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.
sankum
BRFite
Posts: 828
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 08 Jan 2020 01:21

MTOW 24T and payload is 9 T so that we have a clean take of weight of 15 T which is same as that of Rafale.
Rafale has internal fuel of 4.7T and if we take is same for ORCA both have same empty weight.
TEDBF empy weight will be 1T heavier than ORCA so we have clean take of weight of 16T with payload of 8T for MTOW of 24T.
2 CFT is standard fit. So if it is same as Rafale of 1150 ltrs each we have 6.5 T total fuel for 2T increase in weight.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 08 Jan 2020 02:48

Looking at the CFT, i feel MWF might get it's own version of CFT. The renderings are more closer to MWF, than a twin engine version of MWF.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 08 Jan 2020 03:05

If I compare Rafale's fuselage with that of EF, EF has a narrower fuselage. Fundamentally giving it .5 ton less empty weight.

Would it be a good idea to build a jet with minimum possible weight by reducing the space of on-fuselage fuel tanks and move it to CFT? What are the drawbacks. Only the fuselage tanks, the wings you cannot do much.

When the fuel tank is inside the fuselage, you are adding the extra weight of the fuselage, which is covering it. CFT has no such issue.

F16's CFT weighs around 400kg.

I am trying to see if it is possible to get a 9 - 9.5 ton empty weight twin engine fighter.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 08 Jan 2020 05:03

JayS wrote:
dmun wrote:7 ton internal fuel might not be feasible. The F18 E/F carries some 6600 KG and has a empty take of weight of 14400 KG. A internal fuel of 6 tons might be a better guess given the size of the plane
. The Rafale has 1150 litre CFTs. A higher external payload of 8 to 9 tons would give the aircraft more flexibility in terms of payload then large internal fuel.


- Internal fuel is always more preferable to any externally carried fuel. Having more flexibility by having more external payload and less internal fuel makes little sense. Carrying external fuel gives diminishing returnes and it is rarely required to deliver 7-9T of bombs over short distances. No point in designing handicap in the fighter for its life for some requirement which may never come. We have Su-30MKI for larger payload missions.

- External load capacity can be enghanced later by refinements but internal fuel will be set in stone once designed.

- Comparing a rectangular wing fighter with a delta wing fighter for guessing internal fuel is apples vs oranges. FA18 is bigger airframe, leveraging CAT on US carriers to launch higher MTOW with lower installed thrust. Delta wings can easily give more fuel volume even for smaller overall size. A better benchmark is Rafale. As for empty weight, not only that TEDBF will be smaller but it will also use composites far more extensively and at singnificantly more advanced level, so its empty weight will be lesser more than what merely the reduction in size would suggest.

- 6T is definitely more realistic number, yes, 7T is what I wish for. There are penalties to be paid for more internal fuel but the benefits often outweigh the penalties.


Rafale carries 4750 kg of internal fuel. i.e. < 5T for a twin engine fighter. So how could nearly 2,200 kgs of additional internal fuel be fit into an airframe that will also be a delta canard and only possibly 0.5 m longer? It is physically not possible to put in that many more fuel tanks when there is no volume available for it.

Asking for 7,000 or 8,000 kg of internal fuel means you're asking for more internal fuel than the Super Hornet (6350 kg internal fuel) which is sized accordingly and classified as a heavy fighter, not a Rafale or Typhoon sized medium class fighter. Even the MKI carries 9650 kgs internally, so asking for 8,000 kgs internal fuel would mean a correspondingly large airframe.

I think that the first thing required is to understand what role could the IAF want the ORCA to perform? MRCA complement or Su-30MKI replacement? So then look at what the top-most contenders for the IAF's MRCA requirement are and get a rough idea as to what the ORCA should look like. That is how the MWF came about, after all.

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 624
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

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

Postby rajsunder » 08 Jan 2020 07:36

Can some gurus point out what all steps would now be taken by HAL/ADA to convert the MWF from one engine to twin engine configuration.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7648
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 08 Jan 2020 07:36

Indranil/Kartik, what advantage does DSI provide to a non-stealthy airframe? I am confused as to why the added complexity of designing and realizing the technology for DSI is being added to this project when the last AMCA designs we saw did not have it.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7483
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Postby Prasad » 08 Jan 2020 08:42

Amca design work for DSI is done. They've seen a significant reduction in RCS by moving from regular intakes to dsi. That's why going for it in the newer fighters is even being considered.

Raghunathgb
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 95
Joined: 23 Apr 2019 18:16

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

Postby Raghunathgb » 08 Jan 2020 09:36

nachiket wrote:Indranil/Kartik, what advantage does DSI provide to a non-stealthy airframe? I am confused as to why the added complexity of designing and realizing the technology for DSI is being added to this project when the last AMCA designs we saw did not have it.


Weight and complexity reduction

Traditional aircraft inlets contain many heavy moving parts. In comparison, DSI completely eliminates all moving parts, which makes it far less complex and more reliable than earlier diverter-plate inlets. The removal of moving parts also reduces the overall weight of the aircraft.

Stealth

DSIs also crucially improve the aircraft's very-low-observable characteristics (by eliminating radar reflections between the diverter and the aircraft's skin).Additionally, the "bump" surface reduces the engine's exposure to radar, significantly reducing a strong source of radar reflection[6] because they provide an additional shielding of engine fans against radar waves.

Analysts have noted that the DSI reduces the need for application of radar-absorbent materials.

Source Wiki

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2607
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 08 Jan 2020 10:24

DSI


Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1974
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

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

Postby Kakarat » 08 Jan 2020 19:00

ashishvikas wrote:Giant Super Tejas revealed: Our analysis

- by Hush-Kit

https://hushkit.net/2020/01/08/giant-su ... -analysis/


Last para
We spoke to Tejas test pilot Harsh Vardhan Thakur who noted – ” These are (one of) many concept drawings. There are many more. Canards will not overlap with the main planes.” So perhaps caution should be exercised in reading too much into the artwork.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 09 Jan 2020 01:01

Raghunathgb wrote:
nachiket wrote:Indranil/Kartik, what advantage does DSI provide to a non-stealthy airframe? I am confused as to why the added complexity of designing and realizing the technology for DSI is being added to this project when the last AMCA designs we saw did not have it.


Weight and complexity reduction

Traditional aircraft inlets contain many heavy moving parts. In comparison, DSI completely eliminates all moving parts, which makes it far less complex and more reliable than earlier diverter-plate inlets. The removal of moving parts also reduces the overall weight of the aircraft.

Stealth

DSIs also crucially improve the aircraft's very-low-observable characteristics (by eliminating radar reflections between the diverter and the aircraft's skin).Additionally, the "bump" surface reduces the engine's exposure to radar, significantly reducing a strong source of radar reflection[6] because they provide an additional shielding of engine fans against radar waves.

Analysts have noted that the DSI reduces the need for application of radar-absorbent materials.

Source Wiki


The moving parts is mostly from the last generation when fighters and fighter bombers were being designed to fly much faster than most 4th gen fighters are. Such as the moving half cone on the Mirage-2000. Only current gen fighter that features any moving parts in the intake is the Eurofighter Typhoon that has a lower lip that moves at higher angles of attack. But Rafale, Tejas, Gripen, T-50, etc. all feature non moving intakes, so the DSI isn't really reducing weight that much at all. But what it is likely to do is help in reducing RCS and that is attractive for any new design.

For a single engine design like the Tejas, where the engine is deeply buried inside the fuselage with a Y shaped duct leading to it, I really doubt that the DSI will reduce RCS by that much by shielding the compressor face. But for twin engine designs, where serpentine ducts are being designed to hide the compressor face, the DSI will help.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4525
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 09 Jan 2020 01:24

Kartik wrote:
JayS wrote:
- Internal fuel is always more preferable to any externally carried fuel. Having more flexibility by having more external payload and less internal fuel makes little sense. Carrying external fuel gives diminishing returnes and it is rarely required to deliver 7-9T of bombs over short distances. No point in designing handicap in the fighter for its life for some requirement which may never come. We have Su-30MKI for larger payload missions.

- External load capacity can be enghanced later by refinements but internal fuel will be set in stone once designed.

- Comparing a rectangular wing fighter with a delta wing fighter for guessing internal fuel is apples vs oranges. FA18 is bigger airframe, leveraging CAT on US carriers to launch higher MTOW with lower installed thrust. Delta wings can easily give more fuel volume even for smaller overall size. A better benchmark is Rafale. As for empty weight, not only that TEDBF will be smaller but it will also use composites far more extensively and at singnificantly more advanced level, so its empty weight will be lesser more than what merely the reduction in size would suggest.

- 6T is definitely more realistic number, yes, 7T is what I wish for. There are penalties to be paid for more internal fuel but the benefits often outweigh the penalties.


Rafale carries 4750 kg of internal fuel. i.e. < 5T for a twin engine fighter. So how could nearly 2,200 kgs of additional internal fuel be fit into an airframe that will also be a delta canard and only possibly 0.5 m longer? It is physically not possible to put in that many more fuel tanks when there is no volume available for it.

Asking for 7,000 or 8,000 kg of internal fuel means you're asking for more internal fuel than the Super Hornet (6350 kg internal fuel) which is sized accordingly and classified as a heavy fighter, not a Rafale or Typhoon sized medium class fighter. Even the MKI carries 9650 kgs internally, so asking for 8,000 kgs internal fuel would mean a correspondingly large airframe.

I think that the first thing required is to understand what role could the IAF want the ORCA to perform? MRCA complement or Su-30MKI replacement? So then look at what the top-most contenders for the IAF's MRCA requirement are and get a rough idea as to what the ORCA should look like. That is how the MWF came about, after all.


Kartik, :) Just for the records, I am not asking for 8T internal fuel and 7T is a wish. 6T is more realistic. Thats what I said.

See the picture below. This is the twin engine NLCA MK2 that I made previously. That and Rafale scaled to the same length, and then alighed by the exhaust nozzle. Actually Rafale fuselage is smaller than its length will tell you, because its VT extended well beyond the engine nozzle and extends its length by almost a meter..!! On top of it, LCA's wing is much "fuller" compared to that of rafale i.e. it has more area for the same length. Single engine NLCA Mk2 itself has more wing area than Rafale as per my calculations (the older NLCA Mk2 has same wing area as Rafale). Now there are many small details which I will just gloss over. But in short, the wing root chord of TEDBF is likely be longer than Rafale, its likely have a significantly larger wing and longer fuselage. All in all, I think it may be possible to design it for 6T internal fuel with approximately same brochure footprint of rafale or perhaps a notch bigger. Given it will have wing folding, TEDBF can actually have larger wing span, but in my above image you see NLCA MK2 TE has 9.5m wing span only. The wing will be Clipped for wing tip mounted CCM. So even a final 9.5m wingspan will actually allow more than 15.5m fuselage length.

Of course, we are yet to see how the VT will be managed for TEDBF. Lets see about that in future. The IN will not be much bothered about the length even if it exceeds 16m, as MiG29K is quite longer. So even with 15.5m length and extending VT backwords, we should be fine.

Image

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4525
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 09 Jan 2020 01:45

Kartik wrote:
The moving parts is mostly from the last generation when fighters and fighter bombers were being designed to fly much faster than most 4th gen fighters are. Such as the moving half cone on the Mirage-2000. Only current gen fighter that features any moving parts in the intake is the Eurofighter Typhoon that has a lower lip that moves at higher angles of attack. But Rafale, Tejas, Gripen, T-50, etc. all feature non moving intakes, so the DSI isn't really reducing weight that much at all. But what it is likely to do is help in reducing RCS and that is attractive for any new design.

For a single engine design like the Tejas, where the engine is deeply buried inside the fuselage with a Y shaped duct leading to it, I really doubt that the DSI will reduce RCS by that much by shielding the compressor face. But for twin engine designs, where serpentine ducts are being designed to hide the compressor face, the DSI will help.


Weight reduction by not having the spitter plate and duct made slightly offset from the fuselage with an additional wall. With DSI, it can just share the fuselage surface as one side wall. At least a few 10s of kg. :D Also means a slightly smaller frontal area, good for wave drag. A % or two saving in drag is still good.

Does DSI help reduce RCS by shielding compressor face..?? Hmm. Never thought about it. I always thought it would be be due to elimination of the BL flow spillage channel which is like a big reflector of radar waves due to its cavity and sharp angles.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3492
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

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

Postby ArjunPandit » 09 Jan 2020 04:20

may be nomenclature is not part of the thread yet..but if it were upto me...i would name all tejas variants starting with tejas ..like tejasvi, tejasi..or something of that sort..

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19508
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 09 Jan 2020 04:26

Please don't start that now. No nomenclature discussions for now. Lets keep it focused on tech, feasibility, timelines.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 09 Jan 2020 05:00

Exactly- a small marginal weight reduction, definitely not worth the effort just for that. But when we taken into account the RCS improvement and the possibility of higher total pressure recovery when added to the 20-30 kg weight savings of removing the splitter plate, then it becomes worthwhile.

the DSI definitely does mask a portion of the intake when viewed head on, so it can help in reducing the compressor face that is visible, but the larger benefit may be due to the elimination of the boundary layer flow spillage channel as you pointed out.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 09 Jan 2020 06:27

Jay,

Splitter plates are not that heavy, not even in the tens of kgs. The entire LCA fin weighs 20 some kgs if I remember correctly. Also, the frontal area and spillage is not reduced by use of a DSI. The boundary layer is spilled in either case.

Most of it is for RCS reduction. I have a basic understanding of why. But not how much. So I will abstain from passing half cooked gyan.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9058
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 09 Jan 2020 07:14

Gurus, please advise if this article deserves to be in the first post of this thread...

Giant Super Tejas revealed: Our Analysis
https://hushkit.net/2020/01/08/giant-su ... -analysis/

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7483
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Postby Prasad » 09 Jan 2020 09:30

The mwf compressor face is entirely hidden. With amca "significant"RCS reduction was apparently observed. So might as well implement it no?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 09 Jan 2020 09:49

In my opinion,
Rakesh wrote:Gurus, please advise if this article deserves to be in the first post of this thread...

Giant Super Tejas revealed: Our Analysis
https://hushkit.net/2020/01/08/giant-su ... -analysis/
no. It is based on diagrams which are very far from the final designs.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4525
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 09 Jan 2020 19:33

Indranil wrote:Jay,

Splitter plates are not that heavy, not even in the tens of kgs. The entire LCA fin weighs 20 some kgs if I remember correctly. Also, the frontal area and spillage is not reduced by use of a DSI. The boundary layer is spilled in either case.

Most of it is for RCS reduction. I have a basic understanding of why. But not how much. So I will abstain from passing half cooked gyan.


OK, lets forget about the weight and cost benefits which are small, but still count in my opinion (I read LM saw 30% weight reduction in duct design using DSI). The frontal area is reduced because your inlets don't have to be a few inches away from the fusalage. Small gain, granted, but counts still. BL spillage channel is not required as the low energy flow simply is redirected away from inlet. Lower flow losses, lower frictional losses. There are some similar small advantages with inlet shock structure too. Small small things add up.

Its just simple and cheaper to make, less costly, maintainance free, may be even better in intake pressure recovery factor and overall intake performance. Even without RCS reduction, the designers would still want DSI.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 09 Jan 2020 21:58

From Hushkit.net
Image
Rough model. No landing gear space...
Some weapons oversized and not to scale

This is bigger than an LCA, maybe bigger than a MK2 even
The fuselage is broader on the LCA in the middle, and likely has fuel space. It will likely be the same on this one.
The shoulder tanks are atrociously made :D

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 09 Jan 2020 22:04

AMCA vs ORCA
I think the ORCA can be built much more quickly than the AMCA.
This will be a step in the AMCA process.
This can be made with current materials and processes. The AMCA needs an entirely new building process, RAM coatings, extreme care in building.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 09 Jan 2020 22:47

Jay,

The outer lip of a DSI intake doesn't move inward commensurate to the width of the spill duct. You see the DSI also spills the boundary layer. Therefore, to get the same amount of clean air as a non diverted intake, a DSI intake's outer lip is roughly the same distance away from the fuselage.

The DSI does account for slightly better flow in some regions. Remember the paper on the revised intake for the Mk2. As the intake is no longer shielded by the LE of the wing, they were planning on modifying the splitter plate to create the shock for shielding. The DSI just creates the same same shock at the same place.

So aerodynamically, there are but very small gains from DSI.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2737
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

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

Postby JTull » 10 Jan 2020 03:09

We should expect 5G features to creep into Tejas derivatives. will de-risk the AMCA development. DSI is crucial part of 5G stealthy component.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2607
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 10 Jan 2020 03:22

The aim for TEDBF should be fastest to market - keep all non incremental changes for AMCA - get it out in numbers. Same for MWF. If it easy or free ( work already done ) bring it in, otherwise keep it for AMCA.

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 624
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

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

Postby rajsunder » 10 Jan 2020 03:46

Shiv Aroor's Interview by Hushkit regarding the TEDBF/ ORCA

https://hushkit.net/2020/01/09/super-te ... hiv-aroor/

Important Points He made
The sense I got directly from the top is that the team isn’t particularly pleased with the idea of ditching the N-LCA for the twin-engine configuration
But it’s important to acknowledge that there would be no twin-engine Tejas design of any kind if there was no Indian Navy stipulation to the effect
Commenting about budget, he says "Adding a new one will merely slow things down"

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9058
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 10 Jan 2020 06:19

Indranil wrote:In my opinion, no. It is based on diagrams which are very far from the final designs.

Thank You. I will not add it in.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9058
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 11 Jan 2020 19:29

X-Post from the Naval Tejas Mk1 thread....

Rakesh wrote:The Navy’s official Twitter account is emphasizing the Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter!

https://twitter.com/indiannavy/status/1 ... 13504?s=21 —> With this feat, the indigenously developed niche technologies specific to deck based fighter operations have been proven, which will now pave the way to develop and manufacture the Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter for the Indian Navy.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9058
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 11 Jan 2020 19:38

Kartik wrote:Someone monitor Surendra Ahuja's twitter to see if there is any reaction to this feat. With Navy Spokesperson clearly mentioning development of a twin engine Deck Based Fighter, Boeing India will not be happy.

Kartik, I am replying to your post in this thread.

I just checked Boeing India's twitter feed. Nothing as of yet. Perhaps in the next couple of days, a tweet may come along. But you are right. This is going to cause a lot of takleef to Boeing India....just like to the ones who advocate F-18 and F-21 for India on BRF :)

And Kartik...on an unrelated note, check this out ----> viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3986&p=2406487#p2406487

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20706
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 11 Jan 2020 22:36

I can understand the rationale for an NLCA MK-1, validating the design,plus an alternative desi bird available in addition to the 29Ks,which will serve the VikA and Vikrant for most of their lives.
Reinventing the wheel for a 4th-gen bird, which will be needed in small number is bewildering in the least. A total waste of time and money,especially as the AMCA is the "great brown hope", to replace hundreds of medium sized IAF birds, which could benefit from that programme.The added advantages of stealth.internal bays,etc. are surely preferable to the " teddybear". In fact,amalgamating LCA Mk-2 with the AMCA will save even more time and resources instead of spraying our money and human resources around programmes that make little sense.

The Rafale-M and F-18SH are western naval 4th-gen fighters readily available if we did have a ready (western) carrier with larger lifts.Cheaper still is the 29K which if all the issues have been ironed out ,with MIG-35 and other 5th-gen systems could be an even more potent and attractive acquisition.

What we must keep uppermost in mind is the number of CVs that we could realistically afford to acquire and maintain.3 CVs and 3 large multi-role amphibs would be the most that we could hope for given the disparity with China especially in submarines,most sorely needed. This should determine the reqd. no. of naval carrier-based strike fighters that we would need and the affordability and time factor deadlines and redlines for the same.
I simply can't see a rationale for either the twin-engined desi fighter of the 4th-gen in a 5th. gen world, or the 57 naval fighters of similar vintage when our 3rd. carrier if indigenously built will arrive sometime in the 2030s when the Rafale-Ms,MIG-29Ks, F-18SHs,etc. will all be in the queue lining up for their pensions!

There seems to be an unseemly scramble to conjure up a desi programme to attract our political class usually ignorant of military affairs that " we can do it" alone.With such a low defence budget, hopes of the LCA Mk-1A,Mk-2, NLCA,AMCA, now TEDBF, all running at the same time looks absurd. Realistically, the LCA Mk-1/1A programmes are essential,doable and should be executed with indecent haste to replace retiring types.
The Mk-2 should be scrapped/ amalgamated with the AMCA programme as it is meaningless to reinvent the wheel ( another 4th. gen bird) when Rafales, MIG-29/35s,etc. are in service or being acquired and readily available.Surely a better bird is needed, which points to the AMCA, our great brown hope of a stealth bird.

But here we've got a googly just bowled by the IAF.A desi engine only for it! Echoes of the former Vice Chief who warned Kalam and co. decades ago that the engine was the key to the LCA's timely success. At last the IAF have understood, but imagine a desi 5th. gen.engine developed when 4th. gen. Kaveri sank without trace! Add to it our insistence of a better engine for the SU-57 if we were to buy it, v.high standards required indeed from an aero-engine industry that has yet to manufacture a single desi fngine! Even the major manufacturers have experienced difficulties in bringing out new engines, generally conducting interim upgrades of existing ones.

So where does it leave us? Realistically, a naval variant of the AMCA should be part of the programme, simultaneously developed, with 2 foreign engines for prototypes, in case one gets stopped for sanctions whatever, the other option can be installed.Along with the programme, a JV for an Indo- foreign engine in the same class or with superior features for the next generation of engines.Going it alone will simply not work because we do not have the ability , money or experience in engine tech.Even the Chinese with all their money and relentless pursuit have come up short.
Therefore, the LCA MK-1/1A programmes ( on target) , NLCA Mk-1/1A and the AMCA/NAMCA should be our priorities.

Barath
BRFite
Posts: 141
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

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

Postby Barath » 12 Jan 2020 20:44

Philip wrote:But here we've got a googly just bowled by the IAF.A desi engine only for it!


Philip, AMCA will be designed for the 110Kn engine, but AMCA Mk1 will use a lesser thrust foreign engine (likely GE414). So there is a degree of de-risking of AMCA and a degree of high profile demand.

Frankly changes like the foreign JV will require a demand and a business case to push it; which this cn help in. Hopefully something of the sort will happen. The other alternative was to pursue low risk lesser demand products first (eg Jaguar reengine several years ago, drones, transports etc). But there is not a suitable obvious product, given uncertainties.

TEDBF engines may not be defined; but it will likely require high reliability and less resources to integrate, given resource crunch - Id bet on a GE engine as it goes forward.

Re: NAMCA simultaneous development - I'd figure on NAMCA staggeredafter AMCA, given the complexity and resource issues. Why encounter completley new problems twice ? At least staggered or sequential approach will allow you to leverage AMCA solutions,lessons learnt and solution approach.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 14 Jan 2020 08:05

Rakesh wrote:
Kartik wrote:Someone monitor Surendra Ahuja's twitter to see if there is any reaction to this feat. With Navy Spokesperson clearly mentioning development of a twin engine Deck Based Fighter, Boeing India will not be happy.

Kartik, I am replying to your post in this thread.

I just checked Boeing India's twitter feed. Nothing as of yet. Perhaps in the next couple of days, a tweet may come along. But you are right. This is going to cause a lot of takleef to Boeing India....just like to the ones who advocate F-18 and F-21 for India on BRF :)

And Kartik...on an unrelated note, check this out ----> viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3986&p=2406487#p2406487


I actually saw his Tweet in response to the first arrested landing.

Twitter link
Congratulations, Mao! Very happy for you!


As if this was all about Cmde Maolankar doing it for his own glory. I found it in bad taste. Nothing on what it means for India's aerospace industry, or for the Indian Navy in general. There isn't a single word of praise for the program or what it has achieved for India.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1615
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Thakur_B » 14 Jan 2020 08:10

I honestly find the TEDBF timelines to be a pipe dream. 6 years is way too less.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 14 Jan 2020 08:26

6 years to first flight, not service entry for TEDBF. Eminently doable, provided the right amount of funding and political backing is always present. If one hand is tied behind their backs with constant difficulties with requisitioning equipment due to funding, then you'll see delays.

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 624
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

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

Postby rajsunder » 14 Jan 2020 10:29

Thakur_B wrote:I honestly find the TEDBF timelines to be a pipe dream. 6 years is way too less.

From the Hushkit Article, things that need to be re-engineered on LCA to convert into TEDBF

1) substantial structural redesign of the fuselage
We have more experience than what we had when LCA program was started and I am sure the HAL/ADA has learnt a lot from their mistakes. This i believe from the little knowledge that i have to be the most time consuming part of the conversion program
2) Improving the landing gear
This should be the easiest of all the activities
3) Fix the aerodynamics for using Canards instead of LEVCONS and reprogram the control laws for twin engine configuration.
We are already doing this for MWF. How much tough it would be repeat it again for TEDBF?
4) Platform specific weapons integration, carriage and release, other than the ones being developed for MWF
It is the first 3 that has to be done in 6 years and this will be done once the TEDBF takes its first flight.

I think we should work with private firms through each and every step of the way of this conversion so that HAL/ADA can outsource work when needed for AMCA.
Last edited by rajsunder on 14 Jan 2020 11:42, edited 2 times in total.

nits
BRFite
Posts: 1003
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

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

Postby nits » 14 Jan 2020 10:37

So now we following home grown programs:
    Tejas
    Naval Tejas
    AMCA
    TEDBF

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4473
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

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

Postby sanjaykumar » 14 Jan 2020 10:39

Congrats on the carrier landing- it’s the cat’s Mao.

Jay
BRFite
Posts: 246
Joined: 24 Feb 2005 18:24
Location: Gods Country
Contact:

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

Postby Jay » 14 Jan 2020 12:26

I am a little skeptical in this TEDBF. At this point it looks like "vaporware" firmly in the grasp of fiction. All we have is one version of fan art and that single picture is generating so much noise. Just looking back at how LCA-NLCA is being handled at the program level, and how labs are gearing for AMCA, to me this TEDBF looks and sounds like another version of "rakshaks, build your own fighter" mental exercise. Has there been even one official confirmation of the existence of this TEDBF program?

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1974
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

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

Postby Kakarat » 14 Jan 2020 13:15

Jay wrote:I am a little skeptical in this TEDBF. At this point it looks like "vaporware" firmly in the grasp of fiction. All we have is one version of fan art and that single picture is generating so much noise. Just looking back at how LCA-NLCA is being handled at the program level, and how labs are gearing for AMCA, to me this TEDBF looks and sounds like another version of "rakshaks, build your own fighter" mental exercise. Has there been even one official confirmation of the existence of this TEDBF program?


https://twitter.com/indiannavy/status/1 ... 8485013504
With this feat, the indigenously developed niche technologies specific to deck based fighter operations have been proven, which will now pave the way to develop and manufacture the Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter for the Indian Navy


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests