Its a medium size (25 ton) aircraft. Internal bay size is directly related to size of the aircraft. You cant magically create space without giving up on something else.
There are ways, like in F35 Lockheed offers sidekick mods to increase no. Of A2A missiles carried.
F35 is even more compact in size than amca while in similar weight class( 27-30 tons mtow for F35, 27 tons mtow for AMCA).
Honestly its very impressive the amount of things they managed to incorporate in such a compact(f35) design along with carrying 8+ tons of internal fuel & also offering sidekick mod.
AMCA is 25-26 ton and F-35A is 31.8 ton. Its not similar weight class. They can use the sidekick weapons bay layout because of depth.
I repeat again, we don't have to worry about AMCA internal bays. It would be accompanied by Loyal Wingman drones or Ghatak. Frankly, the existing main bay is pretty good. 2 BVR and 3 glide bombs can be carried simultaneously, or simply 4 BVRs. Good enough for radar killing operations or clearing way for Sukhois firing standoff munitions.
We should also keep in mind the future evolution of IACCS where AMCA could theoretically provide midcourse guidance to GBAD like Kusha.
"Senior defense officials told ANI that the 5.5 generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft would be a stealth aircraft and weigh around 27tons with the capability to carry huge weapons load"
Indian 5.5 gen AMCA fighter plane prototype to be ready in next four years https://share.google/29s2LHYtCZAV0mtRp
......................................
F35 A & C has MTOW of 31.8 tons.
F35B has mtow of 27.2 tons.
F35A has empty weight of 13.3 tons.
For comparison F/A-18 SH(29.9 tons mtow) has empty weight of 14.5 tons.
F35 A has little bit lower empty weight than SH and little bit higher MTOW while having little bit lower wet thrust( 191kn of f135 vs 196kn of 2 f414 ) and lot more compact size.
The 31.8 tons mtow of F35A is not because it has more space to put things or more * depth * , its the very impressive packing efficiency of internals,LRUs,fuel,payload.
The fat/thickness/depth of the F35A is an illusion.
AMCA will not be any less thick than f35A, this i can say with confidence.
AMCA will be in same league as F35A when it comes to range( maybe somewhat higher range? ) & payload, while larger ( atleast in width & length) in size.
Last edited:
Why do you have to rely on hearsay when you have the proper spec sheet?
Whats the point of mentioning F35B here?
F-35 Closer To Carrying Six AIM-120 Missiles Internally
Known as Sidekick, the upgrade will give F-35As and Cs the ability to go from four to six AIM-120 missiles in their internal bays.
www.twz.com
For a stealth fifth gen aircraft to have higher fat/thickness/depth than fourth means its designed for limited stealth and to include deeper weapon bay. As i said, its a tradeoff. Pure stealth aircraft like F-22 optimise for lean clean lines.
It does look like ADA is optimising for AMCA for stealth.
History has shown that Official specs from brochures in aero India do change on case by case basis, some times older ones are reposted or older specs are shown on new brochure.
Even cases of models being recycled or older configuration showed on case by case basis.
ANI is one of the more trusted source when it comes to defence especially in interviewing officials.
+ there were multiple reports in the same month aero india 2025 happened that ADA was further tweaking AMCA's design,
So again that brochure maybe accurate for current configuration not the future one that may emerge.
Aero India 2025: AMCA design undergoes further tweak due to additional testing
India's fifth-generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) will undergo yet another critical design review (CDR), after enhanced stress/load testing determined that...
www.janes.com
Though we can put the mtow in uncertain territory for now 25/27 tons
just FYI Again, the thickness of f35 is an illusion, f35 is not any more thicker than an F22 either.
Its the packaging efficiency of f35, that allows F35 to carrying similar amount of internal fuel as F22(more range too due to single engine of f35 vs twin engine of f22) while carrying plethora of other sensors like das, eots etc that f22 lacks, while being so much more compact in size too.
If AMCA which is larger in dimensions compared to f35, cannot increase iwb capacity without changing its size much or sacrificing stealth optimization, than that means we suck at packaging effectiveness compared to American MIC of early 2000s.
Also AMCA has a rounded irst, that's is not inclosed by any stealth canopy in current configuration, so much for stealth optimization.
Off topic but : people really don't appreciate the extent of packaging effectiveness F35 has, and their designers still managed to area rule the jet too for aerodynamics.
Last edited:
Nope, ANI is never a reliable source for details. They dont even have a proper defence journalist. They just have more access.History has shown that Official specs from brochures in aero India do change on case by case basis, some times older ones are reposted or older specs are shown on new brochure.
Even cases of models being recycled or older configuration showed on case by case basis.
ANI is one of the more trusted source when it comes to defence especially in interviewing officials.
+ there were multiple reports in the same month aero india 2025 happened that ADA was further tweaking AMCA's design,
So again that brochure maybe accurate for current configuration not the future one that may emerge.
Though we can put the mtow in uncertain territory for now 25/27 tonsAero India 2025: AMCA design undergoes further tweak due to additional testing
India's fifth-generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) will undergo yet another critical design review (CDR), after enhanced stress/load testing determined that...
You are reiterating the same thing as the last post. The key word is "tradeoff" in design. You cant have everything.Again, the thickness of f35 is an illusion, f35 is not any more thicker than an F22 either.
Its the packaging efficiency of f35, that allows F35 to carrying similar amount of internal fuel as F22(more range too due to single engine of f35 vs twin engine of f22) while carrying plethora of other sensors like das, eots etc that f22 lacks, while being so much more compact in size too.
If AMCA which is larger in dimensions compared to f35, cannot increase iwb capacity without changing its size much or sacrificing stealth optimization, than that means we suck at packaging effectiveness compared to American MIC of early 2000s.
Also AMCA has a rounded irst, that's is not inclosed by any stealth canopy in current configuration, so much for stealth optimization.
Off topic but : people really don't appreciate the extent of packaging effectiveness F35 has, and their designers still managed to area rule the jet too for aerodynamics.
The American MIC is obviously far more advanced as they have had a few decades of a head start. Everyone is behind them.
That round rear bit would disproportionately negate all the frontal RCS reduction brought in by FSS radome and DSI-serpentine intakes. It's a perfect reflector. The best we can hope for is that this part is built with RAS. Or that the outer glass is using radar reflective coatings. Though there's definitely going to be a radar glint, particularly in X band, with large resonance in S/C band. 
My point and original argument was *there are ways*
Amca's iwb capacity remaining same as current configuration is more of a case of intention or limitation packaging effectiveness, its size is not a hard limit that your comment suggests,
atleast when it comes to increase from 4 bvr to 6 bvr capacity.
Well its small in size & hope a very effective RAS is used to keep any negative effect on stealth at a minimum.
I would have still preferred a faceted/angular back end tho.
I never said it can't be done. Check my posts again. That's why i keep saying it's a trade-off. We don't have any evidence towards was the answer to the original question.
You can if you can manage better packaging effectiveness.
Atleast if it limited to increase capacity from 4 bvr to 6 bvr
@babablacksheep
F-35 is a strike fighter first and its air-to-air role is a secondary requirement which is fulfilled by F-22 now and F-47 in future. AMCA is developed more as a twin-engined Air Superiority Fighter like a somewhat smaller F-22. Due to its twin-engined design with serpentine intakes, its IWB width and depth won't match that of F-35. Yet, we are also looking ways to fit 6 BVRs inside it.
F-35 is a strike fighter first and its air-to-air role is a secondary requirement which is fulfilled by F-22 now and F-47 in future. AMCA is developed more as a twin-engined Air Superiority Fighter like a somewhat smaller F-22. Due to its twin-engined design with serpentine intakes, its IWB width and depth won't match that of F-35. Yet, we are also looking ways to fit 6 BVRs inside it.
Not necessarly.
In fighters like J20, both serpentine S ducts curve up.
Im f35, there is one large y duct that does not curve up and take large part of central space forcing iwb to be on the sides( where generally stuff is packaged)
Also, AMCA's Iwb will not be any less deeper than f35.
Given it will also carry A2G weapons internally.
AMCA has enough depth for a sidekick like mod too.
Limitations are either intentions or our capabilities or mix of both to varying ratios.
Also.
Notice how compact the launchers of f35 are
Compared to AMCA renders.
That's another point, its not just depth, its the packaging effectiveness, compactness, miniaturization etc.
we don't even need to change dimensions or layout of IWB.
Missile with clipped fins, modified launchers & mods to iwb door can achieve 6 BVR if hypothetically required.
Notice how compact the launchers of f35 are
Compared to AMCA renders.
That's another point, its not just depth, its the packaging effectiveness, compactness, miniaturization etc.
we don't even need to change dimensions or layout of IWB.
Missile with clipped fins, modified launchers & mods to iwb door can achieve 6 BVR if hypothetically required.
Last edited:
We're already developing Astra MK2 variant with folding fins specifically for AMCA's IWBs. It will carry 6 of these internally and that should suffice.
Agreed. The hemispherical head with radar reflective coatings will have continuous direct reflection (in the direction of transmitter) in X-band. The saving grace is that the head is going to be small, 25cm-ish diameter. That means X-band RCS in 0.0X SQM order which is still BAD. Particularly in the front.
The main advantage they are probably looking for is that, with this IRST, they might see a stealth aircraft before it sees them. (Expect 50-60km range for 0.01 SQM with the best available X-band radar).
This IRST will detect a jet's IR signature at 70-80km, a twin engine aircraft probably would be seen from a longer distance.
Frankly, it would've been a lot better had the housing been more stealth. There's a real chance of strong glints in lower S-band and L-bands due to the size overlap. Also, mind you, fire control radars on naval ship are operating in S-band, and Akash-NG detects sub-metric RCS from a respectable distance.