Talk:HAL AMCA

	HAL AMCA was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 28, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India Start‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was last assessed in April 2012. Military history: Aviation / Asian / Indian / South Asia Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Asian military history task force Indian military history task force South Asian military history task force Aviation: Aircraft Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in India may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that HAL AMCA be renamed and moved to Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]