Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4996
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby srai » 04 Apr 2021 04:16

ks_sachin wrote:
Vivek K wrote:By not inducting the NLCA, the IN has made sure it will have problems finding fighters - killing a bird in hand while flying dangerous machines and looking for the perfect solution. Inducting the NLCA for training and testing different techs is a good option that can make the TEDBF a reality.

What tech?
Is not ADA doing that?
Has the NLCA been tested to its full combat envelope while doing carrier TOs and landing?


R&D trials vs operational in-service usage are a whole different ballgame. One you are proofing technology while the other provides invaluable real-life complete lifecycle feedback loop both to the end user and the developer.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 04 Apr 2021 04:49

srai wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:What tech?
Is not ADA doing that?
Has the NLCA been tested to its full combat envelope while doing carrier TOs and landing?


R&D trials vs operational in-service usage are a whole different ballgame. One you are proofing technology while the other provides invaluable real-life complete lifecycle feedback loop both to the end user and the developer.

So you are saying that the NLCA is ready for combat operations?

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2695
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 04 Apr 2021 05:51

Are you saying it isn’t? With all components flying in LCA, what new weapon systems would need to be developed or integrated?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9799
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 04 Apr 2021 06:20

ks_sachin wrote:Has the NLCA been tested to its full combat envelope while doing carrier TOs and landing?


Aircraft carrier qualification, and integration is a multi-step process involving both shore based and at sea testing. The latter involves multiple detachments of developmental testing aboard a carrier so that lessons learned can be incorporated and the system (not just the aircraft) taken back and those validated on subsequent test availability for the carrier (you seldom get weeks of continuous access to a deployed AC). Once that is complete, you then give an operational testing crew access to the entire system (from the aircraft to how it is expected to be equipped and sustained out at sea) and let them run their operational trials to fully qualify and approve for operations. On the side developmental testing efforts are also putting operationally representative cycles of TO and Landings to build up fatigue data. It takes time and the Naval Tejas is into this multi-phase testing phase and the TEDBF will go through the same.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4996
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby srai » 04 Apr 2021 09:20

ks_sachin,

https://delhidefencereview.com/2019/10/15/a-detailed-look-at-the-design-evolution-of-indias-naval-lca-mk1-fighter/amp/

...

The avionics were upgraded to a full Navy specified suite. The internal fuel was also increased giving it the most fuel capacity among all LCA Mk1 variants. A fuel auto-transfer functionality and an Attitude Compensated Fuel System were added to better manage the CG during flight which has direct consequence for drag and manoeuvrability. The on-board Multi-Mode Radar (MMR) was augmented with a data link facility. The Data-link functionality was demonstrated in conjunction with the Sea Harrier. Integration of the Derby missile beyond visual range air to air missile (BVRAAM) and a self-protection jammer (SPJ) pod were accomplished and the ECFM systems were updated.

NLCA Mk1 was designed keeping in mind air superiority as its primary mission along with limited air-to-ground and anti-ship strike and reconnaissance capability. Currently, it is integrated with the R-73 close combat missile (CCM), besides the Derby BVRAAM. It also inherits the GSh-23 gun from the Airforce version. NLCA Mk1 can easily be outfitted with additional weapons meant for the Airforce Tejas Mk1 and its future variants.

Image

...

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 04 Apr 2021 10:23

In which case it should be inducted...

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 04 Apr 2021 10:25

brar_w wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:Has the NLCA been tested to its full combat envelope while doing carrier TOs and landing?


Aircraft carrier qualification, and integration is a multi-step process involving both shore based and at sea testing. The latter involves multiple detachments of developmental testing aboard a carrier so that lessons learned can be incorporated and the system (not just the aircraft) taken back and those validated on subsequent test availability for the carrier (you seldom get weeks of continuous access to a deployed AC). Once that is complete, you then give an operational testing crew access to the entire system (from the aircraft to how it is expected to be equipped and sustained out at sea) and let them run their operational trials to fully qualify and approve for operations. On the side developmental testing efforts are also putting operationally representative cycles of TO and Landings to build up fatigue data. It takes time and the Naval Tejas is into this multi-phase testing phase and the TEDBF will go through the same.

How many aircraft in a dev and testing program?
Should the IN order a sq worth of NLCA?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 04 Apr 2021 12:12

The IN could've ordered at least 1 sqd. of NLCAs adding to numbers for the 2 exg. CVs, plus also basing it on land if required, giving some slack to the IAF where 29Ks are/were doing duty in Himalayan skies recently. As said umpteen times,it could also be used on our 2 amphibs planned if redesigned as multi-role flat tops/ CVLs.

Going ahead with the TEDBF with just the 2 exg. CVs with their lift s limits the TEDBF to the dimensions of the 29K max. How superior is it going to be from an upgraded 29K? It will carry the very same weaponry being developed right now for IAF fighters from MKIs to LCAs and the 29K!
Otherwise, if larger and unabld to use exg. lifts, we will have a TEDBF with no carriers on which to operate them from as CV#3 ias a long,long,way away! It would be far cheaper to concentrate upon upgrading the 29K like we did with the Bsions,saving sev. billions in the process and puting that money saved into NAMCA/ UCAV programmes.

The incongruity of developing new 4+ gen fighters 10+ years from now when as mentioned in an above post that extra Rafales and MIG-29s can suffice for the IAF ditching MMRCA 2.0, holds good for the TEDBF prog. too when rival AMCA is being developed on the side. There appears to be a lot of confidence in it,hopes to have it available by the end of the decade,where a Mk-1 AMCA with superior features to a TEDBF will be a superior option to it.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 04 Apr 2021 12:30

Philip wrote:The IN could've ordered at least 1 sqd. of NLCAs adding to numbers for the 2 exg. CVs, plus also basing it on land if required, giving some slack to the IAF where 29Ks are/were doing duty in Himalayan skies recently. As said umpteen times,it could also be used on our 2 amphibs planned if redesigned as multi-role flat tops/ CVLs.

IN orders NLCA to give relief to IAF or orders them for imaginary flat tops. Philip we are discussing something interesting. Kindly desist from your flights of fancy...

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9799
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 04 Apr 2021 20:24

ks_sachin wrote:Should the IN order a sq worth of NLCA?


It depends on what you include in the carrier specific program (and what you test out of it), how much the product deviates from the parent design, etc etc. Though not a direct comparison, for reference, the Super Hornet (a Hornet parent design) was a 6-7 development test aircraft fleet with 2-3 of those dedicated to carrier testing (or doing carrier test related stuff on land). Their initial target was 3.5 years and 2,000 sorties to complete developmental testing but I believe they exceeded both sortie and schedule. Once development testing was complete, the dev. test fleet was modified to incorporate all the design changes as a result of dev. test discoveries (and any other design features not included in the test fleet but to be included in the operational fleet) and handed to the OT community for an operational evaluation. OPEVAL was roughly 900 sortie, 1200+ hour program covering nearly 6-months of dedicated at land and at sea test phases.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5537
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Kartik » 16 Apr 2021 13:28

TEDBF wind tunnel testing has begun

Image

sajaym
BRFite
Posts: 195
Joined: 04 Feb 2019 09:11

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby sajaym » 16 Apr 2021 15:05

:shock: I would've thought wind tunnel testing would have been completed before they fixed on the model and displayed it publicly.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5537
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Kartik » 16 Apr 2021 16:26

sajaym wrote::shock: I would've thought wind tunnel testing would have been completed before they fixed on the model and displayed it publicly.


Then you weren't aware of the updates that were given at Aero India 2021..that the model was still in development, with more changes expected as wind tunnel testing was conducted. The initial model layout is likely based on CFD analysis of the design. And that design has come up with a lot of emphasis on area ruling, as was revealed by the TEDBF Project Director. That is how it ended up with the Rafalesque cheeks.

karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 703
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby karan_mc » 16 Apr 2021 18:48

Design seems to be same as seen at AI2021. Yet to see the other design of the TEDBF

Shekhar Singh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 37
Joined: 16 Sep 2018 14:55

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Shekhar Singh » 17 Apr 2021 21:23

As per Amit R kashyap there are two designs undergoing wind tunnel testing. One with canard and other one with tail stabilizers.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8410
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 18 Apr 2021 05:40

Shekhar Singh wrote:As per Amit R kashyap there are two designs undergoing wind tunnel testing. One with canard and other one with tail stabilizers.

The TEDBF project director as well as ADA chief have talked about the existence of the two designs in video interviews with DDR etc. during Aero India. They were posted here earlier.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11140
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 18 Apr 2021 06:00

The Project Director for TEDBF confirmed that there is a STOBAR version and a CATOBAR version.

LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby LakshmanPST » 18 Apr 2021 08:37

Rakesh wrote:The Project Director for TEDBF confirmed that there is a STOBAR version and a CATOBAR version.


No, the two configurations that ADA ia studying now are Delta & Canard Design and Tail stabilator design...
The design of TEDBF is for STOBAR as of now... For it to be able to operate from CATOBAR need some structural changes in Front fuselage srction... ADA is not pursuing this design as of now...

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2805
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby JTull » 19 Apr 2021 20:19

Rakesh wrote:The Project Director for TEDBF confirmed that there is a STOBAR version and a CATOBAR version.


He said that CATOBAR variant is possible if IN deems so (may need couple of years of additional work). Current 2 configs are both STOBAR.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11140
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 19 Apr 2021 22:39

I misunderstood what the Project Director said. Thank you to you both for pointing out my error.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5537
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Kartik » 27 Apr 2021 18:06

TEDBF brochure from ADA. Now that the wind tunnel model is in testing, I would expect some more refinement of the design going forward before more detailed design activities begin. Those talking about the possible absence of DSI intakes on the wind tunnel model of TEDBF, I think we may see a separate Wind Tunnel Model built for studying the TEDBF's intake design at a later stage. As of now they're focusing on freezing the configuration.

Targeted induction date into service is 2031, which is 10 years from now. To achieve that, the prototype will need to be in flight tests at least by 2026. At least 4-5 years of flight and carrier compatibility testing will be required before TEDBF achieves IOC.

The FCS will be a derivative of the FCS that is being developed for the Tejas Mk2 (which itself is a derivative of the FCS from Tejas Mk1). Both platforms have similar surfaces (leading edge slats, elevons, single rudder and canards) so it will definitely be using the Tejas Mk2 FCS as the baseline from which to modify it for the TEDBF.

Also there will be a lot of avionics commonality between TEDBF and Tejas Mk2. I would expect a very very high degree of commonality to keep development times as low as possible. Similar cockpit layouts, software for the avionics and systems. Would also leverage work being done on the AMCA for software and avionics plus systems both being twin engined fighters with approximately similar MTOWs.

Radar could likely be the GaN variant of Uttam AESA radar. (LRDE has recently fabricated a GaN plank which is the building block for beginning to assemble a GaN AESA radar prototype). Indranil's tweet confirmed this.

LRDE on the verge of realizing GaN based X-band AESA radar. 32 element plank is roughly 555 mm in length and 10mm in breadth. This is quite state-of-the-art.


Twitter link

Image

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 718
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby rajsunder » 01 May 2021 13:54

Shekhar Singh wrote:As per Amit R kashyap there are two designs undergoing wind tunnel testing. One with canard and other one with tail stabilizers.

yes, the other one is with trapezoidal wings and tail stabilizers more like F-18

hemant_sai
BRFite
Posts: 108
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby hemant_sai » 02 May 2021 23:18

Why more like f18? Why not more like AMCA? So far we know 2 things are not feasible to apply for naval requirements,
1] Interal bay - to cater to more fuel option - internal and with drop tanks to increase endurance.
2] No serpentine intakes - due to pressure recovery limitations.

What are other problems with AMCA airframe design that we are more willing to explore other designs than utilize existing research and design work?

Sometimes I feel ADA just wants to make sure steady flow of work and funding.

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 718
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby rajsunder » 04 May 2021 02:52

hemant_sai wrote:Why more like f18? Why not more like AMCA? So far we know 2 things are not feasible to apply for naval requirements,
1] Interal bay - to cater to more fuel option - internal and with drop tanks to increase endurance.
2] No serpentine intakes - due to pressure recovery limitations.

What are other problems with AMCA airframe design that we are more willing to explore other designs than utilize existing research and design work?

Sometimes I feel ADA just wants to make sure steady flow of work and funding.

because ADA/HAL tend to go for proven designs rather than come up with drastic new design.

nash
BRFite
Posts: 901
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby nash » 07 May 2021 17:13

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/1390620891898204162

TEDBF is pursued by user service & ADA under GoI guidance. It's a replacement for fleet retiring after 2035. There's no hurry for emergency imports. Never economical to import.

ORCA is off the table???
Probably, the baseline aircraft itself would suffice for land & marine roles.


If Mig-29K can be deployed at leh-ladakh last year, then it can be done with TEDBF also.No need of IAF to formulate its specification, seems interesting.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 457
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby basant » 07 May 2021 19:11

+++
Been saying for long, change the MLG, and use it for IAF. We shouldn't waste resources on too many variants.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5537
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Kartik » 12 May 2021 18:17

TEDBF CFD model

Image

Twitter link

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8410
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 12 May 2021 23:27

basant wrote:+++
Been saying for long, change the MLG, and use it for IAF. We shouldn't waste resources on too many variants.

Even that is unnecessary. Boeing was marketing the SH as-is for the MRCA. The legacy F-18 served in several air forces as well, as did the F4 Phantom. Changing the landing gear would itself consume significant r&d resources.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 457
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby basant » 13 May 2021 01:05

Agree. Changing MLG from navy to air force version shouldn't be a problem unlike the other way round.

Raman
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 06 Mar 2001 12:31
Location: Niyar kampootar onlee

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Raman » 13 May 2021 16:17

We need to keep in mind that the weight penalty for a naval fighter is not only in the landing gear but in the entire primary structure and the load paths from the gear and hook to the primary structure. It's not just a question if swapping out the gear.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5537
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Kartik » 13 May 2021 17:47

Raman wrote:We need to keep in mind that the weight penalty for a naval fighter is not only in the landing gear but in the entire primary structure and the load paths from the gear and hook to the primary structure. It's not just a question if swapping out the gear.


Some of those structures can be optimized for an Air Force fighter, but it doesn't need all of it to be done. It will just have a very sturdy airframe and long life.

Another big change will be in the wing, where the wing folding hinges will be removed and the spars will be made continuous to make the ORCA an all-out 9G fighter, rather than the 8G fighter that the TEDBF will be.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8410
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 13 May 2021 23:58

basant wrote:Changing MLG from navy to air force version shouldn't be a problem unlike the other way round.

I am saying it is not necessary, nor it is as easy as you think. Raman as already pointed out an issue above.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5537
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Kartik » 15 May 2021 14:04

nachiket wrote:
basant wrote:Changing MLG from navy to air force version shouldn't be a problem unlike the other way round.

I am saying it is not necessary, nor it is as easy as you think. Raman as already pointed out an issue above.


It's pretty obvious that the IAF will not take a Navy optimized TEDBF as is without changes to the landing gear and folding wings. It does not suit their operational requirements to have a fighter that is heavier than it needs to be for land based use, and restricted from 9G due to wing folding that they don't need.

Rest of the strengthening of the structures to absorb and transfer the arresting hook loads may not be completely optimized, since all we'll get is a sturdier ORCA. But then again, sturdier than what it needs to be based on IAF's operational requirements is not necessarily good. Any extra kgs of weight the ORCA carries is less fuel/payload that it could've carried instead.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 457
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby basant » 15 May 2021 16:48

Some changes can be done during MLU. Pragmatic approach would be more prudent.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 507
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby maitya » 16 May 2021 15:36

Kartik wrote:<snip>
Radar could likely be the GaN variant of Uttam AESA radar. (LRDE has recently fabricated a GaN plank which is the building block for beginning to assemble a GaN AESA radar prototype). Indranil's tweet confirmed this.

LRDE on the verge of realizing GaN based X-band AESA radar. 32 element plank is roughly 555 mm in length and 10mm in breadth. This is quite state-of-the-art.


Twitter link

Some more relevant tweets:
Twitter - Strategic Frontier:
Solid State Physics Lab has issued a tender for production of 10 GaN HEMTs on 4 inch Si substrates. DRDO has been working on GaN HEMTs for next gen radars as they are more powerful & efficient compared to the currently used GaAs. It seems prototyping phase of GaN HEMT has begun

I sincerely hope they are using Tapered Slot Antenna (TSA - Vivaldi Antenna) for a higher bandwidth coverage.

But back in 2018 we have had this as well ...
Twitter - Choice of Inevitability:
A Watershed Moment: an advanced 1000-element active phased array antenna based on Gallium Nitride (GaN) semiconductor technology undergoing testing at an LRDE facility (in 2018). It has direct application in high-performance AESA radars
Image

So not sure what happened to that effort ...

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 507
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby maitya » 16 May 2021 16:02

... and this is what Indranil had tweeted a few days back:

Twitter - Indranil Roy
Upgraded AAAU with 912-1000 TRMs. 2 sets to be built, one each by L1 and L2 (at L1 costs). Delivery timeline T0 +32weeks.
Question is whether this is for Mk2 or Mk1A?
Image

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4415
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby nam » 16 May 2021 16:05

That X band GaN panel seen in the image is the one present on QRSAM BMFR truck.

LRDE already has Vivaldi antenna for GaN based ECM. D29 may have GaAs Vivaldi. GaN modules are now commercially available to us, now that everyone knows, we can build it in house.

KSingh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 82
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby KSingh » 16 May 2021 18:56

Kartik wrote:
Raman wrote:We need to keep in mind that the weight penalty for a naval fighter is not only in the landing gear but in the entire primary structure and the load paths from the gear and hook to the primary structure. It's not just a question if swapping out the gear.


Some of those structures can be optimized for an Air Force fighter, but it doesn't need all of it to be done. It will just have a very sturdy airframe and long life.

Another big change will be in the wing, where the wing folding hinges will be removed and the spars will be made continuous to make the ORCA an all-out 9G fighter, rather than the 8G fighter that the TEDBF will be.

RAAF happily operates the F18 SH (and ordered more recently) and Australia doesn't even have carriers, same story with all export operators of the F-18

IAF is a spoiled kid, I don't remember them rejecting F-18 in the MMRCA bid because it wasn't optimised as a land fighter, at most a lighter landing gear can be installed and the tail hook deleted but anything more extensive than this requiring major re-designs is absurd and will inevitably lead to delays and development costs that the IAF won't be willing to foot the bill for.

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 718
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby rajsunder » 16 May 2021 22:25

maitya wrote:... and this is what Indranil had tweeted a few days back:

Twitter - Indranil Roy
Upgraded AAAU with 912-1000 TRMs. 2 sets to be built, one each by L1 and L2 (at L1 costs). Delivery timeline T0 +32weeks.
Question is whether this is for Mk2 or Mk1A?
Image

What are the Antenna like things on the top of the radar. Never seen any such things on other AESA Radars for fighter jets.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8410
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 17 May 2021 22:53

Kartik wrote:It's pretty obvious that the IAF will not take a Navy optimized TEDBF as is without changes to the landing gear and folding wings. It does not suit their operational requirements to have a fighter that is heavier than it needs to be for land based use, and restricted from 9G due to wing folding that they don't need.

Rest of the strengthening of the structures to absorb and transfer the arresting hook loads may not be completely optimized, since all we'll get is a sturdier ORCA. But then again, sturdier than what it needs to be based on IAF's operational requirements is not necessarily good. Any extra kgs of weight the ORCA carries is less fuel/payload that it could've carried instead.

All of these issues exist on the Super Hornet as well. Yet the IAF did not outright reject it. They went ahead with full flight evals etc. ADA website says TEDBF MTOW is envisaged to be 26 tonnes. Nearly 4 tonnes less than the SH with the same amount of thrust available. Not sure of the empty weight, but it should be less than the SH too I guess. This should enable IAF's unique requirements like being able to take off from Leh with usable payload to be met.

Changing the wings to be non-folding so that the 8G restriction is removed might be relatively simple, but redesigning the entire landing gear assembly and lightening the airframe won't be. If you have a few years to work with, yes you can most certainly do all that and build a kinematically superior fighter. But the TEDBF itself will not be ready before mid-2030's. So you need yet another parallel program for the ORCA. The IAF might as well just wait for the AMCA at that point.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests