Future Combat Air System (FCAS) - France/Germany

[babablacksheep]

The French are roughly on par with the Americans in 6th gen tech

Bold claim, when french don't even prototype of 5th gen airframe and engine right now.


Only thing stealth they shown is neuron demonstrator with basic networking.
& old LO design stormshadow missile.

Americans have flown demonstrators aircrafts of 6th gen way before, have prototype VCE engines in existence,even in avionics & sensors have vastly more experience than French given f35 is already in service with its unmatch sensor fusion and networking capabilities with offboard sensors, already have GAN aesa installed on fighter jets(Hornet), even the F4 version with improved networking, combat cloud can't match this level.

Rafale F5 will come with 6th gen avionics

So will Tejas mk2, Gan aesa, mumt, sensor fusing & networking, Partial autonomous flight.

What extra features rafale F5 will have that is 6th gen above mk2? Improved 4th gen m88 trex?

And they have already done all the necessary reasearch on airframes and engines

Research? Really?

Come back to me when they atleast a working prototype of future engine,or flown a 6th gen demonstrator atleast.

Avionics upgrade will happen on all fighters over time, stealth, non-stealth etc, to try to bring them to as close to 6th gen on avionics as possible, capability limit being their power and architecture.

Production is expected to begin in 2032-33, once IOC is achieved. IOC squadron entry in 2035-36. LSP will begin in 2029-30. Subject to timely F414 deliveries of course.

According to recent statement by Defence secretary, contract for amca program will be given in 3-4 months.
Then first prototype in 3-4 years.
Production in 10 years from now.
That's 2029-2030 for prototype rolled out.
2035-2036 for production to start.

 

[randomradio]

That was actually my point. The negotiations are already "unofficially" going on because we want to domestically manufacture the 2-seat Su-57 variant in 100+ numbers. Otherwise why both HAL & UAC would waste each others time. They also have backing right from each country's respective top

Yeah, between UAC and HAL, but defense secretary said the Indian govt has shown no interest in it. This happened just a few hours ago.

https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/india/india-will-negotiate-to-protect-chabahar-no-call-yet-on-su-57-defence-secretary-rajesh-kumar-singh-at-rising-bharat-summit-full-q-a-13847217.html

Our fifth generation fighter is going to be the AMCA. On the other two candidates that you mentioned, we've not taken a call as yet, but as of now, that is the way we are proceeding.

Actually much more than that. Read IP and export rights. But biggest thing would be full 'know how' & 'know why' of Item 177(a hybrid of AL-51F1 & AL-41F1). Just wait for sometime and more details will come out in due time.

They are offering 177S ToT for MKI. And for FGFA it's the same as MKI. Nothing unprecedented. It's less than what France has offered for Rafale.

 

[randomradio]

Bold claim, when french don't even prototype of 5th gen airframe and engine right now.


Only thing stealth they shown is neuron demonstrator with basic networking.
& old LO design stormshadow missile.

Americans have flown demonstrators aircrafts of 6th gen way before, have prototype VCE engines in existence,even in avionics & sensors have vastly more experience than French given f35 is already in service with its unmatch sensor fusion and networking capabilities with offboard sensors, already have GAN aesa installed on fighter jets(Hornet), even the F4 version with improved networking, combat cloud can't match this level.

You can't start a SCAF/GCAP type program without first getting the foundational technologies ready. The French already have everything they need for a 6th gen jet. The M88 T-REX for F5 is already at 2100K TET, and it's gonna enter serial production soon. They will develop a larger engine in the AMCA's engine class for 110 kN of thrust with VCE.

The Americans are just a lot more open about their program, so we know more about them.

What the Americans focus on is throwing more money at getting operationally ahead first, which the Europeans don't do.

So will Tejas mk2, Gan aesa, mumt, sensor fusing & networking, Partial autonomous flight.

What extra features rafale F5 will have that is 6th gen above mk2? Improved 4th gen m88 trex?

It goes beyond just using buzzwords since specifics makes it more nuanced. So both jets achieve those buzzwords, but Mk2 will do it using late 5th gen tech while Rafale will do it using early 6th gen tech. For example, their GaN tech will have built-in processing at the TRM level, while we will use central processing. And we will use inferior materials and production tech. This results in the Rafale being able to use unique radar features not available to the Mk2 due to the multi-generational difference in TRMs.

Similar differences will show up in networking, sensor fusion etc.

Engine too, the T-REX is at the level of a 5th gen, and Rafale will have 2 engines, whereas Mk2 comes with what will be a single older 4.5th gen engine with less electrical power.

Come back to me when they atleast a working prototype of future engine,or flown a 6th gen demonstrator atleast.

They are building one for a 2029 first flight, which means they have the tech already. And it's 2029 instead of 2027 'cause of bureaucratic delays. As said before, you can't start such a program without having developed the foundational technologies already.

According to recent statement by Defence secretary, contract for amca program will be given in 3-4 months.
Then first prototype in 3-4 years.
Production in 10 years from now.
That's 2029-2030 for prototype rolled out.
2035-2036 for production to start.

Whatever is the date for first flight, LSP production will begin a year later, followed by IOC production after 3 years, when LSP is flying. So IOC service entry in 6 years after first flight, which means IOC production begins on the 4th year. So by 7th year, we will have an IOC squadron, as long as we maintain this schedule.

F-47 started in 2025, they expect first flight in 2028 and service entry in the early 2030s, so pretty much the same time. Picdel also presented a 7-year duration for service entry. Rafale's original date was also 5-6 years from first flight.

If France pursues SCAF independently, they can start producing by 2034. But Dassault's not willing to end the Rafale program prematurely. They want to push it to the 2040s. Unless they get a partner to share costs, or are willing to go it alone at a later date. They are even willing to push SCAF by another decade in exchange for a larger Super Rafale program if their partnership fails. India makes the most sense for them since we want these jets in the 2040s too.

 

[babablacksheep]

You can't start a SCAF/GCAP type program without first getting the foundational technologies ready. The French already have everything they need for a 6th gen jet. The M88 T-REX for F5 is already at 2100K TET, and it's gonna enter serial production soon. They will develop a larger engine in the AMCA's engine class for 110 kN of thrust with VCE.

The Americans are just a lot more open about their program, so we know more about them.

So you are saying Americans have a working vce prototype and France have foundational technologies, yet France is on par with usa?

We ourself have CMX4 based SX, at 1800-1900k TET, yet we need french help for our future engine.

It goes beyond just using buzzwords since specifics makes it more nuanced. So both jets achieve those buzzwords, but Mk2 will do it using late 5th gen tech while Rafale will do it using early 6th gen tech. For example, their GaN tech will have built-in processing at the TRM level, while we will use central processing. And we will use inferior materials and production tech. This results in the Rafale being able to use unique radar features not available to the Mk2 due to the multi-generational difference in TRMs.

Actually, the current Uttam radar is a hybrid. It uses distributed digital beamforming (processing) at the antenna level, which then feeds into a centralized processing unit.

Uttam varient for mk2 will be fully distributed at antenna level, with central processor being used as auxilliary unit to fuse radar data with other sensors for single cohesive picture.

Engine too, the T-REX is at the level of a 5th gen, and Rafale will have 2 engines

Trex hasn't been built yet.

They are building one for a 2029 first flight, which means they have the tech already

They will have the tech ready and proven to work when the demonstrator actually flies, hopefully in 2029.

. And it's 2029 instead of 2027 'cause of bureaucratic delays

We don't know, as you said France is not as open about things.

As said before, you can't start such a program without having developed the foundational technologies already.

US has working prototype of vce, operational gan radars, prototype of apg 85 for f35, not just foundational technologies.

F-47 started in 2025, they expect first flight in 2028 and service entry in the early 2030s, so pretty much the same time

No, you claim its pretty much same.

F47's demonstrator planes flew years ago, working prototype of vce engines and other techs, f47 is now in prototyping.

Scaf's demonstrator is YET to fly, future engine prototype not build yet, future gan radars prototype hasn't been shown yet, just foundational technologies as of now.

America's f47 program has advanced lot more ahead of foundational technologies stage.

Whatever is the date for first flight, LSP production will begin a year later, followed by IOC production after 3 years, when LSP is flying. So IOC service entry in 6 years after first flight, which means IOC production begins on the 4th year. So by 7th year, we will have an IOC squadron, as long as we maintain this schedule

Nice IMAGINATION.

as long as we maintain this schedule.

Atleast you acknowledge the chances of delays, with you're style of talking with weird sense of certainty.

Rafale's original date was also 5-6 years from first flight.

*original*
We can only speculate that rafale wouldn't have missed the original date had it not been for beaurocratic delays, but we can't say for sure.

Plus, 6th gen is lot more completed than early rafale.

If France pursues SCAF independently, they can start producing by 2034

Another CLAIM.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Yeah, between UAC and HAL, but defense secretary said the Indian govt has shown no interest in it. This happened just a few hours ago.

https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/india/india-will-negotiate-to-protect-chabahar-no-call-yet-on-su-57-defence-secretary-rajesh-kumar-singh-at-rising-bharat-summit-full-q-a-13847217.html

Our fifth generation fighter is going to be the AMCA. On the other two candidates that you mentioned, we've not taken a call as yet, but as of now, that is the way we are proceeding.

That's what I am saying. Our actions and words don't match which means even though behind the doors "official" talks are going on for a local manufacturing contract of 2-seat Su-57MKI, yet on public presentations/statements we haven't yet made a decision and are still choosing between Su-57 & F-35, lol. Both of these are self-contradictory and don't match each other. HAL can't do anything on its own until it's given permission by PM/GOI. DefSec is also speaking what he is allowed to in public. Nothing more, nothing less.

Fact is, Su-57 in both "off-the-shelf" and then later local manufactured at HAL Nashik is now a lock. Full details would only be revealed in public on apt time.

They are offering 177S ToT for MKI. And for FGFA it's the same as MKI. Nothing unprecedented. It's less than what France has offered for Rafale.

177S is for MKI UPG. The definitive engine for Su-57 is Item-177 with 108KN dry and 158KN wet thrust, 30% improved fuel efficiency on all flight regimes and 1.6+ Supercruise capability and F-22 like flat stealthy nozzles along with front/rear radar-blockers. They are offering full 'know why' and 'know how' of this engine along with access to full source code of the jet which is absolutely unprecedented.

France has already denied Rafale's source codes and SPECTRA access. Apart from that Russians have also quoted much lower price for 140 locally manufactured Su-57MKI than what local assembly of 114 Rafales would cost us.

 

[babablacksheep]

The definitive engine for Su-57 is Item-177 with 108KN dry and 158KN wet thrust, 30% improved fuel efficiency on all flight regimes and 1.6+ Supercruise capability and F-22 like flat stealthy nozzles along with front/rear radar-blockers. They are offering full 'know why' and 'know how' of this engine along with access to full source code of the jet which is absolutely unprecedented.

Sounds, toooo good to be true.
Hard to digest.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Sounds, toooo good to be true.
Hard to digest.

Same Russia which didn't allow our pilots to inspect Su-57 is now begging us to procure the jet and is offering us everything it has got. Talk about change of position, lol. Also, no need to believe me, just wait for sometime and full details will come out. We are not going to break our defence-partnership with Russia despite any pressure Uncle Sam exerts on us. Period.

PS: Post our last year's skirmish with Pak, there is talk within defense circles that during those 3-day events, we clearly saw who were our real friends(Russia, Israel & France) and which is an opportunistic ally(US). That's where in early June last year, we decided to not procure F-35 and gave go ahead to HAL to work with UAC for local production of Su-57. Rest, time will tell.

 

[Gautam]

I think Shiv makes a great point here when he says that if we have to join the FCAS, we will have to merge the AMCA into this program. Like how the Japanese merged the 5th gen program with the GCAP. Given the timelines involved running both programs would be incredibly expensive. Vishnu says that he asked President Macron if the FCAS push was somehow related to the Rafale & its manufacture in India. The President suggested that the FCAS would be a part of the ecosystem.

 

[Hydra]

I think Shiv makes a great point here when he says that if we have to join the FCAS, we will have to merge the AMCA into this program. Like how the Japanese merged the 5th gen program with the GCAP. Given the timelines involved running both programs would be incredibly expensive. Vishnu says that he asked President Macron if the FCAS push was somehow related to the Rafale & its manufacture in India. The President suggested that the FCAS would be a part of the ecosystem.

If we are merging AMCA with FCAS, then there is no necessary to develop the engine, the much discussed foreign collaboration. FCAS will be using aVCE engine, and france won't collaborate with us or willing to transfer TOT for such engine.

 

[_Anonymous_]

I think Shiv makes a great point here when he says that if we have to join the FCAS, we will have to merge the AMCA into this program. Like how the Japanese merged the 5th gen program with the GCAP. Given the timelines involved running both programs would be incredibly expensive. Vishnu says that he asked President Macron if the FCAS push was somehow related to the Rafale & its manufacture in India. The President suggested that the FCAS would be a part of the ecosystem.

I feel it'd be better for both parties to develop core 6th Gen technologies in collaboration with each other viz the skin , RAS , RAM , sensors , weapons package , TF , Radar etc .

The design of individual FAs can be undertaken separately from each other on an individual basis depending on the requirements of the respective armed forces.

If we seek to marry our requirements to theirs it'd unnecessarily complicate the situation leading to sub optimal outcomes like the F-35 program.

OTOH if there exists scope of marrying both requirements into 1 program which genuinely meets mutual needs we can go in for the GCAP model .

Quite frankly I personally don't think this is possible for various reasons . The French will see us as good enough to handle the grunt work in R&D & Mfg whereas we may have different expectations from the JV .

Moreover the French would follow the template set for the Rafale program wherein the Naval version was first developed & the AF version derived from the Naval version.

Here this would lead to a fierce turf war between the IAF & the IN though ideally speaking that should be the way forward.

Moreover given the fact the French will first concentrate on the Naval version it stands to reason there must be a certain commonality between their PANG project & our IAC -3.

The latter isn't even on the drawing board as of now. I see these contradictions & more as having the power to derail the JV , hence my recommendation that we focus on developing core technologies & leave it at that.

Disclaimer : I didn't watch the podcast.

 

[babablacksheep]

I feel it'd be better for both parties to develop core 6th Gen technologies in collaboration with each other viz the skin , RAS , RAM , sensors , weapons package , TF , Radar etc .

The design of individual FAs can be undertaken separately from each other on an individual basis depending on the requirements of the respective armed forces.

If we seek to marry our requirements to theirs it'd unnecessarily complicate the situation leading to sub optimal outcomes like the F-35 program.

OTOH if there exists scope of marrying both requirements into 1 program which genuinely meets mutual needs we can go in for the GCAP model .

Quite frankly I personally don't think this is possible for various reasons . The French will see us as good enough to handle the grunt work in R&D & Mfg whereas we may have different expectations from the JV .

Moreover the French would follow the template set for the Rafale program wherein the Naval version was first developed & the AF version derived from the Naval version.

Here this would lead to a fierce turf war between the IAF & the IN though ideally speaking that should be the way forward.

Moreover given the fact the French will first concentrate on the Naval version it stands to reason there must be a certain commonality between their PANG project & our IAC -3.

The latter isn't even on the drawing board as of now. I see these contradictions & more as having the power to derail the JV , hence my recommendation that we focus on developing core technologies & leave it at that.

Disclaimer : I didn't watch the podcast.

F-22 Raptor (the only 5th-gen jet with a public component-level breakdown.)



The best available data comes from U.S. Air Force FY2007 procurement budget documents (reflecting FY2006 production costs). The recurring unit flyaway cost broke down as:8be7e0

Airframe (structural only): $75.848 million

Engines (2 × F119): $19.069 million

Avionics (including cockpit systems, sensors, radar, and mission systems,LRU's): $25.171 million

The airframe alone,was approximately $76 million per aircraft in then-year (FY2006) dollars.

This was during low-rate production; total flyaway costs later rose to ~$143 million per jet in later lots due to inflation, quantity adjustments, and other factors.

 

[randomradio]

So you are saying Americans have a working vce prototype and France have foundational technologies, yet France is on par with usa?

We ourself have CMX4 based SX, at 1800-1900k TET, yet we need french help for our future engine.

The difference between the two is small. Just 5 years.

India's case, we need help elsewhere, not merely the core materials. We are behind in terms of cooling tech and mass production.

Actually, the current Uttam radar is a hybrid. It uses distributed digital beamforming (processing) at the antenna level, which then feeds into a centralized processing unit.

Uttam varient for mk2 will be fully distributed at antenna level, with central processor being used as auxilliary unit to fuse radar data with other sensors for single cohesive picture.

Sure, that makes it late 5th gen. Analog beamforming is early 5th gen. RBE2-XG is a step ahead.

Digital beamforming uses a converter not a processor. The RBE has converter and processor on the TRM itself. Furthermore we are using SiC substrate while they are using CVD diamond which is multiple times more efficient.

Trex hasn't been built yet.

It's expected to enter service in 2030 along with the F5.

They will have the tech ready and proven to work when the demonstrator actually flies, hopefully in 2029.

You don't build a demonstrator without the tech being ready first. It's the testing as a system bit that takes time. Individually, these technologies will be ready for the most part. There are different technlogy readiness levels that are to be achieved before something becomes usable in a demonstrator.

Technology Readiness Levels - NASA

Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) are a type of measurement system used to assess the maturity level of a particular technology. Each technology project is

www.nasa.gov

SCAF will enter TRL 7 with first flight. Our 6th gen tech is at TRL 3-5 for various technologies, 2 in terms of engine. The journey between TRL 5 to 7 is a long process. Kaveri failed to enter TRL 6 in 2004 and the KDE is now at TRL 6 as of 2025-26 with TRL 7 expected in 2027. TRL 8 in 2030, which means serial production.

TRL 8 is IOC.

NGAD's engines achieved TRL 6 only in 2025.

NGAD engines pass key design reviews, prototype work underway

Work continues on the engines that might one day power the Next Generation Air Dominance fighter, though the fate of NGAD itself is still undetermined.

www.defensenews.com

It's merely been a year since. And SCAF's demonstrator engine has been undergoing ground tests since 2021 and is expected to start flying in 2027.

https://www.safran-group.com/news/futuristic-engine-scaf-2019-04-18

The demonstration engine is planned for 2027.

NGAD engine is expected to achieve TRL 8 in 2030. We can expect the main French engine of 11T to be ready just a few years later.

NGAD achieved TRL 6 in 2024. F-47 will achieve TRL 7 in 2028, just 1 year before SCAF.

I hope this gives you clues on how to read into things when it comes to development programs. Getting to first flight is a massive endeavour, 6 levels, but a mere jump of 1 level in the TRL list to get to IOC after that, and F-47 and SCAF are quite close, so are other European and Chinese programs. They are all within 5 years of each other, we are 15 years away.

We don't know, as you said France is not as open about things.

They actually said that. Initial date was 2027, pushed to 2029.

No, you claim its pretty much same.

F47's demonstrator planes flew years ago, working prototype of vce engines and other techs, f47 is now in prototyping.

Scaf's demonstrator is YET to fly, future engine prototype not build yet, future gan radars prototype hasn't been shown yet, just foundational technologies as of now.

America's f47 program has advanced lot more ahead of foundational technologies stage.

The Americans started late, went slow, and then stopped. And then restarted. It allowed others to catch up.

Nice IMAGINATION.


Atleast you acknowledge the chances of delays, with you're style of talking with weird sense of certainty.

What do you mean imagination? What I posted is the actual schedule announced by ADA. I am skeptical of them achieving it of course, but this is the actual schedule.

*original*
We can only speculate that rafale wouldn't have missed the original date had it not been for beaurocratic delays, but we can't say for sure.

Again, it's something we already know. It's recorded history. Rafale production was halted for 3 years and restarted in 1997. 4 years later LRIP deliveries began.

Plus, 6th gen is lot more completed than early rafale.

We can tell only once it's been achieved.

Another CLAIM.

Sure. But it's a realistic claim. They won't do it though, so we won't actually see it happen.

 

[randomradio]

That's what I am saying. Our actions and words don't match which means even though behind the doors "official" talks are going on for a local manufacturing contract of 2-seat Su-57MKI, yet on public presentations/statements we haven't yet made a decision and are still choosing between Su-57 & F-35, lol. Both of these are self-contradictory and don't match each other. HAL can't do anything on its own until it's given permission by PM/GOI. DefSec is also speaking what he is allowed to in public. Nothing more, nothing less.

Fact is, Su-57 in both "off-the-shelf" and then later local manufactured at HAL Nashik is now a lock. Full details would only be revealed in public on apt time.

It's only happening between two companies, it's quite common. It means nothing without an official RFP.

177S is for MKI UPG. The definitive engine for Su-57 is Item-177 with 108KN dry and 158KN wet thrust, 30% improved fuel efficiency on all flight regimes and 1.6+ Supercruise capability and F-22 like flat stealthy nozzles along with front/rear radar-blockers. They are offering full 'know why' and 'know how' of this engine along with access to full source code of the jet which is absolutely unprecedented.

France has already denied Rafale's source codes and SPECTRA access. Apart from that Russians have also quoted much lower price for 140 locally manufactured Su-57MKI than what local assembly of 114 Rafales would cost us.

We are not getting know-how and know-why of 177, only license production. We are getting it from France 'cause we are actually paying lots of money for it.

We don't care about the Russian prices, it's Russia itself that's becoming untenable.

 

[randomradio]

I think Shiv makes a great point here when he says that if we have to join the FCAS, we will have to merge the AMCA into this program. Like how the Japanese merged the 5th gen program with the GCAP. Given the timelines involved running both programs would be incredibly expensive. Vishnu says that he asked President Macron if the FCAS push was somehow related to the Rafale & its manufacture in India. The President suggested that the FCAS would be a part of the ecosystem.

These journos will kill our indigenous aerospace industry overnight. It's the opposite of a great point.

The Japanese merged with GCAP due to their technological limitations and managing the finances of a small fleet. We are not in the same boat.

And expensive? Are people forgetting that we are going to be $10T economy even before AMCA enters service?

 

[Gautam]

Moreover the French would follow the template set for the Rafale program wherein the Naval version was first developed & the AF version derived from the Naval version.

From an engineering complexity POV, that's actually a good thing. Naval fighter requirements are always more stringent than Air force versions. Why not tackle the bigger problem first?

If we seek to marry our requirements to theirs it'd unnecessarily complicate the situation leading to sub optimal outcomes like the F-35 program.

Yes, prioritizing a naval fighter would mean that the FCAS would likely be a medium size/weight fighter. If the AF version of the FCAS is to replace the Su-30MKI it would probably not be a one-to-one replacement in terms of range &/or payload capacity. This range/payload disadvantage would have to be offset with the use of stealthy wingman/re-fueling drones & other non-stealth fighters.

Moreover given the fact the French will first concentrate on the Naval version it stands to reason there must be a certain commonality between their PANG project & our IAC -3.

The latter isn't even on the drawing board as if now.

We know the IN wants a 65-70,000-ton carrier after that. BAE systems had offered a variant of the QE-class & the DNCS/Naval Group had offered a GT powered variant of the CdG class carrier.

CdG is essentially the same size as the Vikrant & the QE-class is essentially a larger Vikrant in terms of features. At least the CdG has catapults. IN/DRDO has been working on EMALS catapults. They would want their next carrier class to have those.

The PANG would fit in well with IN's requirements for the IAC-3. The problem is the propulsion setup. If we go for nuclear propulsion, we will need 2 units of the CLWR-B2, that reactor was designed for submarines & not surface ships. If we go for conventional propulsion, we will need QE's IEP setup. Either choice comes with problems.

As far as commonality for the FACS program goes, we need commonality on lift sizes. That shouldn't be too difficult.

OTOH if there exists scope of marrying both requirements into 1 program which genuinely meets mutual needs we can go in for the GCAP model .

Quite frankly I personally don't think this is possible for various reasons . The French will see us as good enough to handle the grunt work in R&D & Mfg whereas we may have different expectations from the JV .

If our 6th gen program must be a JV, then France should get a preference. Their history with us should give them a leg up.

Sure, we haven't run any joint fighter programs with the French. But we have run many other aerospace programs with them. How many helicopters in Indian military service use French engines? Easily 500+ helos, 900+ engines. Can't be easy managing spares, services, consumables etc. for a fleet this size. Yet you never hear about these engines here.

One can argue that you don't hear any complaints about these engines because many are manufactured in India. But isn't that what they are offering under FCAS?

The Japanese merged with GCAP due to their technological limitations and managing the finances of a small fleet. We are not in the same boat.

I would be willing to buy this line if we had managed to solve our TF related woes. The way GoI has managed the Kaveri program & the question of acquiring a flying testbed doesn't fill me with hope.

And expensive? Are people forgetting that we are going to be $10T economy even before AMCA enters service?

If the AMCA's induction timeline gets delayed enough we could be a 15 trillion-dollar economy before it enters service. Not really something to brag about.

How certain are we that the present induction timeline (2035) is solid?

 

[YoungWolf]

If the AF version of the FCAS is to replace the Su-30MKI it would probably not be a one-to-one replacement in terms of range &/or payload capacity. This range/payload disadvantage would have to be offset with the use of stealthy wingman/re-fueling drones & other non-stealth fighters.

Well, in the hypothetical that India joins FCAS, this is exactly where Airbus' proposal of 2 different fighters makes sense, particularly for us. The bone of contention, outside of the workshare agreements, is the size of the jet itself. Spain-Germany's preference for long-range, heavyweight fits the bill as IAF's Su-30 replacement, and France's roughly Rafale sized fighter makes sense for IN's future airpower requirements. Our planners should hope that Airbus' proposal comes to fruition before making any concrete decisions (at least I would of I were in their shoes).

The problem is the propulsion setup. If we go for nuclear propulsion, we will need 2 units of the CLWR-B2, that reactor was designed for submarines & not surface ships.

Upscaling is much easier (relatively) compared to downsizing. Given that space constraints are less extreme in a ~70,000 tonnes behemoth, a CLWR-B2 upscaled to ~250 MWth should fit the bill nicely, unless I'm missing some other factors which fundamentally differentiate the reactor design for sub use to that of a surface ship use which I'm happy to be educated on. Outside of the costs, I'd say the pros outweigh the cons.

 

[Gautam]

Upscaling is much easier (relatively) compared to downsizing. Given that space constraints are less extreme in a ~70,000 tonnes behemoth, a CLWR-B2 upscaled to ~250 MWth should fit the bill nicely, unless I'm missing some other factors which fundamentally differentiate the reactor design for sub use to that of a surface ship use which I'm happy to be educated on. Outside of the costs, I'd say the pros outweigh the cons.

Power delivery needs for surface ships are quite different from that of a submarine. A surface ship faces continuous waterline drag, subs have to deal with that only when surfaced.

Yes, scaling up the CLWR-B2 & modifying it for surface ships use would be technically less challenging than miniaturizing a reactor. But it would still take years to prototype, test & certify.

Conversely if we go for a conventional propulsion like the QE-class, we might not have enough electrical power for continuous operation of the EMALS catapults & future DEWs.

 

[calutronking]

Power delivery needs for surface ships are quite different from that of a submarine. A surface ship faces continuous waterline drag, subs have to deal with that only when surfaced.

Yes, scaling up the CLWR-B2 & modifying it for surface ships use would be technically less challenging than miniaturizing a reactor. But it would still take years to prototype, test & certify.

Conversely if we go for a conventional propulsion like the QE-class, we might not have enough electrical power for continuous operation of the EMALS catapults & future DEWs.

You can just use multiple reactors.

 

[Hydra]

These journos will kill our indigenous aerospace industry overnight. It's the opposite of a great point.

The Japanese merged with GCAP due to their technological limitations and managing the finances of a small fleet. We are not in the same boat.

And expensive? Are people forgetting that we are going to be $10T economy even before AMCA enters service?

But one point they said is true, MK2 is outdated. I think MK2 still relevant against Pakistan &BD, but against Chinese this aircraft is outdated.

 

[_Anonymous_]

From an engineering complexity POV, that's actually a good thing. Naval fighter requirements are always more stringent than Air force versions. Why not tackle the bigger problem first?

Yes & who's going to tell that to the IAF. Ideally while the IAF is busy in realising the 5th Gen program they ought to take a backseat to the IN while the latter takes the lead in the 6th Gen FA program . You think they will ?

Requires somebody with iron will as the Raksha Mantri to lay down the line. You think Rajnath Singh has it in him assuming we tie up with France for the FCAS ?

Yes, prioritizing a naval fighter would mean that the FCAS would likely be a medium size/weight fighter. If the AF version of the FCAS is to replace the Su-30MKI it would probably not be a one-to-one replacement in terms of range &/or payload capacity. This range/payload disadvantage would have to be offset with the use of stealthy wingman/re-fueling drones & other non-stealth fighters.

The FCAS as a medium weight class makes sense if we go in for the Su-57 in huge nos . Otherwise endurance & long range seems to be the name of the game as far as 6th Gen goes.

The Chinese & the countries participating in the GCAP are going down that way. The US isn't. Then again if our 6th Gen is going to feature a TEDBF , we'd have to opt for a medium weight FA.

All this needs to be studied thoroughly before we arrive at a conclusion.

We know the IN wants a 65-70,000-ton carrier after that. BAE systems had offered a variant of the QE-class & the DNCS/Naval Group had offered a GT powered variant of the CdG class carrier.

CdG is essentially the same size as the Vikrant & the QE-class is essentially a larger Vikrant in terms of features. At least the CdG has catapults. IN/DRDO has been working on EMALS catapults. They would want their next carrier class to have those.

The PANG would fit in well with IN's requirements for the IAC-3. The problem is the propulsion setup. If we go for nuclear propulsion, we will need 2 units of the CLWR-B2, that reactor was designed for submarines & not surface ships. If we go for conventional propulsion, we will need QE's IEP setup. Either choice comes with problems.

As far as commonality for the FACS program goes, we need commonality on lift sizes. That shouldn't be too difficult.


If our 6th gen program must be a JV, then France should get a preference. Their history with us should give them a leg up.

Sure, we haven't run any joint fighter programs with the French. But we have run many other aerospace programs with them. How many helicopters in Indian military service use French engines? Easily 500+ helos, 900+ engines. Can't be easy managing spares, services, consumables etc. for a fleet this size. Yet you never hear about these engines here.

One can argue that you don't hear any complaints about these engines because many are manufactured in India. But isn't that what they are offering under FCAS?

Taking a holistic view of the situation I'd say if we go by your logic we're merely trading dependencies from Russia with France.

We signed the Rafale at a time when there's actually little need for it . It should have been done latest by 2020. In another decade we'd have the Mk-2 in service which replicates most of what Rafale brings to the table.

Assuming that isn't the case we also have the AMCA Mk-1 which could double up in a non stealth avatar to do what we wanted of the Rafale. That too is coming next decade.

We signed up for the Rafale partly coz like the IN has a bee in its bonnet about collaboration with a F-OEM for the Project 75 I , the IAF has one for the Rafale. That & quite obviously the French may have laid down the ground rule if we need the JV for the 120 KN TF we would have to award the MMRCA tender to Dassault Aviation & here we are .

Now look at the dependencies created . Apart from the ones in hptrs , it's the power plant for our 5th Gen FA program , possible derivatives , the ~ 200 nos Rafales for the IAF + IN & in addition you want us to tie up with them not only for the 6th Gen platform but also the IAC -3 ?

I foresee a strong lobby in our security establishment opposing this line of thought. That's precisely what we have been seeking to escape from the Russians right since the 1980s .

Not to mention the US & Russia will activate their lobbies within our establishment to oppose such a move. Truth be told even I'm not comfortable with such crippling dependencies.

To take a leaf out of our own history - that's precisely the reason IG signed up with the French for the Mirage 2000 & approached the US for the technical collaboration for the LCA program resulting in us getting the F-404 as the prospective power plant for the LCA besides seeking their aid in development of the LCA . That's how the DRDO / CLAW came to CALSPAN to study & develop the FCL .

Inthe light of all this what I've proposed earlier seems to be the safest option vis a vis the 6th Gen program.

I would be willing to buy this line if we had managed to solve our TF related woes. The way GoI has managed the Kaveri program & the question of acquiring a flying testbed doesn't fill me with hope.

We're coming out of this largely self created mess. Hopefully this JV gives us what we need vis a vis the tech & testing infrastructure to fully realise the Kaveri into an analogue for the F-404 & hopefully using the same core to develop an analogue for the F-414 .

Arguably if we set our minds to developing the Flight Test Bed & HATF 2 decades ago & if not that in MP's tenure we'd have been on the cusp of realising it today.

Anyway better late than never.

If the AMCA's induction timeline gets delayed enough we could be a 15 trillion-dollar economy before it enters service. Not really something to brag about.

How certain are we that the present induction timeline (2035) is solid?

Leaving aside the AMCA we must under no circumstances delay the launching of the project for the 6th Gen platform beyond 2030 for which conceptual studies must commence this year .

Simultaneously we need to look into the option of collaboration viz - whether we ought to do down the route of a FULL JV or opt for consultancy in select areas or a JV limited only to critical areas like what I proposed.