AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (HAL)

[IndianHawk]

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.

Their economy is at best 2.5-3 times larger than us in PPP. In dollar terms they look more inflated.

We take china plenty seriously. We pushed them back 2 out of 2 times both in doklam and now in laddakh. This is not a fluke it's preparation.

China is the reason we went nuclear since 1974. China is why we have nuke ssbn in water and SSN on design board. China is why we have ICBM and one of worlds fastest growing nuke arsenal.

Sfdr , Hypersonic , BMD all these program speeding ahead because of china for pakistan we wouldn't need to even bother about much of these things.

 

[FalconSlayers]

Their economy is at best 2.5-3 times larger than us in PPP. In dollar terms they look more inflated.

We take china plenty seriously. We pushed them back 2 out of 2 times both in doklam and now in laddakh. This is not a fluke it's preparation.

China is the reason we went nuclear since 1974. China is why we have nuke ssbn in water and SSN on design board. China is why we have ICBM and one of worlds fastest growing nuke arsenal.

Sfdr , Hypersonic , BMD all these program speeding ahead because of china for pakistan we wouldn't need to even bother about much of these things.

The day they become numerically unbeatable will be the day it will be an eye opener for us.

 

[IndianHawk]

The day they become numerically unbeatable will be the day it will be an eye opener for us.

They can't win numbers game with us. We will ultimately have more numbers than them .

 

[SKC]

The day they become numerically unbeatable will be the day it will be an eye opener for us.

We have comparable population and for them its on decline, by 2025 we will overtake them and by end of 2030 we will be in good position with economy also. Don't be too disapproving of our strengths.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

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.

Dude, there were 2500 Allied aircraft (fixed wing) in the Kuwaiti Theater of Ops during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. LAC is quite a bit larger than that. And technology has improved. These planes won't start running out of airspace that easily, our Air Force has a lot of room for expansion that way. I am not sure how many of our planes were actually used for CAS earlier. The number couldn't have been too high given the lack of cross service integration.

And don't give the usual excuses for "we got enough SAMs now, we didn't have them earlier" 'cause neither did the enemy. Wingman will also be used by the enemy. We will not be fighting Pakistan this time, it will be China: A country that is trying to beat the USA. Stop looking at what China is now, start aiming to be where China will be in the future.

Even if what you said was true, we would still need more jets than just 42 squadrons given the attrition rate. China will be able to roll-in replacements from other theaters. We don't have other theaters, China is our main theater. We can't open a factory WW2 style to make replacements because modern aircraft can't be produced at rates to keep up with attrition during modern warfare. Have you seen how USA keeps Propositioned Stocks of armoured vehicles and has an aircraft boneyard? They have more hardware than they have men to man them. Men can be trained, if needed, during wartime. Its also possible to maintain a large reserve force that is heavily armed. That is how Superpowers prepare for World Wars. Indian and Chinese military budgets have not allowed us to go that route yet. But that won't be the case in the future. High time we start planning for a much larger Air Force.

 

[Ghost hale]

AMCA fast tracked. Going to production by 2027-28. "AS PER SOURCES"

Govt to soon give nod for indigenous stealth fighters

The stealth fighter could be put into production in the next seven to eight years.

www.hindustantimes.com

 

[tsunami]

 

[IndianHawk]

Dude, there were 2500 Allied aircraft (fixed wing) in the Kuwaiti Theater of Ops during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. LAC is quite a bit larger than that. And technology has improved. These planes won't start running out of airspace that easily, our Air Force has a lot of room for expansion that way. I am not sure how many of our planes were actually used for CAS earlier. The number couldn't have been too high given the lack of cross service integration.

And don't give the usual excuses for "we got enough SAMs now, we didn't have them earlier" 'cause neither did the enemy. Wingman will also be used by the enemy. We will not be fighting Pakistan this time, it will be China: A country that is trying to beat the USA. Stop looking at what China is now, start aiming to be where China will be in the future.

Even if what you said was true, we would still need more jets than just 42 squadrons given the attrition rate. China will be able to roll-in replacements from other theaters. We don't have other theaters, China is our main theater. We can't open a factory WW2 style to make replacements because modern aircraft can't be produced at rates to keep up with attrition during modern warfare. Have you seen how USA keeps Propositioned Stocks of armoured vehicles and has an aircraft boneyard? They have more hardware than they have men to man them. Men can be trained, if needed, during wartime. Its also possible to maintain a large reserve force that is heavily armed. That is how Superpowers prepare for World Wars. Indian and Chinese military budgets have not allowed us to go that route yet. But that won't be the case in the future. High time we start planning for a much larger Air Force.

I did not provide any excuse. Merely the method by which number are scientifically established .

1991 war is too old to draw lesson of future warfare.

One might agree that we need more jets but how many is not a matter of speculation of a fixed factions of enemy strength but a question of our needs ,how we define a theatre and how money assets including all components ( jets , drones, sams ) are required.

Our chinese border presents enormous challenges even for most sophisticated jets. The so called f16 and f18 can't even fly at full strength over Himalayas. If usa repeated gulf war tactic over Himalayan frontier all it will have is 2500 crashed jets.

 

[IndianHawk]

AMCA fast tracked. Going to production by 2027-28. "AS PER SOURCES"

Govt to soon give nod for indigenous stealth fighters

The stealth fighter could be put into production in the next seven to eight years.

www.hindustantimes.com

What sourced article lists date as 2032.

 

[Ghost hale]

What sourced article lists date as 2032.

"The stealth fighter could be put into production in the next seven to eight years " was the news. Rest article is copy paste of there various previous articles which has happened numerous times previously and is common in online reports of various news outlets. Production in 7-8 years can't push date to 2032. That's why highlighted "AS PER SOURCES".

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

I did not provide any excuse. Merely the method by which number are scientifically established .

1991 war is too old to draw lesson of future warfare.

One might agree that we need more jets but how many is not a matter of speculation of a fixed factions of enemy strength but a question of our needs ,how we define a theatre and how money assets including all components ( jets , drones, sams ) are required.

Our chinese border presents enormous challenges even for most sophisticated jets. The so called f16 and f18 can't even fly at full strength over Himalayas. If usa repeated gulf war tactic over Himalayan frontier all it will have is 2500 crashed jets.

I disagree that 1991 war is too old to draw lessons. Heck we till recently didn't have all the capabilities that USAF of 1991 had. Many of the capabilities we have only acquired recently in sufficient quantities.




I agree that I am no competent authority on affixing Air Force squadron numbers. The information required is barely available to me. But if a back of the envelope calculations tell me that the only limiting factor for heavy Chinese jet deployment on LAC will be the number of Chinese airfields in this theater and the number of available aerial refueling assets, then this combined with the fact that PLAAF is building an Air Force as large (or larger) than the Americans makes me feel that our current parity in number of fighters won't last past one more decade. Yes our airfields are closer to the LAC and at much lower altitudes allowing our jets to take off with higher payload and fuel enabling a longer on station time than PLAAF jets, but this geogprahical advantage might not be sufficient to deter a Chinese numerical superiority that may arise in the coming decades.

I have no idea why you think USA will end up with 2500 crashed F-16 and F-15 but the IAF will not end up with 500 crashed Su-30 MKI and Tejas when flying over the Himalayas. What is the difference here? Having more jets will lead to crashes? How?

 

[WahmanRespector]

Can anyone post the Front view , Side view, Top view or other views of AMCA....I want to create 3d model of it

 

[IndianHawk]

I disagree that 1991 war is too old to draw lessons. Heck we till recently didn't have all the capabilities that USAF of 1991 had. Many of the capabilities we have only acquired recently in sufficient quantities.




I agree that I am no competent authority on affixing Air Force squadron numbers. The information required is barely available to me. But if a back of the envelope calculations tell me that the only limiting factor for heavy Chinese jet deployment on LAC will be the number of Chinese airfields in this theater and the number of available aerial refueling assets, then this combined with the fact that PLAAF is building an Air Force as large (or larger) than the Americans makes me feel that our current parity in number of fighters won't last past one more decade. Yes our airfields are closer to the LAC and at much lower altitudes allowing our jets to take off with higher payload and fuel enabling a longer on station time than PLAAF jets, but this geogprahical advantage might not be sufficient to a Chinese numerical superiority that may arise in the coming decades.

I have no idea why you think USA will end up with 2500 crashed F-16 and F-15 but the IAF will not end up with 500 crashed Su-30 MKI and Tejas when flying over the Himalayas. What is the difference here? Having more jets will lead to crashes? How?

I said if usa used gulf war type tactics it will end up losing most of jets. Reason that was a deserts Himalayas are totally different. Air becomes rarer with hights , altitude rises and drops sharply with mountains and valleys. Turns and gaps are few and far between.

Chinese already have jets than us yet in entire Tibet they only have few squadron ?? Why because geography doesn't permit. You can't simply fly jets through world's highest mountain the way you can through deserts. Risks are too high , mistake unforgivable. American simply don't have the right gear for Himalayan terrain. That's why we optimised lca with bigger wings so it perform much better than f16 in Tibet despite being smaller. F15 could provide power but unless Americans have decades of experience flying through Himalayas it's useless. You gotta optimised not just airplane but also men and entire mission profile to be able to operate in such treacherous terrain.

Sams can be hidden in Mountain side proving 10s of times more difficult to detect and more deadly in action. Tankers can't keep up refueling. Striker jets have to pass through narrow passes making it difficult for even a pair of aircraft to fly together.

I could go on but I hope you get the gist.

Himalayan terrain demands a totally different kind of fight.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

I said if usa used gulf war type tactics it will end up losing most of jets. Reason that was a deserts Himalayas are totally different. Air becomes rarer with hights , altitude rises and drops sharply with mountains and valleys. Turns and gaps are few and far between.

Chinese already have jets than us yet in entire Tibet they only have few squadron ?? Why because geography doesn't permit. You can't simply fly jets through world's highest mountain the way you can through deserts. Risks are too high , mistake unforgivable. American simply don't have the right gear for Himalayan terrain. That's why we optimised lca with bigger wings so it perform much better than f16 in Tibet despite being smaller. F15 could provide power but unless Americans have decades of experience flying through Himalayas it's useless. You gotta optimised not just airplane but also men and entire mission profile to be able to operate in such treacherous terrain.

Sams can be hidden in Mountain side proving 10s of times more difficult to detect and more deadly in action. Tankers can't keep up refueling. Striker jets have to pass through narrow passes making it difficult for even a pair of aircraft to fly together.

I could go on but I hope you get the gist.

Himalayan terrain demands a totally different kind of fight.

Agreed on the differences between Mountain terrain and Desert terrain. We have seen IAF conduct difficult low level penetration training flying low and using terrain masking to achieve surprise in the Himalayas. That Su-30 MKI we lost was on one such training mission. I understand that.

But the reason PLAAF hasn't deployed en masse is different. They have geographical disadvantages we don't: mainly high altitude airfields. Logistics tail is also much longer for them. They are increasing their deployment though, as well as building many more airfields. Himalayan borders have been quiet for decades. China's primary threat perception has always been from its coastline. That said, PLAAF still has more than 150 jets deployed in this Theater. Over a couple of decades, Chinese will also accrue experience that IAF has in Himalayan flying. Until recently, they didn't even have permanent deployments on the plateau. That has changed in the past decade. So let us not use the peaceful past as a marker of what China will do in the future. Galwan ought to have taught us that lesson.

What you are pointing to is an experience issue. Over time both nations have the wherewithal to train more pilots and deploy more jets on this front. Institutional experiences will eventually enable both sides to deploy larger Air Fleets against each other.

OK. Answer me this instead: What is the upper limit on the number of jets that can be employed in this theater, according to you?

 

[lcafanboy]

What a beauty...

 

[Indx TechStyle]

China is the reason we went nuclear since 1974.

USA, not China was the reason.

 

[WARREN SS]

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.

10,000 fighters

Bhai Kaun si sasti charas mari
Hai
Nevertheless

With large assets there is need of large operations cost and infrastructure cost involved

4 th gets Jets are not cheap commodity it will not churn out from 3D printers except for some spare parts

As the number increases so will be its LCC cost
The infrastructure cost the pilot training cost the logistical cost of per aircrafts

Then there is other wings of the armed forces


Also PLAAF Relying on Russians or Chinese engines will
Make cost double.which require 3 to 4 engines per aircrafts after every overhaul in 5 years

Even with 1 trillion $ budget Chinese at best will not have 3-4 thousand fighters

Let assume If they manufacture 400 j-20 in next 20 years
The Operation cost and LCC will be not less than 200-250 million $ per aircraft

 

[Ghost hale]

10,000 fighters
Bhai Kaun si sasti charas mari
Hai
Nevertheless

With large assets there is need of large operations cost and infrastructure cost involved

4 th gets Jets are not cheap commodity it will not churn out from 3D printers except for some spare parts

As the number increases so will be its LCC cost
The infrastructure cost the pilot training cost the logistical cost of per aircrafts

Then there is other wings of the armed forces


Also PLAAF Relying on Russians or Chinese engines will
Make cost double.which require 3 to 4 engines per aircrafts after every overhaul in 5 years

Even with 1 trillion $ budget Chinese at best will not have 3-4 thousand fighters

Let assume If they manufacture 400 j-20 in next 20 years
The Operation cost and LCC will be not less than 200-250 million $ per aircraft

Didn't agree with his points but data don't support u. Its not 10k fighter jets. Aircrafts includes all i.e. jets, bombers, transport aircraft etc. I am attaching 2015 report for US. Circumstances considered are with higher GDP and Idiocracy of chinese in 2040. Number of fighter jets won't be more than 3-4K but all the rest also plays vital role in which we lack. Issues being raised here are very extreme conditions which i don't agree with but these all are possible scenarios.

This Map Shows How Many More Military Aircraft The US Has Than Every Other Country On Earth

It can be difficult to grasp the scope of US air superiority compared to everyone else. To put the US's advantage into perspective, Reddit user whiplashoo21,

www.businessinsider.in

.

@FalconSlayers u really go to extreme negative zone. Things are not that bad.

 

[WARREN SS]

Didn't agree with his points but data don't support u. Its not 10k fighter jets. Aircrafts includes all i.e. jets, bombers, transport aircraft etc. I am attaching 2015 report for US. Circumstances considered are with higher GDP and Idiocracy of chinese in 2040. Number of fighter jets won't be more than 3-4K but all the rest also plays vital role in which we lack. Issues being raised here are very extreme conditions which i don't agree with but these all are possible scenarios.

This Map Shows How Many More Military Aircraft The US Has Than Every Other Country On Earth

It can be difficult to grasp the scope of US air superiority compared to everyone else. To put the US's advantage into perspective, Reddit user whiplashoo21,

www.businessinsider.in

.

@FalconSlayers u really go to extreme negative zone. Things are not that bad.

Understand the difference btw having 10 k military aircrafts

And having 10 k Dedicated fighters

 

[Ghost hale]

Understand the difference btw having 10 k military aircrafts

And having 10 k Dedicated fighters

READ THE POST AGAIN.