AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (HAL)

scatterStorm

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2016
Messages
2,165
Likes
5,023
Country flag
I have a solid reasoning of EOTS on AMCA would be nothing like F35 EOTS. F35 EOTS was cleverly researched. I do not know much about the tech on EOTS, but I do know that it is the most expensive piece of hardware on it and a crown jewel to detect SAMs and ground targets from hundreds of Km's away. IAF would simply might use an IRST type scanner on MKIs. Target detection range without firing up your Radar must be max of 110 KM.

No doubt, its will increase its lethality, but the nature of manufacturing ffs based radome is quite complex. I think we are about a few more years before it can come up on AMCA.
 

fire starter

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
9,599
Likes
83,933
Country flag
I have a solid reasoning of EOTS on AMCA would be nothing like F35 EOTS. F35 EOTS was cleverly researched. I do not know much about the tech on EOTS, but I do know that it is the most expensive piece of hardware on it and a crown jewel to detect SAMs and ground targets from hundreds of Km's away. IAF would simply might use an IRST type scanner on MKIs. Target detection range without firing up your Radar must be max of 110 KM.

No doubt, its will increase its lethality, but the nature of manufacturing ffs based radome is quite complex. I think we are about a few more years before it can come up on AMCA.
EOTS is not some thing which we can not develop especially after looking at the time lines and our experience.
 

Aklukars

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2021
Messages
67
Likes
229
Country flag
I have a solid reasoning of EOTS on AMCA would be nothing like F35 EOTS. F35 EOTS was cleverly researched. I do not know much about the tech on EOTS, but I do know that it is the most expensive piece of hardware on it and a crown jewel to detect SAMs and ground targets from hundreds of Km's away. IAF would simply might use an IRST type scanner on MKIs. Target detection range without firing up your Radar must be max of 110 KM.

No doubt, its will increase its lethality, but the nature of manufacturing ffs based radome is quite complex. I think we are about a few more years before it can come up on AMCA.
Never say Never can't say when even unexpected can surprise out of nowhere.
 

Dark Sorrow

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
3,584
Likes
6,036
Country flag
I have a solid reasoning of EOTS on AMCA would be nothing like F35 EOTS. F35 EOTS was cleverly researched. I do not know much about the tech on EOTS, but I do know that it is the most expensive piece of hardware on it and a crown jewel to detect SAMs and ground targets from hundreds of Km's away. IAF would simply might use an IRST type scanner on MKIs. Target detection range without firing up your Radar must be max of 110 KM.

No doubt, its will increase its lethality, but the nature of manufacturing ffs based radome is quite complex. I think we are about a few more years before it can come up on AMCA.
Actually ISRO has developed technologies that are needed to build ETOS.
Our optical EO satellites have very good resolution.
We have to miniaturize these technologies from ISRO and develop necessary software to compensate motion, target identification , classification and tracking.
 

SavageKing456

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2020
Messages
2,529
Likes
15,509
Country flag
I have a solid reasoning of EOTS on AMCA would be nothing like F35 EOTS. F35 EOTS was cleverly researched. I do not know much about the tech on EOTS, but I do know that it is the most expensive piece of hardware on it and a crown jewel to detect SAMs and ground targets from hundreds of Km's away. IAF would simply might use an IRST type scanner on MKIs. Target detection range without firing up your Radar must be max of 110 KM.

No doubt, its will increase its lethality, but the nature of manufacturing ffs based radome is quite complex. I think we are about a few more years before it can come up on AMCA.
You have valid concerns about EOTS not been in amca,eots being a cutting edge sensor needs quite heavy technology research but dw AMCA would definitely have eots and many of technologies are developed already if not complete.
 

abingdonboy

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
5,448
Likes
19,207
Country flag
Ofcourse. Fly by light is a hardware upgrade. And turkey has demonstrated neither that nor the software needed for the FBW. Turks can import scientists and engineers from Germany and start work but it'll still take years to achieve given their starting point. Have they imported the required number of scientists and engineers yet? If not, why are they handing out ambitious timelines? Anyhow, point is, AMCA is more advanced in its development than Turkish fighter at this point. No doubt the Turks are trying to rush theirs into service without half the features while IAF will simply refuse any half-baked product. So we might still see AMCA enter service after the Turkish jet.
Skipping to 5th gen was like India skipping to Kaveri and then learning the hard way you can’t just do that from day one.

Crawl, walk, run.

look at the kind of facilities LCA project has created for Indian aerospace, does Turkey even have the requisite testing infrastructure to validate the stealth properties of the TFX?

where’s their flying test bed for the TFX?


the one thing they have that will lead to eventual success is top down support. Everyone knows the apex wants TFX

With Arjun, LCA, LCH, ATAGS etc we have seen how the lack of support from users and lack of push from the top can create a unviable situation.

AMCA could easily fall into this malaise whereas TFX is forced to succeed at all costs and will be inducted even if it only gets to 75% of design specs whilst Indian products have to get to 110-150%
 

charlie

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
1,113
Likes
1,076
Country flag
AFAIK you can buy standard FBW wire enabled mission computer and avionics from off the shelf market.
They can use these off the shelf hardware then the only part pending is their interfacing (for which these companies provide design services) and implementation of FBW software which is also available off the shelf. Optimizing with respect to aircraft's aerodynamics is done by they company providing FBW software or their design partners.

Turks will not disclose what and how much work has been outsourced to third party contractors. By import what I mean is that Turks will outsource a part of work to European design house (most probably German). In EU their a lot of specialized design houses some as small as 1 man team to team comprising of 1000s of individuals; these design houses do R&D and give you the product or technology with or without IP rights depending on the deal. They might even assist with production. (kindly note in other EU countries such design houses might also be available).
Why they are handing out ambitious timelines? Don't know. May be they thought it was doable or propaganda or etc. take your pick.

No one is comparing Turkish fighter to AMCA, both are independent aircraft. Lets see how things pan out for both these aircraft.
My thoughts on fly by wire is it’s not an easy task, of course with money you can do anything, but to manage all the control surfaces and different flight envelop it take years to built a FBW and a lot of flight test has to be done to confirm that, even after spending so many years f22 crashed because of FBW(pio), and the 5th gen will have much better FBW I don’t think off the shelf is a possibility for a fighter aircraft.
 

Lonewolf

Psychopathic Neighbour
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
6,674
Likes
25,186
Country flag
AMCA does not have to be on par with the F-22 or F-35. The first thing that must be done is to have a flying prototype no matter how immature. Then keep on improving it.

Otherwise, the program will suffer from anslysis paralysis.
Thanks for opinion 😊😊😊😊😊😑
 

Lonewolf

Psychopathic Neighbour
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
6,674
Likes
25,186
Country flag
Hahaha. I mean look at China. It's copying, then producing a lot of flyable duds, but learning more and more.
And point to be noted ,they are china , a complete dictatorship ,with no accountability .

If we copy a bit unethically ,our own men will be on our throat before any outsider point finger at us .

And who said we aren't learning anything , we developed various versions of ram coating , for different application , we developed frequency selective surface , conformal antenna , CFD studies on weapons bay , stealth shaping and penalty of aerodynamic shaping on stealth , development of fly by optic and it's components , next gen EW elements , various components for jet engine , single crystal blades and jet vanes , a ongoing research on composite , and silicon matrix composite and carbon matrix composite , faster missionary computer , single MFD cockpit , bubble canopy and coating of TiO , all these are developed or in late stage of development
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,471
Country flag
And point to be noted ,they are china , a complete dictatorship ,with no accountability .

If we copy a bit unethically ,our own men will be on our throat before any outsider point finger at us .

And who said we aren't learning anything , we developed various versions of ram coating , for different application , we developed frequency selective surface , conformal antenna , CFD studies on weapons bay , stealth shaping and penalty of aerodynamic shaping on stealth , development of fly by optic and it's components , next gen EW elements , various components for jet engine , single crystal blades and jet vanes , a ongoing research on composite , and silicon matrix composite and carbon matrix composite , faster missionary computer , single MFD cockpit , bubble canopy and coating of TiO , all these are developed or in late stage of development

Look at how Western companies shamelessly copy each other that some ends up sueing. A little bit of copying is not bad, you have to start somewhere. There's no shame in that.
 

Latest Replies

Articles

Top