AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (HAL)

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
11,682
Likes
6,874
Country flag
Are MiG-21's going to be retained in service post-2025? There will not be enough Mk1A's to replace the venerable MiG's until way past 2025.
Had F-16IN been ordered India would already be receiving them in sufficient quantities and quality to replace ageing Mig-21s. This would allow India benedits on several levels and most importantly give it more time to develop AMCA and potentially technological concessions from US on several key techs.
 

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
8,391
Likes
33,470
Country flag
Had F-16IN been ordered India would already be receiving them in sufficient quantities and quality to replace ageing Mig-21s. This would allow India benedits on several levels and most importantly give it more time to develop AMCA and potentially technological concessions from US on several key techs.
Lmao what technology has usa given to Korea for kfx 21 ??
 

Spitfire9

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
822
Likes
2,290
Country flag
Lmao what technology has usa given to Korea for kfx 21 ??
I recall that the South Korea decision to order F-35 was made on the understanding that ToT would be part of the deal. IIRC the agreement was made by the potential suppliers but then the US Congress refused permission for this to happen. South Korea decided to buy F-35 with the understanding that AESA knowhow etc would be gained through the deal. Did not happen. And US is supposed to be a staunch ally of South Korea!
 

Kalkioftoday

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2020
Messages
266
Likes
1,220
Country flag
Had F-16IN been ordered India would already be receiving them in sufficient quantities and quality to replace ageing Mig-21s. This would allow India benedits on several levels and most importantly give it more time to develop AMCA and potentially technological concessions from US on several key techs.
They don't even do TOT for small arms forget about doing any kind of critical TOT on jet fighters.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
6,975
Likes
8,327
Country flag
BAE, Thales and lot of other companies sell off the shelf mission computers. You just can google it.

The companies that sell mission computer also offer servies to develop flight control law. Also third part servies are aviable for the same.


It doesn't matter how you do what matters is the end result. The fact remains Tejas still not mass deployed.
This hold true for all our projects be it drones (DRDO Rustom) or aircraft where we have still failed to operationalize our project with end user while our adversaries have be it Turks with their drones or Pakistan with JF-17 or PRC with whole plethora of aircraft and drones.
Even Pakistani have developed their UCAV and we are still stuck in Taxi trails for our UAV/UCAV and at the same time buying IAI Heron.

As per you mission computers and fly-by-wire control laws are small part then was it worth wasting a decade on that rather that working with Americans and have incremental development cycle there by reducing development time.
Same goes for Kaveri engine. We coupled Kaveri engine program with Tejas. These caused delays when the Kaveri engine project failed we went to GE404 and took more time.

You are not getting extra point for reinventing the wheel. You are getting the project delayed.
You can't be in a perpetual cycle of endless development and no product to show for.

We are almost at the end of 2021 yet the aircraft is not mass deployed. Remember one thing in real life only results matter and not the process. Yes we learnt a lot but what we gained from it. How will you quantify the lives of Pilots lost in Mig-21, the aircraft that was supposed to be replaced with Tejas? The aircraft that can't be phased out until equivalent number of Tejas are available.

Remember the goal of Tejas is to replace Mig-21 and be one of the mass deployed supersonic fighter aircraft in our forward airbases and not be academic project for our government agencies.
1.mission computer has nothing to do with fly by wire control laws software and hardware,
It took 5 years just to build the Iron Bird test rig that ran Tejas fly by wire , watch hamara Tejas part 5.

2. offshore assistance fr fly by wire means you hv to go to them every time , when you want some config redesign , pay what ever they charge. like $2 billion fr integrating india specific upgrade, you will pay again when you want to upgrade something ten years later, no one will know the real cost of ownership of ownership.

3. Spending tax payer money to upgrade MNCs' R&D will always make india a client state. Because the people infra and know how to develop a future fly by wire software and hardware comes from atleast one fully locally developed local effort like tejas.

3.fly by wire is refined continuously based on pilot input even after FOC,

4. fly by wire tech is the core of any relaxed static stability fighter , no small part.

5. If IAF gave orders fr pure air to air version of Tejas ,that are to be deployed in our punjab , rajasthan, Gujarath borders, it could hv ordered 100 tejas in 2011 itself, because tejas proved HMDS and rdr cued R73E firing in 2009 itself. IAF cd hv asked ADA to just prove derby and gun certification,
and we cd hv had 100 tejas flying by now , all can be upgraded to Tejas mk1A level at mid life upgrade,

If this was done IAF wd hv reired all its migs by now. It was IAF's insistence on proving tejas in all theaters and all roles beyond doubt that delayed tejas, SO blaming loss of mig21 pilots in the past decade on Tejas is unfair

lotof people dont understand that while tejas is a mig21 replacement in squadron numbers, it is mirage 2000 successor in terms of tech. only other fighter that has equivalent fly by RSS tech in IAF is rafale, the mirage 2000 successor, In the same way solid fly by wire 4 channel all digital RSS fly by wire tech fr AMCA will make it rafale successor in terms of aerodynamics, that comes from tejas base, I dont know which firm will gives us such tech



but IAF wanted it to be customized fr multi role, LEH operation , refuelling etc, etc, Till 2019 couple of all typhoons that flew needed other fighters to assist them in ground bombing, That didnt stop Europeans from building 100s of pure air to air certified Typhoon and inducting them,

Same with F35 even without an FOC USAF has added 100s in fleet,

SO "lack of mass production is due to the fact IAF set a different gold standard fr inducting Tejas" diametrically opposite to world standards and even its own standards fr SU 30mki, mig29, mirage 2000, which were all added with minimum capacity upfront.

but these are all irrelvant to AMCA project.

What AMCA has is a solid base for flawless fly by wire that has been proved over 10000 event free flight hours of tejas program,

Even the last mirage2000 upgrade that crashed oh HAL runway crashed due to fly by wire defect, that too after 50 years of this type in service.

depending upon a foreign entity fr such a crucial R&D is not a good strategy
 
Last edited:

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,549
Likes
1,351
Country flag
I recall that the South Korea decision to order F-35 was made on the understanding that ToT would be part of the deal. IIRC the agreement was made by the potential suppliers but then the US Congress refused permission for this to happen. South Korea decided to buy F-35 with the understanding that AESA knowhow etc would be gained through the deal. Did not happen. And US is supposed to be a staunch ally of South Korea!
That is not 100% true.
There was no term in the F-35 deal regarding the AESA knowhow.
The TOT of AESA was talked about in the deal of KF-21.
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
11,682
Likes
6,874
Country flag
Lmao what technology has usa given to Korea for kfx 21 ??

LM is the technological partner of KAI on KFX21 like in the T50 program (Have you not noticed the family resemblamce of KFX21 to F-22 and F-35?) Various companies are also helping in other subsystems from radar to EW, etc.

What the US did not agree with was supplying its cutting edge easa radar tech and engine tech, which is understandable. But I belueve nothing stops Korea from buying cutting edge easa radars from the US without tot.
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
11,682
Likes
6,874
Country flag
They don't even do TOT for small arms forget about doing any kind of critical TOT on jet fighters.

Ever wondered why SoKor was able to develop a 4.5+ fighter so fast? It bested even Japan.

And as I said above just look at the shaping of KFX21, what does it remind you? The challenge for the Koreans is how to develop a decent EASA radar. I believe Korean designed EASA is 83% indigenous (17% foreign), but here you're talking only of hardware, which is half of a radar. The Koreans still have to deal with software, it's here where the challenge is very difficult.
 

Spitfire9

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
822
Likes
2,290
Country flag
That is not 100% true.
There was no term in the F-35 deal regarding the AESA knowhow.
The TOT of AESA was talked about in the deal of KF-21.
IIRC South Korea was promised ToT for several systems while LM proposed F-35. F-35 was selected on that basis. Congress then refused to allow ToT of several of the technologies concerned, which forced South Korea to develop them itself for the KF-X.

Extract below relates to South Korea ordering F-35 and development of the KF-X:

In 2014, the C103 configuration was chosen and Lockheed Martin agreed to transfer two dozen F-35A technologies as part of a purchase deal. However, the US government blocked the transfer of four vital technologies: AESA radar, infrared search and track (IRST), electro-optical target tracking devices, and radio jammer technology. South Korea was thus required to develop these technologies domestically.
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
11,682
Likes
6,874
Country flag
IIRC South Korea was promised ToT for several systems while LM proposed F-35. F-35 was selected on that basis. Congress then refused to allow ToT of several of the technologies concerned, which forced South Korea to develop them itself for the KF-X.

Extract below relates to South Korea ordering F-35 and development of the KF-X:




There's no full tot transfer of AEASA, EOTS, EW, etc., but US companies are helping develop SoKor domestic versions.
 

Kalkioftoday

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2020
Messages
266
Likes
1,220
Country flag
Ever wondered why SoKor was able to develop a 4.5+ fighter so fast? It bested even Japan.

And as I said above just look at the shaping of KFX21, what does it remind you? The challenge for the Koreans is how to develop a decent EASA radar. I believe Korean designed EASA is 83% indigenous (17% foreign), but here you're talking only of hardware, which is half of a radar. The Koreans still have to deal with software, it's here where the challenge is very difficult.
South korea and india is not the same. They can give south korea anything but that doesn't mean they'll give it to us.
 

Covfefe

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2021
Messages
2,381
Likes
14,143
Country flag
South korea and india is not the same. They can give south korea anything but that doesn't mean they'll give it to us.
He's saying with the assumption that India too becomes a vassal state of the US. Can't argue with that. He'll prove that how being slave is actually less problematic, you don't need to figure out anything- just do as the master says
 

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
8,391
Likes
33,470
Country flag
LM is the technological partner of KAI on KFX21 like in the T50 program (Have you not noticed the family resemblamce of KFX21 to F-22 and F-35?) Various companies are also helping in other subsystems from radar to EW, etc.

What the US did not agree with was supplying its cutting edge easa radar tech and engine tech, which is understandable. But I belueve nothing stops Korea from buying cutting edge easa radars from the US without tot.
And india has already developed aesa even with gan nodes now. As you yourself confirm usa won't transfer any high technology like aesa and india has developed everything else already barring a proper engine for fighter jet.

What India needs usa won't provide . What usa can provide in tot india has already developed.

So what's the point of f16 ! Nothing.

Regarding off the shelf buying without tot thats already happening at large scale between usa and india.
 

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
8,391
Likes
33,470
Country flag
Ever wondered why SoKor was able to develop a 4.5+ fighter so fast? It bested even Japan.

And as I said above just look at the shaping of KFX21, what does it remind you? The challenge for the Koreans is how to develop a decent EASA radar. I believe Korean designed EASA is 83% indigenous (17% foreign), but here you're talking only of hardware, which is half of a radar. The Koreans still have to deal with software, it's here where the challenge is very difficult.
Shaping of kfx is pretty much inline with all jets in development right now from tfx to amca to j31 . Which are all inline with shaping of f22 and f35. Which has far more to do with simple rules of geometric stealth rather than usa assistant.
 

Spitfire9

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
822
Likes
2,290
Country flag
Shaping of kfx is pretty much inline with all jets in development right now from tfx to amca to j31 . Which are all inline with shaping of f22 and f35. Which has far more to do with simple rules of geometric stealth rather than usa assistant.
Blame whoever designed SR-71 for starting that. I think that Skunkworks is the culprit!
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
11,682
Likes
6,874
Country flag
Shaping of kfx is pretty much inline with all jets in development right now from tfx to amca to j31 . Which are all inline with shaping of f22 and f35. Which has far more to do with simple rules of geometric stealth rather than usa assistant.

LM is the partner of KAI in developing KF-X. This is the immediate reason for the shape of the KF-X.

LM has also proposed to Japan F-22 design for its Mitsubishi F-X project.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top