Talk:HAL AMCA

MCA Photos

Chanakya, where did you get all those photos of MCA ? I also visit ADA's site sometimes, but I never saw those. The first image that is posted looks very similar to JSF in Front-view. The earliest MCA imagaes and one of the images you posted does not have a vertical tail-fin, I would suggest you post one of those in the place next to the introduction. Thanks.IAF

those pictures were actually linked by drdo or ada i donot remember ,final design is yet to be selected ,but old design of tail less mca has been dropped Ajaymk2

I feel it would be a nice idea to include the original speculative drawing of the MCA as well (the Tailless design), since this would give a good idea of the project's direction. Sniperz11 17:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

MCA future role in the IAF

link: http://indianaerospace.wordpress.com/2007/08/25/meduim-combat-aircraft/

--samar60 (talk) 1:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There's really not any new info there, it appears to be a blog, and it's over a year old. Not really usuable per WP policies on blogs. - BillCJ (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

MCA to be developed

The Air Force has asked ADA to develop the Aircraft to replace the Mirage-2000 and Jaguars in service.[1] This will complement the Su-30 MKI's and MRCA's. By 2020, the IAF fighters are going to be FGFA, MCA, Su-30 MKI, MRCA and LCA.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This latest source suggest that PAK-FA and MCA will be developed. MCA and Pak-FA are two different projects. India will develop PAK-FA with Russia and will develop the MCA indigenously.[2] One in the heavier class comparable to the F-22 (PAK-FA) and the other (MCA) in the Medium category like the F-35.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This still doesn't explain why the sections you deleted were no longer relevant. From a cursory glance, they provided context. And, the wording in your change doesn't really make sense as far as dates. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, this article needs some serious rework. The MCA concept originally started out as a larger, medium-weight development of the small, lightweight LCA. The MCA program in this effort languished and was never approved to go forward, so it has been re-envisioned as a 5th-generation development program. The article currently ignores the former and addresses only the latter. Also, I wouldn't hurry to conclude that the MCA and FGFA will go forward in parallel as separate programs (although HAL might very much like it to). It's extremely expensive to carry on two such 5th-Gen programs simultaneously. I would not be at all surprised to see the PAK-FA be Russia's and the MCA India's designs accomplished under FGFA. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Askari Mark, both are different. The MCA can be called as a advanced stealth variant of the LCA utilizing many technologies developed for the LCA. From the point of cost, India cannot afford to replace a large number of the fleet with the FGFA. The FGFA is the Indian Version of Russian PAK-FA. The MCA is developed to provide the numbers. MCA is called 5th gen because it is a stealth aircraft. From the cost point it's similar to the development of F-22 and F-35.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is this article needs some rework with updated info and more realistic review of the aircraft with the motive it was created, and looking at the current situation, plausibilities should be listed as probables and direct quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AkshayGenius (talk • contribs) 21:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Comparable Aircraft

Should the MCA have planes like the F-22, ATD-X, PAK-FA, J-XX and MANTA as comparable? The article states that the MCA is a strike aircraft. Strike aircraft are like the first variant of the Tornado, JH-7, and the stealth strike fighter currently is the F-35, though it's more multirole than only strike. Should the comparable aircraft list be changed to only F-35? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.50.156 (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe comparing the MCA to F-35 would be appropriate, since they are both stealth multirole fighters.TheCorruptedOne (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

JF-17 Comparable aircraft?

User:The Bushranger has actively and consistently thwarted attempts to remove JF-17 Fighter Aircraft, a 3.5 Generation aircraft from the list of comparable fighters. His argument was that "generation is not relevant" when it is clearly mentioned that "era" is a factor for consideration. The other considerations are "role" and "configuration". An effort to draw the similarities in configuration of JF-17 and AMCA is nothing short of preposterous. That exercise would be colossal waste of precious time. The only similarity between the two fighters is the fact that both are multirole combat aircrafts. Now since User: The Bushranger is relying on that as the sole consideration to include JF-17 in the list, I wonder what is stopping other editors from including JF-17 in the list of comparable aircrafts in the Chengdu J-20 article or better still in the JSF or PAK-FA articles. Could the good editor kindly explain the rationale behind his insistence on keeping JF-17 here ? Devasuran (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Era" =/= "Generation" - both third- and fourth- (and, depending on how you define it, fifth-) generation jet fighters are all being constructed at the same time. "Generations" has geen generally agreed by the Aircraft WikiProject as not being desirable for comparing, or grouping, jet fighters (since in a lot of cases lately the dividing lines are open to debate - there have been edit-wars over fighter generations!). My case for keeping JF-17 in the "comparable" category was based on the following: both are multi-role fighters that I had assumed were similar in size - however now that I look it up, the AMCA is rather larger. Given that, it is likely that it should be removed now, I realise - but it should be based on differences in size, not the nebulous "generations", and the F-35 should be removed as well. The presence of the F-35 - a smaller, single-engined aircraft - also weighed on my opinion that the JF-17 should be kept; however, it should be only mid-weight, twin-engined fighters there, so I've changed it accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification and the removal of JF-17 from the list. Interestingly, JF-17 does not feature in the list of comparable aircrafts in the F-35 article.Devasuran (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Range Of MCA

Hi, i am confused about the range. The article states the range to be around 3000 km which seems improbable considering that the Su-30 MKI has a range of 3500 km (acc. to WKP). The Google Knol link shows the range to be a more reasonable 1000 km. If there is no dispute, I will edit this. Mycrofth (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

First flight by 2018

http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/Advanced-Medium-Combat-Aircraft-by-2018/2014/01/07/article1987224.ece

please make the necessary changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.169.69 (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

References

I am contributing on the HAL AMCA article since last two months since when the article was at 15,600 bytes. I have succeeded at contributing around 50,000 bytes and adding around 80 references, but I am consuared about two reference one at overview and second at the cockpit section, both reference are from Defence forume India, I am familiar with the Wikipedia policy of reference. I am trying to find replacement for the two reference, till then I ask other contributer and editor to find replacement for the two reference and please try to keep the reference and not to delete it till a suitable replacement is found. 1.39.46.14 (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I am the same person from the above comment and I want to know how place candidacy for the good article, AMCA has already have come near to the good article parameters and I Intedend to endorse the HAL AMCA article for the good article review. 1.39.3.36 (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I am the same person from the above two comment and I am asking other contributer to please find as many as many references you can find about the south Koreans and omans interest in the amca I have found one reference and that is from the tribune and it looks like a very reliable source according to the Wikipedia policy about the referencing and I am also trying to find more reference about it. 1.39.45.187 (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please note that a large proportion of the references now used in this article appear to be blogs or other Self-published sources - as such most of these will not pass Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. The article really needs to be trimmed down to what can be supported by proper sources - i.e all the stuff that isn't sourced to reliable sources should be removed.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

hello, I am Nicky, please stop adding more info without strong 3rd party or official government confirmation citations. most of your claims have no citations. please make a user account and edit Wikipedia, we need to have a detail discussion about this page. again please stop adding back those claims me or other editors removed because of the lack of citations, you cannot add s.Korea and oman in operators, we don't any official confirmation from both gvt about procurement of amca and s.korea already have a 5th gen fighter in design just like india and also a solid plan to buy f35. IN WIKIPEDIA YOU CANNOT ADD ORGINAL RESEARCH, YOU NEED SOLID CITATIONS FOR EVERYTHING. again please consider making a user account before editing amca page again.please reply back to me by writing below or on my talk page. Nicky mathew (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of the claims are speculation and a lot of the article is trivia I dont think the expansion has actually added much of encyclopedic note. That said I agree with Nicky mathew that it needs to be better sourced. MilborneOne (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Confusing article

The article is particularly confusing as it mixes the original AMCA concept design project choices with the design that came out of that project. It is particularly difficult to make sense of, an is not helped by lots of trivia and outdated sources. A lot of the wording needs to be changed as it is still a proposed design and not a real aircraft yet (it still needs to be ordered by the government). Any suggestions how we can sort this out, is any of the recent edits actually salvagable or needed? MilborneOne (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: HI milborneone, one particular person or a group of persons are editing this page with anonymous ips which changes every 6 to 8 hours (normal I guess for shared ips) for last one month or so. I think all or most of those edits are either to promote amca project or HAL. eg- in engine section no mention about General Electric F414 improved variant which is what DRDO prefers now not Kaveri engine variant k9 (maybe for mark 2 or 3 amca but not for this current version ) .this news was widely reported in Indian media because prime minister of India and president of U.S personal to some extent is interested in the joint development of the variant engine of f414.so I believe this person or group of person might have some sort of conflict of interest or affiliated to some related entity hence left out many new decision or changes and added many which may not be true. Nicky mathew (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It may be that we need to consider going back to the stable version before the IP editing, it certainly has lots of duplication, trivia and woffle as well as the unreferenced stuff you have raised. MilborneOne (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

yes that's a solution but that will be like going back 1 or 2 months but this person or group will still edit this page if left unprotected or unchecked. yes I agree with going to a stable version idea :). Nicky mathew (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Nicky Melborneone and nigish remember me I am the same person from rerence section and good to find that even after many months article is more or same it was in April well good to find that out of many rerence I searched are according to the wikipedia guidelines and Melbourneone I am the same person not different person's or group as you suspected to be and sometimes I had doubts so I changed my own edits but most of my edits starting from January 2015 were more or less accurate well formed according to Wikipedia guidelines expect few references which were sometimes from blogs but I am still trying to find more rerence for radar, self healing and airframe section, but I don't understand why you changed Indian airforce destination of the SEPECAT Jaguars, MIG-27 and Mirage 2000.

1.39.46.77 (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed demerger

Hello I am the same person from the reference section and I propose a potential demerger between Hal amca and Amca programme as in the start part of development section it crates confusion, I purpose that a potential de merger between the above two parts will help to reduce confusion, as the previous design section should kept as it helps to understand the development of the programme but in different article of Amca programme totally separate from Hal Amca which would indeed help to reduce confusion between the article and help to grow in proper direction for both proposed different article, I would like your opinion on this proposed demarge guys.

1.39.10.180 (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Are they not the same thing? MilborneOne (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so Hal Amca is part of Amca programme which just not includes the aircraft but also includes many other aspects like engine radar avonics previous design were not just developed step by step but also at same time competing with each other so the previous design are not same but different design computing each other for the finalized design.

1.39.10.180 (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Amca programme is comprable to JSF and ATF programme which included two prototypes similar to current Amca plan and Amca Technology Demonstrator will have major difference over production aircraft. Amca programme evolved out of MCA programme which initially started to developed 4.5 generation aircraft later evolved to 5 generation and after some time evolved into Amca programme.

1.39.10.180 (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

There is little to no authentic information on how these programs begun and how decisions evolved. All the TD's and the production still are part of the AMCA effort. JSF and ATF programs are different because the programs are titles given by the USAF and a lot of information is publicly available on the decision making process for these projects. This cannot be extrapolated to the AMCA which is happening in heavy secrecy. standardengineer (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: Amca programme and Hal Amca are the same. i never seen any news report or government document which says otherwise. even if its true we do not have any trusted source to rely on. provide reference and then we can consider a demerger.Nicky mathew (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

First flights

Hello I am the same person from the reference section of amca talk page First flights section in the info box recently had been effected by edit war as the user Aryan Indian tried to put entry date around 2030 that looks like uncronstive, he is trying do editing in good faith any helping Amca article but need guidance and look like he is not fimilar with the wikipedia rule. It's better to leave the flight reference out of info box, but should be in other part of article with reference as it helps to understand programme development as Bilcat has already mentioned.

1.39.10.42 (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on HAL AMCA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131211051101/http://www.defencenews.in/defence-news-internal.asp?get=new&id=378 to http://www.defencenews.in/defence-news-internal.asp?get=new&id=378
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://idrw.org/archives/57853
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402115744/http://www.livefistdefence.com/2010/01/indias-medium-combat-aircraft.html?m=1 to http://www.livefistdefence.com/2010/01/indias-medium-combat-aircraft.html?m=1
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://drdo.res.in:8080/alpha/drdo/tenders/viewTender.jsp?paramMicro=8284
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402123646/http://idrw.org/archives/57593 to http://idrw.org/archives/57593
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150316201819/http://www.brahmand.com/news/DRDO-in-talks-with-foreign-cos-for-advanced-fighter-jet-engine/13535/1/10.html to http://www.brahmand.com/news/DRDO-in-talks-with-foreign-cos-for-advanced-fighter-jet-engine/13535/1/10.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117015002/http://www.livefistdefence.com/2015/01/spotted-new-model-of-indias-5th-gen.html?m=1 to http://www.livefistdefence.com/2015/01/spotted-new-model-of-indias-5th-gen.html?m=1
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://defenceradar.com/2014/05/24/amca-the-indian-5th-generation-of-fighter/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151218004700/http://frontierindia.net/kaveri-engine-gathers-momentum/ to http://frontierindia.net/kaveri-engine-gathers-momentum
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://m.thehindu.com/news/national/development-of-indigenous-amca-on-track/article6913681.ece/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://idrw.org/archives/58103
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150223110836/http://idrw.org/archives/58156 to http://idrw.org/archives/58156

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HAL AMCA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402112155/http://www.livefistdefence.com/2015/02/official-amca-video-out-at-aeroindia.html?m=1 to http://www.livefistdefence.com/2015/02/official-amca-video-out-at-aeroindia.html?m=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Details of Cockpit

@Gazoth: I'd like to know the reason for reverting this edit. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel, the material was copy-pasted from nal.res.in. —Gazoth (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

And it is not really noteworthy for inclusion even if it was reliably sourced. MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

First Flight Year

Is this reference viable for adding the first flight of AMCA in the infobox as 2025 metioned in the given article:- https://eurasiantimes.com/tejas-mark-ii-to-replace-mirage-2000s-with-capability-to-deep-strike-into-enemy-territory/ Electrofying (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

About internal weapons bay.

Does anyone have information about its Internal weapons bay? Is this a fighter similar to South Korean KAI KF-X fighter which airframe is stealther than other 4th generation fighters but does not carry weapons in internal bay like 5th generation fighters. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Aircraft has internal weapons bay but external hardpoints too are available optionally if needed when stealth isn't important. In case of Korean KAI KF-X, hardpoints are necessary in combat configuration which increases the radar signature. So AMCA is more similar to J-31 or F-35 in capabilities and function. KF-X is more of a stealthier counterpart of HAL TEDBF. Info about weapons bay is already within the aircraft article anyway. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Hal-AMCA.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No impediment to re-proposing should evidence that "Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft" is the common name be included in the proposal. (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

---

HAL AMCA → Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft – Per common name Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I will suggest to keep it as it is. Many know it as amca not Advanced medium combat aircraft. So it will more convenient in HAL AMCA rather than suggestions. I ame Shears (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - "AMCA" is shorter, and there's no proof cited for the longer name being more common. Also, the manufacturer name is included in aircraft article titles per WP:NCAIRCRAFT. Note that this is primarily an aircraft article, not an aircraft program article, and uses aircraft type infoboxes and aircraft specs. BilCat (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• AMCA render by Satwik Sadhukhan.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

service ceiling

unrealistic values for multirole aircraft. Mailmax2018 (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is not a reliable source. The value comes from the source listed at the top of the template. If you have a reliable source which contradicts the existing one, please provide it. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Development concerns

@RXFire1: Please state that why you want[3] this to be added here? Does it really need to be overstated with a separate section when the majority of the information that the articles discuss is already in the top paragraph? Let's begin with this. Echo1Charlie (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me inform you that I've gone through the articles. So you can skip quoting paragraphs, mention only reasons. It will be more helpful for us. Echo1Charlie (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe such information should be left out of the paragraph because it is not the scope of this article to mention whether the Indian military industrial complex is mature enough to develop stealth air-combat technology and what should the Indian military do in its future. @Echo1Charlie >>> Extorc.talk 14:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The information is exactly relevant - in regards to India's challenges and difficulties developing the AMCA. And in regards to India's security challenges as a result of a in decline combat aircraft & squadron strength. You can't just delete information YOU don't like the sources are all reliable and published by experts.

Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source. WP:TRUTH

WP:SOURCE - Both authors are professional experts. Far more knowledgeable about the subject matter than either of you.
Shantanu Roy-Chaudhury "has an MPhil. from the University of Oxford, St. Antony’s College, specialising in the International Relations of South Asia. He has previously written for The Diplomat, South Asia Monitor, The Oxford University Politics Blog, and International Affairs Review amongst others. He is currently an Associate at the Albright Stonebridge Group based in New Delhi." Shantanu Roy-Chaudhury

Rahul Bhatia "was a research analyst with the Security Studies Program at Carnegie India. His research focuses on India’s borders and India’s foreign and defense policies. He is currently working on a project that looks at India’s military modernization with a focus on indigenization. He also has a keen interest in the changing geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific. Rahul holds a master’s degree in security policy studies from the Elliott School for International Affairs at the George Washington University, Washington DC." Rahul Bhatia

WP:REPUTABLE - "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors,"

WP:BIASED - "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

I'm going to revert the article, if you want an edit war be my guest but the administrators will most likely be on my side. RXFire1 (talk)

Let's begin with your arguments. 1. Why is it biased and deliberately misleading? According to Rahul - " it (India) lacks the depth of research and design expertise required to build a successful stealth fighter. " - What design expertise did S.Korea have? Turkey have? Yet they came up with flying prototypes, right? Isn't that argument sound flawed? If we count Hurjet and FA-50, look India have designed Tejas, HJT-36, HTT-40 (flying), AMCA, TEDBF, Tejas MK2 (underdevelopment). So how can a policy expert come such conclusion? So this source [4] is clearly biased. Shantanu Roy-Chaudhury in his article here [5] observes that "Feasibility of the AMCA project, however, has been questioned as India does not have a robust industrial defence base." - India's premier aerospace company Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is building aircraft since decades. Prominent examples are Sukhoi Su-30MKI, Dornier 228, HAL Tejas etc. Almost 80 percent of the fleet of the defence forces is either supplied by HAL or serviced and supported by HAL. In all, the company has manufactured over 4,100 aircraft and over 5,000 engines while overhauling 11,000 aircraft and 33,000 engines across its 20 production divisions and 11 research and design centres spread across the country, see here .[6] In addition, Indian private sector aviation firms such as Tata Advanced Systems are producing fuselage to wings for lwading Aviation manufacturers like Boeing defence, Airbus etc. "Currently, Airbus’ procurement of components and services from India stands at about $750 million every year, which will rise to $1.5 billion in the next few years"[7][8] Aircraft maker Boeing plans to double sourcing from India from the current value of $1 billion a year to $2 billion from over 200 suppliers, according to Darren Hulst, vice-president and global head of marketing, Boeing Commercial Airplanes.[9] In addition, TASL delivered 250th made-in-India AH-64 Apache fuselages,[10] and are preparing to built 40 EADS CASA C-295s [11] How is this possible if India doesn't have robust industrial base? So it's pretty much clear both of their observations are flawed, definitely NOT WP:TRUTH but biased and intentionally misleading

2. Reliability of both of these sources [12] and [13] are questionable as well. Shantanu Roy-Chaudhury in his article here [14] notes that "India does not have a robust industrial defence base." The exact same sentence can be see in the article written by Rahul Bhatia 2 years later [15] , see 4th paragraph. I have seen that you mentioned WP:REPUTABLE here. But let me remind you that, Carnegie India, you're trying to project as a reputable source doesn't even bothered to check close paraphrasing and Salut already removed the said article from their website, let alone, they didn't even do a fact check!

3. "Both authors are professional experts. Far more knowledgeable about the subject matter than either of you." - Author Shantanu Roy-Chaudhury as you have noted is specialising in the International Relations of South Asia [16] and Rahul Bhatia, again as you noted is focuses on India’s borders and India’s foreign and defense policies [17]. So my question is how reliable is policy experts observation on technical capabilities, design expertise of a country that has been making aircraft since 1960s, if we exclude all aircraft manufturing within the country with ToT, which predates even 60s?'

Also I've a request to you. Please don't revert it back unless we reach a consensus.Echo1Charlie (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Response

"What design expertise did S.Korea have? Turkey have? Yet they came up with flying prototypes, right? Isn't that argument sound flawed?" Because they are US allies or part of NATO, the South Koreans were assisted by Lockheed Martin on both the FA-50 & the forthcoming KF-21. A lot of the subsystems on the TFX Kaan are of foreign origin, Turkish systems might be developed later, and the engine for the prototype is an American F110. Additionally, both South Korea and Turkey have had access to Western technology and industry. BAE Systems & TAI signed a £100 deal in 2017 to develop the TFX. - BAE Systems signs contract with Turkey for TF-X programme

The entire Salut website has gone down not just that particular article. However, that article & the one on Carnegie doesn't make their content any less credible. The authors are also of Indian descent and are nuanced offering solutions/proposals.

The Tejas took 30yrs to develop and get operational, it's first flight was in 2001 - It only gained Initial Operational Capability in 2015 and Full Operational Capability in 2019. Apart from the Tejas and the Marut, which was a failure/did not achieve it's intended role, India has only produced two fighter/combat aircraft domestically. Most of India's combat aircraft were either foreign imported or licensed built in India. China for example has produced the J-7 - a version of the MiG-21, J-8, JH-7, Q-5 & J-10.

The HTT-40 is a basic trainer with an American engine and as of yet still hasn't entered production/service, also your point is? other countries have built similar trainers. The HJT-36 has been "in development" since the early 2000s and still hasn't entered service. - Long Road Ahead For HAL’s HJT-36 Sitara Intermediate Jet Trainer The Dornier 228 is a 40 yr old German design & the Su-30MKI is a Russian aircraft they are license produced in India, with raw materials & components imported from Russia - I don't get what these have to do with designing, developing and fielding a 5th gen aircraft. I commend the Indian government for moving away from HAL in the production of the C-295s by Tata, but I don't see how C-295s - a transport aircraft, Indian companies being involved in the manufacturing of commercial airline aircraft subsystems/components and combat helicopter fuselages has to do with the manufacture of a complex 5th gen fighter aircraft. Also India doesn't manufacture it's OWN complete commercial aircraft, even a regional turboprop/fan aircraft.

HAL's issues

HAL has severe problems and issues in regards to inefficiency, production, safety and quality control.

Safety On The Backburner: Why HAL’s Faltering Will Not Stop
"HAL’s issues are of great significance to the robustness of India’s military-industrial complex and the country’s reputation regarding defence exports. According to sources, HAL’s poor safety and reliability record led to a horrible accident in Ecuador, where the company exported the ALH. HAL’s poor spare support damaged the reputation of the domestic industry and negatively impacted the country’s name, contributing to the lack of exports."

"The Rafale procurement process was also affected by the PSU’s poor reputation. Dassault Aviation hesitated to enter into a deal with HAL during the process due to the company’s quality control issues. This clearly highlighted the lack of confidence in HAL’s production capabilities."

Chief of Air Staff (CAS), Air Chief Marshal Vivek Ram Chaudhari, reinforced this view in a recent interview, where he hinted at some scepticism over HAL’s ability to deliver critical indigenous aircraft projects on time......

"Industry analysts have sounded the alarm over HAL’s production facilities, warning that they are falling behind those of similar scale on a global level. Even facilities established mere decades ago in India by foreign companies are outpacing those of the Navratna PSU."

HAL’s Procurement Delays & Reputation Come Under Scrutiny In Both Domestic & Export Markets
"Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is facing mounting criticism from both domestic and export markets over procurement delays and safety issues. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence has expressed concern over the delayed supply of 40 LCA Tejas jets, which could potentially threaten India’s defence preparedness. The committee has recommended that the government consider purchasing over-the-counter state-of-the-art fifth-generation fighter aircraft to avoid losing time."

"In addition to procurement delays, HAL’s safety record and organisational inefficiencies have been called into question, with two HAL helicopters crashing in 11 days. Malaysia recently scrapped the LCA Tejas in favour of Korea Aerospace Industries’ (KAI) FA-50 Golden Eagle for its Fighter Lead-In Trainer-Light Combat Aircraft (FLIT-LCA) program. KAI secured a lucrative contract worth US$920m to supply 18 aircraft, citing the FA-50’s established brand name and proven capabilities."

"HAL’s reputation has been seen as contributing to the loss of the Malaysian contract, as the company’s safety and reliability record has been criticised in the domestic market. HAL’s poor spare support has also damaged the reputation of the domestic industry, hindering India’s export capabilities. The need to address these issues is crucial to ensure India’s military-industrial complex’s continued success and reputation, particularly as HAL’s poor reputation has affected the Rafale procurement process."

Even the production of licensed built aircraft such as the SU-30MKI & BAE Hawk are far more expensive built by HAL than the original manufacturer.
(Linked blocked/blacklisted by Wikipedia, type in Google - HAL’s Sukhoi 55 Per Cent More Expensive Than Russia’s: Defence Ministry Audit Nails PSU’s Incompetence - swarajyamag.com)
"Taking the example of the Russian fighter Su-30 MKI, the report stated that while the Sukhoi made by the Russian company, JSC Sukhoi Company, cost 269.77 crores, the HAL version was priced at Rs 417.69 crore. The Sukhoi manufactured by HAL is thus almost 55 per cent more expensive than the one manufactured in Russia. “The aircraft produced at HAL comes at a significantly higher cost when compared to direct purchase from the OEM,” the document added. The review also found massive cost differences between Hawk trainers made by the British and those made by HAL. While the ones made by HAL cost Rs 88 crore, the ones made in the UK came in at Rs 78 crore. The report states that inefficiencies and exorbitant man-hour costs were behind the rise."

HAL’s jets costlier than foreign ones, says defence ministry audit
"After long and torturous negotiations, India bought British made Hawk jets to train pilots in 2004. Of the initial 62 Hawk jets, 24 were to be bought in a fly-away condition and the remaining were to be manufactured under licence by HAL. Each Hawk aircraft manufactured Britain in 2004 cost Rs 78 Crore. Those manufactured at HAL would have cost Rs 88 crore that year. The cost Hawk aircraft produced by HAL continued to increase. In 2010, the cost shot-up to Rs 98 crore and in 2016, Rs 153 crore. The difference in price “is primarily due to lesser efficiency and exorbitant man hour rates,” the review has found."'

'"Interestingly, the purchase of 126 Medium Multi-Role Rafale fighters from French Defence manufacturing giant Dassault that was negotiated by the previous government (108 would have been assembled in India by HAL) was scrapped because of high man hour cost at the Indian state-owned company. HAL would have needed 2.7 times more man-hours than the French company for each aircraft."

Recurring Accidents and Reliability Concerns: A Report Card on Army's Advanced Light Helicopters
"The recent crash of an indigenously developed Dhruv Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) variant in Arunachal Pradesh, in which five Indian Army (IA) personnel died, raises serious reliability issues concerning the rotary wing platforms, which have recurringly been involved in accidents since their induction into service 2002 onwards."

"However, not included in this tally of accidents are the four of seven ALHs that crashed soon after HAL exported them to the Ecuador Air Force (EAF) in 2008-09 for $42.5 million. These crashes led to Ecuador eventually terminating its ALH contract with HAL in October 2015 – in a major setback to what was then the first-ever major export of an indigenous military platform. At the time Ecuadorian defence minister Fernando Cordero had told reporters in the capital Quito, that two of these four crashes were due to “mechanical failure”, and that the remaining three Dhruvs had subsequently been grounded by the EAF."

"The first Dhruv had crashed in Ecuador soon after its delivery to the EAF in 2009 whilst making a low pass at a military parade in Quito. The second accident occurred in February 2014, killing three of four people on board. These were followed by two back-to-back crashes within a fortnight of each other in early January 2015, which ultimately prompted the EAF against continuing to operate the ALHs. The termination of the ALH buy by the EAF was, without doubt, a serious stumbling block for HAL in a field where flight safety remains the primary concern, and where stiff competition from established Western helicopter manufacturers in the US and Europe, endured."

Quality issues with HAL products
"One of the contributory factors to the poor quality of output by HAL especially on aircraft engines is the rush to meet with production targets towards the end of the financial year. In one particular year, HAL overhauled four engines of the MiG-29 aircraft in the first six months of the financial year. However, in the last three months of the same financial year, under pressure to meet with deadlines,

"Even with the fourth generation Su-30 MKI programme, HAL has been found to be wanting in respect of quality of manufacture and maintenance. Apart from the inordinate delay in the delivery schedule of the Su 30 MKI ordered with HAL, the fleet has been plagued by serious technical problems. The IAF has lost a number of Su 30 MKI aircraft on account of technical failure. Most recently, the two pilots flying a Su 30 MKI while approaching the runway to land suddenly found themselves catapulted out of the cockpit with neither of them having operated the ejection system. The quality of product support provided by HAL is more than evident by the fact that the overall fleet serviceability of the Su 30 MKI hovers around 55 per cent as opposed to the minimum stipulated of 70 per cent to meet with operational tasks."

"Over the years, the IAF has lost 50 per cent of its MiG fleet and nearly 200 fighter pilots. A majority of the accidents have been caused by flaws in the manufacturing or deficiencies in the overhauling process. HAL of course has been reluctant to face quality issues squarely and has usually been in the denial mode. It is not without reason the Dassault Aviation of France was unwilling to stand guarantee for the quality of product and delivery schedule if the company was compelled to join hands with HAL to produce the Rafale combat jet in India. This proved to be the nemesis for the tender for 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft after lingering for eight years."

"For years, HAL has been under the scanner not only for poor quality of product but also for delayed projects, non-adherence to delivery schedules, missing deadlines and huge cost overruns. Even after the 32 years that it took for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas Mk I to be granted Initial Operational Clearance, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India has come out with a scathing report on the serious deficiencies in the platform. As to when the LCA Tejas Mk II will see the light of day, cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty. Similar uncertainty continues to haunt the other programmes related to aircraft required urgently by the Indian armed forces namely the HTT-40 basic turboprop trainer, the IJT Sitara, the LUH and the Light Combat Helicopter. ....In the recent years, the credibility of HAL has been eroded considerably"

The Need To Be Realistic "Based on their track records and their proclivity for over-projection, there can be little doubt that DRDO and HAL leadership will be forced to push back timelines and seek performance concessions due to technology shortfalls during the course of the AMCA project. As stated earlier, DRDO/HAL officials are likely aware of the pitfalls but are driven more by the need to procure funding from the government to safeguard the future of their organizations rather than the need to make the nation stronger in the immediate context."

Private sector issues

One of the major problems is that India hasn't FULLY cultivated private players like Tata etc. in defence aircraft production. HAL doesn't want to lose it's monopoly over Defence production/procurement.
HAL Dodgy On Privatisation - "The private sector is expected to bring scalability and accountability advantages. Yet, it stands at bay. Whispers in the corridors underscore the open secret: HAL does not want the private sector to significantly penetrate defence production. They are likely to be more competitive and hurt it in the long run. Thus, issues that have claimed precious lives are treated only as industrial problems that HAL can overcome with proper levels of investment. In simpler words– more funds for the domestic giant."

There was a decision taken in 2020 to have the private sector involved in a public-private partnership. However, this intended partnership hasn't come into realization.
(Link Blocked by Wikipedia, type in Google - India's AMCA 5th Gen Fighter: Stalled by SPV Concerns - idrw.org)
"India's dream of a domestically-built fifth generation fighter jet, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), remains grounded, despite four years of discussions with major Private aerospace companies. The Special Purpose Vehicle model, envisioned as a public-private partnership to drive the program, seems to be facing significant roadblocks."

"The SPV model was designed to leverage private sector expertise and efficiency while maintaing government oversight. It proposed a majority stake for private companies, entrusting them with not only airframe, avionics and accessory development but also jet assembly, after-sale support and even export marketing rights. This ambitious plan, however, has met with resistance."

"India's private aerospace sector, despite showing initial interest, seems hesitant to take the lead. Many companies site their lack of experience managing fighter jet assembly lines as a primary concern. Others, particularly those involved in the 114-fighter Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) tender, prefer to wait and gain experience with 4.5 gen jets before committing to the AMCA. American and French giants like Boeing and Dassault, along with Swedish SAAB, have expressed interest in partnering with India. However, their participation appears contingent on their success in the MRFA tender. This suggests a potential lack of independent commitment to the AMCA program.

Problems India has developing a 5th gen aircraft

A 5th generation fighter aircraft will require a quantum leap in capability from where is India now to develop, produce and induct into service.
India’s AMCA Not A 5th-Gen Fighter Aircraft; Lacks 3 Defining Features To Be In The Same League As F-35, J-20
"More significant than the rather difficult-to-swallow DRDO/HAL projected timeline is that the AMCA projected to be inducted by 2035 will not be a 5th-generation fighter. It will be a 4.5 gen fighter."

"AMCA Mk-1 will lack at least three defining 5th-generation fighter engines. Supercruise, Supermaneuverability, Sensor fusion. Additionally, AMCA Mk-1 will feature limited stealth. AMCA is inspired by the F-35, which has no rear aspect radio frequency and stealth but does feature a suppressed IR signature. The AMCA will feature no rear aspect stealth – neither RF nor IR. Using the 98 kN GE F414 engine instead of a 110 kN engine as planned when designing AMCA rules out supercruise; lacking thrust vectoring rules out supermaneuverability, and; large exhaust nozzles without IR suppression rule out rear-aspect stealth."

"DRDO is 'still grappling with developing capable RF, IR, and Optical sensors.' Sensor fusion will follow sensor development. It will be long before it can field Stage 3 and Stage 4 situational awareness. The CAS was likely recommending foreign collaboration for developing sensors and sensor fusion when advising prudence in November 2022."

INDIGENOUS FIFTH-GEN COMBAT AIRCRAFT
"As the AMCA is envisaged to be a fifth-generation platform, its design, development and manufacture will involve a quantum jump in technology and industrial capability, way beyond what is required for the LCA Tejas Mk II. Manufacture of the AMCA will require expertise in handling not only aerospace grade alloys with aluminium, steel, titanium, but more importantly, composites. In fact, the entire external surface will have to be manufactured using carbon fibre composites. The platform will require an engine that will be capable of delivering much higher thrust than any of the engines on the different versions of the LCA Tejas or the Su-30 MKI. The power plant will need to have capability of thrust vectoring and will have to be integrated with the airframe in a manner so as not to compromise the stealth characteristics of the platform. The AMCA will require the latest and most advanced radar, a complete range of modern avionics and potent weapon systems including in the nuclear regime as also the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile."

"Given the capabilities envisaged for the new platform, it is clearly beyond the capability that the Indian aerospace industry can boast of at present. While the move to break away from the confines of the public sector and involve the budding Indian aerospace industry in the private sector for the AMCA project, is indeed a progressive one and laudable, it is highly unlikely that the private sector will be able fill the huge gap in technology and capability in relation to the AMCA project that currently afflicts the Indian aerospace industry in the public sector. It goes without saying that for the AMCA project to be successful, a collaboration with a reputed original equipment manufacturer is an inescapable necessity. Without this, the AMCA may remain a distant dream for the IAF with the Indian aerospace industry engaged in a fruitless pursuit."

RXFire1 (talk) 12:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Detailed Response to RXFire1

1. " Because they are US allies or part of NATO, the South Koreans were assisted by Lockheed Martin on both the FA-50 & the forthcoming KF-21. A lot of the subsystems on the TFX Kaan are of foreign origin," - How does that even contribute to design expertise? 'How can you come to the conclusion that being a US and NATO partner would give one country "design expertise"?' Or having access to western technology give a country "design expertise"? Or using subsystem if foreign origin gives a country "design expertise"? ' If that's your excuse, let me inform you that India is in partnership with Sukhoi for decades on the development of Su-30MKI, JV in Su-57 etc. You're simply beating around getting Bush.!'

2. "However, that article & the one on Carnegie doesn't make their content any less credible." - 'it doesn't change the fact that this particular article of Carnegie has more serious problems like close paraphrasing, failure in fact checking etc., apart from the flawed opinion made by a Policy expert Rahul Bhatia; who apparently doesn't have qualifications to analyse technical technological capabilities of a country. Because he's a policy expert like Chaudhari, who are specialised in international relations as stated in their bio'

3. '"The authors are also of Indian descent" - is that an argument?? Can't Indians be biased?!'

4. "The Tejas took 30yrs to develop and get operational, ..." - because of multiple reasons like - US sanctions - the supplier of engine of Tejas, technological complexities like developing - a jet engine etc. Also it's remarkable that India achieved some important self reliance goals on its own - like developing a digital FBW flight control system which now completed 10,000 accident free sorties[18], Radar - Uttam AESA etc. 'First step is always the tough ste for any countries. Also it's note worthy that Dassault Rafale and Typhoon indeed took some 30 years to develop.'

5. "Apart from the Tejas and the Marut, which was a failure/did not achieve it's intended role, India has only produced two fighter/combat aircraft domestically" - 'neither Tejas nor Marut was a failure. IAF had procure some 147 Marut, and they performed exceptionally well during the India Pakistan war of 1971 [19]. And IAF is already ordered 123 Tejas [20] and are in a process of acquiring 97 more [21] IAF will eventually acquire 324 Tejas in all variants [22] Is it really a failure?!'

6. "Most of India's combat aircraft were either foreign imported or licensed built in India. China for example has produced the J-7 - a version of the MiG-21, J-8, JH-7, Q-5 & J-10." - China simply copied with the help of reverse engineering. F-7 (MiG-21), J10 (Lavi), J11 (Su-27), J15 (Su-33), J-16 (Su-30) etc., 'Unlike China, India developed fighter on its own, rathervthan reverse engineering.' This gave India enough design expertise to design HAL Tejas, HAL TEDBF, HAL Tejas MkII, HAL AMCA etc.,

7. "The HTT-40 is a basic trainer with an American engine.." - So what? It is "designed by India" , like Saab designed gripes with American engine, Koreans designed their FA-50 with American engine, Turkeye with their Hurjet, KAAN etc. 'Using another countries engine has nothing to do with design expertise, even China is using Russia engines for decades,So do Sweden, now Turkey and Korea.'

8. "Why HTT-40 and HJT -36 is not in service?" - 'IAF has ordered 70 HTT-40 in 2023' [23] HJT-36 is delayed due to improper engine choice [24]

9. "The Dornier 228 is a 40 yr old German design & the Su-30MKI is a Russian aircraft they are license produced in India," - 'Yes, concurrently for many years by now. Its enough to challenge both Policy experts' opinion that "India does not have robust industrial base to support mass production of aircraft". That's why I earlier said, Policy experts' opinions on technical, technological capabilities of a country shouldn't be taken seriously.' You also stated that "The Dornier 228 is a 40 yr old German design" - so what? Leading aerospace companies like General Atomics and RUAG are planning to restart its production[25]

Response to HAL's Issues

10. "HAL has severe problems and issues in regards to inefficiency, production, safety and quality control." - 'the company (HAL) has manufactured over 4,100 aircraft and over 5,000 engines while overhauling 11,000 aircraft and 33,000 engines across its 20 production divisions and 11 research and design centres spread across the country.' [26] - 'How could this be even possible if problem of HAL are as serious as you highlighted??'

11. "Recurring accidents.." - you're pointing to Helicopter crash, it has nothing to do here as HAL's Helicopter designing, manufacturing etc are carried out by a different wing. And about accidents, it should be noted that "'“Out of 16 accidents, 12 occurred due to human error and environmental factors and the remaining four occurred due to technical reasons,"' [27]

12. " One of the contributory factors to the poor quality of output by HAL especially on aircraft engine..." - in the succeeding sentence he wrote that "under pressure to meet with deadlines, the Indian aerospace major completed overhaul of four engines. Compression of time by 50 per cent would have undoubtedly had deleterious effect on the quality of work output." -would have does not means does have, the author is simply assuming.'

Response to Private sector issues

13. " One of the major problems is that India hasn't FULLY cultivated private players like Tata etc. in defence aircraft production." - 'By 2024, TATA has produced 250th airframe of AH-64E, intended for US Army, Indian Air Force (and export market)[28]. TATA will produce 40[29] recent order for 15 [30] C-295s for Indian Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard. TATA is also engaged in other aerospace activities like produce wings for latest F-16 Block 70 [31] which is also a contender for India's MRFA deal for 114 fighters.'

Reply to Problems India has developing a 5th generation fighter

14. "More significant than the rather difficult-to-swallow DRDO/HAL projected timeline is that the AMCA projected to be inducted by 2035 will not be a 5th-generation fighter. It will be a 4.5 gen fighter." - Opinion. India in fact states that AMCA a will be a 5th generation fighter with sixth generation technologies [32] [33]

15. "AMCA Mk-1 will lack at least three defining 5th-generation fighter - engines, supercruise, Supermaneuverability" - 'AMCA is yet to take off from the design board, and this author is already guessing it lack 5th generation features like engines, supercruise, Supermaneuverability'

16. " DRDO is still grappling with developing capable RF, IR, and Optical sensors" - 'DRDO already have developed advanced sensors for aerospace applications like Uttam AESA. A full list of DRDO's RF sensors can be found here' [34]. DRDO already developed IR as well as electro optical sensors as well [35]

17. "Manufacture of the AMCA will require expertise in handling not only aerospace grade alloys with aluminium, steel, titanium, but more importantly, composites." - India already have that technology. In fact 'India is already using carbon fibre composite in the manufacturing of Tejas.[36] "The composite materials constitute 45% of the airframe by weight and 90% by surface area".'Prasad, N. Eswara; Wanhill, R. J. H (11 November 2016). Aerospace Materials and Material Technologies. Springer Singapore. pp. 335–336. ISBN 9789811021343.

18. "In fact, the entire external surface will have to be manufactured using carbon fibre composites" - India already did that on Tejas, so we can expect it on all fighters that will follow Tejas, viz, Tejas MK1A, Tejas MK2, TEDBF, AMCA etc.

19. "The 'platform will require an engine that will be capable of delivering much higher thrust' than any of the engines on the different versions of the LCA Tejas or the Su-30 MKI." - 'India's current plan is to use F414 on AMCA MK1, later on they'll be replaced with a much powerful engine developed in-house or via JV' [37]

20. "The power plant will need to have capability of thrust vectoring and will have to be integrated with the airframe in a manner so as not to compromise the stealth characteristics of the platform. " - Only F-22 have that, ' neither F-35, nor Su-57, Su-75, J-20, J31 or KAAN have engines integrated with the airframe in a manner so as not to compromise the stealth. Aren't they 5th generation fighters? Is it really a problem India has in developing a 5th generation fighter?

21. " The AMCA will require the latest and most advanced radar, a complete range of modern avionics and potent weapon systems including in the nuclear regime as also the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile.

Given the capabilities envisaged for the new platform, it is clearly beyond the capability that the Indian aerospace industry" - ' India already has already developed AESA radar [38] latest digital fly by wire FCS [39] and is already developing IRST sensors for future applications [40] a working model of the said system is already made, can be seen here ' [ https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTmImPW6loMBP2B-9xWD10BHAMgDGf1i2iZBw&usqp=CAU]

'So India's problems (in developing a 5th generation fighter) you're trying to project are simply not problems at all' Echo1Charlie (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Diversion

@RXFire1: @Echo1Charlie: - I would like to present another angle on this issue. Even if what RXFire is saying is true, If we concede on that just for the purpose of exploring what im saying, still according to WP:FUTURE, this article is in no position to comment on whether HAL can come up with a 5th gen fighter. Moreover comments on what IAF should do instead of working on this project is ridiculous to say the least because that would be a violation of WP:NOTOPINION.
I dont think RXFire's argument for addition of the material into this page holds any merit. >>> Extorc.talk 10:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Response - Turkey/South Korea

"How does that even contribute to design expertise? 'How can you come to the conclusion that being a US and NATO partner would give one country "design expertise"?' Or having access to western technology give a country "design expertise"? Or using subsystem if foreign origin gives a country "design expertise"? ' If that's your excuse, let me inform you that India is in partnership with Sukhoi for decades on the development of Su-30MKI, JV in Su-57 etc. You're simply beating around getting Bush.!'"

That's the point - Bhatia states "While India has been developing some stealth-related technologies, it lacks the depth of research and design expertise required to build a successful stealth fighter." Turkey & South Korean also don't have the design expertise to build stealth fighters by 'themselves'. Both Turkey & SK built the F-16 under license and aircraft components for American companies including components on the F-35. Additionally they also got expertise and assistance from Lockheed Martin and in the case of Turkey, BAE Systems. Lockheed Martin also assisted SK on the T-50/FA-50 program which has been an export success.

Turkey is part of NATO & South Korea is designated as a 'Major non-NATO ally - Major non-NATO ally#Benefits.
"Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) status is a designation under U.S. law [1] that provides foreign partners with certain benefits in the areas of defense trade and security cooperation." "Eligible for loans of material, supplies, or equipment for cooperative research, development, testing, or evaluation purposes."

SU-57/FGFA

"Or using subsystem if foreign origin gives a country "design expertise"? ' If that's your excuse, let me inform you that India is in partnership with Sukhoi for decades on the development of Su-30MKI, JV in Su-57 etc. You're simply beating around getting Bush.!'"

During the Cold war, the Soviets built very competitive and state of the art aircraft and weapons systems that could rival NATO. However, Russia is not the Soviet Union. India was taken for a ride spending a lot of money on the FGFA project only to have to be not meeting the IAF's requirements. The Su-57 also doesn't live up to it's hype - Why The SU57 'Felon' Sucks

To avoid Sukhoi 'mistake', India to go for Russian 5th-generation fighter only on complete-tech transfer pact
"Defence ministry sources say this decision has been taken at the "highest levels" in order to "not repeat the mistakes" of the entire Sukhoi-30MKI jet acquisition programme from Russia, which cost India Rs 55,717 crore without any tangible help in developing indigenous fighter-manufacturing capabilities."

"Though bulk of the 272 Sukhois (240 inducted till now) contracted from Russia have been made by Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL), they have been basically assembled here with imported knocked-down kits. HAL still cannot manufacture the Sukhois on its own," said a source. A HAL-made Sukhoi (around Rs 450 crore) also costs Rs 100 crore more than the price of the same jet imported from Russia."

"But IAF has been unhappy with the Russian FGFA called Sukhoi T-50 or PAK-FA because the jet lacks proper stealth and its engine does not have "enough thrust", which are among 43 critical modifications or shortcomings it pointed out earlier."'

India Pulls out of Joint Stealth Fighter Project With Russia
"Another point of contention has been the IAFs insistence on obtaining the capability to upgrade the new fighter jet without Russian support in the future. This would have required Russia to share so-called source codes, sensitive computer codes used to control the aircraft’s various systems (“the key to an aircraft’s electronic brains”) with India. Moscow repeatedly rejected sharing this sensitive data with New Delhi. Russia allegedly eventually agreed to share the computer codes but only if India would up its financial contribution to the joint program to $7 billion, which, however, was rejected by the latter"

India, Russia 5th Generation Fighter Jet Deal is ‘Lost’ "A senior Indian Air Force official revealed last week that Russia is demanding “an unaffordable price for the aircraft,” Defense News reported on May 24. According to the official, Moscow is allegedly demanding $7 billion from India as part of its share in the development of the fifth generation fighter jet, given that a work-sharing agreement currently under negotiation includes the transfer of sensitive Russian defense technology."

“India is not in a position to pay this kind of money, and the aircraft project appears to be lost,” the official said. India has been driving a hard bargain and the Indian Air Force official’s comment are likely intended to strengthen New Delhi’s bargaining position vis-à-vis Russia. Indian officials in May announced that the deal would not include tech transfers. “We are co-developers. There is nothing called technology transfer in this project,“ a government official said."

India Shelves FGFA Project – Where to Now?
"The IAF opted to walk away from the project due to lingering differences over developmental costs, technology capabilities, and other points of contention – particularly what it feels is a lack of sufficient stealth for a fifth-generation aircraft."

"Though a collaborative preliminary design contract worth $295 million was signed between India and Russia in December 2010 (with the design work wrapped up in June 2013), the two sides thereafter remained at loggerheads over issues such as cost; technology sharing; access to the Russian T-50 PAK FA prototype; and concerns over the engine type, weapons carriage system, and other technical detail concerns. The IAF, unimpressed with the PAK FA prototype, demanded that roughly 50 different improvements be made to the model, including a 360-degree radar and more powerful engines. Yet the Russian side stated that the plane met its needs."

''By February 2017, Russian officials were stating that the FGFA would be a “completely new aircraft” not linked to the Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA program, but merely an aircraft that would build upon some of technologies within the latter platform."

India/HAL only had 15% workshare while it was supposed to provide half of the development costs.
"While the IAF grew increasingly disenchanted with the project, so too did state aerospace giant Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. The Indian participant in the industrial side of the project, which was partnering with Russia’s Sukhoi, HAL, felt it was not slated to receive sufficient work share (reportedly just 15 percent) in an estimated $25 billion program for which India was expected to foot half the bill."

"Later, in March 2017, Indian officials announced that their side would only join in on the project if India were provided a full-scale technology transfer – including the aircraft’s valuable stealth capability. The Indian default position stemmed from the legacy Sukhoi Su-30MKI program, where, through India’s industrial end of the purchase, HAL received Sukhoi kits for assembly but failed to glean the know-how to manufacture the model on its own."

'"India thus sought the source codes for use in future upgrades that would include integration of its own weaponry, plus the added knock-on effect from FGFA work that would aid in the development of its own Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) project. For its part, Russia remained noncommittal about the Indian demands."

Sources

2.&3. "However, that article & the one on Carnegie doesn't make their content any less credible." - it doesn't change the fact that this particular article of Carnegie has more serious problems like close paraphrasing, failure in fact checking etc., apart from the flawed opinion made by a Policy expert Rahul Bhatia; who apparently doesn't have qualifications to analyse technical technological capabilities of a country. Because he's a policy expert like Chaudhari, who are specialised in international relations as stated in their bio' '

Bhatia is far more qualified than are a lot of the Indian nationalists online. He works for think tanks - previously for Carnegie, currently for Eurasia Group. He gets paid/it's his job to conduct research & analysis - you realise he may have consulted/interviewed technical experts for more qualified than he is about India's capabilities.

'"The authors are also of Indian descent" - is that an argument?? Can't Indians be biased?!
Most of Indian nationalist media and Indian online commentators regarding military issues are biased feeding delusions of grandeur.

Both Bhatia & Roy-Chaudhury are not putting India down - they state India's challenges, problems with the DRDO & HAL and offer their solutions. Bhatia advocates focusing on the Tejas Mk2 as squadron & combat aircraft will continue to decline as a result of the retirement of older aircraft like the MiG-29, Jaguar & the Mirage 2000. With the AMCA continuing on a more realistic time frame. While Roy-Chaudhury advocates India joining a multi-national fighter program of which would benefit the AMCA project.

Development of Tejas & Marut

4. "The Tejas took 30yrs to develop and get operational, ..." - because of multiple reasons like - US sanctions - the supplier of engine of Tejas, technological complexities like developing - a jet engine etc. Also it's remarkable that India achieved some important self reliance goals on its own - like developing a digital FBW flight control system which now completed 10,000 accident free sorties[18], Radar - Uttam AESA etc. 'First step is always the tough ste for any countries. Also it's note worthy that Dassault Rafale and Typhoon indeed took some 30 years to develop.

"The Tejas took 30yrs to develop and get operational, ..." - because of multiple reasons like - US sanctions - the supplier of engine of Tejas, technological complexities like developing - a jet engine etc."
India in 1990s operated mostly Soviet/Russia & French combat why didn't India use Soviet/Russian or French engines, Russia & France did not put sanctions on India.

"like developing a digital FBW flight control system which now completed 10,000 accident free sorties" - Tell that to the dozens of Indian pilots who have died flying the MiG-21 - the aircraft it was meant to replace in the late 90s/early 2000s. If you look at South Korea, 40 years ago they had a non-existent aircraft industry. They first built F-16s under license and later initiated a jet trainer/light attack aircraft(T-50/FA-50) in cooperation/assistance with Lockheed Martin, later developing domestic components and subsystems. It's the same thing the South Koreans are doing with the KF-21. India could have utilized ex-Soviet engineers in the 90s to help develop the LCA or get the aircraft quickly into service with off the self technology maybe Israeli/French/Russian and later retrofit or build new variants with indigenous components/subsystems. The Tejas still utilizes British components a Martin Baker ejection seat, also aerial-refuelling probes and a quartz radome supplied by Cobham Limited.

France was originally part European Combat Aircraft program which began in 1983. It withdrew from the project in 1985, the Rafale A demonstrator flew in 1986 - the following year. The first flight of the Rafale C was in 1991 and it entered service in 2001. So about 10-14 years - from first flight and induction. Eurofighter Typhoon project began in 1985-86, the first flight was in 1994 and entering service in 2003 - around 17-18 yrs. The Rafale & Typhoon might have entered service earlier if not for the peace dividend after the Cold War when defence budgets were cut.

The Tejas program was initiated in 1983, the first flight was in 2001 entering service in 2015(IOC) and FOC in 2019 - 32 to 36 years. The Tejas is a 4th gen fighter you should compare it with the F-16 or Mirage - the F-16s first flight was in 1974 & it entered operational service in 1978-80 - 6 yrs. The Mirage 2000s first flight was in 1978 and it started entering service in 1984 - also 6yrs.

5. "Apart from the Tejas and the Marut, which was a failure/did not achieve it's intended role, India has only produced two fighter/combat aircraft domestically" - neither Tejas nor Marut was a failure. IAF had procure some 147 Marut, and they performed exceptionally well during the India Pakistan war of 1971 [19] . And IAF is already ordered 123 Tejas [20] and are in a process of acquiring 97 more [21] IAF will eventually acquire 324 Tejas in all variants [22] Is it really a failure?!

The Marut was a failure because it was designed as an interceptor not a ground attack aircraft. It performed well in combat but not in it's intended role as an interceptor. During the 1971, most of India's frontline combat aircraft were of foreign origin - MiG-21s, Gnats, Hunters, Canberras, Su-7s. I never said the Tejas was a failure, I stated that the Marut was a failure. But it entered service too late, the Tejas Mk1 is a substandard aircraft - a report that came out in 2017 states that - Tejas far behind competitors, not enough to protect Indian skies: IAF. The Mk1A is an improvement and maybe the Mk2 will be better but other countries are moving on to next gen fighters. Additionally, the first flight of the Mk2 was suppose to be 2023/24 it's been pushed to 2028.
First aircraft rollout of Tejas MkII postponed due to delays in funding and focus on self-reliance

Chinese aviation industry

6. "Most of India's combat aircraft were either foreign imported or licensed built in India. China for example has produced the J-7 - a version of the MiG-21, J-8, JH-7, Q-5 & J-10." - China simply copied with the help of reverse engineering. F-7 (MiG-21), J10 (Lavi), J11 (Su-27), J15 (Su-33), J-16 (Su-30) etc., Unlike China, India developed fighter on its own, rathervthan reverse engineering.' This gave India enough design expertise to design HAL Tejas, HAL TEDBF, HAL Tejas MkII, HAL AMCA etc.,

I'm not talking about the J-11, J-15 or J-16. You could say that about the J-20 which benefited stolen data, the J-16 is powered by Chinese engines, avionics and is superior to other Flanker variants.- I stated the J-7, J-8, JH-7, Q-5 & J-10. The J-8II/J-8B, JH-7, Q-5 & J-10 are essentially new aircraft.

No, exactly it proves China's resourcefulness. With the J-7, the Soviets provided incomplete technical drawings and after the split with the Soviet Union, the Chinese had to figure out technical solutions by themselves. They successfully solved major design issues and reproduced eight major technical documents that were not provided by the Soviet Union. They resigned the fuel tanks, ejection sears and gave the aircraft better Longitudinal static stability. They were able to improve on the MiG-21 on their own. - Chengdu J-7#Establishing production

The J-10 isn't a copy of the Lavi, Israel have have shared technical information but it's an entirely different aircraft.
The J-10 Changed China’s Fighter Game 25 Years Ago
"Despite representing one of China’s most successful indigenous fighter jets, much has been made of the possible connection between Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and CAC during the J-10’s development. By most all accounts, secret information was shared by the Israelis with CAC on the U.S.-financed Lavi, a fourth-generation Israeli fighter jet with a similar configuration that was developed during the 1980s (the aircraft was cancelled in 1987). However, claims that the J-10 constitutes little more than a Lavi-clone negate some differences between the aircraft — including the J-10’s larger size, wing planform, two-dimensional air intake, and the location of its canards."

"This gave India enough design expertise to design HAL Tejas, HAL TEDBF, HAL Tejas MkII, HAL AMCA etc.,"
The TEDBF, Tejas MK2 & AMCA(3 out of 4 aircraft) have not entered service yet. The J-7, J-8, JH-7, Q-5 & J-10 have.

Trainers & the Dornier 228

7. "The HTT-40 is a basic trainer with an American engine.." - So what? It is "designed by India" , like Saab designed gripes with American engine, Koreans designed their FA-50 with American engine, Turkeye with their Hurjet, KAAN etc. 'Using another countries engine has nothing to do with design expertise, even China is using Russia engines for decades,So do Sweden, now Turkey and Korea.

8. "Why HTT-40 and HJT -36 is not in service?" - IAF has ordered 70 HTT-40 in 2023' [23] HJT-36 is delayed due to improper engine choice [24]
My point is a basic trainer is not a Fifth generation aircraft. We are discussing the HAL AMCA not the HTT-40. Countries like Switzerland, far smaller than India, has built and exported turboprop trainers. India in fact operates the Pilatus PC-7 Mk.IIM - 75 were purchased because of HAL's inefficiencies and the IAF could not afford delays in development and it will only go into production in 2025, nine years! after it's first flight in 2016. And with the HJT-36 - you're again proving my point about HAL's inefficiency and incompetence. Development began in the early 2000s.

The HJT-36 might have become redundant anyway.
India Is Still Throwing Good Money at Hopeless Military Programmes

"Following enduring delays in the IJT project the IAF withdrew financial support to it in 2016, leaving HAL to fund it. Concomitantly, the IAF devised a revised training regimen for its pilots for 200-225 hours which has since proved efficacious. Under this changed procedure, trainee pilots divide their instruction equally between the newly acquired 75 Swiss Piltaus PC-7 MKII tandem-seat basic-turbo BTAs and Hawk132 AJTs, of which 104 are in IAF service. But the irony is that even if, by some miracle, the IJT does receive clearance from Centre for Military Air Worthiness and Certification (CEMILAC) it will largely be redundant, as almost all the worlds’ major air forces alongside the IAF follow the earlier stated two-stage pilot training curriculum, obviating an IJT’s role entirely and rendering it wholly redundant."

9. "The Dornier 228 is a 40 yr old German design & the Su-30MKI is a Russian aircraft they are license produced in India," - Yes, concurrently for many years by now. Its enough to challenge both Policy experts' opinion that "India does not have robust industrial base to support mass production of aircraft". That's why I earlier said, Policy experts' opinions on technical, technological capabilities of a country shouldn't be taken seriously.' You also stated that "The Dornier 228 is a 40 yr old German design" - so what? Leading aerospace companies like General Atomics and RUAG are planning to restart its production[25]

Most of the Dornier Do 228 in Indian military and coast guard service are older models, the newer models are mostly for civil operators. I wouldn't call RUAG & General Atomics leading aerospace companies. General Atomics is a major player in drones and other military equipment etc. but not a major player in building fixed wing aircraft.

Rebuttal to HAL's Issues

10. "HAL has severe problems and issues in regards to inefficiency, production, safety and quality control." - the company (HAL) has manufactured over 4,100 aircraft and over 5,000 engines while overhauling 11,000 aircraft and 33,000 engines across its 20 production divisions and 11 research and design centres spread across the country.' [26] - 'How could this be even possible if problem of HAL are as serious as you highlighted??

So what? This has been since the company's founding in 1940. Sources documenting HAL's Incompetence and Inefficiency -

Safety On The Backburner: Why HAL’s Faltering Will Not Stop
"Following the 2007 crash of IAF’s helicopter display team’s Dhruv, a Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report from 2010 highlighted the fractured relationship between HAL and the IAF. The report blamed HAL of compromising with professionalism to protect its business interests, which in turn could have serious implications on safety of the people flying and operating the machine. The report also highlighted the problem of “cyclic saturation” with the helicopters, which caused two of the crashes (including the one in 2007). This technical oversight had also reportedly cost HAL a contract with Chile for the sale of the helicopters."

Quality issues with HAL products
"The Rafale procurement process was also affected by the PSU’s poor reputation. Dassault Aviation hesitated to enter into a deal with HAL during the process due to the company’s quality control issues. This clearly highlighted the lack of confidence in HAL’s production capabilities."

Chief of Air Staff (CAS), Air Chief Marshal Vivek Ram Chaudhari, reinforced this view in a recent interview, where he hinted at some scepticism over HAL’s ability to deliver critical indigenous aircraft projects on time......

"Industry analysts have sounded the alarm over HAL’s production facilities, warning that they are falling behind those of similar scale on a global level. Even facilities established mere decades ago in India by foreign companies are outpacing those of the Navratna PSU."

"Over the years, the IAF has lost 50 per cent of its MiG fleet and nearly 200 fighter pilots. A majority of the accidents have been caused by flaws in the manufacturing or deficiencies in the overhauling process. HAL of course has been reluctant to face quality issues squarely and has usually been in the denial mode. It is not without reason the Dassault Aviation of France was unwilling to stand guarantee for the quality of product and delivery schedule if the company was compelled to join hands with HAL to produce the Rafale combat jet in India. This proved to be the nemesis for the tender for 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft after lingering for eight years."

"For years, HAL has been under the scanner not only for poor quality of product but also for delayed projects, non-adherence to delivery schedules, missing deadlines and huge cost overruns. Even after the 32 years that it took for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas Mk I to be granted Initial Operational Clearance, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India has come out with a scathing report on the serious deficiencies in the platform. As to when the LCA Tejas Mk II will see the light of day, cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty. Similar uncertainty continues to haunt the other programmes related to aircraft required urgently by the Indian armed forces namely the HTT-40 basic turboprop trainer, the IJT Sitara, the LUH and the Light Combat Helicopter. ....In the recent years, the credibility of HAL has been eroded considerably"'

HAL’s jets costlier than foreign ones, says defence ministry audit
"After long and torturous negotiations, India bought British made Hawk jets to train pilots in 2004. Of the initial 62 Hawk jets, 24 were to be bought in a fly-away condition and the remaining were to be manufactured under licence by HAL. Each Hawk aircraft manufactured Britain in 2004 cost Rs 78 Crore. Those manufactured at HAL would have cost Rs 88 crore that year. The cost Hawk aircraft produced by HAL continued to increase. In 2010, the cost shot-up to Rs 98 crore and in 2016, Rs 153 crore. The difference in price “is primarily due to lesser efficiency and exorbitant man hour rates,” the review has found."'

'"Interestingly, the purchase of 126 Medium Multi-Role Rafale fighters from French Defence manufacturing giant Dassault that was negotiated by the previous government (108 would have been assembled in India by HAL) was scrapped because of high man hour cost at the Indian state-owned company. HAL would have needed 2.7 times more man-hours than the French company for each aircraft."

11. "Recurring accidents.." - you're pointing to Helicopter crash, it has nothing to do here as HAL's Helicopter designing, manufacturing etc are carried out by a different wing. And about accidents, it should be noted that "'“Out of 16 accidents, 12 occurred due to human error and environmental factors and the remaining four occurred due to technical reasons," [27]

That's a 2016 article and statements made by HAL not an independent body. The Helicopters are made BY HAL - the same company. It represents/is indicative of wider problems at HAL.

Flaws in military’s Dhruv helicopters identified — ‘mix of metallurgical, design issues
"After detailed checks of the grounded fleet, the Indian military has finally identified metallurgical and design flaw in a critical component of the indigenous Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) — a workhorse of the armed forces — that had caused some of the recent accidents"

"Asked whether this was a design flaw or a metallurgical issue, the source said, “It is a mix of both”.

"It was found that certain parts are showing higher fatigue than what the time frame is. The sources explained that normally a particular part has a flying life of about 400 hours, then it is serviced or replaced after 400 hours. However, if the fatigue develops much before that, then the flying life has to be reduced so that necessary replacement or service can be done in time."

HAL’s Glaring Faults'
"The difference now, however, lies in the causes these crashes have been attributed to. Earlier, it was a mixed bag of reasons, ranging from human error to weather conditions to technical faults. More recently, though, critical technical failures have been cited as the sole cause of these unfortunate and sometimes fatal events."

"According to senior military officials, technical defects in HAL-designed and manufactured products could largely be attributed to the PSU itself. HAL’s production challenges have been a common denominator in aircraft crashes. While design-related issues have contributed to a few crashes, reliability and production quality are significant factors in indigenously-built aircraft accidents."

The Truth Hurts, Says Indian Navy’s 1st Dhruv Flight Commander
"There have been a few crashes on the ALH in the recent past. Two Army aviators lost their lives and in the latest one, the Army Commander was on board, when a critical component in the control chain failed. This kind of failure is unheard of in any modern helicopter, and puts a cloud on the whether the testing of any modifications is really exhaustive or just that there is some aspect missed out either by ignorance of act of omission. I do not want to elaborate further, because the cause is not yet finalised, but so many crashes in such a short time do bring about a very big trust deficit."

12. " One of the contributory factors to the poor quality of output by HAL especially on aircraft engine..." - in the succeeding sentence he wrote that "under pressure to meet with deadlines, the Indian aerospace major completed overhaul of four engines. Compression of time by 50 per cent would have undoubtedly had deleterious effect on the quality of work output." -would have does not means does have, the author is simply assuming.

The author is Air Marshal B.K. Pandey (RETD) Former Air Officer Commanding-In-Chief of Training Command, IAF. I don't know your background but he's far more qualified than you - serving in the IAF. Additionally DID you read the entire article?.

"One of the contributory factors to the poor quality of output by HAL especially on aircraft engines is the rush to meet with production targets towards the end of the financial year. In one particular year, HAL overhauled four engines of the MiG-29 aircraft in the first six months of the financial year. However, in the last three months of the same financial year, under pressure to meet with deadlines, the Indian aerospace major completed overhaul of four engines. Compression of time by 50 per cent would have undoubtedly had deleterious effect on the quality of work output. What is more shocking is that while HAL took nine months of the financial year to overhaul nine engines, interestingly it was able to complete overhaul of another nine engines in the last three months of the same financial year!"

Private sector issues

13. " One of the major problems is that India hasn't FULLY cultivated private players like Tata etc. in defence aircraft production." - By 2024, TATA has produced 250th airframe of AH-64E, intended for US Army, Indian Air Force (and export market)[28]. TATA will produce 40[29] recent order for 15 [30] C-295s for Indian Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard. TATA is also engaged in other aerospace activities like produce wings for latest F-16 Block 70 [31] which is also a contender for India's MRFA deal for 114 fighters.

You proving my point. Does Tata design and manufacture it's own helicopters? The AH-64 Apache is an American designed Attack Helicopter. The C-295 is a European/Spanish designed transports/cargo aircraft, similarly the F-16 is an American aircraft. India hasn't FULLY cultivated private players because HAL doesn't want to lose it's monopoly. Private aerospace companies in India don't make their own military aircraft.

C295 a baby step; aircraft making in India has a long way to go
"A long-standing refrain about India’s aerospace industry has been the inherent internal of the public sector and the step motherly treatment meted out to the private sector. In recent years, the government has taken steps towards levelling the playground and extending its pits patronage, hitherto preserved for the public sector Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), to competent players in the private sector."

"There have been some remarkable achievements by private companies in recent years but, as India not producing any aircraft (HAL is still working on a copy of the Dornier it license-produced for years), they have been restricted to producing components for foreign Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs)."

"The planned procurement is no doubt a laudable step towards bolstering the IAF’s transport needs but some of the media coverage on it is just government-sponsored hype, terming the assembly as ‘manufacture’ would be grossly imprecise. While associating the Indian assembly of C295s to ‘Make in India’ and ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ is not entirely inaccurate (after all, some manufacture activity is indeed taking place in India, and some offset benefits will also accrue), TASL (and India) have a long way to go to be able to “manufacture” aircraft, with critical components and assemblies (the power plant being the most significant) still beyond reach."

HAL Dodgy On Privatisation -
The private sector is expected to bring scalability and accountability advantages. Yet, it stands at bay. Whispers in the corridors underscore the open secret: HAL does not want the private sector to significantly penetrate defence production. They are likely to be more competitive and hurt it in the long run. Thus, issues that have claimed precious lives are treated only as industrial problems that HAL can overcome with proper levels of investment. In simpler words– more funds for the domestic giant.

There was a decision taken in 2020 to have the private sector involved in a public-private partnership. However, this intended partnership hasn't come into realization.
[Wikipedia blocks the idrw.org website for some reason - Type in Google India's AMCA 5th Gen Fighter: Stalled by SPV Concerns]
"India's dream of a domestically-built fifth generation fighter jet, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), remains grounded, despite four years of discussions with major Private aerospace companies. The Special Purpose Vehicle model, envisioned as a public-private partnership to drive the program, seems to be facing significant roadblocks."

"The SPV model was designed to leverage private sector expertise and efficiency while maintaining government oversight. It proposed a majority stake for private companies, entrusting them with not only airframe, avionics and accessory development but also jet assembly, after-sale support and even export marketing rights. This ambitious plan, however, has met with resistance."

"India's private aerospace sector, despite showing initial interest, seems hesitant to take the lead. Many companies site their lack of experience managing fighter jet assembly lines as a primary concern. Others, particularly those involved in the114-fighter Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) tender, prefer to wait and gain experience with 4.5 gen jets before committing to the AMCA. American and French giants like Boeing and Dassault, along with Swedish SAAB, have expressed interest in partnering with India. However, their participation appears contingent on their success in the MRFA tender. This suggests a potential lack of independent commitment to the AMCA program.

Problems India has developing a 5th generation fighter

14."More significant than the rather difficult-to-swallow DRDO/HAL projected timeline is that the AMCA projected to be inducted by 2035 will not be a 5th-generation fighter. It will be a 4.5 gen fighter." - Opinion. India in fact states that AMCA a will be a 5th generation fighter with sixth generation technologies [32] [33]

15."AMCA Mk-1 will lack at least three defining 5th-generation fighter - engines, supercruise, Supermaneuverability" - 'AMCA is yet to take off from the design board, and this author is already guessing it lack 5th generation features like engines, supercruise, Supermaneuverability'

Take it up with the author - Vijainder K Thakur is a retired IAF Jaguar pilot. His bio states that he is also an author, software architect, entrepreneur, and military analyst. He states that the the early AMCA Mk-1, version will be a 4.5 gen fighter.
With India's experience with the Tejas, I think he might be right. The AMCA might be end up like the Su-57 or enter service too late - being outclassed by 6th generation aircraft.

With the DRDO's & HAL's track record regarding major projects, he might be right.
First aircraft rollout of Tejas MkII postponed due to delays in funding and focus on self-reliance Meanwhile India's squadron & combat aircraft strength will decline with the retirement of the Mirage 2000, Jaguar & Mig-29.

16. " DRDO is still grappling with developing capable RF, IR, and Optical sensors" - 'DRDO already have developed advanced sensors for aerospace applications like Uttam AESA. A full list of DRDO's RF sensors can be found here' . DRDO already developed IR as well as electro optical sensors as well.

CAG slams DRDO for delays, declaring projects successful despite failure to meet key goals
""The CAG report, which was placed in the Parliament Thursday, highlighted that despite the fact that MM projects have a very high outcome certainty due to ready availability of underlying technology, there were considerable delays in the initiation and sanction of such projects by the DRDO." “In 119 out of 178 projects, the original time schedules could not be adhered to. In 49 cases, the additional time was in fact more than 100 per cent of the original timeframe,” the CAG report noted."

"It added the delays ranged from 16 to 500 per cent and that an extension was taken multiple times. ....The report pointed out that DRDO had taken up 15 projects costing ₹516.61 crore to accomplish the unachieved objectives of similar earlier closed projects declared as successful by it. CAG has also noted the “inefficiencies in the planning process” by DRDO as well as raised issues of inadequate monitoring of the MM projects by the premier research organisation of the country. The inefficiencies in overall project management have resulted in several instances of cost overruns, over-assessment of anticipated benefits of projects, and delay in submission of closure reports, it said. CAG also brought out issues such as delay in productionisation of successful projects, which it said defeated the very purpose of taking up such projects."

The Uttam radar hasn't yet been fitted on the Su-30MKI or the Tejas. The plan to create a larger scalable design to be used on the AMCA also hasn't been developed. 5th generation aircraft will require more advanced sensors.

It's an electro-optical infrared system for surveillance from airborne, land and naval platforms. This is not new technology - AH-64 Apache, HAL Prachand, P-8 MX-20 EO/IR, MQ-9 Reaper.

The F-35 uses a Electro-Optical Targeting System first of it's kind.
Distributed Aperture system Interesting video shows unique capabilities of the F-35 Lightning II Electro-Optical Targeting System
"The low-drag, stealthy EOTS is integrated into the F-35 Lightning II’s fuselage with a durable sapphire window and is linked to the aircraft’s integrated central computer through a high-speed fiber-optic interface. The Distributed Aperture System (DAS) Window Panel consists of six low-observable, infrared transparent windows for Electro-Optical (EO) DAS sensors on the F-35. Each shipset of windows enables the EODAS sensor to provide threat detection and 360-degree situational awareness to the pilot."
F-35 Electro-Optical Targeting System Enters Low-Rate Production
F-35's Electro Optical Targeting System (EOTS) combines FLIR and IRST in a single sapphire housing under the nose.

The Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: A Technical Analysis Page 16 - The F-35 has a conformal IR/Synthetic vision S&T.
"Current official graphics and statements indicate that the AMCA is expected to house most sensors conformally to maximise stealth. What cannot be discerned from these graphics is an optical or synthetic Infra-Red Track and Search (IRTS) system. While the ADA does indicate the plane will have an IRST, the renders do not show the legacy spherical IRST bulge that is highly radar reflective. The fact remains that no country outside the United States seems to have developed a conformal IR/Synthetic vision S&T and there will be significant developmental hurdles here. Given this single vendor situation for conformal IRSTs it seems highly unlikely that the AMCA will be cleared for technology transfers given that the F-35 would seem to compete in roughly the same space as the AMCA."

"The AMCA also does not appear to have a conformal Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS). This means it will have limited ground strike capabilities – restricted to GPS-guided weapons only. This means both laser-guided weapons and optically guided weapons required for pin-point precision as well as the engagement of moving targets would not be available to the AMCA. In effect this would mean that it duplicates the role of the F-22, which is overwhelmingly an air superiority fighter with at best a secondary ground strike capability. Unlike the single vendor situation of the conformal IRST - the Russian MiG-35 seems to have a system similar to F-35's EOTS – the OLS-K (though once again its spherical shape means it is radar reflective). The OLS-K, like the F-35's EOTS, is constructed of artificial leuco-sapphire. Various attempts at tracking down local producers of leuco-sapphires for this paper yielded no results and possibly points to a local production deficit that will have to be overcome. Given the highly limited nature of the market, though, it might be impossible to create economically viable manufacturing facilities for leuco-sapphires in India."

17. "Manufacture of the AMCA will require expertise in handling not only aerospace grade alloys with aluminium, steel, titanium, but more importantly, composites." - India already have that technology. In fact 'India is already using carbon fibre composite in the manufacturing of Tejas. "The composite materials constitute 45% of the airframe by weight and 90% by surface area".

Composites and alloys for 4th Gen fighters like the Tejas are different. There are different types/grades of alloys. 5th Gen fighter aircraft are completely different ball game.

New Metal Alloys Are Shaking up Aerospace
"The number and types of lightweight metals available for building military and aerospace components are expanding. Not only are aircraft structures and components making use of lightweight aluminum alloys, but also alloys of titanium, and other metals previously considered too exotic like beryllium. These materials help vehicles meet tougher fuel consumption standards by shedding hundreds of pounds."

"More aircraft structures and components are being made of lightweight aluminum alloys, as well as alloys of titanium and other metals previously considered too exotic, difficult to use, or expensive like beryllium. These materials help aircraft such as this Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II jet fighter meet tougher fuel consumption standards by shedding hundreds of pounds."

"Electro Optical Targeting System (EOTS) on Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II jet fighter is the first sensor combining forward-looking infrared and infrared searchand-track functions for pilots’ situational awareness and air-to-air/air-to-surface targeting from a safe distance. The EOTS’s azimuth gimbal housing components are made of a beryllium-aluminum alloy called Beralcast that is three times stiffer and 22% lighter than aluminum."

Lockheed Martin reveals F-35 to feature nanocomposite structures
"Lockheed Martin has revealed the F-35 Lightning II will be the first mass-produced aircraft to integrate structural nanocomposites in non-load bearing airframe components. A thermoset epoxy reinforced by carbon nanotubes will replace carbon fibre as the material used to produce F-35 wingtip fairings beginning with low rate initial production (LRIP)-4 aircraft, said Travis Earles, a manager for corporate nanotechnology initiatives. Meanwhile, the same carbon nanotube reinforced polymer (CNRP) material is being considered to replace about 100 components made with other composites or metals throughout the F-35's airframe, he said. The shift to CNRP as an airframe material has been anticipated ever since carbon nanotubes were discovered in 1991. It is widely considered one of the strongest materials ever invented - several times stronger than carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP), yet lighter by about 25-30%."

This Image Of A Naval Strike Missile Launch Shows A Key Tenet Of Stealth Design
"This type of arrangement, and far more advanced ones, are used in low-observable aircraft like the F-117, B-2, F-22, F-35, and J-20. For instance, the frontal area of a trapezoidal air inlet on a fighter jet may actually be a large composite structure that is invisible to certain radar frequencies, while concealing complex radar defeating structures and material underneath. A long and smooth wing leading edge may actually conceal highly intricate geometric structures that work as radar baffles and are buried below a radar translucent composite outer skin and a layer of radar-absorbing filler."

"The F-22's outer shell conceals advanced low observable technologies and material science that lies beneath."
"Sometimes people superficially conclude there are 'radar traps' in certain areas of stealth aircraft just by looking at them. But what they may not realize is that even though a certain airframe component looks solid and opaque, it isn't to radar and structures are concealed below them that deflect and attenuate radar returns. This ability to build almost two different airframes in one—one that is an aerodynamic and stealthy shaped outer shell of sorts, and one that sits below the skin with areas that provide massive decreases in radar reflectivity where it's needed most, is truly fascinating. The fact that this is able to happen at all also creates the possibility that low-observable design teams and aerodynamic design teams can get to a point where both are satisfied while working together on a high-performance stealth aircraft."

"The big takeaway here is that the blended relationship between these substructures and outer skins are usually not apparent when viewing stealthy aircraft visually. Their smooth skin can actually make stealthy aircraft look eerily simple in appearance, but an entirely different world lies beneath, and especially in key areas. This reality makes stealth aircraft even more of a technological accomplishment than they already appear to be, especially considering some of these designs are meant to be battered ruthlessly and heated and cooled for thousands of hours as they careen through the air under high G forces and rip across the sky at supersonic speeds."

18. "In fact, the entire external surface will have to be manufactured using carbon fibre composites" - India already did that on Tejas, so we can expect it on all fighters that will follow Tejas, viz, Tejas MK1A, Tejas MK2, TEDBF, AMCA etc.

First of all the Tejas Mk2, TEDBF & AMCA hasn't entered production/service. There are different types of composites not all composites are the same, 5th generation aircraft will require more advanced carbon fibre & material science.

How a Tougher Skin Could Change the Shape of Stealth Aircraft
"Stealth fighters and bombers are among the most expensive aircraft in the world, and they rely on a radar-absorbent polymer skin to avoid detection. But that polymer is so fragile that these high-end aircraft have to be designed in ways that protect the skin – even if that means hurting their performance in the air. A new material is poised to change that. By creating a tougher skin that also has more desirable stealth characteristics, researchers believe the new material will allow designers to rethink the stealth jet. “It comes down to this: if we get the support we need to scale this up, aircraft manufacturers will be able to fundamentally redesign stealth aircraft,” says Chengying “Cheryl” Xu, whose research team at NC State has developed the tougher radar-absorbent material. “The material we’ve engineered is not only more radar absorbent, it will also allow the next generation of stealth aircraft to be faster, more maneuverable and able to travel further.”

"To address this array of impressive challenges, Xu and her collaborators have created a ceramic material that has an equally impressive array of attributes. For one thing, lab testing finds that the ceramic is more radar absorbent than the existing polymers, being able to absorb 90% or more of the energy from radar. It is, in effect, much harder for radar to “see.” In addition, the material is water-resistant and harder than sand. In other words, it can better withstand harsh conditions. What’s more, the ceramic material retains its radar-absorbent characteristics at temperatures as high as 1,800 C (and as cold as -100 C)."

19. "The 'platform will require an engine that will be capable of delivering much higher thrust' than any of the engines on the different versions of the LCA Tejas or the Su-30 MKI." - 'India's current plan is to use F414 on AMCA MK1, later on they'll be replaced with a much powerful engine developed in-house or via JV' [37]

That's the author's point - Mk1 will enter service first it'll be equipped with the F414 engine. He's stating that the MK1 will not be a fully be 5th generation fighter. Given that the Kaveri has been in development since the 80s. It's going to cost a lot of money and time to develop an adequate jet engine to power the Mk2.

20. "The power plant will need to have capability of thrust vectoring and will have to be integrated with the airframe in a manner so as not to compromise the stealth characteristics of the platform. " - Only F-22 have that, ' neither F-35, nor Su-57, Su-75, J-20, J31 or KAAN have engines integrated with the airframe in a manner so as not to compromise the stealth. Aren't they 5th generation fighters? Is it really a problem India has in developing a 5th generation fighter?

I'm not sure about the Su-57, Su-75 or the Kaan, the Chinese jets might have it - the F-35 is fitted with a Low Observable Axisymmetric Nozzle (LOAN) making it as stealthy as the F-22.

LOA Low Observable Axisymmetric Nozzle F-35 Air Vehicle Technology Overview
"Before the development of the F-35 low observable axisymmetric nozzle (LOAN), signature demands typically drove nozzles to fixed, structurally integrated affairs (e.g., F-117). They had to have very high aspect ratio designs (e.g., F-117) or highly capable but heavy two-dimensional systems (e.g., F-22), as illustrated in Image 1. Departing from what was then the state of the art, industry and CRAD efforts developed multiple nozzle configurations to create a LOAN for the F-35. The F135 engine with a LOAN balanced the requirements of LO and efficient aeromechanical performance. This resulted in a lightweight configuration with reduced radar cross-section."

"During this period the notion that axisymmetric nozzles were not amenable to LO (or even thrust vectoring) was being challenged. A new generation of LO nozzles emerged that was characterized by shaping features to minimize radar reflections. Namely, they used a serrated trailing edge, serrated interface with the airframe, and interleaved external seals to complement the external flaps. They retained tight control of gaps and seals and had specialized high temperature coatings on internal and external surfaces. In the years leading up to the X-35, various LOAN configurations were developed, ground tested, and flight tested on F-16s."

Turbine Shields And Topcoats
"For Lockheed's F-22 and F-35, the need for afterburning engines, supersonic flight and fighter agility, as well as the desire for less maintenance, would require some new approaches. The U.S. stealth fighters use similar IR suppression techniques for internal engine parts, tail structures and airframe coatings. They diverge most noticeably in nozzle design. The horizontal tails of both aircraft extend well beyond the nozzles, restricting the view of the exhausts and plume core in the azimuthal plane from the side and into the rear quadrant. The engines of both also have stealthy augmenters. Aft of the low-pressure turbine are thick, curved vanes that, when looking up the tailpipe, block any direct view of the hot, rotating turbine components. Fuel injectors are integrated into these vanes, replacing the conventional afterburner spray bars and flame holders. The vanes mask the turbine and contain minute holes that introduce cooler air."'

"In designing the nozzle of the F135 engine that powers the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Pratt & Whitney aimed to rival the F-22's wedge nozzles in signature while beating it on maintenance costs. The nozzle flaps incorporate minute holes to supply cooling air, like those on the F119, and overlap to create a sawtooth trailing edge, which introduces shed vortices to the exhaust and shrinks the plume. Their interior and exterior surfaces are likely composed of low-emissivity, radar-absorbent ceramics."

Wedges and Tail Feathers
"the F135 nozzle likely suppresses IR signature through multiple methods. The trailing-edge chevrons create shed vortices, shortening the plume, while their steeper axial angle likely directs cooler ambient air into the exhaust flowpath. The inner surfaces of both sets of flaps are white and incorporate minute holes similar to those on the F119, which might supply cooling air. Some reports suggest the presence of ejectors between the tail feathers and chevrons to provide even more cooling air. The tiles and inner flap surfaces are likely composed of low emissivity, RAM composites. The trailing edge of the central fuselage also terminates in small chevrons, possibly further increasing airflow vorticity."

For Those Questioning F-35 All Aspect Stealth
"Notice the sawtooth features that ring the exhaust nozzle, and can also be seen at the nozzle/fuselage junction? That is an RCS reduction feature! Similar use of the sawtooth setup can also be seen on the F-117, at the canopy junction, and the landing gear doors. These sawtooth notches that ring the exhaust nozzle consolidate the exhaust into the ‘spike’. These systems, in conjunction with built in measures and coatings, not only reduces rear aspect RCS, but also minimize the F-35’s IR exhaust signature. Its a two for one deal."[41][42]

21. "The AMCA will require the latest and most advanced radar, a complete range of modern avionics and potent weapon systems including in the nuclear regime as also the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile.
Given the capabilities envisaged for the new platform, it is clearly beyond the capability that the Indian aerospace industry" - India already has already developed AESA radar [38] latest digital fly by wire FCS [39] and is already developing IRST sensors for future applications [40] a working model of the said system is already made, can be seen here [43] "So India's problems (in developing a 5th generation fighter) you're trying to project are simply not problems at all"

IRST has been around since 1963, modern IRSTs since the 80s and fly by wire technology has been around since 1979, when the F-16 entered service. These are not new technologies they were developed for the Tejas - an aircraft that was suppose to enter service in the late 90/early 2000s, additionally an upscaled AESA radar for the AMCA hasn't been developed yet & by the time the AMCA enters service it might have become obsolete. The development of a 5th generation fighter will require much more advanced materials/alloys, avionics, engines etc. which at present is way beyond India's capabilities. It's going to cost a lot of money to develop and build the AMCA, India also has to spend money on the Army & Navy. HAL also has it work cut out for it - Tejas Mk2, HFT-42, TEDBF & the AMCA. The AMCA most likely won't enter service/production by the expected time frame and by the time it does other countries would have already fielded 6th generation fighter aircraft.

The Bittersweet Dilemma Of India’s AMCA 5th Generation Fighter
“let’s keep it real: India can’t consider AMCA anything more than a dream now. The troubled development of the Tejas should be a reminder that the Indian aerospace industry is simply not ready for a domestic fifth generation aircraft without a significant foreign help. It might be ready in some decades, but most probably not in the foreseeable future. One might wonder whether the Indian Air Force needs a 5th gen. aircraft at all, considered that it still operates a large fleet of 3rd generation aircraft it still needs to replace.”

"The AMCA appears to be complete madness. Jumping from an unsuccessful (relatively) technologically pedestrian project like Tejas to a world class stealthy tactical fighter seems an unlikely route to success. Additionally, a first flight in 2025 (if achieved) plus ten or twenty years of development to get it operational sees it reaching squadrons in the 2035-45 period. At best, you have an F-35 twenty years too late (or mini F-22 thirty years too late)."

RXFire1 (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)