Shove MRCA in favor of AMCA

ppgj

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,029
Likes
165
Well, that recent article about FGFA says India may not get hers until as late as 2019. Given Russia's constant delays, it may well be into the 2020s, can India afford to tie up $5 billion to wait that long? Lets not forget the cost spiral US is having with their programme, Russia is bound to experience it too if not worse.
well delays may not be ruled out considering the complexities involved. better to wait on that. but to cancel a programme in lieu of MCA which is not even in design stage is a bit too far fetched. plus it gives indian aviation specialists loads of experience for MCA. PAKFA is a reality in tech demo stage while MCA is not even in design stage. 5 or more billion dollar, india can afford in current circumstances.

I'm really worried that come 2017, India is going to be looking at a stalled project with Russia demanding billions more to develop it. It could be the "Gorshkov" of the aviation industry.
gorshkov controversy has been made bigger than it deserves. india's ex chief is on record that it is worth the monies being spent. he infact challenged people to get a similar AC with the revised cost from any one. he offered a blank cheque!! :wink:

At least with MCA, India would have control. Control is a nice thing to have, really nice.
agree but the issue is it is still not out of the box. right now indians are busy operationalising LCA 1 now and LCA2 later. MCA is only after that.

I'm not going to argue anymore about the figure, but I still believe it.
no problem.

Russia doesn't care about India contributing except for cash money. They are trying as hard as they can to keep HAL out of all the critical components. The recent article gave a couple examples of how much disdain Russia has for India's R&D coming straight out of the mouth of their officials.
atleast russia cares more than anybody else. considering they have india as their biggest market, it only serves their interest.

as for the critical components, india is still behind. will only gain with this programme.

While you are busy saying how unrealistic it is, you could be spending monies set aside for FGFA on your own R&D base. Most of the $5 billion is going to develop Russia, not India.
that is exactly why this programme is a joint venture. post its success, india will be in a good position to be an aerospace power.

I'm not going to say you will not be in a better position, but you have to look at the dates and the money spent for your own R&D prospects. 24,000 crore would go a long way to developing your own testing facilities, you could build better than Russia several times over again with that kind of capital infusion. If Russia gets delayed or faces cost overuns, scrapping it for an advanced MCA schedule would be the wiser choice. I know India likes to say money isn't a problem, but it really doesn't grow on trees. 24,000 crore is alot of money to anyone.
mere capital infusion in india is not going to help because it is still behind in critical areas like radars, engines.

while capital won't be an issue considering india's present growth, it is the experience in such projects which is going to help india to set up a base for r&d for the future. hence PAKFA cancellation for MCA is not even worth a thought from an indian pov.
 

body5in

New Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
3
Likes
0
well even if the MCA is developed by 2020..it will take us 7 more years to get them in required numbers..moreover its a question of reliability so the mmrca is supposed to provide the qualitative edge.:viannen_10:
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,322
Likes
11,624
Country flag
and why would the IAF not be satisfied with the LCA? Just recently the MoD has said the program is going very well now.
 

mehrotraprince

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
184
Likes
274
Country flag
MCA not possible before LCA Mark II gets operational and Kaveri Mark II engine pass the required tests. I don't see it before 2020.
Major challenge for us is development of Engine and then Radar.
 

gogbot

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
937
Likes
119
MCA not possible before LCA Mark II gets operational and Kaveri Mark II engine pass the required tests. I don't see it before 2020.
Major challenge for us is development of Engine and then Radar.
Well i was hoping for a pre-2020 , test for the MCA .

And also the KVAeri mk-II wont be enough.

The KAveri-NG still on the drawing board is needed.

Before that the Kaveri Mk-II needs extensive use on the LCA and may be other platforms .

Let alone radar, materials , avionics etc .
 

neo29

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
1,284
Likes
30
We already have problems with LCA. It took us a long time to design it and we have engines, aesa radar, refuelling probe issues. Dont know how long these issues will take to get sorted. There is still time for IOC. When we have not successfully flown a 4.5th gen fighter except on paper it is not wise to take such a huge step to MCA.
 

Crusader53

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
772
Likes
36
Well, that recent article about FGFA says India may not get hers until as late as 2019. Given Russia's constant delays, it may well be into the 2020s, can India afford to tie up $5 billion to wait that long? Lets not forget the cost spiral US is having with their programme, Russia is bound to experience it too if not worse. I'm really worried that come 2017, India is going to be looking at a stalled project with Russia demanding billions more to develop it. It could be the "Gorshkov" of the aviation industry. At least with MCA, India would have control. Control is a nice thing to have, really nice.

My guess is India will not get the FGFA before 2020 at the earliest. What India could do is cancel the PAK-FA. Then instead partner with the winner of the MMRCA (Super Hornet?) and develop the MCA. As a matter of fact Boeing has proposed the F/A-XX (6th Generation Fighter) as a replacement for the Super Hornet. India could join that effort and have more more of a say in its Design, Development, and Production.



I'm not going to argue anymore about the figure, but I still believe it.

Understandable........



Russia doesn't care about India contributing except for cash money. They are trying as hard as they can to keep HAL out of all the critical components. The recent article gave a couple examples of how much disdain Russia has for India's R&D coming straight out of the mouth of their officials.


Clearly, Russia is not interested in really jointly developing the PAK-FA with India. It just wanted the extra money to fund the Project.



While you are busy saying how unrealistic it is, you could be spending monies set aside for FGFA on your own R&D base. Most of the $5 billion is going to develop Russia, not India.



Very true..............


I'm not going to say you will not be in a better position, but you have to look at the dates and the money spent for your own R&D prospects. 24,000 crore would go a long way to developing your own testing facilities, you could build better than Russia several times over again with that kind of capital infusion. If Russia gets delayed or faces cost overuns, scrapping it for an advanced MCA schedule would be the wiser choice. I know India likes to say money isn't a problem, but it really doesn't grow on trees. 24,000 crore is alot of money to anyone.
India has to think more wisely with it resources. As it has many projects to fund..............
 

icecoolben

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
472
Likes
4
One of the reasons mmrca rfp was postponed till 2006 was that, India was still in talks with Russia for a 5th generation light weight fighter like f-35. Since that has fallen through, India on its part is to concentrate on avionics of fgfa which can be employed in amca without any re-design bar software. Whether we like it or not, amca induction in 2025 itself is too good. Mmrca by now is inevitable, if finances don't come into play.
 

charlie

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
1,051
Likes
845
Country flag
this seems to be a pointless discussion because even the design has not been finalized they are just testing a design and the HAL is still working with the Indian air force to know what their actual needs are i not even sure that by 2013 they will even complete the design, it takes at-lest 10 to 15 years to develop an aircraft and developing a 5th generation one will take more time as US and Russia took long time to build the 5th generation aircraft and the way India manges it project it will take longer then them, so if there is no ban on technology and if India keeps on track on the project then we can get the aircraft prototype by 2020
 

sandeepdg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
2,333
Likes
226
Why are we discussing about a project that has still not taken off even in design (MCA) against those that we are supposed to get in a short while (MMRCA and LCA Mark-2) ?? Plus these projects are need of the hour as compared to the 5th genr. MCA !!
 

ace009

Freakin' Fighter fan
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
1,662
Likes
519
As I mentioned in my post elsewhere, I belive we should change the AMCA program to a potential 6th Gen combat aircraft while getting into the F-36 program for our strike fighter need. The MMRCA is needed for the short term and that should go ahead as it is. Here are the points ...
1. India does not have a tactical bomber, far less a strategic bomber. The strategic command has recently asked for two squadrons of strategic strike fighters for this purpose. We can get into the F-35 program for this alone.
2. Since India does not have any dedicated tactical bombers, it is time we develop a program especially for that. Now, the "bomb truck" commentators will question why we need any tactical bombers at all? Can't missiles do the same job? Well, the answer is yes and no. Missiles are effective for a single target (or for multi-target warheads, "blind" multiple targets, which as of yet, India has none). a strike fighter or a tactical bomber can take out multiple targets especially "differentiate" between friend and foe during a ground assault. Also, a missile is expensive for many purposes (taking out a machine gun nest, an infantry dugout etc). A strike fighter or a tactical bomber using a "dumb bomb" is way cheaper, provided the aircraft returns unharmed. Which is why India needs an advanced strike fighter with stealth features (like the AMCA in the plans).
3. Ground attack aircraft are the "real" attack aircraft. Air-defense / air superiority is important, but is not enough to win the war on the ground. And as we have seen in the last 25-30 years, that's what matters in the end. A multi-role aircraft can only deliver so much punch - after all it is primarily a "air-defense" aircraft, with limited attack capabilities. India does not have any aircraft like this except for the old Jaguars and to some extent the Mig 27, all of which are nearing the end of their service life and should definitely be phased out by 2020.
4. With modern radar and electronic detection technology, any combat aircraft operating in enemy territory (e.g. ground attack aircraft) will need a certain degree of "stealth" to avoid detection and counter attack from SAM or air-defense fighters. None of current Indian aircraft have such features. And I doubt the top-of-the-line expensive as hell, air-superiority fighter FGFA, albeit "stealthy", when inducted will be used for deep strike purposes in enemy territory.

So, in my HO, India needs a tactical strike fighter, which is designed specifically for ground attack, but has enough "fighter" capabilities to defend itself in a pinch. India is already planning the AMCA for this role, however, the development plans are too long. We can easily get the F-35 to fill that role.

As for the MMRCA, I do agree it is a more immediate need for the IAF. So, let's go ahead and buy that now and ensure delivery by 2014. The F-35 should be bought in place of the AMCA as a "strike fighter". The AMCA should be pushed back to a 6th generation combat aircraft, i.e. an unmanned multi-role fighter aircraft with advanced stealth features.
 

roma

NRI in Europe
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
3,577
Likes
2,489
Country flag
Simply because its not coming up anytime around the deadline you mentioned.
And we cannot afford to wait for decades.
Sir although i heartily agree with you in favour of MRCA - isnt it also a fact the even the MRCA itself is also taking a rather foot-dragging heck-of-a-load of time to get done ?
 

Vladimir79

Professional
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
1,404
Likes
68
As I mentioned in my post elsewhere, I belive we should change the AMCA program to a potential 6th Gen combat aircraft while getting into the F-36 program for our strike fighter need. The MMRCA is needed for the short term and that should go ahead as it is.
Who is to say there will even be a 6th gen fighter? Experts today say air wars will be unmanned by that time and the days of piloted fighters are numbered. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

1. India does not have a tactical bomber, far less a strategic bomber. The strategic command has recently asked for two squadrons of strategic strike fighters for this purpose. We can get into the F-35 program for this alone.
F-35 is not a strategic anything. It is only a tactical strike fighter.

2. Since India does not have any dedicated tactical bombers, it is time we develop a program especially for that. Now, the "bomb truck" commentators will question why we need any tactical bombers at all? Can't missiles do the same job? Well, the answer is yes and no. Missiles are effective for a single target (or for multi-target warheads, "blind" multiple targets, which as of yet, India has none). a strike fighter or a tactical bomber can take out multiple targets especially "differentiate" between friend and foe during a ground assault. Also, a missile is expensive for many purposes (taking out a machine gun nest, an infantry dugout etc). A strike fighter or a tactical bomber using a "dumb bomb" is way cheaper, provided the aircraft returns unharmed. Which is why India needs an advanced strike fighter with stealth features (like the AMCA in the plans).
The MMRCA will be the tactical bomber. MKI can fill that roll with the weapons for PAK FA. Guided bombs are nothing but dumb bombs with a kit.

3. Ground attack aircraft are the "real" attack aircraft. Air-defense / air superiority is important, but is not enough to win the war on the ground. And as we have seen in the last 25-30 years, that's what matters in the end. A multi-role aircraft can only deliver so much punch - after all it is primarily a "air-defense" aircraft, with limited attack capabilities. India does not have any aircraft like this except for the old Jaguars and to some extent the Mig 27, all of which are nearing the end of their service life and should definitely be phased out by 2020.
The term you are looking for is CAS, Close Air Support. That role is covered by attack helicopters and Jags. It will be covered in the future by UCAVs, LCH, and precision munitions from MMRCA.

4. With modern radar and electronic detection technology, any combat aircraft operating in enemy territory (e.g. ground attack aircraft) will need a certain degree of "stealth" to avoid detection and counter attack from SAM or air-defense fighters. None of current Indian aircraft have such features. And I doubt the top-of-the-line expensive as hell, air-superiority fighter FGFA, albeit "stealthy", when inducted will be used for deep strike purposes in enemy territory.
They don't need high levels of stealth, they need stand-off weapons. That comes with MMRCA.

So, in my HO, India needs a tactical strike fighter, which is designed specifically for ground attack, but has enough "fighter" capabilities to defend itself in a pinch. India is already planning the AMCA for this role, however, the development plans are too long. We can easily get the F-35 to fill that role.
The F-35 with an internal loadout can't carry enough munitions for the flight to be worth it in a CAS role. Once it loads up external pylons it becomes as visible as an F-16. If it is getting that visible on the front lines it will end up in dogfights where it can be dominated rather easily. Its primary role is dropping JDAMs on high priority targets in high threat environments, not buzzing over troops dropping dumb bombs.
 

ashdoc

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
2,875
Likes
3,371
Country flag
shelving MRCA in favour of AMCA is putting all eggs in DRDO's casket.

and who is going to trust DRDO ?
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,123
Likes
40,578
I for one, SAYs GO FOR AMCA..

We all know few things :

1. AMCA is already on drawing board

2. Critical Components like Radar, engine, electronics, Hud, MFDs, ECM, are all available and already chosen..

3. The wind tests of the Air-craft are done..


What our Gov needs to do:

1. Pump money on defense labs within country which will automatically speed up the projet,

2. Invite or get foreign advisers in our project ( Russians, Isrealis, freanch etc.. )

3. Get all necessary deals on time.


AMCA can have many variants like for immediate use:

1. It can have same radar as LCA..
2. Uprated new engines for LCA can be used for AMCA..
3. Israeli Sufa avionics for Aircraft..
4. Hud from Thales..
5. ECM can be of Indian origin also Israeli already in use..


Besides we are still evaluating on MMRCA, lolzz
Manufacturing and operational in Indian color is a still a dream..
The process could be much faster compare to MMRCAs..


But Again, this is my theory!:happy_7:
 

plugwater

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Messages
4,149
Likes
1,067
AMCA is scheduled to make its first flight in 2020 and induction in 2025. Pushing more money into projects may not result in faster development of new technologies. We need both MMRCA and AMCA.
 

icecoolben

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
472
Likes
4
what was our immediate aircraft for MRCA Mirage-2000 which had a 1500 kg engine delivering 64/95 kn of thrust with payload of 6-7 tons on 9 Hard points with range 3000 km. Now where are we Tejas Mk-2 1100 kg F414 engine delivering 63/98 kn thrust with larger engine so every chance to increase hard points from 8 to 10 atleast, and payload from 4500 kg to 6500 kg atleast with 3000 km ferry for mk1. Here u have it MMRCA and Tejas-2 in a nut shell are no differrent.
Indians are just so generous that we maintain an external debt of $ 230 billion and reserves at $ 270 billion, while we let IAF and GOI go on global shopping west to east for $ 12.5 billion MMRCA, $ 4-5.8 billion c-17 and $ 30 billion for FGFA.
Who the hell cares "All is well"
:emot100:
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top