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.
Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1726
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Thakur_B » 05 Jan 2020 21:38

ADA and HAL are biting more than they can chew.
Tejas Mk1 weapons integration post Foc.
Tejas Mk1A
NLCA Mk-1
MWF
Ghatak / Aura
AMCA
TEDBF for Navy and ORCA for IAF.
Potential re-engagement with Russia for Su-57 production and customisation.

That's just 8 programs, not counting conventional HALE / MALE UAVs, trainers and rotorcrafts.

TEDBF / ORCA won't have first flight before AMCA, which as a program is much farther ahead and wil most likely not complete flight testing much before AMCA. The kitty is small and funds are too less to sustain existing programs, let alone go Khan Chacha way with parallel programs.

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

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

Postby JayS » 05 Jan 2020 22:24

Zynda wrote:INS Vikrant will be operational by 2022. I'd add an additional 3 years to the published time lines at least for TEDBF service...round it to 2035. The current 50+ MiG-29K can be carried on both carriers but is IN Ok with that arrangement. Considering the issues IN is a facing with MiGs, I am sure they would desire a replacement ASAP and not wait till 2035.

But, Rafale M or F-18 SH both will be expensive purchases...

TEDBF should be pursued...no doubt about it. But I do hope that an agency outside of ADA will take the lead. I'd prefer ADA with its limited human resources focus on MWF & AMCA. ADA could be nominated as prime consultant to guide the lead integrator.


None exists to take that role. Not even HAL could do it in given timelines. Consultancies have limited impact, we have seen with LCA. and given the inter-organizational rivalries, I expect even less impact in our system. No big private players are willing to put money. And the smaller ones do not have capital (Even the CAS has expressed his displeasure over the lack of will from Pvt sector on investments on desi program but they show alacrity for MII screwdrivergiri programs). Better expand ADA's core team and offload big detailed design and verification work packages to experienced teams from the private sector. Of course, it will cost good mullah for this.

And it is not just ADA, but whole eco-system will need upgrade.

We have to develop true blue tier-1 companies which can not only take up module-level manufacturing but also detailed designs of the modules they own.

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

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

Postby JayS » 05 Jan 2020 22:42

Those engines look too small. F404 dia is 35". So the fuselage will have to be at least 80" wide for even the most tightly packed twin F404 config. If you take the top view image from the released image stake, and scale it for the fuselage to be 80" or 2m wider, that would make the aircraft a massive 20m long and 14m wingspan airframe.

On the top side things don't matter than much, but on the bottom side things will need to move out to make space for wider fuselage. And then the wider fuselage would need longer length to maintain fineness ratio/ower wavedrag.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 921
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 05 Jan 2020 23:06

The aspect ratio seem to be offset by 10 percent when compared with asraam and astra missile .
Estimate as compared to length of asraam of 2.9m around 17m and width between 11m to 12m in HVT picture. And folded width should be less than 18.8m by 8.6m dimension of smaller lift of INS Vikramaditya with sufficient margins.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8214
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 05 Jan 2020 23:08

Sankum surjee,replying a question of yours. MEF will have DSIs.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1913
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

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

Postby Zynda » 05 Jan 2020 23:23

JayS wrote:given the inter-organizational rivalries, I expect even less impact in our system.

I was actually gonna add this statement as an after thought...

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1553
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

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

Postby Gyan » 06 Jan 2020 00:04

I think ADA should develop AMCA with Pvt Sector companies like TATA, L&T, Mahundra & manufacture it with their assembly lines

While HAL should develop TEDBF for it's own manufacturing line.

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

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

Postby nam » 06 Jan 2020 00:28

None of the private entities have a runaway to even test any jet. Unless one of the big ones are ready to shell out money to build the infra required to be a aerospace company, they are better off as Tier 1 supplier.

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

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

Postby JayS » 06 Jan 2020 00:45

Gyan wrote:I think ADA should develop AMCA with Pvt Sector companies like TATA, L&T, Mahundra & manufacture it with their assembly lines

While HAL should develop TEDBF for it's own manufacturing line.


AMCA was offered for MFG in a GOCO facility. What happened to that..???

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

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

Postby JayS » 06 Jan 2020 00:48

sankum wrote:The aspect ratio seem to be offset by 10 percent when compared with asraam and astra missile .
Estimate as compared to length of asraam of 2.9m around 17m and width between 11m to 12m in HVT picture. And folded width should be less than 18.8m by 8.6m dimension of smaller lift of INS Vikramaditya with sufficient margins.


Images are in perspective projection, which makes things difficult for calculating dimensions.

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

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

Postby nam » 06 Jan 2020 02:11

For reference..

Image

Image

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19683
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 06 Jan 2020 04:09

Kakarat wrote:True. There is question on credibility of Group Captain Thakur (retd). I too have been following him on twitter, but he has shied away from calling it the TEDBF, another point is TEDBF is a ADA design and Group Captain is from HAL so it could be one of the concepts of MWF.

If you remember in the past, Navy had been critical of converting a Air force design for deck operations so it has to be seen if they would accept this so I would wait for the official word.


Please *lets not* make such statements re: credibility. He is the CTP for HAL, his IAF veteran status apart. He really does not need us to question his "credibility" when right now, he has more direct access to, decision making power regarding these programs than anyone here. Please understand that his ability to share information is restricted, yet he is making a remarkable attempt to share information and make us aware of the dynamism in the Indian aerospace community. Its being shared and folks like Vishnu Som are doing a good job bringing out some of the details. Lets just not look a gift horse in the mouth.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8214
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 06 Jan 2020 05:02

I know that this is a very crude rendition. But I hate those CFTs. If they are CFTs, I would understand. But if they are fixed, why not just redesign the spine to be fatter?

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7520
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Postby Prasad » 06 Jan 2020 08:56

JayS wrote:
Gyan wrote:I think ADA should develop AMCA with Pvt Sector companies like TATA, L&T, Mahundra & manufacture it with their assembly lines

While HAL should develop TEDBF for it's own manufacturing line.


AMCA was offered for MFG in a GOCO facility. What happened to that..???

That is still the plan but I suppose the general feeling is that nobody in the private sector had the expertise to be the leaf integrator and by default it'll be HAL with major players doing sub assemblies.

Kakarat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2116
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

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

Postby Kakarat » 06 Jan 2020 12:48

Karan M wrote:
Kakarat wrote:True. There is question on credibility of Group Captain Thakur (retd). I too have been following him on twitter, but he has shied away from calling it the TEDBF, another point is TEDBF is a ADA design and Group Captain is from HAL so it could be one of the concepts of MWF.

If you remember in the past, Navy had been critical of converting a Air force design for deck operations so it has to be seen if they would accept this so I would wait for the official word.


Please *lets not* make such statements re: credibility. He is the CTP for HAL, his IAF veteran status apart. He really does not need us to question his "credibility" when right now, he has more direct access to, decision making power regarding these programs than anyone here. Please understand that his ability to share information is restricted, yet he is making a remarkable attempt to share information and make us aware of the dynamism in the Indian aerospace community. Its being shared and folks like Vishnu Som are doing a good job bringing out some of the details. Lets just not look a gift horse in the mouth.


There has been a mistake from my side, I wanted to put it as " There is no question on credibility of Group Captain Thakur (retd)" and never meant to question his credibility. It is a typing mistake and I should have rechecked it, Sorry. Please edit my original post

For the last couple of days I want to convey some things & endup typing something else, think have to take a break
Last edited by Kakarat on 06 Jan 2020 13:01, edited 1 time in total.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5850
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

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

Postby Dileep » 06 Jan 2020 13:01

Just like the fact that ADA, ADE and NAL are indispensable for designing the plane, HAL is also indispensable for building the plane. At some point in future VEM / TASL / LnT may reach that level, but not anytime soon.

tandav
BRFite
Posts: 603
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 08:24

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

Postby tandav » 06 Jan 2020 16:46

Dileep wrote:Just like the fact that ADA, ADE and NAL are indispensable for designing the plane, HAL is also indispensable for building the plane. At some point in future VEM / TASL / LnT may reach that level, but not anytime soon.


Unless you have an internationally competitive aviation industry we will never step into the big boy britches... of the BRICs the India Aviation sector is seriously lagging. Where is India's COMAC, AVIC, CAC? The Chinese have modelled their aviation industry after the successful US model with multiple vendors of high competence whereas we are saddled with only 1 HAL which has no domestic competition.

tandav
BRFite
Posts: 603
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 08:24

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

Postby tandav » 06 Jan 2020 16:48

nam wrote:None of the private entities have a runaway to even test any jet. Unless one of the big ones are ready to shell out money to build the infra required to be a aerospace company, they are better off as Tier 1 supplier.


There is apparently only 1 private runway in India somewhere in Rajastan... it is used to park choppers since the AAI controlled hangars are charging a bomb

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19683
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 06 Jan 2020 17:30

Kakarat wrote:There has been a mistake from my side, I wanted to put it as " There is no question on credibility of Group Captain Thakur (retd)" and never meant to question his credibility. It is a typing mistake and I should have rechecked it, Sorry. Please edit my original post

For the last couple of days I want to convey some things & endup typing something else, think have to take a break


Completely understand. Thanks for clarifying.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5850
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

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

Postby Dileep » 06 Jan 2020 17:31

No. Hosur airstrip is owned by Taneja. Now some MRO work is happening there by Airworks.

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

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

Postby Cybaru » 07 Jan 2020 00:49

The F414 will provide similar power or greater power as the dual Snecma P53-2 64K Dry / 95 K Wet in the mirage 4000 config, which had 32 tons MTOW. The MTOW can be significantly be higher for such a bird for the airforce.

The Internal fuel for m4K was roughly 9500 kgs and payload of 8K. It was a pretty big bird.

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

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

Postby Kartik » 07 Jan 2020 01:33

The Eurofighter Typhoon has 2 X EJ-200s that are rated at 60kN dry/90 kN wet thrust each, for a total of 120 kN dry/180 kN wet thrust. And that with a MTOW of 17,000 kgs. Imagine what a hot-rod that is. The MWF will be very much in the Mirage-2000 ballpark of 98 kN wet thrust with 17,500 MTOW. But in most combat configurations where the payload carried isn't anywhere near max payload, the T/W ratio will be rather good.

for TEDBF and ORCA, with 2 X 98 kN wet thrust (~10,000 kg thrust) the 24,000 kg MTOW means that even at MTOW, the T/W ratio will be very good and at most combat configurations, T/W ratio will be greater than 1. It'll basically be a fighter with eye-watering performance. Pilots will simply love it.

But the F-414 isn't a small turbofan like the M-88. Will be interesting to see how they could fit in 2 of those with the air-flow volume requirements into the airframe size that was shown in the renderings. The intakes were shown with DSI and will have to be nearly double the size of the MWF's.

Basically, the ORCA will be sized like a MiG-35, but the rendering shows it to be just about as long as a MWF, which doesn't cater to the wider fuselage that'll be required for the 2 engine bays and serpentine intakes that'll be required. To maintain the same fine-ness ratio as the MWF, the ORCA will need to be longer to reduce wave drag.
Last edited by Kartik on 07 Jan 2020 02:11, edited 1 time in total.

Kakarat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2116
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

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

Postby Kakarat » 07 Jan 2020 01:43

Kartik wrote:The Eurofighter Typhoon has 2 X EJ-200s that are rated at 60kN dry/90 kN wet thrust each, for a total of 120 kN dry/180 kN wet thrust. And that with a MTOW of 17,000 kgs. Imagine what a hot-rod that is. The MWF will be very much in the Mirage-2000 ballpark of 98 kN wet thrust with 17,500 MTOW. But in most combat configurations where the payload carried isn't anywhere near max payload, the T/W ratio will be rather good.

for TEDBF and ORCA, with 2 X 98 kN wet thrust (~10,000 kg thrust) the 24,000 kg MTOW means that even at MTOW, the T/W ratio will be very good and at most combat configurations, T/W ratio will be greater than 1. It'll basically be a fighter with eye-watering performance. Pilots will simply love it.


correction MTOW of Typhoon is 23500Kg gross wt is 16000kg

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

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

Postby nam » 07 Jan 2020 02:22

Kartik wrote:The Eurofighter Typhoon has 2 X EJ-200s that are rated at 60kN dry/90 kN wet thrust each, for a total of 120 kN dry/180 kN wet thrust. And that with a MTOW of 17,000 kgs. Imagine what a hot-rod that is. The MWF will be very much in the Mirage-2000 ballpark of 98 kN wet thrust with 17,500 MTOW. But in most combat configurations where the payload carried isn't anywhere near max payload, the T/W ratio will be rather good.



I think your numbers are all over the place. EF & Rafale have empty weight of 11 ton & 10.5 ton respectively. Rafale is still able to carry almost the same loadout as EF despite have a 75 to 90 difference in engine wet thrust!

If we achieve ORCA , empty at 11 ton, it would be a great achievement. However it might close to 12 ton.

Irrespective, F414 is one hell of an engine in the thrust department. It is up to ADA to make use of this level of thrust to the max. Hopefully we knock off weight wherever possible.

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

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

Postby Cybaru » 07 Jan 2020 02:30

I think/hope they don't design a small twin-engine fighter. I think ADA/IN/IAF should go as big as possible - all the way to 17-18 meters like the FA18 so that it can be loaded up for many different missions. The biggest bird they can fit on the lifts is what they should aim for. They can get high TWR for different mission profiles based on what it is carrying. We need a multirole unit that is an excellent mud mover and one that doesn't require air refueling if possible or requires carrying external fuel tanks. The engines are there for it. Hope they really get the 6500 kgs internally and 2200 kgs in CFTs if possible.

F/A E/F is 18.3 meters with MTOW of ~30000kgs - internal fuel - 6667kgs

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19683
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 07 Jan 2020 03:29

nam wrote:
Kartik wrote:The Eurofighter Typhoon has 2 X EJ-200s that are rated at 60kN dry/90 kN wet thrust each, for a total of 120 kN dry/180 kN wet thrust. And that with a MTOW of 17,000 kgs. Imagine what a hot-rod that is. The MWF will be very much in the Mirage-2000 ballpark of 98 kN wet thrust with 17,500 MTOW. But in most combat configurations where the payload carried isn't anywhere near max payload, the T/W ratio will be rather good.



I think your numbers are all over the place. EF & Rafale have empty weight of 11 ton & 10.5 ton respectively. Rafale is still able to carry almost the same loadout as EF despite have a 75 to 90 difference in engine wet thrust!

If we achieve ORCA , empty at 11 ton, it would be a great achievement. However it might close to 12 ton.

Irrespective, F414 is one hell of an engine in the thrust department. It is up to ADA to make use of this level of thrust to the max. Hopefully we knock off weight wherever possible.


He is talking of Max TOW, ie fully loaded weight with combat payload, fuel etc, not empty weight.

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

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

Postby Kartik » 07 Jan 2020 04:37

Aah I stand corrected. The TEDBF and ORCA will then basically be in the same ballpark weight and size as the Eurofighter Typhoon (23,500 kg MTOW) and Rafale (24,500 kg MTOW) but with more powerful engines than both.

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

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

Postby Kartik » 07 Jan 2020 04:49

nam wrote:I think your numbers are all over the place. EF & Rafale have empty weight of 11 ton & 10.5 ton respectively. Rafale is still able to carry almost the same loadout as EF despite have a 75 to 90 difference in engine wet thrust!

If we achieve ORCA , empty at 11 ton, it would be a great achievement. However it might close to 12 ton.


I got the MTOW of Typhoon wrong. But you're quoting the empty weight of Rafale M which is 10,600 kgs. the Rafale C for the Air Force weighs in at 9,800 kgs. I believe the ORCA targeted at the IAF will have a target empty weight around the 10,300 kg mark to cater to the heavier engines. The TEDBF targeted at the Navy will be targeted to have an empty weight similar to the Rafale M with some margin built in.

Carrying a load out doesn't have as much to do with engine thrust as it has to do with the structural strength of the jet. When in A2G mode, the FCS restricts the Rafale from maneuvers that would overstress the airframe. So it's a question of lugging bombs and missiles on pylons, not necessarily pulling more than 5G maneuvers with these things hanging under the wings and fuselage.

Irrespective, F414 is one hell of an engine in the thrust department. It is up to ADA to make use of this level of thrust to the max. Hopefully we knock off weight wherever possible.


It is a great engine in pretty much every way. Extremely reliable as well and with a possibility of growth.

However, the ORCA and TEDBF program would've been the best possible opportunity for a quasi indigenous turbofan developed with Snecma for which the IP belongs to India. Even at 90 kN wet thrust it would've given India an engine capable of easily powering an ORCA fighter with a combined 180 kN of thrust. Sadly I don't see that happening.

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

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

Postby Kartik » 07 Jan 2020 04:51

Cybaru wrote:I think/hope they don't design a small twin-engine fighter. I think ADA/IN/IAF should go as big as possible - all the way to 17-18 meters like the FA18 so that it can be loaded up for many different missions. The biggest bird they can fit on the lifts is what they should aim for. They can get high TWR for different mission profiles based on what it is carrying. We need a multirole unit that is an excellent mud mover and one that doesn't require air refueling if possible or requires carrying external fuel tanks. The engines are there for it. Hope they really get the 6500 kgs internally and 2200 kgs in CFTs if possible.

F/A E/F is 18.3 meters with MTOW of ~30000kgs - internal fuel - 6667kgs


Why? What has big got to do with payload carrying capability? The Rafale is THE fighter to be emulated for the ORCA and TEDBF. The smaller the size, the smaller the RCS, the smaller the footprint in terms of base infrastructure too.

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

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

Postby Cybaru » 07 Jan 2020 05:14

I used "big" to convey a crude way of measuring internal space available for fuel. The more internal fuel it carries, the more versatile it will be for a variety of roles. Given our location and sphere of operation, we should design for self-contained units. It will be easier to refuel on the ground vs. in the air in a full-blown war.

IMO Rafale is designed for a smaller sphere of operations. The external fuel tanks are there for everything else.

You are right on the smaller size and rcs, but
1. getting higher sortie time or range will allow for getting more with lesser number of units directly.
2. RCS also reduces significantly if it is not carrying three large drop tanks. RCS measurements are redundant or somewhat less useful in a 4th gen fighter with all loads hanging off wings.
3. refueling in air during wartime will require protection of the refueler tying up resources that will need to tasked for that role.
4. It costs 10X more to refuel in air than on the ground. (USAF study)

getting 6k/7k fuel in internal and 2k-3k in cfts will change the mission profiles significantly. It will almost cover 75%-85% of MKI missions without drop tanks, allowing us to replace lots of MKI squadrons with this as well in the future.

If we manage to plumb it like rafale - then adding two/three 1700 liters in drop tanks will literally put it at MKI range or greater than MKI (yeah the load carrying capacity will be severely limited).
Last edited by Cybaru on 07 Jan 2020 06:01, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby Kartik » 07 Jan 2020 05:59

If it can carry as much fuel as a Rafale can, or slightly more to compensate for the slightly higher Specific Fuel Consumption of the F-414 vs the M-88-2, won't that do? IMO, it will be more than adequate if it matches the Rafale's range. A larger jet will mean higher empty weight and lower payload or a lower T/W ratio for the same TOW.

The Rafale has range equivalent to the Su-30MKI if IAF sources that claim that are to be believed on the Rajya Sabha TV program. For a much smaller airframe with a much lower RCS in clean config..RCS even with drop tanks is likely to be lower than that of a clean Su-30MKI (pure speculation on my part of course) given the size differential.

Image

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

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

Postby JayS » 07 Jan 2020 10:23

Thread cleaned up. Please post something that add value to the discussion.

Cybaru, rest assured, they will make it at the largest size that can actuallt take its ass off from the ski jump. Its farely obvious 30T is way too much, as FA18 on same engines need CATs to TO.

I'd be happy with 7T internal fuel and 6T max external payload.

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

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

Postby Cybaru » 07 Jan 2020 10:38

Yeah 7t and if the cfts being displayed in images play out that’s another 2-2.5 tons.. that will be pretty rocking! I understand that 30 tons may not be possible for deck based but it should be explored for iaf.. if it is fully loaded let it take off because the world is round... there is place for that mission too!

Thanks for thread cleanup!

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7520
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Postby Prasad » 07 Jan 2020 10:44

One would think increasing MTOW would also necessitate an increased bring back weight? How does that affect design considerations when you're talking about choosing between 25tons and 22tons say.

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

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

Postby Cybaru » 07 Jan 2020 12:27

No clue Saar..

dmun
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 11
Joined: 31 Jan 2019 20:03

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

Postby dmun » 07 Jan 2020 12:28

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

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

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

Postby JayS » 07 Jan 2020 12:33

Cybaru wrote:Yeah 7t and if the cfts being displayed in images play out that’s another 2-2.5 tons.. that will be pretty rocking! I understand that 30 tons may not be possible for deck based but it should be explored for iaf.. if it is fully loaded let it take off because the world is round... there is place for that mission too!

Thanks for thread cleanup!


The IAF version will definitely have higher MTOW. By how much, will depend on how much the pylons can accomodate (I dont think this will be the bottleneck and 9-10T payload can be easily be underslung) and how much additional lift the wings can carry. The second factor would be quite important, but given the stringent requirement of <130kts of approach speed limit for landing on the deck, it is highly likely the wing-canard combination would need to be sized for a high C_L which means it will have a lot of residual lift capacity.

It should be able to lift more than Rafale with same ballpark size due to its higher thrust availability.

I'd put my money of MTOW of at least 26T for IAF version of TEDBF.

The key factor will be how wellADA can design the Wing-Canard combination to be. Canards are known to augment wing lift by as much as 60% in practice (IIRC this figure is for Viggen). If they increase wingspan of MWF from 8.5 to 9.6m to accomodate one more engine, that should increase the wing area atleast by 40% if not more. If 8.5m wingspan was OK for 17.5T lift, this should give ~25T lift capability. Some more fine tuning will be needed with canard-wing combination to get high C_L at lower speeds. I'll do some calculations later to see what size can be good enough. But my gut feeling is an airframe with 9.6m wingspan and length of approximately 15.75m should do.

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

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

Postby JayS » 07 Jan 2020 12:40

Prasad wrote:One would think increasing MTOW would also necessitate an increased bring back weight? How does that affect design considerations when you're talking about choosing between 25tons and 22tons say.


I don't think there is a linear relationship. The typical mission profiles will have much lower weapons load than the max possible, rest either remaining empty or filled by external fuel load. All you need to do it bring back the weapons with bare min internal fuel. Rest can be dumped.

So irrespective of MTOW, bring back load should have a fixed number something like - empty operational weight + some 300-500kg min internal fuel + typical weapons payload which is rarely >3T in overwhelming majority of the real life missions. For rare situations where you may have more weapons payload, just lose the cheapest of the weapons. Thats far more economical than putting extra design burdon on the figher for whole life.

BTW the Russian arrester gears installed on our ships have max 30T capacity.

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

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

Postby JayS » 07 Jan 2020 13:01

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Postby Cybaru » 08 Jan 2020 01:04

Looking forward to your calculations. If you can also calculate what the dimensions need to be for 7K ton of fuel and 8k ton of fuel that would be great.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A Sharma, Ambar, saip, V_Raman and 42 guests