The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Milestones Achieved
• At Aero India 2023, it was announced that the Critical Design Review (CDR) of all systems was completed. Link
Design Specifications
• Length: 17.6 meters
• Height: 4.5 meters
• Wingspan: 11.13 meters
• Wing Area: 55 square meters
• Empty Weight:12,000 kg
• Internal Fuel: 6,500 kg
• Maximum Take Off Weight: 25,000 kg
• Maximum Payload Capacity: 6,500 kg
• Engine: AMCA Mk1 will feature a pair of GE F414 turbofans and AMCA Mk2 will feature a pair of indigenous turbofans.
• Hard Points: 14 in non stealth configuration.
Performance Specifications
• Service Ceiling: 65,000 feet
• G Limits: Not Known
• Maximum Speed: Mach 2.15
• Maximum Range: 3,240 km
• Combat Range: 1,620 km
• Ferry Range: 5,324 km
Only worry is the small internal weapons bay, limited weaponry unlike non- stealthy current birds who carry a heavier payload. There are also no underwing bays for WVR missiles shown in the models unlike in some other stealth birds.The twin tails also look extra large and would certainly increase its signature unless canted outwards even more.
Not having arrived as yet BMos- NG, smaller and lighter should be carried by the AMCA internally.Would it fit into the internal bay?
I've always wondered about this: "Light" Combat Aircraft should be followed by Advanced "Medium" Combat Aircraft. Like you should do UKG after LKG.
We've seen the painful, artificial constraints imposed by the "Light" concept in terms of space, payload, range etc. Now we rinse and repeat it for AMCA. The "internal" weapons bay negates some of the advantages of going for a Medium aircraft. Why we would not go straightaway for an F-22 or J20 class is beyond me? Is it just lazy thinking?
I watched the SS weekly feature.Nothing in it gives me total confidence that we've learnt from the LCA torturous experience.There are so many advanced features for stealth aircraft that even the US and Russia, the two leading aircraft nations are still grappling with , with their JSF and FGFA programmes.
Firstly, as was mentioned in the discussion, the timeline is absurd.First flight in 2032 only! Take another 5+ years and production teething issues and 2040 is when it will be in serial production.That is a whole TWO decades when the US, China and Russia would've had operating their stealth birds and well on their way to fielding their successors including UCAVs in larger numbers. Already the advanced nations ard talking of the 6th- gen. tech
for their future combat aircraft.Even Pak will certainly field Chinese stealth fighters within this period as the Chinese will always try and maintain Pak's capability against India.
Secondly, the key component has yet to be mastered by us.The engine.The lack of a capable engine killed the HF-24 and has also cast its shadow over the LCA flying with an underpowered engine in its first avatar. Kaveri meant to power the LCA has been a failure.
The number of assurances that it was almost ready has been heard for two decades ad nauseum and the engine is still unborn This makes us dependent upon a foreign engine manufacturer who must be chosen with utmost care , with no threat of sanctions whatsoever. An alarming point in the discussion was revealed by the Air Marshal, that AMCA's weight had gone up from 22t to 29t. Is history going to repeat itself on the weight issue with AMCA as the tendency to pack in as much bells and whistles in long gestating programmes is rife.
The cut- off point between an effective payload both for strike and air defence and weight has to be established given the selected engine's performance and the design factoring in the dimensions of the weaponry still to be perfected like BMos- NG and Aastra- ER.Is it also being planned to carry Meteor, etc.? Anything underwing defeats stealth. What we've achieved with the LCA programme, and it has been substantial, is composites, fly-by-wire controls, a lot of avionics, some EW systems but IRST, conformal radars and a suitable AESA radar and the earlier mentioned engine remain.The art of aerospace engineering packing the fuselage with the various components in a manner easy to service, remove ( engines) and repair is a Q.Vayu had in the past some stories about the LCA "packaging" requiring much improvement.
Since the LCA Mk-2 is now larger and is being classified as a medium fighter, I've said before that we should aim higher and attempt to make it as stealthy as possible, as our SE stealth fighter before AMCA . The FGFA/ SU- 57 is entering service with the RuAF.We've said we would re- examine its acquisition once it entered service. That is the sensible option for the coming decade along with MKIs Rafales, upgrafed legacy medium fighters and LCAs, including as suggested an advanced LCA Mk-2.
Ultimately it is the payload factor that will determine .the value and relevance of the programme and product.As the former chief of the USN , Adm.Greenert famously said," why by a sports car when a bomb truck can do the business? Larger "flying wing" stealth bombers expected to enter service in the next decade , capable of carrying large loads of ordnance , both manned and unmanned, may change attitudes in air forces worldwide.For the AMCA to succeed and be relevant in the technological advances timeframe, it has to be hugely accelerated to enter service post 2030.
125kn engines, with 3D TVC
29 tons MTOW
4 tons internal fuel
85% composite use in Airframe
Max speed 2.3mach
Sustained super cruise 1.6 Mach
AESA Radar
IRST
8 weapon points ( but pics show 12?)
Last edited by Gyan on 01 Sep 2019 22:15, edited 1 time in total.
The IAF person is debate is clearly dissatisfied with only 4 tons internal fuel but then insists that AMCA should remain medium and not add more weight & go into heavy category.
Why? What's wrong with heavy category? Seems a nice Gentleman but I can imagine what DRDO/ADA is facing. Must have 1000km range, supercruise but make it light. How?
Is the 4t internal fuel figure on any official literature? Seems hard to believe, even the significantly lighter and less powerful Rafale carried 4t+ internally.
4 tons seems very low! They should be aiming for 7 tons minimum. The larger the amount of internal fuel, the better stealth a platform is able to maintain. I hope they fix/grow that if it is true. I thought Indranil had earlier reported a larger amount of fuel in AMCA.
Last edited by Cybaru on 02 Sep 2019 11:43, edited 1 time in total.
There is one disadvantage every light or medium weight stealth aircraft will have to contend with. That is it will have to make do with an internal bay of limited size.
Given what we know today, I think if the designers are keeping only 4 tons of fuel for a 2 engined aircraft, they are setting the programme for failure.
Single engined GE 404-In which is a pretty fuel efficient engine carries 2400kg of Internal fuel, which the IAF feels does not give a long enough radius, yes may be aerodynamically AMCA will be better, Engine technolgy will improve to make the 2 110KN engines fuel efficient, but now way with all this 4000KG- what is 4400 liters of Jet fuel? enough for a 2 engined bird.
You also have to factor in some aerodynamic inefficiency imposed by stealth shaping. At the most range of AMCA with 4 tons internal fuel will be equal to that of Tejas. It should be able to attack rawalpindi, karachi and maybe lhasa.
My estimate
Empty weigth 12T
Internal fuel 6T
Internal payload 1.5T
Clean MTOW 20T(Stealth)
External payload 5T
MTOW 25T
So that it has same range capability to replace Su 30 mki in stealth mode as same fuel fraction.
The above estimate is based on infoboard at a recent exibition where only internal fuel and internal payload was not specified.
The internal payload of 1.5T is estimated as the photographs show estimated 2*500kg JDAMs and 2* 250 kg class AAM and also in many infoboard the internal payload given as 1.5 T.
The internal fuel is estimated as the difference by taking into account 500kg as pilot +cannon aamo+other misc.
IMO this plane is 5-10 years too late & just like LCA, it will turn out to be just as unsuitable for the realities of 2040 as the LCA is turning out to be for today’s realities.
Particularly distressing to me:
1. AMCA was put on hold while people were asked to focus on LCA? Why didn’t they add more capability to work on AMCA in parallel? If they are serious about this, hiring people in India to do this now is 1000 x more cost effective than imports if the project fails or is delayed.
2. First flight in 2030? Can’t they fly prototype #1 in 2025 with the airframe & validate the aerodynamics, landing gear, weapons integration, ejection Seat, Uttam radar & so on - & validate the other trickier tech like stealth coating in the later prototypes?
3. Instead of building this around a vaporware engine, can’t they build this around something proven like the F-414, M-88 or the EJ-200? If GTRE can build something better, then great - otherwise, go with what’s available. Until they can get the thrust up, these engines might not super cruise, but by 2030, the thrust will be up (either in GTRE’s engine or the foreign vendors engine) & hopefully the engine upgrade & certification will be less complicated.
4. This weight issue. I echo the sentiments of folks here who don’t understand why we are restricting ourselves to a medium weight fighter.
It’s almost like nothing was learnt from the LCA experience.
IIRC the first flight is planned for mid 2020's not 2030, using most likely F-414. Of course things are not moving as fast as they can or need to (including during NDA-2), Mk2 was a confirmed thing over 10 years, yet metal cutting is yet to start - we probably could have designed (every BRFites wet dream) AL-31 LCA or a twin jet MCA, or directly jump to a less mature AMCA (which is what the chinese did).
^^Can we please not take discussions on a program panel as gospels and focus on what has been said by person(s) in-charge like the program director or DRDO chief.
1. Dr. Ghosh as latest as on Feb 2019 in an interview to Livefist said the design is at advanced stage and by year-end or next year NGTD will start. First flight in 5-6 years. even NGTD tender was out last year.
2. Probably there are some last moment design changes to incorporate DSI and a DAS like system so it is still being said the design is in advanced stage and not completed.
3. Dr. Ghosh on the same interview said induction will be on 2030 onward.
4. First flight will be with a proven engine.
5. ADA has to fork up big time if an aircraft almost the same dimension as Mig35 and bigger than F35 will carry so much less fuel than them. The 4t fuel is pure BS.
@mods, can you please put this latest interview of Dr. Ghosh at the top please.
khan wrote:IMO this plane is 5-10 years too late & just like LCA, it will turn out to be just as unsuitable for the realities of 2040 as the LCA is turning out to be for today’s realities.
Particularly distressing to me:
1. AMCA was put on hold while people were asked to focus on LCA? Why didn’t they add more capability to work on AMCA in parallel? If they are serious about this, hiring people in India to do this now is 1000 x more cost effective than imports if the project fails or is delayed.
2. First flight in 2030? Can’t they fly prototype #1 in 2025 with the airframe & validate the aerodynamics, landing gear, weapons integration, ejection Seat, Uttam radar & so on - & validate the other trickier tech like stealth coating in the later prototypes?
3. Instead of building this around a vaporware engine, can’t they build this around something proven like the F-414, M-88 or the EJ-200? If GTRE can build something better, then great - otherwise, go with what’s available. Until they can get the thrust up, these engines might not super cruise, but by 2030, the thrust will be up (either in GTRE’s engine or the foreign vendors engine) & hopefully the engine upgrade & certification will be less complicated.
4. This weight issue. I echo the sentiments of folks here who don’t understand why we are restricting ourselves to a medium weight fighter.
It’s almost like nothing was learnt from the LCA experience.
The program might be late as you suggest, but we still got to do what has to be done. I doubt if we can bypass the development of such important programs.
If it is any consolation apart from US almost every other country with decent aerospace industry is late wrt development of stealth aircraft.
khan wrote:Regarding lateness, I am not doing comparison to US, I am doing comparison to China.
When it arrives it arrives. Level of stealth and integration all matter. We are toiling hard to improve that with every iteration due to the multiple programs we run.
Plus now, most programs will get baselined and compared to Rafale, which seems to have pretty decent sensor fusion. So all our programs will benefit from the addition of small number of units of rafales. Whether they are to deal with turn around time on the ground, to sensor fusion and delivery techniques of payload in the sky.
China just fielded 7 of its stealth fighters in the air together.If we want to catch upasap in combat capability for the next decade, we need to buy at least 2 sqds. of SU-57s.The AMCA is still in the womb.
Philip wrote:China just fielded 7 of its stealth fighters in the air together.If we want to catch upasap in combat capability for the next decade, we need to buy at least 2 sqds. of SU-57s.The AMCA is still in the womb.
Absolutely not. This piecemeal approach of acquiring various platforms is neither here nor there and will absolutely eat into out strategic planning while doing us no good. We need to put in the hard work and bend our backs and in the process, if we have to take a step back at a tactical advantage for a decade or so, then so be it.
For people who constantly peddle foreign stuff over desi products, if Indian made stuff cannot be trusted we do you put faith in Indian pilots/soldiers/personnel then? It's time this lot realize we are all in this together and we either sink or swim together.
Agree with both Cy & Jay that getting the AMCA done is a necessary step.
However, even most optimistically, it will not be inducted until 2030 at the earliest.
In 2030 6th generation highly sophisticated stealthy Chinese UCAV’s will be working in tandem with stealth 5th generation birds & the AMCA will be just as effective as the LCA is today (not taking anything away from the LCA, it’s a very fine plane but it is not a game changer).
IAF doesn’t just need to be working on the MCA, they should be playing with UCAV’s they can iteratively improve & work on to learn this new way of warfare. This is the type of thinking it takes to set the standard.
Unfortunately, it seems by freezing the AMCA program, MOD has demonstrated that AMCA isn’t getting the resources it needs (Labor in India at GOI rates - that is to say not exorbitantly priced labor) let alone properly funding any 6th generation program.
If the Arihant program has shown anything m, it is that with good funding, world beating technology can be created in India.
Indranil wrote:No. Internal fuel would be much higher.
ha! didn't even notice Indranil had already responded to the 4 ton right above my objection. Good to see confirmation.
4 tons figure has been around for a long time but if back calculations of figures given on display or using MTOW of 29 tons is done then we get 6-8 tons of internal fuel.
khan wrote:
If the Arihant program has shown anything m, it is that with good funding, world beating technology can be created in India.
Yes, we've seen it with ISRO too. The reason is no one is marketing SSBNs and cryogenic rockets. Fighter aircraft? They are everywhere with glossy brochures and the blonde gori models standing next to them. How can we not hanker after them? Eh, I see the F35 in our future and the AMCA being strangled for funding and "allowed" to be like the LCA as a project on the fringe instead of being the main effort in getting the 5th gen to the IAF.
Philip wrote:China just fielded 7 of its stealth fighters in the air together.If we want to catch upasap in combat capability for the next decade, we need to buy at least 2 sqds. of SU-57s.The AMCA is still in the womb.
Absolutely not. This piecemeal approach of acquiring various platforms is neither here nor there and will absolutely eat into out strategic planning while doing us no good. We need to put in the hard work and bend our backs and in the process, if we have to take a step back at a tactical advantage for a decade or so, then so be it.
What about the unfettered advantage the enemy will have in the war and they by default get to us dictate because "we have to take a step back at a tactical advantage for a decade". Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think so. The Chinese J series will in a very short time overcome whatever its shortcoimgs and will be more powerful then anything we have and this will happen much before the AMCA will even have started doing the initial round of test flying.
It is a given we will have to import a fifth generation bird - It can be F35 or SU57.
Vips wrote:
What about the unfettered advantage the enemy will have in the war and they by default get to us dictate because "we have to take a step back at a tactical advantage for a decade". Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think so. The Chinese J series will in a very short time overcome whatever its shortcoimgs and will be more powerful then anything we have and this will happen much before the AMCA will even have started doing the initial round of test flying.
It is a given we will have to import a fifth generation bird - It can be F35 or SU57.
China does not and will not have unfettered advantage in a war with India at least until 2030. This is the time we dig in, work our butts off to close the gap after 2030 and beyond and if we keep on importing F35s/SU57s this will never happen. Just go back and read what you just said. We are about to import Rafale's in 2020's and you are already advocating for F35s/SU57's before 2030. This is mind-blowingly myopic if we ever want to win wars, not battles. We can afford to take a step back to acheive this. If not, we will always be in the shadows of China after 2030 and will have to depend on US largess to stay off the dragon. Absolutely no F35/SU57 before 2030 or until AMCA materializes.
