sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
Hi Tshering22, from your first post I got the impression that your aim was to team up with Singapore and Israel as partners in the AMCA development and that they will buy them too. If that was the case then they have to take a share of the fundings too, because that is the only way to commit them into orders and good participation into the project. That's why I said that they won't have enough money for such a development, not to mention that Israel will get an ok from the US, which will pressure them to buy F35 of course.
If your aim in only to have them as consultants, as EADS in LCA development for example, it would be a different point of course, but then we can't expect to get the best techs they have, because nobody will give their best, if they can't use it too. Actually only Israel, because Singapore can't really provide much useful techs for such a development either and can't be a consultant.
First of all, Russia has no 2nd 5. gen development running at the moment, MIG even developed a stealth UCAV prototype and the reports from Russia about their future carriers says, the want an airwing mixed with helicopters Mig 29Ks, a 5. gen fighter and UCAV!
Secondly, you missed the important word in that sentence, similar.
F22 and F35 are 2 totally different fighters, with clearly different designs, for different roles and with different aims in the operational terms. The F22 is a twin engine air superiority fighter, designed to be very stealthy, super manouverable, fast, long range radar...aimed to be the top side of the USAF. The F35 instead is a single engine strike and air defense fighter, which was aimed on costeffectiveness and to replace all other older fighters in USAF, USN and USMC.
Compare that with FGFA and AMCA!
Both are 5. gen twin engine fighters with the same capabilities (TVC, SC, long range radar...), the main difference beteen both will be the weight class only. While FGFA is a heavy Flanker class fighter, AMCA would be comparable to EF, or even F18SH hornet class.
AMCA is possibly meant to replace JAGs in the strike role, but there is nothing it could do better than the FGFA, because unlike the F22, FGFA is meant to be a multi role fighter from the begining and will be able to carry A2G weapons too. It's not clear so far how many, or what kind of A2G weapons FGFA could carry, but the fact that it has more space for the internal weapon bays than a medium class fighter, makes it doubtful that AMCA can carry more load than FGFA.
At the end, besides the fact that AMCA could have more indigenous content, only the medium class would mean a clear difference in both projects, the rest would be pretty similar .
Regarding stealth UCAV...
...I know that we have problems with the UAVs, that's why I said that the unmanned control will be difficult enough for us, but when you look at it correctly, you would see that we already have the better base for an 5. gen UCAV, than for a 5. gen fighter!
The 5. gen fighter would be based mainly on LCA development, which sadly is nowhere near to be ready now and still will need year, if not a decade till we really can gain from it. Not no mention that these are only 4. gen techs and must be heavily improved to be used in a 5. gen fighter.
On the other hand we have developed UAVs for some years now and have even JV in that field with Israel for example, on unmanned helicopters and DRDO is also developing unmanned vehicles. The unmanned controls in a UCAV won't be that much different, even if it is a stealth UCAV and no avionics, super manouverable designs are needed. The focus in the design is on stealth only, not on flight performance. Same goes for the engine, which don't need to high thrust, SC, or TVC and would be easier to develop than the AMCA engine. In terms of costeffectiveness such an UCAV is unbeatable, because its small, mean needs no cockpit area, no radar, no avionics and so on.
The main influence for both developments would be the know how that we get from FGFA partnership, because we will gain experience with stealth and again, it will be easier to develop a stealth design for a UCAV with that knowledge, than a more complicated fighter design.
With this already available base of experience, JV, or partnerships and the expected timeframe of 10-15 years, I see the chances for an indigenous stealth UCAV, much higher than an indigenous stealth fighter.
If your aim in only to have them as consultants, as EADS in LCA development for example, it would be a different point of course, but then we can't expect to get the best techs they have, because nobody will give their best, if they can't use it too. Actually only Israel, because Singapore can't really provide much useful techs for such a development either and can't be a consultant.
So you think that USA and Russia are nuts having run 2 5th gen programs together with their F-35 AND f-22 and PAKFA and LMFA?
First of all, Russia has no 2nd 5. gen development running at the moment, MIG even developed a stealth UCAV prototype and the reports from Russia about their future carriers says, the want an airwing mixed with helicopters Mig 29Ks, a 5. gen fighter and UCAV!
Secondly, you missed the important word in that sentence, similar.
F22 and F35 are 2 totally different fighters, with clearly different designs, for different roles and with different aims in the operational terms. The F22 is a twin engine air superiority fighter, designed to be very stealthy, super manouverable, fast, long range radar...aimed to be the top side of the USAF. The F35 instead is a single engine strike and air defense fighter, which was aimed on costeffectiveness and to replace all other older fighters in USAF, USN and USMC.
Compare that with FGFA and AMCA!
Both are 5. gen twin engine fighters with the same capabilities (TVC, SC, long range radar...), the main difference beteen both will be the weight class only. While FGFA is a heavy Flanker class fighter, AMCA would be comparable to EF, or even F18SH hornet class.
AMCA is possibly meant to replace JAGs in the strike role, but there is nothing it could do better than the FGFA, because unlike the F22, FGFA is meant to be a multi role fighter from the begining and will be able to carry A2G weapons too. It's not clear so far how many, or what kind of A2G weapons FGFA could carry, but the fact that it has more space for the internal weapon bays than a medium class fighter, makes it doubtful that AMCA can carry more load than FGFA.
At the end, besides the fact that AMCA could have more indigenous content, only the medium class would mean a clear difference in both projects, the rest would be pretty similar .
Regarding stealth UCAV...
...I know that we have problems with the UAVs, that's why I said that the unmanned control will be difficult enough for us, but when you look at it correctly, you would see that we already have the better base for an 5. gen UCAV, than for a 5. gen fighter!
The 5. gen fighter would be based mainly on LCA development, which sadly is nowhere near to be ready now and still will need year, if not a decade till we really can gain from it. Not no mention that these are only 4. gen techs and must be heavily improved to be used in a 5. gen fighter.
On the other hand we have developed UAVs for some years now and have even JV in that field with Israel for example, on unmanned helicopters and DRDO is also developing unmanned vehicles. The unmanned controls in a UCAV won't be that much different, even if it is a stealth UCAV and no avionics, super manouverable designs are needed. The focus in the design is on stealth only, not on flight performance. Same goes for the engine, which don't need to high thrust, SC, or TVC and would be easier to develop than the AMCA engine. In terms of costeffectiveness such an UCAV is unbeatable, because its small, mean needs no cockpit area, no radar, no avionics and so on.
The main influence for both developments would be the know how that we get from FGFA partnership, because we will gain experience with stealth and again, it will be easier to develop a stealth design for a UCAV with that knowledge, than a more complicated fighter design.
With this already available base of experience, JV, or partnerships and the expected timeframe of 10-15 years, I see the chances for an indigenous stealth UCAV, much higher than an indigenous stealth fighter.