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.
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3222
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 14 Jan 2020 20:36

^^ As of now its nothing beyond an acronym, name and conceptual images released by HAL that may/may not resemble final fighter. Maybe at Defexpo, additional details on design specifications may emerge.

A lot of testing on NLCA Mk1 will be required before realistic specifications for TEDBF can be drawn up.

NLCA Mk1 will be the father of TEDBF like Indra and Surya fathered Arjun and Karna.

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 578
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

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

Postby nrshah » 14 Jan 2020 22:56

tsarkar wrote:^^ Maybe at Defexpo, additional details on design specifications may emerge.


Hi all
I will be in some probabilty attending defexpo for 2 or 3 days.

While I cannot bring the in depth knowledge like Kartik, Indranil, Jay s etc on the table, I would be happy to get as much information as possible and some specific queries if any.

Let me know if I can be of any help.

Thanks, Nrshah

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

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

Postby abhik » 15 Jan 2020 00:02

^^^
Mods please start a thread for Defexpo 2020 - hardly 20 days before it opens. TIA.

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 779
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

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

Postby V_Raman » 15 Jan 2020 00:11

Why no video of the takeoff? Is there something classified about takeoff?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5341
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 15 Jan 2020 04:38

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?


Here you go, official confirmation

Indian Navy Spokesperson Twitter handle


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 #IndianNavy.


Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5341
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 15 Jan 2020 04:41

nrshah wrote:
tsarkar wrote:^^ Maybe at Defexpo, additional details on design specifications may emerge.


Hi all
I will be in some probabilty attending defexpo for 2 or 3 days.

While I cannot bring the in depth knowledge like Kartik, Indranil, Jay s etc on the table, I would be happy to get as much information as possible and some specific queries if any.

Let me know if I can be of any help.

Thanks, Nrshah


Hi Nrshah,

We now have a dedicated thread for Defexpo 2020, we could put together a list of questions that we at BRF have been debating about. There'll be so many areas to cover, it'll be hard for any one person to do it. But from the aviation POV, it's clear that TEDBF, MWF and ORCA will be the most eagerly sought as far as info goes. So anything and everything that you can get on these 3 programs will be more than welcome. and of course status updates on Tejas Mk1A and Astra induction into IAF and integration with Tejas and other fighters.

Jay
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Feb 2005 18:24
Location: Gods Country
Contact:

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

Postby Jay » 15 Jan 2020 10:10

Kartik wrote:Here you go, official confirmation



Thanks, Kartik. Why TEDBF, and what's it value add when compared to AMCA? AMCA has been in the plans for about a decade now and the program is moving along, a little slower than what we want. Now along comes TEDBF, which is an entirely new platform, catered to naval requirements and without any funding secured or even any tacit approval for funding. Considering the timelines of Tejas, in the best case scenario where the funding and program management structure is secured in 2020, it will take at least 5 years for the prototype and first flight after which at least another 5 years for the limited series production. So 10 years is the absolute best case scenario for this bird to see the light of day but it will be closer to 15-20 years realistically speaking. In 15-20 years time, considering we have three operational carriers with 2 squadrons each and training requirements, we are looking at 150-200 birds. This seems a low number to start an entire new class of aircraft when AMCA will also come online around the same time line and then there is also ORCA, which will be an air force variant of TEDBF. It's a little difficult to see where all these newer designs end up or what they end up cannibalizing in the end.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3953
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

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

Postby hnair » 15 Jan 2020 12:04

Jay, the AMCA is not going to be combat ready until 2035, if not later. India would need capable fighters with longer legs than Mk1/2 much before that.

From the technical de-risking of AMCA point, let us take a look at another complex weapon system that India is working on. If the jump was from Bofors FH77 to ATAGS, it would have been quite risky due to multiple reasons of maturity in tech (longer barrels, chamber size, fire control electronics, APU upscaling, automation of ordinance handling etc). Thus the Dhanush came about, which helped upscale the FH77 into a larger caliber, better APU, accurate muzzle-radar etc. It was ordered in lesser numbers, which replaced some of the FH77s that got scraped or replaced and then helped de-risked ATAGS, by going into service much earlier. Same concept for TEDBF vs AMCA

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3222
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 15 Jan 2020 13:22

Jay wrote:Thanks, Kartik. Why TEDBF, and what's it value add when compared to AMCA? AMCA has been in the plans for about a decade now and the program is moving along, a little slower than what we want. Now along comes TEDBF, which is an entirely new platform, catered to naval requirements and without any funding secured or even any tacit approval for funding. Considering the timelines of Tejas, in the best case scenario where the funding and program management structure is secured in 2020, it will take at least 5 years for the prototype and first flight after which at least another 5 years for the limited series production. So 10 years is the absolute best case scenario for this bird to see the light of day but it will be closer to 15-20 years realistically speaking. In 15-20 years time, considering we have three operational carriers with 2 squadrons each and training requirements, we are looking at 150-200 birds. This seems a low number to start an entire new class of aircraft when AMCA will also come online around the same time line and then there is also ORCA, which will be an air force variant of TEDBF. It's a little difficult to see where all these newer designs end up or what they end up cannibalizing in the end.

The Navy commissioned ADA to do AMCA Navalisation study in 2016 and the final report was submitted in late 2018/early 2019. The report is not public. Thereafter Navy went silent on AMCA and TEDBF concepts and thoughts surfaced. My speculation is the navalisation wasnt seen as successful.

Members can cross check - are there any quotes from IN Officers after February 2019 stating IN is keen on AMCA?

Some details from my post corroborated here https://idrw.org/n-amca-enters-design-p ... tart-soon/

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4550
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 15 Jan 2020 15:57

Apparently, IN wanted NAMCA. But ADA wanted to first develop a 4G Naval fighter. TEDBF is the compromise and if ADA and IN are on the same page, its a good middle ground. I have had my own doubts about it but finally, this is what matters - Its something that IN is happy with and ADA can deliver in a timebound manner. See the DDR article on TEDBF.

I think the key issue NAMCA would have been a non-starters as a Naval version of AMCA is the lack of thrust. NAMCA wouldn't have been identical to AMCA, certain changes were in order apart from the usual heavier LG, beefier internal structure, AHS etc. I suspect a larger wing was needed too, i.e. overall empty weight would have gone significantly up. The same F414 engines would produce less effective thrust with the double curvature inlet ducts and in the sea conditions. The 110kN engine might be able to make it over the finishing line, but I think F414 with 98kN thrust are underpowered for NAMCA.

sudhan
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 01 Jul 2009 17:53
Location: Timbuktoo..

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

Postby sudhan » 15 Jan 2020 18:14

V_Raman wrote:Why no video of the takeoff? Is there something classified about takeoff?


It is now available. Check Anantha Krishnan TL

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 15 Jan 2020 18:54

Estimated Timelines for IAF/IN induction

2023 -> LCA Mk1A
2025 -> NLCA Mk1 (if full R&D continues)
2030 -> LCA Mk.2 MWF
2035 -> TEDBF
2040 -> AMCA Mk1
2050 -> NAMCA Mk1

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 15 Jan 2020 22:47

Cybaru wrote:DSI

8GeCLXZAsR0

Does the external shape matter for the boundary layer "bumped off" air?

Jay
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Feb 2005 18:24
Location: Gods Country
Contact:

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

Postby Jay » 15 Jan 2020 22:54

I am a big proponent of desi products and if this is what Navy wants and ADA/HAL are confident about delivering it then yes, why not? At least it will help stemming the tide of constant imports. Can our PSU-Military industry complex pull off TEDBF/ORCA along with AMCA within similar timelines, do we have resources for both the projects? I can’t imagine what the program management complexity will be for our labs to pull this. On the other hand, some friendly competition might help set the pace for both the programs.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20953
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 16 Jan 2020 00:00

Please count how many of these fighters we will realistically acquire. Both exg. medium CVs cannot operate an aircraft larger in size than the 29K. A third carrier carrying a larger TE bird will only be able to accommodate 36 aircraft max., as AEW and other ASW/ utility helos will be required making a possible total of 48+ as the full complement. To develop,engineer and produce a naval TE bird for such a small number will be hugely expensive and a massive financial outlay required.Pointless, when we already have 4th. gen. multi-role maritime strike fighters like the Rafale-M and F-18SH as well as a future upgraded version of the 29K. These will be available at half the price considering that the SE LCA MK-1 costs around $ 50M. Since 200+ AMCAs are needed, it is far better to develop a naval (stealth ) AMCA with much commonality to the IAF version, which could possibly fit onto the two existing carriers too. That would then give us a requirement for around 120 NAMCAs, which would push down the price even further. Even if the TE fighter can be designed and shoehorned onto the VikA and Vikrant, its full run of production would be a max. of 120, instead of 320+ AMCAs for both services.The NAMCA would also be a generation ahead in stealth and fighter tech., fit for the 2030s and beyond.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9536
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 16 Jan 2020 07:13

sudhan wrote:
V_Raman wrote:Why no video of the takeoff? Is there something classified about takeoff?

It is now available. Check Anantha Krishnan TL

If you referring to the take off of the Naval Tejas Mk1, please go here ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7790

Scroll down till you see the first video....

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4855
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 16 Jan 2020 07:28

Philip wrote:Please count how many of these fighters we will realistically acquire. Both exg. medium CVs cannot operate an aircraft larger in size than the 29K. A third carrier carrying a larger TE bird will only be able to accommodate 36 aircraft max., as AEW and other ASW/ utility helos will be required making a possible total of 48+ as the full complement. To develop,engineer and produce a naval TE bird for such a small number will be hugely expensive and a massive financial outlay required.Pointless, when we already have 4th. gen. multi-role maritime strike fighters like the Rafale-M and F-18SH as well as a future upgraded version of the 29K. These will be available at half the price considering that the SE LCA MK-1 costs around $ 50M. Since 200+ AMCAs are needed, it is far better to develop a naval (stealth ) AMCA with much commonality to the IAF version, which could possibly fit onto the two existing carriers too. That would then give us a requirement for around 120 NAMCAs, which would push down the price even further. Even if the TE fighter can be designed and shoehorned onto the VikA and Vikrant, its full run of production would be a max. of 120, instead of 320+ AMCAs for both services.The NAMCA would also be a generation ahead in stealth and fighter tech., fit for the 2030s and beyond.


Even if the TEDBF were to serve as a single squadron on the Vishal it would still be worth it. The experience garnered from the NLCA to TEDBF will help the NAMC. We would not suddenly be able to perfect a stealth naval jet without building up to it.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3513
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 16 Jan 2020 09:02

srai wrote:Estimated Timelines for IAF/IN induction

2023 -> LCA Mk1A
2025 -> NLCA Mk1 (if full R&D continues)
2030 -> LCA Mk.2 MWF
2035 -> TEDBF
2040 -> AMCA Mk1
2050 -> NAMCA Mk1


we will be both here after 6-7 years (hopefully). MWF will definitely fly before TEDBF, but TEDBF will be inducted before it...and reason is very simple, while one force will want it as if it's life depends on it and the other will perhaps wait for more MMCRA or Rafale [no plan B]. Did you know, that LCA waited 2 years for a platform to be available to test Uttam, while Navy had a A/C carrier made available in 4 months for testing from go ahead (when it is the only carrier they have, and currently on a very important operational duty - track chipak Naval exercise). Then they topped it by 12 sorties in 3 days (and if rumor to be believed, at least one of them with weapon compliment to gauge carrying capacity - which is on expected theoretical limit - and hope fully adequate). The MK1A signing is imminent, have you heard of any news that 2052 is flying on it (as a test/validation example?). This is how serious the end user it.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3953
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 19 Jan 2020 19:24

Looks like we may see this again.. with a vertical stabilizer and canards. The old twin engine version of LCA aka MCA.

Image

Jay
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Feb 2005 18:24
Location: Gods Country
Contact:

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

Postby Jay » 20 Jan 2020 01:12

I just read something posted by Dileep in the LCA MK1 page where an HAL/ADA gent confirmed that the concept pic of TEDBF is just that, a concept pic. Logically looking at things from HAL/ADA, IN/IAF, and MOD point of view, I do not think this will be a viable project within the projected timelines on BR and MWF will still take priority over this.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3513
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 20 Jan 2020 04:20

well IN has no choice. It has a ready groom (New Vikrant) but no bride (Mig 29 does not count, we are here because it is not a good bride). It will huff and puff and push 29k from Vikrant (and VKD), but it needs a new plane. Cannot afford F18, Rafale of F-35 (F-35 will be the cheapest?), so what choice it has - NLCA - we may see some numbers, but it will be TEDBF and will be successful with it - They will put their heart into it.
Does ADA/NAL/HAL have the bandwidth to do it, there lies the real choke point.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5341
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 20 Jan 2020 13:46

Jay wrote:I just read something posted by Dileep in the LCA MK1 page where an HAL/ADA gent confirmed that the concept pic of TEDBF is just that, a concept pic. Logically looking at things from HAL/ADA, IN/IAF, and MOD point of view, I do not think this will be a viable project within the projected timelines on BR and MWF will still take priority over this.


TEDBF and ORCA are VERY viable and achievable, provided there is adequate political push and funding and IAF and IN support is unflinching. Tejas has laid the technological platform just as ALH did with the rotary side of aviation.

MWF is already a reality. Those thinking that MWF is somehow going to be impacted due to what is an ORCA concept are not aware of just how hard it is to get a new program started, funded and into development. Reality is that MWF program is still called Tejas Mk2 at ADA, because it was budgeted and sanctioned. A prototype is to be built in the next 2-3 years by when Program Definition Phase for the TEDBF and ORCA itself will probably not be over, unless and until there is a very real push from the IN and IAF and the MoD.

Nevertheless, given that the first MRCA will likely enter service not earlier than 2025 (if at all) and will still be delivered in 2032, I cannot see how an ORCA coming into service in 2030 or thereabouts will not be viable.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3953
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 20 Jan 2020 16:48

MWF was proposed in 2017-18. The first flight is planned for 2021-22: overall 5 years.

Why would TEDBF be viable for a prototype flight in 6 years if funding is allocated? Specially when ADA has already had experience with AMCA a twin engine jet?

I have no doubt over ADA's ability. The only doubt GoI/IN/IAF's ability to put the money, where the mouth is.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5341
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 21 Jan 2020 05:37

nam wrote:MWF was proposed in 2017-18. The first flight is planned for 2021-22: overall 5 years.

Why would TEDBF be viable for a prototype flight in 6 years if funding is allocated? Specially when ADA has already had experience with AMCA a twin engine jet?

I have no doubt over ADA's ability. The only doubt GoI/IN/IAF's ability to put the money, where the mouth is.


Did you forget to put a "not" in the first sentence of the second para? Because as you've put it, the MWF experience shows that TEDBF or ORCA can have a first flight in 6 years from project approval and funding.

IF money is made available for design work to begin, then ADA should be able to complete detail design in 3 years time. It has been done for MWF as well. And then 3 years time for commencement of prototype construction leading to first flight. 6 years total for first flight.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5341
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 22 Jan 2020 04:37

Turf war on between HAL and ADA? I seriously hope not, but it certainly seems that instead of working with ADA, HAL is angling to get the entire project R&D for itself.

HAL has designs on full LCA for Navy

After playing a prominent supporting role in the Light Combat Aircraft naval prototype’s tricky landing and take-off debuts from a Navy ship last week-end, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd eyes the prospect of fully designing and developing a twin-engine fighter plane for the Navy if or when an occasion comes up.

Asked what the successful twin acts of naval protytpe NP2 mean for its manufacturer HAL, company Chairman and Managing Director R. Madhavan said the recent ship-based trials will, of course, not translate to business from the Navy unless a twin-engined fighter project formalises from the Force.

Mr. Madhavan said, “It is our desire that the twin-engine Navy project be given to us so that we can design LCA-Navy as required. Such a step will lead to speeding up the project.”

HAL has already been deeply involved in the ongoing deck trials of the two naval prototypes; it has produced them for the Defence Research & Development Organisation DRDO. The defence public sector company has contributed to designing sub-systems of the LCA project - a plane that was originally started for the Air Force.

The DRDO’s special arm ADA or the Aeronautical Development Agency in Bengaluru is tasked with designing and developing the LCA versions and future indigenous fighter planes.

Vital parts

HAL said many critical paraphernalia and support staff for the naval prototype were its contributions, both before and during the recent trials on the ship.

It contributed the arrestor hook system, a redesigned landing gear, a speed controlling device for landings, a drooped nose to give the pilot a good view, a stronger fuselage and the fuel dump.

“We anyway design the LCA structures. Our engineering is proven. If it is possible to extend it to the full project, it would speed up the R&D,” Mr. Madhavan said.

“If a twin-engine naval aircraft project should come up, then HAL can offer the Navy a deck-based aircraft.” With a design house each in Bengaluru and Nashik, he said HAL was up to taking up such a task.

The two Navy prototypes NP1 and NP2, seen as potential trainers, are derived from the IAF version of the indigenous light fighter. A production standard version called NP5 has also been considered.

All these are single-engine while the Navy indicated in 2016 that it needed only two-engined aircraft. With a double-engine LCA being some time away, more so for the Navy, it is an area of interest for its stakeholders.

Rare capability

The second LCA-Navy prototype LCA-NP2 achieved two technologically challenging feats. On January 11 it did an arrested landing on the relatively narrow decks of the carrier INS Vikramaditya and took off the next day ìn what is called the ski jump style.

Underlining the achievement, Mr. Madhavan said only 3-4 countries have such a technology to deploy or land their fighters from the limited confines of a carrier.

Currently HAL’s fixed-wing design house is working on the HTT-40 basic trainer aircraft.

About the scope for a naval aircraft fleet an informed person said its current fleet of Russian origin MiG-29Ks are expected to go obsolete around 2028-32. Another opportunity to replenish naval aircraft could arise if the country goes in for a third aircraft carrier around the year 2040 as envisioned for the long term.



Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2617
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 22 Jan 2020 05:20

MK1A hasn't flown and most of it was internal juggling... :roll:

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4550
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 22 Jan 2020 12:05

Indranil wrote: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.


See the results in this thesis.

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/di ... TEXT01.pdf

A well designed DSI should be able to eliminate entire BL which could be easily of the order of 4-5" at the inlet entry. In practice even if one is able to remove 60-80% of the lowest energy part of the BL, thats still 2-3". And that much on the either side. Unless the DSI removes a significant bit of the BL its not going to be an acceptable solution as any reduction in PR is going to show up in effective engine thrust. The thesis shows that a very careful design is needed for DSI else it could actually prove to be counter productive from aero perspective, especially at high M nos.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4550
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 22 Jan 2020 12:12

HAL is asking for an entire aircraft program based on some rather crudely made 3D models. LOL. What I suspected earlier, that HAL is perhaps trying to usurp MWF design from ADA seems to be correct. I like the hunger in HAL. They do in fact desing most of the aero-structure of LCA and a significant amount of modules it seems. But they do not have enough experience to create a well functioning Aero configuration, which is the first and foremost design step. ADA is much well placed for this. It makes no sense whatsoever to give TEDBF to HAL if the timelines need to be met. However HAL could be given ORCA which would be a shore-based derivative of TEDBF for the Airforce. Let ADA sort out the airframe first with the Naval version. HAL can take over the stripping down of the Navel version and the production thereafter. Organisational egos should not come in the way of National Interests.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9846
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

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

Postby Yagnasri » 22 Jan 2020 14:29

I seriously doubt there is such statement. Some PSU glorification by peoples daily of Chennai can not be ruled out.

nits
BRFite
Posts: 1005
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

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

Postby nits » 22 Jan 2020 15:02

srai wrote:Estimated Timelines for IAF/IN induction

2023 -> LCA Mk1A
2025 -> NLCA Mk1 (if full R&D continues)
2030 -> LCA Mk.2 MWF
2035 -> TEDBF
2040 -> AMCA Mk1
2050 -> NAMCA Mk1


This are fruits we will reap for all effort which went through in making of LCA; and the whole world was against it - Patience pays. cant express my happiness - we will see amazing and thriving aerospace tech and industry hub in making

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 632
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

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

Postby rajsunder » 05 Feb 2020 02:40

A nice looking CGI renderer of TEDBF

https://twitter.com/HarshalPal5/status/ ... 7964581888

Image

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4855
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 05 Feb 2020 02:51

rajsunder wrote:A nice looking CGI renderer of TEDBF

https://twitter.com/HarshalPal5/status/ ... 7964581888

Beautiful model! We need some Indian planes in these popular sim games.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2025
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

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

Postby srin » 05 Feb 2020 08:18

The rendering doesn't seem right on a very significant detail.
It depicts the TEDBF with the nose and cockpit of the AF version. But being a naval fighter, it will likely be a derivative of the LCA Navy, with its droopy nose and consequent cockpit shape change.

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 779
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

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

Postby V_Raman » 05 Feb 2020 08:30

How relevant is manned aircraft induction in 2040 timeframe given that western tech is at F35/Rafale today and next is UCAVs?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20953
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 05 Feb 2020 10:26

" There's a hole in the ( defence) bucket,dear Nirmala,dear Nirmala.." and so on. Simply put apart from pensions,the services have bugger all for capital acquisitions let alone " two birds in a bush "! Grandiose ambitions of building an LCA Mk-2,MWF,TEDBF,AMCA,etc. will crashland sooner rather than later as whatever crumbs are left after pensions,etc. will v.sparingly be spent,that too on the most essential priorities.

Secondly,there's little point in spending around $5 B on a few doz. naval fighters which can operate from just one CV merely to gain experience. Plus there's no guarantee whatsoever that they'll be better than current 4th- gen naval fighters.Right now there are only 3 TE fighters worth considering for a new CV which will enter service only around 2028/30. An upgraded 29/35 K if offered,The Rafale-M and the SH. Of these only the 29/35K will be able to crossdeck with all 3 CVs existing at that time. The IN's top priorities right now are subs.more subs.MCM vessels and over 200+ utility and ASW helos .Replacing legacy missiles with new ones ( BMos) across the board is another top need. These gaps in our capabilities needs immediate filling.
Last edited by Philip on 05 Feb 2020 11:21, edited 1 time in total.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9536
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 05 Feb 2020 10:38

Philip, please do not believe everything you see in the open media about the defence budget.

Funds for clandestine projects are from outside the defence budget. And funds for developmental platforms are not from the annual defence budget either. And funds for contracts (114 MRFA, 57 carrier borne fighters, IFCV platform, etc, etc, etc) will be released when the contract is concluded.

Is there money to buy 114 MRFA this year? No.
Will the 114 MRFA contest be completed this year? No.
So what is the point for setting aside money which can be used elsewhere?

None of the top priorities you have mentioned - subs, MCMVs, utility and ASW helos, etc - will reach contract signature in the next financial year.

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 632
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

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

Postby rajsunder » 05 Feb 2020 10:49

Philip wrote:" Grandiose ambitions of building an LCA Mk-2,MWF,TEDBF,AMCA,etc. will crashland sooner rather than later as whatever crumbs are left after pensions,etc. will v.sparingly be spent,that too on the most essential priorities.

Small budgets forced Navy to indigenize. I wish we started doing it from anthony's time. We would have been in a far better position.

Secondly,there's little point in spending around $5 B on a few doz. naval fighters which can operate from just one CV merely to gain experience.

Where did u get the figure of $5B? I believe the R&D expenses are close to $1.7B and all that money will be feeding Indian economy and not of russia. Experience gained in building TEDBF would be worth its weight in element 115.

Plus there's no guarantee whatsoever that they'll be better than current 4th- gen naval fighters.Right now there are only 3 TE fighters worth considering for a new CV which will enter service only around 2028/30. An upgraded 29/35 K. The Rafale-M and the SH. Of these only the 29/35K will be able to crossdeck with all 3 CVs existing at that time. ............

What IN wants is to get rid of Mig29K's and not to upgrade it. What makes u think they would pay money to get it upgraded?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20953
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 05 Feb 2020 11:50

One LCA costs $50M price agreed upon not too long ago after the earlier costing almost equiv. to an MKI. So around 60 larger TE fighters would cost what? Just 36 Rafales are costing us around $8B for the whole package ( no weaponry too) ,so my costing is quite conservative if a TEDBF cost is taken at $60-65M a pop with $-1.5B for development given that it leverages upon NLCA dev. costs.

As far as I know there is no statement whatsoever that the IN want " to get rid" of the 29Ks. The 57+ fighters were meant for the 3rd.CV.I posted many moons ago a conv.I had with 2 former IN chiefs last year.One was quite sceptical of the req. given that the 3rd.CV was at least a decade away.The 29Ks will surely be upgraded during the decade as they approach the 10 to 15 yr. mark of service and when BMos- NG arrives.It is on record that the 29Ks will carry 2 to 3 NGs when the missile arrives. The second 29K sqd. at Vizag will operate from the Vikrant once commissioned.

Look,far larger economies and established fighter OEMs than us are leveraging a single design for air and naval variants.The Rafale, JSF( 3 versions), SU-27/33, MIG-29/29K, and the Chinese clones. We simply do not have the luxury of developing 3 TE fighters ( incl.AMCA) for a grand total of around 60 fighters! The long term solution is a naval stealth bird,out of the AMCA programme,concentrating our scant funding into it. There's no point trying to reinvent the wheel and build an SH equiv.,whose design is 50 yrs. old 10 yrs.hence! Asinine. If the flat top was due say in 2 to 3 years time, then any of the 4th-gen birds flying now could be considered.2030 on onlynew naval stealth fighters and stealth UCAVs will in the main be operating from CVs along with legacy birds on their way out.Extra late model SHs are being built only because of JSF delays.

By the way, the latest news on the JSF is severe problems with the gun.Software glitches also still in the hundreds.Mounting cracks and inaccuracy.Our LCA has yet to conduct gun trials unless I'm wrong. This is just to illustrate the difficulties and long development timeframe that the best manufacturers undergo. We've taken 3+ decades to get to MK-1 std. So let's be realistic and carefully place our bets.

PS: If so much of money is available for capital expenditure when needed, why are their reports about the IN trimming its numbers of P-8Is,MCM vessels,etc.? The fact is that we're in a serious eco crisis further complicated by global trends.The only silver lining is that oil prices are down due to the global slowdown thanks to the China virus. Much needed relief for us since energy imports make up the largest % of our imports.

Wickberg
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 18:45

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

Postby Wickberg » 06 Feb 2020 01:44

rajsunder wrote:A nice looking CGI renderer of TEDBF

https://twitter.com/HarshalPal5/status/ ... 7964581888

With the Gripen-like canards. Does it really need a drag chute?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5341
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 06 Feb 2020 02:12

V_Raman wrote:How relevant is manned aircraft induction in 2040 timeframe given that western tech is at F35/Rafale today and next is UCAVs?


It would be better if you looked closely at what your enemies will have in the 2040 timeframe. Technology will evolve, but what is it that you're seeing around your borders? F-22 has been flying for over a decade, but in our sub-continental battles, MiG-21, JF-17, Mirage-3, F-16, Su-30MKI and Mirage-2000I were involved.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher, LakshmanPST, skumar and 38 guests