Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

LakshmanPST · Post by **LakshmanPST** » 03 Jan 2020 09:47

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12129 ... 04896?s=19

This is a coarse surface model, to estimate ball-park sizing, rough positioning, etc. Especially overall size, to fit into small spaces on deck & blast pens.

Interesting inputs. Thanks everyone.

But this tweet will add more speculation... Coarse surface model of what...???
It looks like MWF, except the exhaust nozzles...
But then, he mentioned 'spaces on deck and blast pens'... So, it may well be TEDBF...
My guess is ADA would have started designing of TEDBF and would have decided that it will be based on LCA with two engines... So, HAL would have started doing some rough studies at their end based on this input...

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 03 Jan 2020 10:16

LakshmanPST wrote:https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12129 ... 04896?s=19

This is a coarse surface model, to estimate ball-park sizing, rough positioning, etc. Especially overall size, to fit into small spaces on deck & blast pens.

Interesting inputs. Thanks everyone.
But this tweet will add more speculation... Coarse surface model of what...???
It looks like MWF, except the exhaust nozzles...
But then, he mentioned 'spaces on deck and blast pens'... So, it may well be TEDBF...
My guess is ADA would have started designing of TEDBF and would have decided that it will be based on LCA with two engines... So, HAL would have started doing some rough studies at their end based on this input...

ORCA is a Cute looking Killer Whale. It looks like a sea panda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_wh ... umping.jpg
This is for sure a carrier based Fighter.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 03 Jan 2020 11:20

A question : whether it's IN's TEDBF OR IAF's ORCA - engine will be F404 OR F141 ?

habal · Post by **habal** » 03 Jan 2020 11:44

extremely uncomfortable with the fact of having exclusively american engines for even drawing board platforms.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 03 Jan 2020 17:28

ashishvikas wrote:A question : whether it's IN's TEDBF OR IAF's ORCA - engine will be F404 OR F141 ?

Appears to be the TEDBF as per Group Captain HV Thakur (Retd). See first tweet below. But then he also mentions blast pens, which means this could be used in the IAF as well.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12129 ... 04896?s=20 ---> This is a coarse surface model, to estimate ball-park sizing, rough positioning, etc. Especially overall size, to fit into small spaces on deck and blast pens. Interesting inputs. Thanks everyone.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12129 ... 97344?s=20 ---> Indigenous fighter projects are equally important & all are being pursued in tandem with DRDO, PSUs, Private majors & Start-Ups. MoD & SHQs are in support. Funds are available. Domestic military aerospace had taken two steps back for the big heave. Our moment in the sun is here.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 03 Jan 2020 17:30

ORCA Twin Engine: India’s Next Gen Plane Render Revealed
https://defenceupdate.in/orca-twin-engi ... -revealed/

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 03 Jan 2020 18:04

Is there any official backing for all this noise? Correct me if I am wrong. So far what we have is one a picture from one officials. That is all. No other details. So why we are even discussing this?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 03 Jan 2020 18:07

engines sited so close to each other

do they have just the one concept where they add and subtract bits and pieces depending on how they interpret the customer requirements

nam · Post by **nam** » 03 Jan 2020 18:45

We should not worry if the rendering is a perfect design.

Rather the most important point: It is a twin engine version of MWF in IAF markings.

This means there is some serious thought been given about offering this to IAF. It is not just a IN requirement. And if it is coming from HAL, it is actually good. HAL is now keenly taking interest in LCA, compared to 2015 when neither IAF nor HAL was remotely interested in it.

If IAF gets onboard, then we are potentially looking at IAF being out and out Indian designed force: MWF, TE-MWF & AMCA.

The "Late Come Aircraft" will form the basis of IAF... with lot of red faces on the ones who were making fun of it.

If I was ADA/HAL, I would take this offer to the ex-Chief test pilot of LCA program... who just happens to be the IAF Chief!

nam · Post by **nam** » 03 Jan 2020 18:52

habal wrote:extremely uncomfortable with the fact of having exclusively american engines for even drawing board platforms.

You buy lots of them. American engines are very reliable. So even if there are sanctions, you can still use it like we did with the first flight of LCA.

Meanwhile, you invest in Kaveri.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 03 Jan 2020 20:46

nam wrote:
habal wrote:extremely uncomfortable with the fact of having exclusively american engines for even drawing board platforms.
You buy lots of them. American engines are very reliable. So even if there are sanctions, you can still use it like we did with the first flight of LCA.

Meanwhile, you invest in Kaveri.

iran stil manages to run tomcats..i dont think we are going Iran way anytime in next 20 years (the tiem to sort papis).i doubt they would have any issues with China....
engines to USA is what tanks are to russia suzerainty payments...

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 Jan 2020 21:20

LakshmanPST wrote:https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12129 ... 04896?s=19

This is a coarse surface model, to estimate ball-park sizing, rough positioning, etc. Especially overall size, to fit into small spaces on deck & blast pens.

Interesting inputs. Thanks everyone.

That's more revealing than the first post. So "they" are planning to modify MWF to TEDBF, not AMCA to TEDBF. It is interesting. I thought they would take the inlet+propulsion from AMCA and then build a naval fighter around it. A clean slate design is often easier for a naval fighter than adapting a shore based fighter for carrier usage. Adapt it for IAF.

Let's see. Rakesh, time for a new thread for TEDBF. Things are getting interesting now. Nobody starts a thread like you do.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 03 Jan 2020 22:01

IR Saar, I was going to start a new one. Do we have any pictures or articles to work with? Anything at this stage would be helpful, even basic specs.

Nice to have a library/reference of data for BR members to view. Is the HVT image of TEDBF a good photo to add? Is that picture official? I know HVT Sir is not one to make stuff up, but just need confirmation.

I will close the old Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2 thread if that is the case. I will also create a new Naval Tejas Mk1 thread as well, as naval single engine Mk2 program has now been scrapped.

nam · Post by **nam** » 03 Jan 2020 22:10

So "they" are planning to modify MWF to TEDBF, not AMCA to TEDBF.

Given this is from HAL, it will be a modification of MWF, as that is the only design they have.

AMCA design is still with ADA. I wonder if we will see a competing TEDBF design from ADA...

It would be a good idea to get a "slimmer" AMCA as the basis of TEDBF. But then the advantage MWF has is, it's base design(MK1) is operational.

AMCA is a unknown..

srin · Post by **srin** » 03 Jan 2020 22:27

Interesting to see what engines they have in mind. It can't be two F-414s or even F-404s if they are looking at modified MWF. Two F125INs or HTFE-25++ ?

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 03 Jan 2020 22:33

Given they've already done a ton of work for the AMCA, I wonder how much of a difference in terms of work needed would exist between an amca derivative and a mwf derivative.

Rakesh,
I will shamelessly toot my own horn

Origins of the tedbf - http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/11/1 ... ter-tedbf/

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 03 Jan 2020 22:37

Prasad, you rock! DDR is always a good source and I will add your article in the new TEDBF thread. Please see there.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 04 Jan 2020 08:50

srin wrote:Interesting to see what engines they have in mind. It can't be two F-414s or even F-404s if they are looking at modified MWF. Two F125INs or HTFE-25++ ?

24 tonne aircraft powered by Two F125INs which has combined Wet thrust of only 56kN , HTFE-25 is worse just 50kN ??, Don't think so . F404-IN20 with combined thrust of 168kN could be ideal since Rafale M is still powered by M-88 generating combined Wet thrust of just 150kN but it will be less then RD-33 aircraft engine used in Mig-29K which has combined Wet thrust of 180kN.

srin · Post by **srin** » 04 Jan 2020 09:00

karan_mc wrote:
srin wrote:Interesting to see what engines they have in mind. It can't be two F-414s or even F-404s if they are looking at modified MWF. Two F125INs or HTFE-25++ ?
24 tonne aircraft powered by Two F125INs which has combined Wet thrust of only 56kN , HTFE-25 is worse just 50kN ??, Don't think so . F404-IN20 with combined thrust of 168kN could be ideal since Rafale M is still powered by M-88 generating combined Wet thrust of just 150kN but it will be less then RD-33 aircraft engine used in Mig-29K which has combined Wet thrust of 180kN.

Didn't know the 24t part. Presumption was that MTOW was going to be similar to MWF.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 04 Jan 2020 13:08

I happened to see a small mob of street vendors making a fight near CV Raman Nagar, on who has more right to build the next desi fighter. Everyone and their uncle (and aunts and kajins too) in that geography is planning to build one. There is money to be spent, promotions to be had etc etc...

I also saw a 1000ft tall wall having built between one DPSU, a few DRDO labs, One CSIR lab, and an independent "agency" under MoD. It was much higher and tense than Trump's wall (or our own Yellow Sea).

I was in town yesterday.. Youknow.. hit when iron is hot.. fish in troubled waters.. etc etc... And please don't tell me the story about the fox between two rams. I had that in 2nd standard text book onlee.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 04 Jan 2020 13:26

Dileep wrote:I happened to see a small mob of street vendors making a fight near CV Raman Nagar, on who has more right to build the next desi fighter. Everyone and their uncle (and aunts and kajins too) in that geography is planning to build one. There is money to be spent, promotions to be had etc etc...

I also saw a 1000ft tall wall having built between one DPSU, a few DRDO labs, One CSIR lab, and an independent "agency" under MoD. It was much higher and tense than Trump's wall (or our own Yellow Sea)..

Spot on Dileep saar...

chola · Post by **chola** » 04 Jan 2020 16:27

srin wrote:Interesting to see what engines they have in mind. It can't be two F-414s or even F-404s if they are looking at modified MWF. Two F125INs or HTFE-25++ ?

The official statement about TEDBF asks for the development of a 110kN medium engine that currently doesn't exists anywhere. Not even in the US or Russia. That is the achilles heel of the project.

The F125 and HTFE-25 are trainer/drone engines with far less power than the F404/F414 family. The only possible competitor (discounting the chini WS-13 and WS-19) is the RD-33. It would make little sense for any redesign of the MWF to move away from the F414.

nam · Post by **nam** » 04 Jan 2020 17:13

I am not surprised that Heli & trainers limited will be feeling very much left out and nothing much to show to the mantrji, who will come on visits.

After all it will be building lots of fighters, but none designed by it...

ADA should be allowed TASL as a provider, to overcome this drama by HAL.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 04 Jan 2020 17:24

LakshmanPST wrote:https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12129 ... 04896?s=19

This is a coarse surface model, to estimate ball-park sizing, rough positioning, etc. Especially overall size, to fit into small spaces on deck & blast pens.

Interesting inputs. Thanks everyone.
But this tweet will add more speculation... Coarse surface model of what...???
It looks like MWF, except the exhaust nozzles...
But then, he mentioned 'spaces on deck and blast pens'... So, it may well be TEDBF...
My guess is ADA would have started designing of TEDBF and would have decided that it will be based on LCA with two engines... So, HAL would have started doing some rough studies at their end based on this input...

Between LCA & AMCA, there was always a thread of plain twin engined fighter running in the back of the mind among enthusiasts & perhaps even among design authorities.

If not for this, def we would be seeing a twin engined LCA. Whichever way it is it is just the natural progression of lca development saga.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 04 Jan 2020 18:11

chola wrote:
srin wrote:Interesting to see what engines they have in mind. It can't be two F-414s or even F-404s if they are looking at modified MWF. Two F125INs or HTFE-25++ ?
The official statement about TEDBF asks for the development of a 110kN medium engine that currently doesn't exists anywhere. Not even in the US or Russia. That is the achilles heel of the project.

The F125 and HTFE-25 are trainer/drone engines with far less power than the F404/F414 family. The only possible competitor (discounting the chini WS-13 and WS-19) is the RD-33. It would make little sense for any redesign of the MWF to move away from the F414.

Hain? 110KN is for the AMCA Mk2. Even the Mk1 version will run on GE F414 engines. Same as the tedbf.

chola · Post by **chola** » 04 Jan 2020 18:18

^^^ Ack! Prasad ji, you are correct! I have confused myself with all the announcements recently. I thought it was for the TEDBF.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 04 Jan 2020 20:06

Dileep wrote:I happened to see a small mob of street vendors making a fight near CV Raman Nagar, on who has more right to build the next desi fighter. Everyone and their uncle (and aunts and kajins too) in that geography is planning to build one. There is money to be spent, promotions to be had etc etc...

I also saw a 1000ft tall wall having built between one DPSU, a few DRDO labs, One CSIR lab, and an independent "agency" under MoD. It was much higher and tense than Trump's wall (or our own Yellow Sea).

I was in town yesterday.. Youknow.. hit when iron is hot.. fish in troubled waters.. etc etc... And please don't tell me the story about the fox between two rams. I had that in 2nd standard text book onlee.

Don't mind the street fight; that's the animal spirit in which great things are done. Exactly the same fight that drives Indian IT sector to dominate the globe on IT Service. Seeing this for 2 decades now.

The only issue would be if the elbow grease is not applied or money tap is shut after the hard fight to win deals.

As long as "duplication of effort" and "reinvention of wheel" are not sneered at, we will build the most important ingredient of success i.e. reserve bench strength in this area and enjoy the fruits for decades to come.

Too many examples of similar success, Indian cricket team post IPL or Chinese electronic industry.

The operative phrase is off course the "money tap remaining open"

Abhibhushan · Post by **Abhibhushan** » 04 Jan 2020 21:08

Does any one remember that even M2K also tried out a 2 engined version?

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 04 Jan 2020 22:19

Not again, if some of you visit the thread after a gap please read at least couple of pages. Mirage 4000 was discussed only in the last page

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 04 Jan 2020 22:41

Abhibhushan wrote:Does any one remember that even M2K also tried out a 2 engined version?

Abhibhushan Sir, would like to hear your perspective on that, even if it has been discussed by amateurs before.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 04 Jan 2020 23:19

Sorry in not being clear in what i intended to say, don't start it new again but continue from where it is
I am not against the discussion

kit · Post by **kit** » 04 Jan 2020 23:28

Abhibhushan wrote:Does any one remember that even M2K also tried out a 2 engined version?

*deleted

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 05 Jan 2020 01:39

Abhibhushan wrote:Does any one remember that even M2K also tried out a 2 engined version?

Mirage 4000

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Jan 2020 02:11

Dileep wrote:I happened to see a small mob of street vendors making a fight near CV Raman Nagar, on who has more right to build the next desi fighter. Everyone and their uncle (and aunts and kajins too) in that geography is planning to build one. There is money to be spent, promotions to be had etc etc...

I also saw a 1000ft tall wall having built between one DPSU, a few DRDO labs, One CSIR lab, and an independent "agency" under MoD. It was much higher and tense than Trump's wall (or our own Yellow Sea).

I was in town yesterday.. Youknow.. hit when iron is hot.. fish in troubled waters.. etc etc... And please don't tell me the story about the fox between two rams. I had that in 2nd standard text book onlee.

No better way to put it.

Abhibhushan · Post by **Abhibhushan** » 05 Jan 2020 08:22

Sorry guys. Getting old and lazy.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Jan 2020 01:55

You are neither!
A rupee for your thoughts!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 06 Jan 2020 04:12

Abhibhushan wrote:Sorry guys. Getting old and lazy.

As Ramana said, you are neither and we would welcome your thoughts!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 06 Jan 2020 04:46

Abhibhushan sirji, this is what I shot down in the previous page.

krishna_krishna wrote:
Gyan wrote:The nose of OCRA seems faceted for stealth.

Now would this mean that Navy is going for horizontal tails for LCA MK2 but Canards for TEDBF?
Design closely resembles Mirage 4000, so looks like we took up design that Dassault didn't move forward with or we got some ToT. That means Rafale for second tranche of fighters will be a reality and more support to Kaveri.

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/pa ... rage-4000/

My principle objection is that such misinformation passed as a statement is quickly picked up by the media and amplified. The TEDBF/ORCA design is hundred percent desi. It has ended up like the Rafale 2-aircraft program.

What we see now is actually quite crude. Add another engine and enlarge the airframe proportionally. This has not undergone CFD or wind tunnel studies. No refinements have been made.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 06 Jan 2020 16:45

BTW, if anyone noticed, the image stack released, contains 2 different canard configs.

Indranil wrote:
krishna_krishna wrote:
Design closely resembles Mirage 4000, so looks like we took up design that Dassault didn't move forward with or we got some ToT. That means Rafale for second tranche of fighters will be a reality and more support to Kaveri.

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/pa ... rage-4000/
My principle objection is that such misinformation passed as a statement is quickly picked up by the media and amplified. The TEDBF/ORCA design is hundred percent desi. It has ended up like the Rafale 2-aircraft program.

What we see now is actually quite crude. Add another engine and enlarge the airframe proportionally. This has not undergone CFD or wind tunnel studies. No refinements have been made.

+1. "X resembles Y so Y must be copied" is too simple-minded analysis, and firmly belongs to Newbie thread.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 07 Jan 2020 01:22

Actually, the resemblance is even less between the ORCA and Mirage-4000 than what it is between ORCA and Rafale. So by that posters' logic, we got the design or some ToT for Rafale..which is obviously untrue and too simplistic.

This belongs to the same school of thought that believed the LCA was a copy of Mirage-2000 because both were delta wing with no canards. There are so many differences in the intakes, airframe, wings design (mid mounted double delta versus bottom mounted pure delta) that anyone seriously looking at the two would've spotted them and concluded that there was only very superficial design similarity and nothing close to being a scaled down Mirage-2000 design.

It only reveals a lack of attention to details.