarding it."

imho f35 sensor fusion looks quite complex and not easy to master, need more power

 

[SARTHAK]

so guys i am giving several images and disscussion if any body here understands what the below pic by lockhead says do explain it to me ,becoz i am still hazy about what is the difference
View attachment 82037View attachment 82038

i am also posting a description given by a user on f16.net forum (i found it to be best explanation)

"This is my understanding regarding sensor fusion implementations in 4++ gen fighters and 5th gen fighters. AFAIK, all 4++ gen fighters have very similar fusion implementations in principle but exact details might of course be quite different.

First difference is that 4++ gen sensor fusion is what is called track correlation. This means every sensor has to first create a track and then track information is sent to sensor fusion engine where different tracks are correlated and a single track is created by the fusion engine. For example target range might be taken from radar track, angular information (elevation, azimuth) from IRST track and ID information combined from radar (radar NCTR methods) and RWR (radar emissions from target direction) tracks. In 5th gen fighters (at least in F-22 and F-35) the sensors don't create their own tracks at all but rather all the sensor data is fed to sensor fusion engine. Thus sensor fusion engine has access to all the information the sensors generate. Sensor fusion creates a single track from all that data and can use data from sensors that is unavailable in track correlation systems. For example radar (or IRST system) might get infrequent detections which would not be enough to generate or maintain a track. It also generates more information from targets in shorter time as there as time is not wasted in generating tracks with every sensor before sensor fusion gets to work. Downside of 5th gen sensor fusion is that it requires much better network inside the aircraft (from sensors to fusion engine computer) and much more computing power to crunch the data in real time.

Second main difference is that 5th gen sensor fusion is much more autonomous and can truly automatically cue and task all the sensors. This lowers pilot workload and improves situational awareness a lot in complex situations. It also shortens reaction time a lot and can actually do sensor fusion against much larger number of simultaneous targets. For example if RWR detects something in 3 different directions simultaneously, sensor fusion engine can command radar, IRST and IFF systems to probe for more information in very quick order. In 4++ gen systems the RWR would first have to get more information before giving info to pilot who might then have to control all the sensors to do the same. This would take a lot more time and the situation might change drastically during that time.

Third difference is what data can be used for sensor fusion. In 4++ gen systems the sensor fusion uses only data which has been got from sensors (data link is basically a sensor). In 5th gen systems the sensor fusion can (potentially) use much more diverse set of information. It might be able to use things like threat image and dimension data, geographical and spatial data (terrain features, buildings), ATO&ACO level info, weather data etc. It's basically just a matter of having information sources available and software to factor in the information. I doubt all this is currently done or even planned yet. IMO, F-35 sensor fusion in 2045 will have vastly more capabilities than it currently does.

Basically F-35 sensor fusion does things much faster, much more automatically and against many more targets than 4++ gen sensor fusion. That's the reason for the "God's eye of the battlefield" quotes regarding it."

can any expert here tell the exact advantage f35 has in terms of actual combat or just a theory advantage(in terms of sensor fusion)

 

[IndianHawk]

This is not how squadron calculation works. You can only fly so many jets in a theatre before they start colliding with each other.

These are supersonic fighter jets not your garden sparrow. Each of them news hundreds of kilometres of open area to function properly at times of aggregation. At 1.6 Mach they fly 2000 km in an hour. You have to calculate even at peak surge how many jets you can actually deploy in a theatre before they run out of space.

Secondly with army building it's own close air support helicopter fleet ( apache + rudra + lch == almost 200).
That frees up fighte jets for other work which were previously used for cas.

Thirdly density of sam systems is rising with Akash , Akash 1s , Akash ng , mrsam , XRSAM , s400 etc. They will reduce need of jets for point defence and force enemy aircraft to fall back out of our sam bubble.

Lastly dornes will take over patrolling of otherwise peaceful areas where chance of conflict is minimal. Freeing fighter jets to actually engage on hot theatre.

And loyal wingman type stealth warrior will be doing all the penetration and bombing task by entering enemy territory. Fighter jets will be last one to engage.

All these things together greatly reduce the number of jets we actually need. That's how proper numbers can be decided.