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.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5489
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 02 Feb 2021 16:21

BTW, one of the things that was mentioned in the interview with PD, TEDBF program was that :

This close coupled canard and delta wing configuration is going into the Low Speed Wind Tunnel testing at NAL soon. I would expect to see refinements or changes to the design as data from the Wind Tunnel testing starts to emerge. So this is still a preliminary configuration that will definitely see some changes.

The requirements that the IN has put in terms of carrier suitability, point performance requirements, mission performance requirements, all taken into consideration in working out this delta canard configuration.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5489
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 02 Feb 2021 16:28

sooraj wrote:....

Thanks Sooraj for these pics! Please put some watermark somewhere. These pics will be lifted and used liberally without any credits to you otherwise.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 590
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

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

Postby souravB » 02 Feb 2021 16:58

Wait!! Escort Jamming? :eek:
Is my wet dream coming true? :D :twisted:

Armuan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 26
Joined: 24 Oct 2016 01:56

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

Postby Armuan » 02 Feb 2021 22:09

Kartik wrote:
Thanks for posting this. Any chance a higher res image might be available? Can see front views of the second configuration being studied as well.

...


Second configuration? I don't see it in the image posted. Was it somewhere else?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4886
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 03 Feb 2021 02:09

Image

Again, like MWF, the cockpit size and canopy clearance above pilot looks pretty large compared with LCA models.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4566
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 03 Feb 2021 08:31

Kartik wrote:
sooraj wrote:....

Thanks Sooraj for these pics! Please put some watermark somewhere. These pics will be lifted and used liberally without any credits to you otherwise.


These all pics are posted by Vayu.
souravB wrote:Wait!! Escort Jamming? :eek:
Is my wet dream coming true? :D :twisted:


Its inevitable. :D Hopefully the IAF gives due attention to programs related to the EW gear (to be fair to the IN, they get bare minimum budget already). They need to push for it so these programs can be funded on priority. Even IAF could use TEDBF in escort jamming role, unless the they want to create their own based on Su30MKI or MWF perhaps (no point in waiting for TEDBF for this really).

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4754
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Postby Manish_Sharma » 03 Feb 2021 09:36

Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) is a step in the right direction.

Days of 'Stealth 5th generation Aircraft' are numbered.

ROFAR Radars will make 5th generation Stealthy Aircraft ineffective:
https://www.google.com/search?q=rofar+radar+russia&oq=rofar+radar&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0.9260j1j7&client=ms-android-samsung-ga-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

In the early 2020s, the Russian fifth generation fighter PAK FA could get a photonics-based radar system using active radio-optical phased array technology (known by its Russian acronym ROFAR). It should be able to view stealth aircraft at distances beyond the range of air-to-air missiles.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 590
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

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

Postby souravB » 03 Feb 2021 17:49

JayS wrote:Even IAF could use TEDBF in escort jamming role, unless the they want to create their own based on Su30MKI or MWF perhaps (no point in waiting for TEDBF for this really).

IMO if it happens, it might(should) be a joint project of IAF and IN.
Also MWF might be underpowered for the role. And Su30MKI wouldn't be the best choice due to Russian interference. It'll be the MAWS saga all over again. There needs to be many extensive changes done to the airframe, avionics and many sensors added. Teddy should be the preferred choice.

Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 427
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

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

Postby Bharadwaj » 04 Feb 2021 13:13

The shoulder mounted planform of the Tejas is gone in the TEDBF. Begs the question if the original choice with the LCA was forced upon by extremeness of ASQR in terms of weight vs capability. A smaller delta canard (it was investigated) might have offered better drag and met the ASQR in terms of performance. That would have compromised capabilities in other areas though.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11011
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 04 Feb 2021 23:49


sooraj
BRFite
Posts: 1528
Joined: 06 May 2011 15:45

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

Postby sooraj » 05 Feb 2021 13:00

Satwik @i_m_satwikk

Please drag & drop all eight pictures below into new window for full size. Thank You.

https://twitter.com/i_m_satwikk/status/ ... 66180?s=20 ---> TEDBF.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4447
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 06 Feb 2021 23:22

lol ., looks like a cross of Rafale and Raptor., i still say not much thought into thermal management., one flaw if i might say is this will still stick like a sore thumb on IRST sensors , maybe the idea is not to get too near for wvr tango

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11011
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 07 Feb 2021 00:13

I would not place too much emphasis on the model displayed at Aero India 2021, on which the above renderings are based. Still a work in progress. The design has not been frozen. More refinement will occur.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2644
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 07 Feb 2021 00:15

In love! What a beauty! The LCA has spawned a nascent aviation industry!

sooraj
BRFite
Posts: 1528
Joined: 06 May 2011 15:45

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

Postby sooraj » 09 Feb 2021 12:34

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11011
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 09 Feb 2021 23:31

Sooraj, I moved your above post to this thread.

I made the same mistake. Posting TEDBF pictures in AMCA thread :) The front is similar to AMCA.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11011
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 09 Feb 2021 23:38

Pictures have have been updated on Page 1 of this thread.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2644
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 10 Feb 2021 02:57

Wish this was the LCA!

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 980
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

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

Postby V_Raman » 10 Feb 2021 03:26

it looks like Rafale's little sister...

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 700
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

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

Postby rajsunder » 10 Feb 2021 04:54

This configuration has too much clutter around the canards and would be a big radar reflector from the sideways. Like the way they have removed a lot of clutter from the bottom, they should rework on the top and remove the clutter by moving the wings a little higher to be in line with the canards and make the top surface stealth friendly.
Also how important is that protrusion of the spine WRT to aerodynamics?
Last edited by rajsunder on 10 Feb 2021 15:30, edited 1 time in total.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11011
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 10 Feb 2021 05:31

Guys, this is NOT the final iteration. More refinement has to be done.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4742
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 10 Feb 2021 09:07

So at last we see what I've been whining about for sooo long - An AMCA lite. Der aaye aur InshAllah durust aaye. Had this been worked on as soon as the Tejas was found lacking in thrust circa 2007-08, we could have today been ordering this instead of 114 + 57 MRFA. Perhaps even the Mk2 could have been combined into this beast. It couldv'e been a CAATSA proof engine too.

AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

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

Postby AkshaySG » 10 Feb 2021 09:29

Cain Marko wrote:So at last we see what I've been whining about for sooo long - An AMCA lite. Der aaye aur InshAllah durust aaye. Had this been worked on as soon as the Tejas was found lacking in thrust circa 2007-08, we could have today been ordering this instead of 114 + 57 MRFA. Perhaps even the Mk2 could have been combined into this beast. It couldv'e been a CAATSA proof engine too.


I think it would have been quite a leap of faith to go along with this (or MWF) when Tejas itself was not fully realized as a program and there were still doubts about how it would progress and how IAF would accept it

Its better that it got started after Tejas matured a little so that there is more understanding of what's needed and what we can achieve on our own and where we need help

114+57 is not gonna happen anyway no matter how much IAF or IN delude themselves, There is simply not enough money and they'll just have to do with the current variants until MWF and TEDBF get ready later this decade

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8350
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 10 Feb 2021 10:20

V_Raman wrote:it looks like Rafale's little sister...

Little? This is larger and heavier than the Rafale with a higher MTOW and nearly 50kN of more total wet thrust than the Rafale has.

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 700
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

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

Postby rajsunder » 10 Feb 2021 16:24

Rakesh wrote:Guys, this is NOT the final iteration. More refinement has to be done.

yes, we all know that and we are trying to discuss what needs to be fixed.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4111
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

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

Postby hnair » 10 Feb 2021 23:00

All talk of radar reflection due to shaping is moot, unless there is internal carriage of ordinance. Maybe the chines and DSI in TEDBF are a step in de-risking the significant aerodynamic changes between LCA and AMCA’s design.

gpurewal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 20 Oct 2018 03:23

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

Postby gpurewal » 10 Feb 2021 23:37

There's a picture posted by Rakesh in the previous page (a Mirage variant I believe), where the intakes are highlighted as 3D. I'm seeing bulges going into the intakes on that Mirage like variant and the same in TEDBF models. Could someone enlighten me on what it means to have "3D" intakes, and their purpose?

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 980
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

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

Postby V_Raman » 11 Feb 2021 04:15

nachiket wrote:
V_Raman wrote:it looks like Rafale's little sister...

Little? This is larger and heavier than the Rafale with a higher MTOW and nearly 50kN of more total wet thrust than the Rafale has.


I did not know that! so it is Rafale's step-sister ?!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8315
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 11 Feb 2021 04:27

The landing gear is incorrect. It will be a simpler design (single arm) housed at the wing joint. Similar to Mig29k and Rafale.

Image

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 1017
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 11 Feb 2021 04:40

Wing folding will be similar or more bend inside as presently the two BVR aam will remain outside 7.6m folded wing width increasing the folded width to approx. 8.2m.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4742
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 13 Feb 2021 12:45

AkshaySG wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:So at last we see what I've been whining about for sooo long - An AMCA lite. Der aaye aur InshAllah durust aaye. Had this been worked on as soon as the Tejas was found lacking in thrust circa 2007-08, we could have today been ordering this instead of 114 + 57 MRFA. Perhaps even the Mk2 could have been combined into this beast. It couldv'e been a CAATSA proof engine too.


I think it would have been quite a leap of faith to go along with this (or MWF) when Tejas itself was not fully realized as a program and there were still doubts about how it would progress and how IAF would accept it



I wouldn't call it a leap of faith. More like a lack of foresight or God forbid, a deliberate attempt to stay away from desi hardware. Any keyboard warrior could've come to the conclusion that the mk2 would not work for stobar ops, let alone the vanilla nlca. Not when even the twin engined, excess thrust flankers and fulcrums find it a challenge.

In any case a twin engine design which offers lot more real estate would've always been a lesser engineering challenge than smallest, lightest bird crammed full of whizzbang stuff. There is reason why the russkis went the 2 engine route vs the teens.. a top notch twr of 1.0 is very very hard without 2 engines. Only the khan had managed this and that too for land based fighters. And then we have the extreme opposite with the nlca and that too for stobar ops.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2860
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 13 Feb 2021 13:48

^^ I feel there is a bit of straight-jacketed thinking. That we should go from "Light to Medium to Heavy" in that order and God-forbid if a step be skipped. A large part of it comes from the lack of trust overall (not just the Armed Forces) that we can actually have a home-grown MIC. Tejas, ISRO and the recent spate of successful missiles from DRDO has changed that perception.

For instance, I feel that we should have skipped AMCA and gone straight for an F22 sized heavy stealth fighter. The larger size will compensate for the limited internal weapons bay capacity. Then, we could've had a nice MK1, MK2 and ALCA (L = Large) that cover all 3 classes of fighters. But until recently, we didn't have the confidence that we could even dream of an MK2, let alone an AMCA or a TEDBF.

InshaGanesha, the newfound confidence will persist into the coming decade. Which is why, when I hear of MRFA or some such $hit, it makes my blood boil. Its not just about fighter squadrons. Its a signal that we aren't "ready". We aren't "good enough". Its extremely damaging to the psyche. Anyone who pimps for it should be questioned about their motives or sense or both.

We should have a "no-import" list for fighter aircraft. That's the type of "burning the boats" signalling that will galvanize our MIC and serve notice to every decision-maker involved

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4742
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 13 Feb 2021 16:23

^^^Agree with most of what you say but this:
But until recently, we didn't have the confidence that we could even dream of an MK2, let alone an AMCA or a TEDBF.

We didn't have confidence but decided to build the lightest, smallest fighter jet in the world with a indigenous engine, quad-FBW, composites etc etc. for a Mig-21 replacement? It is hard to believe that the best minds couldn't fathom the difficulty there is in miniaturizing hardware so as to fit it into smaller space.
I think the ADA was oozing with confidence (or thought of it as no more than a TD). The AF otoh....perhaps you are right - they sure were suspicious of the developers. In either case, it hurt the overall cause.

AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

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

Postby AkshaySG » 13 Feb 2021 21:27

Cain Marko wrote:
AkshaySG wrote:
I think it would have been quite a leap of faith to go along with this (or MWF) when Tejas itself was not fully realized as a program and there were still doubts about how it would progress and how IAF would accept it



I wouldn't call it a leap of faith. More like a lack of foresight or God forbid, a deliberate attempt to stay away from desi hardware. Any keyboard warrior could've come to the conclusion that the mk2 would not work for stobar ops, let alone the vanilla nlca. Not when even the twin engined, excess thrust flankers and fulcrums find it a challenge.

In any case a twin engine design which offers lot more real estate would've always been a lesser engineering challenge than smallest, lightest bird crammed full of whizzbang stuff. There is reason why the russkis went the 2 engine route vs the teens.. a top notch twr of 1.0 is very very hard without 2 engines. Only the khan had managed this and that too for land based fighters. And then we have the extreme opposite with the nlca and that too for stobar ops.



From a carrier perspective there really was no need to felt to design a new jet circa 2007-8 or even till a couple of years ago, The Mig29k had only recently started arriving and we had ordered enough for both future carriers.

And I really disagree with calling a twin engine deck based fighter a "lesser engineering challenge" than a smaller, lighter bird

While Tejas is a great piece of kit the next iteration in MWF/TEDBF are much more complicated and needed HAL and ADA to gain much more experience with Tejas before they started making em otherwise it would be another castle in the air.

NLCA was/is nothing more than a technology demonstrator, It's meant to allow HAL and ADA crucial insight into designing and building a jet capable of carrier ops, Yes everyone knows its underpowered but that doesn't mean there isn't huge knowledge to be gained from testing it on Shore based and carrier based jumps.

AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

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

Postby AkshaySG » 13 Feb 2021 21:34

Cain Marko wrote:^^^Agree with most of what you say but this:
But until recently, we didn't have the confidence that we could even dream of an MK2, let alone an AMCA or a TEDBF.

We didn't have confidence but decided to build the lightest, smallest fighter jet in the world with a indigenous engine, quad-FBW, composites etc etc. for a Mig-21 replacement? It is hard to believe that the best minds couldn't fathom the difficulty there is in miniaturizing hardware so as to fit it into smaller space.
I think the ADA was oozing with confidence (or thought of it as no more than a TD). The AF otoh....perhaps you are right - they sure were suspicious of the developers. In either case, it hurt the overall cause.


I don't know where you've gotten this idea but just because a fighter is lighter or smaller doesn't necessarily mean it has to be more complex or harder to design than a twin engined carrier fighter or a medium weight multi role fighter,

Miniaturization is only one of the many many issues one faces when finalizing a design and there are several aspects far more difficult to achieve in a larger design especially one whose requirements are more strict and whose capabilities are more advanced.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12746
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 13 Feb 2021 22:06

The reason IAF went for light fighter design was thier experience with GNAT, Mig21, when LCA was envisioned the concept of look down shoot down radar was itself new, there was no stealth and F117 was not known to the world, very few fighters were FBW, PGM's were very rare. Looks like IAF looked for point defense fighter which has over the years evolved into something completely different

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3605
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 14 Feb 2021 04:19

Plus most of the pen in the forward area were built to accommodate mig 21 size fighter (most still are, only in last few years hardened bunker are getting built for su30mki). A smaller fighter was the answer - cheaper, agile etc

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8315
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 14 Feb 2021 05:59

sankum wrote:Wing folding will be similar or more bend inside as presently the two BVR aam will remain outside 7.6m folded wing width increasing the folded width to approx. 8.2m.

I am not sure sir.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4742
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 14 Feb 2021 06:55

AkshaySG wrote:From a carrier perspective there really was no need to felt to design a new jet circa 2007-8 or even till a couple of years ago, The Mig29k had only recently started arriving and we had ordered enough for both future carriers.

NLCA was/is nothing more than a technology demonstrator, It's meant to allow HAL and ADA crucial insight into designing and building a jet capable of carrier ops, Yes everyone knows its underpowered but that doesn't mean there isn't huge knowledge to be gained from testing it on Shore based and carrier based jumps.

The NLCA was integral to the planning and operations of the VIkrant airwing. The NLCA was anything but a TD to begin with. That it ended up as such is the tragedy that could have been avoided. The idea that it has contributed to the knowledge base is irrelevant to this discussion.

And I really disagree with calling a twin engine deck based fighter a "lesser engineering challenge" than a smaller, lighter bird

While Tejas is a great piece of kit the next iteration in MWF/TEDBF are much more complicated and needed HAL and ADA to gain much more experience with Tejas before they started making em otherwise it would be another castle in the air.


THere are challenges, and there are challenges. We took on the ultimate challenge in deciding on a super light fighter and making it competitive vs the likes of the F-16, or Mig-29. Neither the russians nor the european design houses succeeded in this.

So this idea that we started with baby steps is incorrect. There was an article/website by an AM (can't remember name now) who indicates how the AF felt the design goals for the LCA were pie-in-the-sky at that time, when they wanted an improved variant of the mig-21.

Miniaturization is NOT an easy task to begin with. And for naval ops, esp. for a STOBAR variant it becomes a major limitation. Excess thrust is a key requirement for such ops, and a single engined (10 ton class) 4 gen bird was always going to be challenged in such a situation. Everything from strengtheing the undercarriage to the tailhook to additional control surgaces (canards) will add weight. And managing weight is a KPI for fighters.

The need for high thrust fighters became the norm after the teens were introduced. And the mighty FSU could not actually manage this without going for a twin engined design for the Mig-29. And these were all landbased. Now translate that to Carrier ops, that too without the benefit of CATS.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4742
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 14 Feb 2021 07:16

AkshaySG wrote:I don't know where you've gotten this idea but just because a fighter is lighter or smaller doesn't necessarily mean it has to be more complex or harder to design than a twin engined carrier fighter or a medium weight multi role fighter,

Bhaiyya. That is one of the reasons tomtommed for some of the delays in the LCA to begin with. IT was very difficult to get in all the sensors into that tiny package and then make it competitive in A2A performance with the likes of the fulcrum or m2k.

[quotes]Miniaturization is only one of the many many issues one faces when finalizing a design and there are several aspects far more difficult to achieve in a larger design especially one whose requirements are more strict and whose capabilities are more advanced.

You think the strict stobar requirements would be easier for a smaller airframe than a twin engined one? Not even the US or the USSR with all their resources and experience had succeeded in this. Just think what happens to the weight (and therefore twr) of the aircraft when you add under-carriage strengthening, tail hooks, canards to the frame. A twin engine compensates for this weight creep. For e.g. the land based mig-29, even the latest (bigger variants) weigh between 10.5 - 11 tons. But the MiG-29K for the navy comes in a full 1.5 tons heavier at 12.6 tons. Look at the rafale as well (and this is despite exceptional french design, which truly is streamlined), weight goes up by a ~ 1 ton. Now you take that additional weight and stick it on a fighter that has a tinier engine by good measure. Net result - TD that is unusable for real ops. Esp. STOBAR ops which don't have the help of CATs.

No doubt miniaturization is one of many issues wrt to fighter design. BUT it is a key issue especially when it comes to A2A roles, and esp. STOBAR ops. The tolerances and tighter spaces make it far more difficult to get the same output than a twin engined bird. Be it space for internal components, sensor capability or quite importantly, thrust. And that last requirement is perhaps the most crucial one in a2a roles. The russians realized this early and decided to go with a twin engined variant to keep up with the teens. IN was the only service that was dreaming of a single engined, tiny bird to make into to service (that too on a stobar set up).

By the time the Armed Forces realized that the LCA was not going to have enough power, the possibility of twin engined MRCA was already on the cards. Combining these two requirements at that stage itself could have given us some excellent results by now. Perhaps even mitigating the need for a single uber GE (sanction prone) engine in the process. Not to mention the $20 billion boondoggle called MRCA. And they want to cry about falling numbers.

In any case, that is what they have come around to, full circle. only it is about 12 years later. A full decade - poof!


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w and 33 guests