From January of this year, before the much delayed CCS approval:
 
From January of this year, before the much delayed CCS approval:
Thanks a lot for posting this. I was really wondering what's going on with the PPP model and as the article notes, there was total silence while the development itself was progressing. HAL really gave a lot of emphasis in it alongside externalizing tier 2 and 3 vendors for the aircraft manufacturing, which I think goes hand-in-hand with the PPP.

If I sport a guess, I think thr Indian MoD might be putting too much liability on the private side. This has been a problem 1uite a few times woth Indian defence acquisition, eg. Rafale.
 
From January of this year, before the much delayed CCS approval:
What do you guys think about the avionic architecture of the AMCA? I've often heard it claimed that it's still basically a typical 80s era architecture but I'm not well versed on the AMCA programme to make a comment.
 
What do you guys think about the avionic architecture of the AMCA? I've often heard it claimed that it's still basically a typical 80s era architecture but I'm not well versed on the AMCA programme to make a comment.


I think the Indians themselves do not actually know what's about this project.
And in fact since they are still trying hard to get the Tejas Mk.1A being delivered this summer, are working even more on Tejas Mk.2, and explore around the DEDBF in parallel, I have no hopes at all.

I'm pretty sure we will see the PLAAF's 6th generation fighter or at least a demonstrator flying long before the AMCA.
 
Let's see if they can actually produce a flying prototypes, tbh 2028 is very optimistic in my view. They should be at least start producing parts this or last year for the flyig prototypes. Then build ironbirds to test and integrate various flight systems on the ground before actually mount them into flying prototypes.

Also there would be more than 1 airframe, there at least 2 or 3 where 1 would be flying, 1 structural test and the other if exist become "reference static airframe" a fully functional but not intended to fly, same as Russian T-50KNI.
 
What do you guys think about the avionic architecture of the AMCA? I've often heard it claimed that it's still basically a typical 80s era architecture but I'm not well versed on the AMCA programme to make a comment.
I'll have to look up for the specificis, but I'm very much doubtful that it would be an "80s era architecture". That would be your common federated architecture with 1553B class data bus connecting various mission systems, each having their own processors/computers to process data, connected to a few separate mission computers. F-16 for example had a separate cockpit interface processor, fire control computer and store management system until the MMC.

I don't think India wouldn't be able to develop a central multifunction mission computer in 2020s. It's basically 30 years old technology at this point.
 

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom