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

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

Postby AkshaySG » 14 Feb 2021 10:16

[quote ="Cain Marko"]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!


Again missing the point that around 2007-8 or whatever "earlier " time you're alluding to the priority of another STOBAR or a Naval fighter just wasn't high enough to necessitate either starting a clean sheet design or modify the then LCA program , Whatever the thoughts they might have had with N-LCA at its inception it was clear soon enough that IN had earmarked Mig29ks for Viky and would continue that for Vikrant and there simply wasn't enough demand for a separate program .

I mean in a period where their only fighter program (LCA) was itself going through tough times and they were facing cost overruns ,budget shortfalls and low trust , hadn't even reached IOC and were facing issues even with basic trainers who in their right mind would go " ..I know what we should do .We should make a twin engined STOBAR capable fighter even though we don't have the money ,manpower or a clear necessity for it

You talk about the Russians and French finding it difficult to design carrier fighters but expect HAL to have run concurrent programs for both it and LCA at a time when they could barely do one , As far as combining programs with the the IAF goes then that's not even happening today (with IAF as yet showing no firm interest in a land based TEDBF design) , They are in 2021 as they were in 2008 commited to a phoren MRCA

[quote ="Cain Marko"]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.


Mate if you can't see that this was anything but pure fantasy in that period then I dunno what to tell you ,It would take one heck of a project to even accomplish today let alone 12 years ago .


There are many many realistic things IAF/MOD/GOI could have done to streamline procurement and improve the squadron strength and quality but preponing this program by a decade is not one of them

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4746
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 14 Feb 2021 14:17

AkshaySG wrote:Again missing the point that around 2007-8 or whatever "earlier " time you're alluding to the priority of another STOBAR or a Naval fighter just wasn't high enough to necessitate either starting a clean sheet design or modify the then LCA program , Whatever the thoughts they might have had with N-LCA at its inception it was clear soon enough that IN had earmarked Mig29ks for Viky and would continue that for Vikrant and there simply wasn't enough demand for a separate program .

I mean in a period where their only fighter program (LCA) was itself going through tough times and they were facing cost overruns ,budget shortfalls and low trust , hadn't even reached IOC and were facing issues even with basic trainers who in their right mind would go " ..I know what we should do .We should make a twin engined STOBAR capable fighter even though we don't have the money ,manpower or a clear necessity for it

You talk about the Russians and French finding it difficult to design carrier fighters but expect HAL to have run concurrent programs for both it and LCA at a time when they could barely do one , As far as combining programs with the the IAF goes then that's not even happening today (with IAF as yet showing no firm interest in a land based TEDBF design) , They are in 2021 as they were in 2008 commited to a phoren MRCA

[quote ="Cain Marko"]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.


Mate if you can't see that this was anything but pure fantasy in that period then I dunno what to tell you ,It would take one heck of a project to even accomplish today let alone 12 years ago .

There are many many realistic things IAF/MOD/GOI could have done to streamline procurement and improve the squadron strength and quality but preponing this program by a decade is not one of them

Sir, you are wrong. The NLCA was NOT intended to be a TD. The IN's airwing was DESIGNED around both the NLCA and the Mig-29. There is a reason those lifts on both the Vikad and Vikrant are so small. The Mk1 was the TD, but the Mk2 (post ~2008-09) was supposed to result in a fully operational Carrier based fighter using the GE-414. It never happened because - the 414 was never going to be enough as they realized around 2016.

The path to a twin engined bird was the practical route, and frankly, the only route if they wanted an operational bird. All else (single engined nlca) was fantasy. And I think the events that followed bear out this....

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8354
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 15 Feb 2021 10:15

Cain Marko wrote: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.

The LCA Mk1 was never intended to be a F-16/M2k/Mig-29 competitor. These bs comparisons to the F-16 were the work of DDM with vested interests. Indranil and Nilesh destroyed that argument quite comprehensively in their Mk1 article.

BTW, let's not forget that the AF Mig-29 was notoriously short ranged before the upgrade, was useless for A2G missions, has no FBW to this day and carried a max of 6 missiles. The Mirage 2000, IAF's eternal love carried only 4 A2A missiles (2 SARH BVR+2WVR) along with 1 tank. That was the max possible A2A loadout until the upgrade. Neither of those really matched the F-16 either till we spent millions upgrading them.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8354
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 15 Feb 2021 10:38

As for the NLCA, it was meant to supplement not replace the Mig-29K's. Modifying a land based jet to fly from carriers is never easy. Our experience with the Mig-29K itself bears this out. Plus it was our first ever attempt at developing a carrier based fighter ever. ADA did the best they could and the experience they gained during the process is invaluable. That is what will eventually enable them to make the TEDBF successful. There are no short cuts in aviation. The confidence that the ADA has now is gained because of their experience with the LCA Mk1 and NLCA. It could not have appeared magically out of thin air.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4746
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 16 Feb 2021 03:55

nachiket wrote:
Cain Marko wrote: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.

The LCA Mk1 was never intended to be a F-16/M2k/Mig-29 competitor. These bs comparisons to the F-16 were the work of DDM with vested interests. Indranil and Nilesh destroyed that argument quite comprehensively in their Mk1 article.

BTW, let's not forget that the AF Mig-29 was notoriously short ranged before the upgrade, was useless for A2G missions, has no FBW to this day and carried a max of 6 missiles. The Mirage 2000, IAF's eternal love carried only 4 A2A missiles (2 SARH BVR+2WVR) along with 1 tank. That was the max possible A2A loadout until the upgrade. Neither of those really matched the F-16 either till we spent millions upgrading them.


Guess I didn't put that across clearly. The LCA was intended to bridge the gap to 4 gen topline fighters. Note the need for FBW, Composites, MMR, etc. Not to mention SQRs that were supposed to ensure turn rates that would rival the 29 and M2k, and therefore the F-16. Yes, not direct competition butsurely an attempt at tech that was at the time considered extremely cutting edge. The point is - that at no stage was the LCA NOT a challenge. from the technologies desired to the SQRs, it was an absolute moonshot.
Keeping this in mind, the argument that we were taking baby steps and didn't want additional challenges (almost 20 years since the program began), is ridiculous - at least I don't buy it. Again, I'm not arguing for/against the merit of conceiving such an ambitious program.

The way I see it, the idea that a single engined tiny little aircraft would be able to manage competitive performance on a STOBAR carrier, and be less challenging than a twin engined, larger fighter, in itself makes little sense.

nachiket wrote:As for the NLCA, it was meant to supplement not replace the Mig-29K's. Modifying a land based jet to fly from carriers is never easy. Our experience with the Mig-29K itself bears this out. Plus it was our first ever attempt at developing a carrier based fighter ever. ADA did the best they could and the experience they gained during the process is invaluable. That is what will eventually enable them to make the TEDBF successful. There are no short cuts in aviation. The confidence that the ADA has now is gained because of their experience with the LCA Mk1 and NLCA. It could not have appeared magically out of thin air.


No argument from me here. EXCEPT for the implication that attempting a twin engined bird was a "long-cut" circa 2009-10. No it wasn't. I would submit that the pursuit of a single engined, light naval fighter derived from a land based variant was the attempted short-cut! And like most shortcuts, it failed. Indeed there are no shortcuts in aviation. Go with the easier route (twin engined) first and then attempt something like a single engined naval, stobar fighter.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5494
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 16 Feb 2021 13:01

rajsunder wrote:
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.


And you're doing it just by eye-balling it while those at ADA are using CFD and wind tunnel data to do it. Even this design that you're finding issues with would've gone through extensive CFD analysis. Wind tunnel testing will begin soon at NAL for this TEBDF configuration for further refinement.

So relax, they'll come up with a configuration that is optimized for what they're trying to achieve- high fuel fraction, high bring back load, long range while managing drag and RCS to the extent possible.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36423
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 18 Feb 2021 04:26

https://images.assettype.com/swarajya%2 ... 2Ccompress

Spec does say buddy refueling, but I didn't see any of the models with it. concealed eh! ;-)

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 1019
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 18 Feb 2021 05:10

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... YqVsAfNBpQ

Cobham buddy refuelling pod for Su 30.

624 kg dry weight.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4756
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Postby Manish_Sharma » 18 Feb 2021 21:30

And here is a shocker for all those who thought "4G Fighters are obsolete" and "why India is still going ahead with MWF/TEDBF rather than leapfrogging to N/AMCA directly".

The USAF is not only acquiring F15EX (& the USN purchasing FA18 blk3), now they.......

:shock:

are willing to entertain even a clean-sheet replacement to F16...!! A fighter which is 4.5G so to speak (more capable than 4G but not quite 5G).

And why..? Well, its basically the extension of the same philosophy of high-low mix where you maintain a low capability cheaper force

for the tasks which dont need the most advanced capabilities which come at higher capex and opex. Only, now its in terms of stealth capability rather than just size, as was the case earlier.

Do also note that the USAF Chief mentions that F16 is not sufficiently capable to undertake certain tasks demanded by today's air battles. This consolidates my point that F21 is simply too old a platform to invest in now, for next 4 decades or so. There is only so much juice you

can extract from a 5 decade old small airframe. The FA18 Super Hornet is basically a new aircraft and F15 has a lot of design space available to upgrade it. In addition, F15EX is a major redesign comapared to F15C to make it relevant today. F16 simply never saw this kind of step

Change in its capabilities. A newer freshly designed MWF or a clean sheet F16 replacement for the USAF, will have advantage of about 5 decades of technology progress and a chance to include all that in its design organically, giving it a better future than F16/F21.

To be honest, a clean sheet replacement for F16 now probably will shock even those who never bought into "4G is dead" hyperbole. The confidence to go for a clean sheet design now perhaps can be explained by the Digital Century Series-like rapid develooment approach proven in NGAD

Perhaps that gives the USAF confidence that F16-replacement can be designed and fielded in a short span of time, perhaps before 2030.

Can we expect people will at least now bury for good the misconception that 4G platforms are obsolete and have no future..?



https://twitter.com/nileshjrane/status/ ... 42465?s=19
________________________


https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 71.article

USAF rethinks future fleet, ponders clean-sheet 4.5 generation fighter

By Garrett Reim18 February 2021

The US Air Force (USAF) is studying a future fighter fleet that might include new Lockheed Martin F-16 fighters or possibly a clean-sheet 4.5th-generation fighter.

The service has for years advocated for recapitalising its fleet with stealth aircraft, in particular the Lockheed F-35. However, in 2020 it deviated from that stealth aircraft buying plan and began purchasing the Boeing F-15EX to replace ageing F-15Cs.

The F-15EX is an updated variant of the Cold War-era McDonnell Douglas F-15. The USAF says its lower operating costs as well as similar MRO and training requirements to the F-15C were why the fourth-generation fighter was chosen. It also has a larger weapons payload, which might allow the fighter to carry long-range hypersonic missiles. In contrast, the F-35 has been dogged by high operating costs and maintenance troubles.

Now, it seems the USAF is expanding its interest in fourth-generation fighters. It is considering buying a new-build variant of the F-16 or even a clean-sheet design aircraft, says General Charles Brown, chief of staff of the USAF.

“One of the areas we are pushing through is a [tactical air] study for the United States Air Force, to look at what is the right force mix,” he says. “There is a high-end fight. There’s also a mixture for low-end fight.”

Despite acknowledging interest in the F-16, Brown says he has not ruled out starting from scratch.

“I want to be able to build something new and different, that’s not the F-16,” he says. “I want to entertain a clean sheet design of something that’s not necessarily fourth-gen, but may not be completely fifth-gen either. There’s some other low-end type things in our high-end fight. We need to have the right force [mix].”

Brown says there are some capabilities that the USAF might not be able to get out of the 1970s-era F-16.

“Operational flight profile, we have to wait for those and it’s every couple [of] years,” he says, describing combat aircraft software upgrades. “I was just at Kessel Run (a USAF software development laboratory) yesterday and they said, ‘Instead of waiting a year and a half, you can do this within a matter of minutes by updating the code on an airplane, particularly if you saw a new threat.’ Versus the way we’ve done things in the past, you don’t have that in the F-16 today.”

The idea for a clean-sheet 4.5th-generation aircraft was inspired by the digital engineering work that allowed Boeing to design the T-7A advanced jet trainer in a few years and the work that also allowed the service’s top-secret Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) platform to be designed and test flown in a matter of years, says Brown.

“If we’re going to do software defined, and we have the capability to do something even more capable for cheaper and faster? Why not?” he says. “That’s what we’ve learned with our e-series approach with the T-7. And, what we learned with the NGAD. So, the question is: What is the son of NGAD?”

Ultimately, the decision on a clean-sheet 4.5th-generation aircraft would come after analysis and consultation with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and US Congress, Brown says.

“Tac Air has to do some analysis to show what is the right mix, not only capability but also in numbers, to ensure we are going to be successful in future conflicts,” he says. “That requires some modelling and simulation, and analysis. That’s what I plan to do here over the upcoming months. As we really get into the budget for FY23, that’s where I see that we’ll really make some key decisions.”
_______________________

Eyes of the world are opening towards farce of 5th generation stealth scam.

Going for 4.75 Generation TEDBF is a step in the right direction

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 18 Feb 2021 22:53

Manish_Sharma wrote:Eyes of the world are opening towards farce of 5th generation stealth scam.


Replied in the appropriate thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&p=2485744#p2485744

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36423
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 19 Feb 2021 04:47

Rakesh wrote:Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)

Design Specifications

Maximum Take Off Weight: 24 tonnes
Maximum Payload Capacity: 9 tonnes


26 tonnes rakbhai

Image

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 702
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

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

Postby rajsunder » 19 Feb 2021 06:04

Rakesh wrote:Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)
Design Specifications
Maximum Take Off Weight: 24 tonnes
Maximum Payload Capacity: 9 tonnes


Code: Select all

F-18 super hornet specs
Empty weight: 32,081 lb (14,552 kg)
Gross weight: 47,000 lb (21,320 kg) (equipped as fighter)
Max takeoff weight: 66,000 lb (29,937 kg)


Why are we aiming low? Both twin engine and TEDBF by default will have more composite materials, so should be lighter than F-18.
Wy does the TED_BF carry lower weight than F-18 super hornet? Is it because of the aerodynamics of Tailless Delta wing?

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

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

Postby AkshaySG » 19 Feb 2021 07:19

rajsunder wrote:Why are we aiming low? Both twin engine and TEDBF by default will have more composite materials, so should be lighter than F-18.
Wy does the TED_BF carry lower weight than F-18 super hornet? Is it because of the aerodynamics of Tailless Delta wing?


F-18SH is launched by catapults and TEDBF will be a skijump launch ... Makes a huge difference in what a fighter is capable of carrying

hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4911
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby hanumadu » 19 Feb 2021 07:22

FA-18 is 2 meters longer than TEDBF. So, as expected, everything else is greater with FA-18 than TEDBF.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11024
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 19 Feb 2021 07:26

SaiK wrote:26 tonnes rak bhai

Page 1 updated. Please take a look and let me know, if there are any further corrections or additions to be made.

And thank you Sirjee.

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 702
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

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

Postby rajsunder » 19 Feb 2021 08:48

AkshaySG wrote:
rajsunder wrote:Why are we aiming low? Both twin engine and TEDBF by default will have more composite materials, so should be lighter than F-18.
Wy does the TED_BF carry lower weight than F-18 super hornet? Is it because of the aerodynamics of Tailless Delta wing?


F-18SH is launched by catapults and TEDBF will be a skijump launch ... Makes a huge difference in what a fighter is capable of carrying

Does that mean that the performance of TEDBF on our INS VISHAL would be at par or better than F-18?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8354
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 19 Feb 2021 09:38

rajsunder wrote:
F-18SH is launched by catapults and TEDBF will be a skijump launch ... Makes a huge difference in what a fighter is capable of carrying

Does that mean that the performance of TEDBF on our INS VISHAL would be at par or better than F-18?

What do you mean by "performance"? The F-18 itself cannot carry the same amount of ordnance taking off from a ski jump vs a catapault. You are not going to see an F-18 taking off the Vikrant while weighing 29 tonnes.

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

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

Postby AkshaySG » 19 Feb 2021 11:05

rajsunder wrote:
AkshaySG wrote:
F-18SH is launched by catapults and TEDBF will be a skijump launch ... Makes a huge difference in what a fighter is capable of carrying

Does that mean that the performance of TEDBF on our INS VISHAL would be at par or better than F-18?


Vishal ain't coming till at least 2033-35... Right now there's no concrete plans for it and even if they materialize soon it will take a decade+ for them to be realised

So anything about it would be nothing but pure speculation and guesswork, One could assume that a fighter and carrier combo designed in the 2020's should be able to match the performance of a 1990's combo but again nothing can be said for certain.

Let's just stick to Vikramaditya and Vikrant if we want to talk numbers and performances, Both of them are ski jumps and as such would offer lower take off weights.

But TEDBF is designed with that in mind so if it does get made then even from a ski jump it should be a highly capable fighter

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7588
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Postby Prasad » 19 Feb 2021 11:46

A short chat with PD, TEDBF at AI 21.


hemant_sai
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

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

Postby hemant_sai » 19 Feb 2021 14:46

Though I would love to see more such interviews from DDR, I didn't like the manners. At times it appears insulting for the person being interviewed.

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 835
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

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

Postby neerajb » 19 Feb 2021 15:01

Why RATO not popular with ski jump carriers for increasing payload? Not all missions will need to carry max payload and when needed RATO can be used.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7588
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Postby Prasad » 19 Feb 2021 16:24

hemant_sai wrote:Though I would love to see more such interviews from DDR, I didn't like the manners. At times it appears insulting for the person being interviewed.

I did tell him i was going to look up questions from my phone. He was fine with it :)

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 1019
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 19 Feb 2021 16:30

Thanks ,Prasad for a informative interview.

- 100 kg weight addition due to wing folding.
- No serpentine intake like AMCA.
-For NLCA mk1 NP5 trainer assembly jig expected a order of 7-8 aircraft. More optimised landing gear in terms of mass.

I am estimating that the NP5 model is carrying 2 *1330 litre external fuel tanks on inner wing stations.
Indranil is my observation right?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11024
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 19 Feb 2021 20:27

Prasad wrote:A short chat with PD, TEDBF at AI 21.

Thank You Prasad Saar. That is going on page 1.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11024
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 19 Feb 2021 20:45

AkshaySG wrote:Vishal ain't coming till at least 2033-35... Right now there's no concrete plans for it and even if they materialize soon it will take a decade+ for them to be realised.

Vishal will NOT come by 2035. The project has not received sanction of funds yet. Once that is complete, only then can the design be finalized. After that, metal cutting and keel laying. As per a Navy Admiral's own predictions, it will take 15 years for the vessel to commission. Add another five years to that schedule. The sheer scale and complexity of what the Navy wants in Vishal, will result in that timeframe. So assuming everything goes smoothly in 2021 - and that is a big IF - it will be 2041 before the vessel arrives.

The longer the delay in funding, the longer it will take for the vessel to arrive.

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14421
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

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

Postby Suraj » 19 Feb 2021 22:40

Great work, Prasad! Let me add my own thanks to all the others - it's great to see BRFites doing things like these.

On the part of those viewing, give the man your likes, subscribes and push his visibility up.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2646
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 19 Feb 2021 23:12

hemant_sai wrote:Though I would love to see more such interviews from DDR, I didn't like the manners. At times it appears insulting for the person being interviewed.


These are great interviews! well prepared, ensuring that all relevant questions are asked. Substance over form. And the form was pretty good too. It is okay to look up notes. Good going, Prasad. Waiting on your AEW interview!

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2646
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 19 Feb 2021 23:13

sankum wrote:Thanks ,Prasad for a informative interview.

- 100 kg weight addition due to wing folding.
- No serpentine intake like AMCA.
-For NLCA mk1 NP5 trainer assembly jig expected a order of 7-8 aircraft. More optimised landing gear in terms of mass.

I am estimating that the NP5 model is carrying 2 *1330 litre external fuel tanks on inner wing stations.
Indranil is my observation right?


It is possible that IN might order half a dozen in the trainer/lift role.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2773
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

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

Postby darshhan » 20 Feb 2021 12:04

hemant_sai wrote:Though I would love to see more such interviews from DDR, I didn't like the manners. At times it appears insulting for the person being interviewed.


Don't worry. Most of these interviews are email interviews. So no question of being insulting or ill mannered.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7580
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 21 Feb 2021 06:46

hemant_sai wrote:Though I would love to see more such interviews from DDR, I didn't like the manners. At times it appears insulting for the person being interviewed.


Hemant Sai'ji, please please grant the interviewer some leeway. Actually lot of leeway. The interviewer (who is our own BRFite) was obviously preparing for the contents of the questions.

This 10 mins of interview are so so so far better than the hours of DDM'itis we are used to.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7580
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 21 Feb 2021 06:55

Prasad wrote:A short chat with PD, TEDBF at AI 21.


Excellent interview and this interview made my day. I really liked the question on Mig 29k. Again kudos. Please keep such interviews coming. Very very informative.

= crow eating moment =
Earlier when TEDBF was announced, I felt that DRDO/ADA/HAL/Navy/GOI jumped the gun. You see, NLCA is my favourite Chota-Ladaku-Viman (Small fighter aircraft).

At the same time if the ADA/HAL are confident that TEDBF can be delivered with part advanced technologies and avionics, and it comes in time., What am I to say?
= end crow eating moment =

Navy must go with at the very least 12 NLCA-mk1s/Trainers. Apart from excellent LIFT aircraft, it will generate immense operational data for ADA/HAL. This was mentioned by the PD, TEDBF as well in the interview.

Also it was illuminating that the landing gear on NLCA is what it is because they wanted to expedite the timeline.

D.Mahesh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 66
Joined: 02 Oct 2016 02:57

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

Postby D.Mahesh » 21 Feb 2021 09:31

This is non-serious thread - on this page. Mods delete th entire thread plase

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3860
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

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

Postby suryag » 21 Feb 2021 11:20

Irrelevant posts have been deleted, please avoid getting warnings

Cyrano
BRFite
Posts: 963
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

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

Postby Cyrano » 21 Feb 2021 16:39

Realistic confidence displayed by our scientist in the interview makes me full of confident realism that our aeronautic industry has taken off towards future success with these programs.

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3713
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

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

Postby Neela » 21 Feb 2021 17:24

Cyrano wrote:Realistic confidence displayed by our scientist in the interview makes me full of confident realism that our aeronautic industry has taken off towards future success with these programs.


A few more indigenous acquisitions of different types and then imports will be frowned upon. This is what confidence does.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7588
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Postby Prasad » 21 Feb 2021 20:16

Thanks for all the nice words people. Just trying to do what little i can.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2646
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 21 Feb 2021 20:27

Great job Prasad! Thanks.

Anthony Hines
BRFite
Posts: 105
Joined: 16 Jul 2009 22:09
Location: West of Greenwich

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

Postby Anthony Hines » 21 Feb 2021 21:16

Very well done @Prasad.

VickyAvinash
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 46
Joined: 02 Oct 2017 07:31

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

Postby VickyAvinash » 21 Feb 2021 22:40

Great interviews Prasadji. Keep up the good work. Thanks.

D.Mahesh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 66
Joined: 02 Oct 2016 02:57

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

Postby D.Mahesh » 22 Feb 2021 00:01

When I last visited ADA, Murgeshpalya in 1990, all it had was then cutting edge HW - VGA, lots of 386/486 (4381? also) - and the most motivated technical men & women ever in one place - still using reams of paper, pencil & their ingenuity.
11 years later the LCA made its 1st test flight
DAMMITT!!! :twisted:

At a BRF meet - I remember one of the old BRF Gurus (a turbomachinery prof) staggered at the audacity of it all.

In the early days ~25 yrs back, this is what we talked of on BRF - the audacity.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bhavin, chetonzz, Neela, Thakur_B, YashG and 61 guests