AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (HAL)

[SKC]

View attachment 258392

I won't mind if they actually decide to offer us Block 4.
Let's give them proposal under "Make in India"

 

[BON PLAN]

When designing the AMCA, I am sure the engineers designed the aircraft around the internal bay, and not the other way around. Basically you should design and build around the bay. You may design the aircraft's fuselage first and later go to design the internal bay only to find out that the bay won't be spacious enough or you may run into some other issues.

Right now, we are sure that the AMCA Mk-1 will be able to carry 4 AAM. So no discussion about the internal loadout of Mk-1. We are focusing on Mk-2.

How can a payload of 6 AAM in the Mk-2 come into the picture from the former Mk-1's 4 AAM loadout?
1. We make a miniaturised version of the Astra which will have nearly the same range as the baseline one. I am advocating something in the lines of what was done with the Brahmos NG. What is Brahmos NG? NG stands for next generation and Brahmos NG is a scaled down version of baseline brahmos but while it's scaled down, it will still have the same speed and range as baseline brahmos.
Read this excerpt from an article (I will provide link)
"The BrahMos-NG (Next Generation) will be a scaled-down variant of the current BrahMos missile. Compared to the present BrahMos, it is anticipated to be 50% lighter, three meters smaller, and have the same 290-kilometer range and Mach 3.5 speed."

India's 'Next-Gen' BrahMos Cruise Missile, Developed With Russia, To Begin State Trials By 2025

In what could come as a significant boost to India’s next-generation cruise missile capability, flight testing of BrahMos-NG Indo-Russian cruise missile is expected to start before the end of 2025. BrahMos Export Director Pravin Pathak revealed this at the ongoing World Defense Show, which ends...

www.eurasiantimes.com

So I don't see why we cannot do the same with the Astra BVRAAM. We can make an Astra NG, basically a miniaturised version of the baseline Astra which will be smaller, lighter but will have the same speed and range as the original Astra.
2. We make the Bays more bigger in width, depth and length (overall size). I think the size of bay may become so large that the Airframe may have to undergo a size change. I think the basic design may be retained but the size will be increased. I mean a bigger Airframe can obviously field a larger bay. Basically what I think the AMCA MK-2 will be is basically it will have the same design as mk-1 albeit a bit larger. I can give you an example.

McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. This may help us to determine what the AMCA MK-2 will look like.

Super Hornet: It's basically an evolution of the original F/A-18 produced by the US for its military and allies to which it has been exported.
View attachment 257908

View attachment 257909
The SH brought upon several improvements and basically it's better than the baseline Hornet in every way that you can think of. Endurance, payload capacity, avionics, range etc. Sometimes bigger is always better.

This is what I think the AMCA Mk-2 will be. We will do with the AMCA MK-2 what the designers of F/A-18 SH did, basically enlarge. So AMCA Mk-2 will look visually identical to Mk-1 but it will be larger to facilitate a larger bay which in turn will facilitate more Weopons, better avionics, range etc. I think size should be increased and not try and pack each and everything in the same airframe, it will be prove to be counter productive.
3. Like originally said by many members here and even by you, we can Astra with foldable fins.
4. We can do all of the above and it will be better to do all of the above.

SH18 was not as effective as intended.
They discovered that an increase of 25% of a proof design don't give another proof design !
The range is shorter than expected (see the outcantered external loads, to avoid buffer : bad for aerodynamic).
7G max load
See the export : few, very few export customers because the plane is an average one.

In fact F/A 18 was already a derivative of F5. SH18 is a derivative of a derivative. Not a good idea.

 

[BON PLAN]

I won't mind if they actually decide to offer us Block 4.
Let's give them proposal under "Make in India"

You will have the right to produce the screw driver for the world fleet.

 

[SKC]

You will have the right to produce the screw driver for the world fleet.

Even that is fine!
Are you making anything more on your own for the world?

 

[BON PLAN]

Even that is fine!
Are you making anything more on your own for the world?

Yes :
Champagne,
Wine of Bordeau, Bourgogne.
N°5 perfume.
etc....

 

[Spitfire9]

DRDO is reported to say that to be realistic AMCA will not be ready for production until 2033.

I'm curious as to what this means. Even if it means that in 2033 a company has been selected for assembly, an order has been given to that company and the assembly line has been set up, I imagine it will take 3 years for the first aircraft to be completed. So I don't see IAF receiving AMCA before 2036 at the earliest.

If what DRDO is saying is that development testing should be completed 2033, to be followed by the process of GOI agreeing a price with the company selected to assemble it, GOI ordering it, followed by an assembly line being set up, I would not see IAF receiving AMCA much before 2040.

Whichever of those scenarios applies, pilots will need to be trained, too, and aircraft delivered in sufficient numbers before AMCA can boost the capability of IAF.

Can IAF wait until 2036-2039 to receive a 5G aircraft (2038-2041 to have it in service in meaningful numbers)? If not, It sounds like ordering F-35 (or possibly KF-21) is necessary. Soon. That rules out years of delay in trying to make it in India. Either a straight G2G purchase or nothing - the idea is to get a 5G type into IAF service quickly.

 

[MirageBlue]

DRDO is reported to say that to be realistic AMCA will not be ready for production until 2033.

I'm curious as to what this means. Even if it means that in 2033 a company has been selected for assembly, an order has been given to that company and the assembly line has been set up, I imagine it will take 3 years for the first aircraft to be completed. So I don't see IAF receiving AMCA before 2036 at the earliest.

If what DRDO is saying is that development testing should be completed 2033, to be followed by the process of GOI agreeing a price with the company selected to assemble it, GOI ordering it, followed by an assembly line being set up, I would not see IAF receiving AMCA much before 2040.

Whichever of those scenarios applies, pilots will need to be trained, too, and aircraft delivered in sufficient numbers before AMCA can boost the capability of IAF.

Can IAF wait until 2036-2039 to receive a 5G aircraft (2038-2041 to have it in service in meaningful numbers)? If not, It sounds like ordering F-35 (or possibly KF-21) is necessary. Soon. That rules out years of delay in trying to make it in India. Either a straight G2G purchase or nothing - the idea is to get a 5G type into IAF service quickly.

What's the source of this Youtube video? Where did "DRDO" say that?

 

[Spitfire9]

I did say 'reported'. In the video the DRDO director(?) is on the screen and is reported to be saying/have said that to be realistic, AMCA will be ready for production in 2033.

PS If you choose to say, when do you think the first production AMCA will be delivered to IAF?

 

[karn]

I did say 'reported'. In the video the DRDO director(?) is on the screen and is reported to be saying/have said that to be realistic, AMCA will be ready for production in 2033.

PS If you choose to say, when do you think the first production AMCA will be delivered to IAF?

That channel is straight up fake news clickbait and low effort to boot. Anything said there can be discounted safely unless backed up another source.

 

[Azaad]

DRDO is reported to say that to be realistic AMCA will not be ready for production until 2033.

I'm curious as to what this means. Even if it means that in 2033 a company has been selected for assembly, an order has been given to that company and the assembly line has been set up, I imagine it will take 3 years for the first aircraft to be completed. So I don't see IAF receiving AMCA before 2036 at the earliest.

If what DRDO is saying is that development testing should be completed 2033, to be followed by the process of GOI agreeing a price with the company selected to assemble it, GOI ordering it, followed by an assembly line being set up, I would not see IAF receiving AMCA much before 2040.

Whichever of those scenarios applies, pilots will need to be trained, too, and aircraft delivered in sufficient numbers before AMCA can boost the capability of IAF.

Can IAF wait until 2036-2039 to receive a 5G aircraft (2038-2041 to have it in service in meaningful numbers)? If not, It sounds like ordering F-35 (or possibly KF-21) is necessary. Soon. That rules out years of delay in trying to make it in India. Either a straight G2G purchase or nothing - the idea is to get a 5G type into IAF service quickly.

A few points -

As you maybe aware the AMCA program has 2 parts to it - the Mk-1 & the Mk-2 which is supposed to be the definitive 5.5 Gen FA due for production on or after 2040. Whether this actually would be the case in as far as the classification goes , as the ADA claims it'd be, is something time will tell.

I imagine even if the Mk-2 replicated most if not all the capabilities the FOC version of the F-35 is slated to possess , which is due post 2030 , it can justify the classification of a 5.5 Gen.

To conclude our urgent need for a 5th Gen FA is predicated on the upcoming war with China which most people expect to occur around 2030. Whatever we're due to induct must be done immediately which doesn't seem to be happening. The IAF itself , by the looks of it , is of the belief the Rafale & the upgraded Su-30 MKI can take on the J-20 + J-16 combination.

The only problem with this strategy is we don't have enough numbers of the former ( which is the reason we've the MRFA tender . However we've no idea how & when will it proceed as this is supposedly meant to make up for our capabilities gap up until 2035. ) & as of now ~ 80 odd MKIs are due for upgradation / modernisation due to commence in 2026-27.

If one eliminated China from the equation , we can patiently wait for the AMCA to materialize as & when it does as we're comfortably placed to take on Pakistan today & in the future.

There's no other pressing need to go in for a via media arrangement for a 5th Gen FA.

 

[Samej Jangir]

If you enlarge the AMCA design, then the requirement of the max dry thrust for the engine also goes up.

Remember, they have calculated that for the AMCA to supercruise, it needs engines that can generate ~ 220 kN of thrust in afterburner (but the engines will be used without afterburner for supercruise)

That is driving the AMCA Mk2 engine requirements. Now, if the AMCA Mk2 were to be enlarged, the 110 kN afterburning thrust will also need to be significantly enhanced to at least 125-130 kN afterburning thrust.

When designing the AMCA, I am sure the engineers designed the aircraft around the internal bay, and not the other way around. Basically you should design and build around the bay. You may design the aircraft's fuselage first and later go to design the internal bay only to find out that the bay won't be spacious enough or you may run into some other issues.

Right now, we are sure that the AMCA Mk-1 will be able to carry 4 AAM. So no discussion about the internal loadout of Mk-1. We are focusing on Mk-2.

How can a payload of 6 AAM in the Mk-2 come into the picture from the former Mk-1's 4 AAM loadout?
1. We make a miniaturised version of the Astra which will have nearly the same range as the baseline one. I am advocating something in the lines of what was done with the Brahmos NG. What is Brahmos NG? NG stands for next generation and Brahmos NG is a scaled down version of baseline brahmos but while it's scaled down, it will still have the same speed and range as baseline brahmos.
Read this excerpt from an article (I will provide link)
"The BrahMos-NG (Next Generation) will be a scaled-down variant of the current BrahMos missile. Compared to the present BrahMos, it is anticipated to be 50% lighter, three meters smaller, and have the same 290-kilometer range and Mach 3.5 speed."

India's 'Next-Gen' BrahMos Cruise Missile, Developed With Russia, To Begin State Trials By 2025

In what could come as a significant boost to India’s next-generation cruise missile capability, flight testing of BrahMos-NG Indo-Russian cruise missile is expected to start before the end of 2025. BrahMos Export Director Pravin Pathak revealed this at the ongoing World Defense Show, which ends...

www.eurasiantimes.com

So I don't see why we cannot do the same with the Astra BVRAAM. We can make an Astra NG, basically a miniaturised version of the baseline Astra which will be smaller, lighter but will have the same speed and range as the original Astra.
2. We make the Bays more bigger in width, depth and length (overall size). I think the size of bay may become so large that the Airframe may have to undergo a size change. I think the basic design may be retained but the size will be increased. I mean a bigger Airframe can obviously field a larger bay. Basically what I think the AMCA MK-2 will be is basically it will have the same design as mk-1 albeit a bit larger. I can give you an example.

McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. This may help us to determine what the AMCA MK-2 will look like.

Super Hornet: It's basically an evolution of the original F/A-18 produced by the US for its military and allies to which it has been exported.
View attachment 257908

View attachment 257909
The SH brought upon several improvements and basically it's better than the baseline Hornet in every way that you can think of. Endurance, payload capacity, avionics, range etc. Sometimes bigger is always better.

This is what I think the AMCA Mk-2 will be. We will do with the AMCA MK-2 what the designers of F/A-18 SH did, basically enlarge. So AMCA Mk-2 will look visually identical to Mk-1 but it will be larger to facilitate a larger bay which in turn will facilitate more Weopons, better avionics, range etc. I think size should be increased and not try and pack each and everything in the same airframe, it will be prove to be counter productive.
3. Like originally said by many members here and even by you, we can Astra with foldable fins.
4. We can do all of the above and it will be better to do all of the above.

F18 SH not same as earlier F18. It is a complete redesign. India will not unnecessarily redesign AMCA just arbitrarily. It will take a decade more of time which is a complete waste. There is no reason for the final design to be incorporated from the 1st plane itself. Several internal parts, LRU, sensors etc can be compromised if development is not complete by leaving a palceholder/inferior version as they can be replaced in future. But there will never be any intentional design changes from Mk1 to Mk2. MK1 will be lighter as F414 is powering it while Mk2 will be powered by 110kN engines. But that reduction in MToW can be handled by lowering external payload and carrying only light payload till 110kN engines are made. It is most ridiculous to do an intentional redesign after just 40 units of 1st batch.

Secondly, AMCA is likely designed for air superiority, SEAD & DEAD rather than as multirole plane. The highest risk to any plane comes from enemy airforce & SAMs and that is where 5th gen planes come in handy - they are less visible and hence can take down high threats before they can inflict damage. The ground bombing role does not need 5th gen stealth fighters (I am not counting bombing radars as ground bombing). One should not look at everything in view of USA. USA does not have threats to its own airspace and is an exclusively expeditionary force. AMCA does not need 1ton bombs. 2 500kg bomb + 2 BVRAAM or 4BVRAAM & 2WVRAAM (replacing 500kg bombs with 2 BVR & 2 WVR) is a good enough payload for SEAD, DEAD & air superiority. India also has Brahmos, Ballistic & cruise missiles for quick first strikes to critical targets and all the work need not be done by AMCA alone

 

[BON PLAN]

F18 SH not same as earlier F18. It is a complete redesign.

Not really.
As said previously, F/A18 is a derivative of F5, and SH a derivative of F/A18.
Sure some big improvements were introduce (FBW in F/A18, New air intakes for SH) but aerodynamically speaking there is clearly a strong link between them.

 

[Spitfire9]

That channel is straight up fake news clickbait and low effort to boot. Anything said there can be discounted safely unless backed up another source.

I don't pay much credence to any Indian media sources: 'An anonymous source from this or that says...' etc
I have worked as a freelance journalist for several printed publications. If I had ever falsely ascribed a statement to someone (eg so and so had said X when he had not), I would have immediately been dropped by that publication. Are you saying that idrw (for example) does just that?

 

[karn]

I don't pay much credence to any Indian media sources: 'An anonymous source from this or that says...' etc
I have worked as a freelance journalist for several printed publications. If I had ever falsely ascribed a statement to someone (eg so and so had said X when he had not), I would have immediately been dropped by that publication. Are you saying that idrw (for example) does just that?

IDRW does reposting (of sometimes fake news) and has "My take " articles that are straight up creative writing.

 

[vishnugupt]

DRDO is reported to say that to be realistic AMCA will not be ready for production until 2033.

I'm curious as to what this means. Even if it means that in 2033 a company has been selected for assembly, an order has been given to that company and the assembly line has been set up, I imagine it will take 3 years for the first aircraft to be completed. So I don't see IAF receiving AMCA before 2036 at the earliest.

If what DRDO is saying is that development testing should be completed 2033, to be followed by the process of GOI agreeing a price with the company selected to assemble it, GOI ordering it, followed by an assembly line being set up, I would not see IAF receiving AMCA much before 2040.

Whichever of those scenarios applies, pilots will need to be trained, too, and aircraft delivered in sufficient numbers before AMCA can boost the capability of IAF.

Can IAF wait until 2036-2039 to receive a 5G aircraft (2038-2041 to have it in service in meaningful numbers)? If not, It sounds like ordering F-35 (or possibly KF-21) is necessary. Soon. That rules out years of delay in trying to make it in India. Either a straight G2G purchase or nothing - the idea is to get a 5G type into IAF service quickly.

Don't worry, UN Generals have that plan as well. Each and every opportunity will be used for import.

Time aane do, AMCA ko bhi Chamka denge UN Generals.

I have Zero interest in AMCA. Many of us will be not be alive to see AMCA in Imported AF inventory.

 

[Spitfire9]

I imagine that AMCA is being made to meet an IAF requirement. Part of that requirement is that it gets delivered at a certain time. If it looks like it will not be available to IAF when required, what is IAF supposed to do? Go without a 5G aircraft until AMCA eventually turns up or order something else?

IAF's job is to contribute to the defence of India. GOI's job is to provide IAF with the wherewithal to do its job. If the Indian MIC cannot do that (ironically aided and abetted by the GOI introducing avoidable delays) then it is no surprise if IAF asks for some other country to provide IAF with the wherewithal to do its job.

 

[Smoothbore125mm]

its okay to fill 36 or so 5th gen as a stopgap measure imo cause it neither harms the future amca orders or upset the budget , which would be serving a credible deterance

I imagine that AMCA is being made to meet an IAF requirement. Part of that requirement is that it gets delivered at a certain time. If it looks like it will not be available to IAF when required, what is IAF supposed to do? Go without a 5G aircraft until AMCA eventually turns up or order something else?

IAF's job is to contribute to the defence of India. GOI's job is to provide IAF with the wherewithal to do its job. If the Indian MIC cannot do that (ironically aided and abetted by the GOI introducing avoidable delays) then it is no surprise if IAF asks for some other country to provide IAF with the wherewithal to do its job.

 

[stat231]

its okay to fill 36 or so 5th gen as a stopgap measure imo cause it neither harms the future amca orders or upset the budget , which would be serving a credible deterance

Some Iranians on discord were claiming that Indian along with Iran are looking to domestically manufacture and be part in dev of Su-75 . Dont know how true this is

 

[Smoothbore125mm]

Some Iranians on discord were claiming that Indian along with Iran are looking to domestically manufacture and be part in dev of Su-75 . Dont know how true this is

We may as well be interested in the su 75 cause we lack single engine stealth fighter even in drawing board but thats just an assumption no actual news in present
Other than that capabilities of it would also come under consideration but it may be good if the al 51f came out to be a good engine we could also incorporate amca tech into it

 

[Spitfire9]

its okay to fill 36 or so 5th gen as a stopgap measure imo cause it neither harms the future amca orders or upset the budget , which would be serving a credible deterance

My guesses

Cost of 36 x AMCA = $4 billion
Cost of 36 x KF-21 = $3 billion + all costs for an extra type (say $2 billion)
Cost of 36 x F-35 = $3 billion + all costs for an extra type (say $3 billion)

On those guessed numbers, the AMCA delay could cost $1 billion or more if IAF is forced to buy another type. Add another billion if India wants it modified to Indian requirements.

Yes, a stopgap may be needed but it is money that would have better been spent on AMCA, were it available. Worth remembering, too, that F-35 has sky high CPFH so lifetime cost would be far higher than AMCA.

My guess is that the extra costs incurred by AMCA delay could amount to half or more of the cost of developing a 110kN engine.