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.
LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 354
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

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

Postby LakshmanPST » 25 Jan 2021 09:44


bharathp
BRFite
Posts: 153
Joined: 24 Jul 2017 03:44

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

Postby bharathp » 25 Jan 2021 10:20

saleint points from the tarmak007 clipping from above:
- two configurations of TEDBF in the works
- deltawith levcons canard (shown in the pic) -corrected.
- trapezoidal with a tail
- delta with levcons is going into low speed wind tunnel testing
- shore based test facility created in view of developing future programs

NLCA:
-18 recovery and launches from INS Vikramditya

- TEBDF going on for 8 months
- current stage of the delta canard config - 26 ton take off from carrier (With Ashm or air defence missilie)
Last edited by bharathp on 26 Jan 2021 09:39, edited 1 time in total.

sajaym
BRFite
Posts: 181
Joined: 04 Feb 2019 09:11

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

Postby sajaym » 25 Jan 2021 12:33

bharathp wrote:
Please tell me if my assumptions about the two design choices are valid:

- delta with levcons

- trapezoidal with a tail


- delta with levcons: this wing layout has commonality with the current NLCA wing layout, therefore testing/production/induction will be faster.

- trapezoidal with a tail: this wing layout will have commonality with the AMCA wing layout, therefore testing/production/induction will take longer but the experience will result in faster testing/production/induction of the Naval AMCA.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5422
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 25 Jan 2021 12:49

bharathp wrote:saleint points from the tarmak007 clipping from above:
- two configurations of TEDBF in the works
- delta with levcons (shown in the pic)
- trapezoidal with a tail
- delta with levcons is going into low speed wind tunnel testing
- shore based test facility created in view of developing future programs

NLCA:
-18 recovery and launches from INS Vikramditya

- TEBDF going on for 8 months
- current stage of the delta canard config - 26 ton take off from carrier (With Ashm or air defence missilie)


Minor correction - first configuration is Delta with close coupled canards, not Delta with LEVCONs.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5422
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 25 Jan 2021 13:54

sajaym wrote:
bharathp wrote:
Please tell me if my assumptions about the two design choices are valid:

- delta with levcons

- trapezoidal with a tail


- delta with levcons: this wing layout has commonality with the current NLCA wing layout, therefore testing/production/induction will be faster.

- trapezoidal with a tail: this wing layout will have commonality with the AMCA wing layout, therefore testing/production/induction will take longer but the experience will result in faster testing/production/induction of the Naval AMCA.


Not complete commonality with the LCA Navy wing layout.

There are no LEVCONS, it is a close coupled canard configuration. The wing design has changes compared to that of the Tejas Mk2. The aspect ratio is clearly greater, probably to do with the low speed approach during carrier landing.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5422
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 25 Jan 2021 18:41

As awful as the graphic is, it gives a pretty good idea as to what the TEDBF's delta with close coupled canard configuration looks like..with a prominent nose chine, drooped nose like on the LCA Navy, Rafale like cheeks that give a large area to mount sensors and canard actuators, plus volume for other avionics or maybe even some fuel tanks. Also air intakes that are angled and with enough length to put in serpentine intakes.

Can't wait to see more images of this configuration. the IAF would be nuts not to want an ORCA derived from this beauty.

Image

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4565
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 25 Jan 2021 20:59

+1 on the ORCA for IAF. ADA must propose this to the IAF now itself as an alternative to MRFA. At 26T with 200kN thrust, its gonna be a hotrod like the MiG29 but with better range and combat capabilities. It could have significantly higher MTOW for land version from the airstrips for additional payload.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3059
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

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

Postby Kanson » 25 Jan 2021 21:27

1st design is very nuch an extension of LCA Mk2 upto nose section. Nose section is inspired by Hornet , shaped & blended with stealth consideration with added touch of Rafale cheeks.

2nd design adds more stability & less risky. It will be of consideration for unforseen or super critical carrier operation.

Final design will be formalized after Navy's inputs/preference from these two designs. It could be blend of these two - maybe.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8207
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 25 Jan 2021 21:30

JayS wrote:+1 on the ORCA for IAF. ADA must propose this to the IAF now itself as an alternative to MRFA. At 26T with 200kN thrust, its gonna be a hotrod like the MiG29 but with better range and combat capabilities. It could have significantly higher MTOW for land version from the airstrips for additional payload.

I have a different take on this. From Dr. Deodhare's interview, as things stand currently, the prototype rollout of the TEDBF is likely to be one year after that of the AMCA if things go as planned. Now the AMCA will likely require a longer time to complete flight testing and productionization but the TEDBF, being a completely new design itself will also take a decent amount of time. Neither is going to be like the Tejas Mk2 where they can have an accelerated flight testing and production timeline because of significant commonalities with the Mk1 design and systems.

Now if you add the time required to design, build and test an IAF version of the TEDBF, I don't see how such an aircraft can be available much before the AMCA. Why would the IAF buy this aircraft if they can get the AMCA if they wait just a few more years. If the AMCA prototype can fly by around 2025-26, I don't see a reason why it cannot be ready for serial production by around 2035-36. When exactly do you estimate the ORCA to be ready? If it is going to be just 3-4 years before that (around 2031-32 optimistically), it makes no sense to me. Besides, even for that to happen the ORCA design phase will need to begin straight away after the TEDBF design is finalized and the program will have to proceed in parallel thereafter with the TEDBF and AMCA. ADA will have to allocate scarce resources (they are already looking to expand to cater for current programs) to it and perhaps impact timelines for the AMCA and TEDBF in the process. ORCA is one program we can do without IMHO. Too much risk to other programs for little benefit.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2643
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 25 Jan 2021 21:36

JayS wrote:+1 on the ORCA for IAF. ADA must propose this to the IAF now itself as an alternative to MRFA. At 26T with 200kN thrust, its gonna be a hotrod like the MiG29 but with better range and combat capabilities. It could have significantly higher MTOW for land version from the airstrips for additional payload.


Yes, I do think it can go all the way up to 33/34 tons for land-based units. ADA has about 7 more tons to play with as far as fuel/MTOW is concerned. If it crosses 8 tons of fuel, it can handily replace the oldest Su30MKI. They will have the same legs with 20-25% less payload.

Add 2-2.5 more tons via CFT to take it to 8.5-9 tons. It will be hard to beat as a platform.

Look at the FA18 parameters to get an easy comparison.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8207
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 25 Jan 2021 21:43

The ORCA would be a fantastic aircraft to procure today. Superior to the Rafale in most respects. But even if the go ahead is given for the program today, with funding not being an issue (big if) it would realistically be 12-15 years before you would see the first squadron inducted in the IAF. By which time, the AMCA would be almost production ready as well (the initial version with F414 engines). The only advantage the ORCA would have over that AMCA version would be in kinematics (superior T:W ratio and less draggy airframe when clean). Not something IAF would be too enamored by in 2035, when they can spend their money on a true 5th generation indigenous jet instead.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4565
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 26 Jan 2021 06:03

Well, there are a lot of ifs and buts involved in all the options the IAF has now, be it MRFA, AMCA or ORCA. MRFA is simply too costly with a price tag of 25-30B and god knows when the deal will be finalised. It would be at least 3yrs after the deal for the deliveries to start and at least 5yrs for local screwdrivergiri to pick up. For AMCA, the biggest risk is the engine. We yet to commit on the 110kN engine and the only backup is the hope that USN will fund Industrialisation of F414EP/EPE version. Even with the engines at hand, Mk2 will only come at around 2035. For ORCA, the IAF and MoD will have to drop the MRFA and commits those 25B to ORCA right away so ADA/HAL can suitably expand to cover the additional work on stripped version of TEDBF (the stripping down is going to be much easier and faster, can happen in parallel or at max a yrs work). Even if you start delivering the Naval version itself to the IAF for first 1-2 sqs its not a bad choice, while work on stripping happens. The initial lot can be modified later. Imagine if 25B are commited towards these peograms, what can be done. Thats a lot of day dreaming given our penchant for imports or holding on to it till last moment until we have neither this nor that, but its a practical plan.

If TEDBF is frozen with delta canard config, given experience from the MWF and NLCA, the basic flight envelop certification and carrier compatibility certification is going to be very rapid. These programs are going to start generating data while TEDBF is still in detailed design phase, so if some key changes are needed, they can be incorporated even before the first flight. IAF can have its jets right when the Navy starts getting it or even earlier given its certification ia gonna be simpler without the carrier compatibility.

Other Nations have done much larger ramps ups in the past. We on our own are doing massive ramp ups in certain areas, which seemed impossible just 6yrs ago. This is not an outlandish idea, given we are not going to need any new tech, only doing more of the same which will need more manpower and money for scale up. And we have almost a decade to gradually do that.

LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 354
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

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

Postby LakshmanPST » 26 Jan 2021 06:27

MMRCA 1.0 final RFP was issued in 2007 and Rafale was declared lowest bidder in 2012, after which more negotiations began which remained inconclusive...
If this is any indication, if MRFA's RFP is issued in 2022, the final contract may be signed somewhere in 2028... First jet will be delivered by 2031 only...
At 12 jets per year, 2 squadrons will be delivered by 2034 end... The 3rd-6th squadrons will be delivered in the time period of 2035-40...
-
Now consider this--->
Cancel MRFA, order 2 Rafale squadrons... Fund Air Force version of TEDBF... ORCA will be ready by 2032/33... Order 4 squadrons... IAF will get the jets in the same timeframe as 3rd-6th squadron of MRFA...
And bonus is, systems & weapons commonality with Tejas, Naval jets & AMCA, Cheaper, Local and can also be bought in more numbers readily if required...

Only downside is that it will add a new type of jet to IAF, but then if MRFA goes to another type instead of Rafale, it will be many times worse...
Last edited by LakshmanPST on 26 Jan 2021 07:01, edited 1 time in total.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8207
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 26 Jan 2021 06:43

JayS wrote:Well, there are a lot of ifs and buts involved in all the options the IAF has now, be it MRFA, AMCA or ORCA. MRFA is simply too costly with a price tag of 25-30B and god knows when the deal will be finalised. It would be at least 3yrs after the deal for the deliveries to start and at least 5yrs for local screwdrivergiri to pick up. For AMCA, the biggest risk is the engine. We yet to commit on the 110kN engine and the only backup is the hope that USN will fund Industrialisation of F414EP/EPE version. Even with the engines at hand, Mk2 will only come at around 2035. For ORCA, the IAF and MoD will have to drop the MRFA and commits those 25B to ORCA right away so ADA/HAL can suitably expand to cover the additional work on stripped version of TEDBF (the stripping down is going to be much easier and faster, can happen in parallel or at max a yrs work).

If only wishes were horses. We have never seen those kind of numbers spent on any indigenous platform. Not even the AMCA. I mean it took 3 years to negotiate the Mk1A deal with HAL. We can't get orders for 15 LCH. Let's not go into the realm of fantasy. In any case, if the MRFA procurement is canceled (and I wish to god it is) that money saved would be better off spent in setting up and expanding the manufacturing capacity of the MWF. The MWF in its now finalized form can easily replace all our Mirages, Jaguars and Mig-29's plus providing additional numbers if we do indeed manage to up the production rate using this money. 2 additional squadrons of Rafales can be added as well. Where is the need for yet another type then? The IAF can wait for the AMCA to mature enough to start replacing the oldest MKI's around 2040. If we can't get the AMCA induction ready by then, we have deeper issues which won't be ameliorated with running yet another aircraft program in parallel.

Even if you start delivering the Naval version itself to the IAF for first 1-2 sqs its not a bad choice, while work on stripping happens. The initial lot can be modified later.
If TEDBF is frozen with delta canard config, given experience from the MWF and NLCA, the basic flight envelop certification and carrier compatibility certification is going to be very rapid. These programs are going to start generating data while TEDBF is still in detailed design phase, so if some key changes are needed, they can be incorporated even before the first flight. IAF can have its jets right when the Navy starts getting it or even earlier given its certification ia gonna be simpler without the carrier compatibility.

If the Superhornet can compete for the IAF's MRCA/MRFA tender as it is, why does the TEDBF need to be modified for the IAF? If indeed the IAF has a need for a another heavy twin engined 4.5 gen jet which cannot be met with a combination of 2 extra Rafale squadrons and additional MWF's, then they can buy the TEDBF as it is when it is ready. Yes, it will be heavier than necessary but with 2 F414's in an airframe with a 26t MTOW it should still be good enough. No need for yet another assembly line. The one making the jets for the Navy can build some for the IAF as well. All of our R&D resources need to concentrate on getting the AMCA and the Ghatak and other future UCAV projects ready as fast as possible. We are already late to this game. We don't need distractions like the ORCA at this point.

astal
BRFite
Posts: 170
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 03:06
Location: virtual back bench

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

Postby astal » 27 Jan 2021 01:16

The IAF will consider operating costs of an LO fighters like AMCA, which will be much higher than 4.5 generation mud movers. Even if all the technological hurdles for AMCA are overcome on time, how many of them can IAF afford to buy and operate?

It would make sense for IAF to have 10 squadrons of a cheap to operate, aerodynamically efficient fighter bomber which can be converted into an Indian version of the growler or carry 20 tons of ordinance and an extra large radar suite. A few hundred crore rupees to study this possibility and initiate modification studies would be worthwhile. Or as suggested earlier, just run with the Naval design though it is suboptimal.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10635
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 31 Jan 2021 21:39

Picture courtesy of Kuntal Biswas

Image

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2619
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 01 Feb 2021 00:08

Is this a derivative of the Mirage 4000 https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_1 ... 938962.jpg
Last edited by Vivek K on 01 Feb 2021 01:00, edited 1 time in total.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10635
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 01 Feb 2021 00:23

Are you talking about making the picture bigger?

If so, just drag and drop the picture in a new browser window.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2619
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 01 Feb 2021 00:52

Trying to make it smaller so that it doesn’t take the whole page.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10635
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 01 Feb 2021 00:54

I do it the old fashioned way via providing a link and asking people to click on it.

There is some HTML coding that others on the forum do.

nash
BRFite
Posts: 898
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

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

Postby nash » 01 Feb 2021 13:16

https://twitter.com/ReviewVayu/status/1356135867732033540

TEDBF with canards, DSI, ergonomic nose, etc. It is clearly feeding on the technologies of MWF and AMCA.

IAF should seriously consider the idea of its air force variant ORCA and stop this nonsense of MMRCA.

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 688
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

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

Postby rajsunder » 01 Feb 2021 13:17

The delta wing canard configuration model of TED-BF from Aero India 2021

https://twitter.com/ReviewVayu/status/1 ... 7732033540

Image

Image

Image

Image

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 1003
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 01 Feb 2021 13:36

Semi stealth design which is hybrid of AMCA and MWF.
The saddle tanks in HAL rendering of TEDBF seems to be in inbuilt and I will give internal fuel at 7T.
Clean take of weight of 20t and external Payload of 6 t with MTOW of 26T. 11 external hardpoints are there.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8207
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 01 Feb 2021 14:41

Vivek K wrote:Is this a derivative of the Mirage 4000 https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_1 ... 938962.jpg

No it isn't. The Mirage-4000 is a design abandoned nearly 40 years ago, which we do not own and could not "derive" from even if we wished to. So I am not entirely sure why this is a question, superficial similarities aside.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5422
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 01 Feb 2021 18:04

My gosh the TEDBF with canards and delta wing is stunning! Strangely no IRST and no probe seen on the model, which could mean AMCA style retractable probe.

Wonder what the other configuration with trapezoidal wings and stabilators will look like..I doubt it'll be this beautiful though..

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8427
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Postby Pratyush » 01 Feb 2021 18:51

Make it fly!!!

Prithwiraj
BRFite
Posts: 264
Joined: 21 Dec 2016 18:48

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

Postby Prithwiraj » 01 Feb 2021 21:19

More like a desi Typhoon

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 688
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

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

Postby rajsunder » 01 Feb 2021 22:13

Kartik wrote:My gosh the TEDBF with canards and delta wing is stunning! Strangely no IRST and no probe seen on the model, which could mean AMCA style retractable probe.

Wonder what the other configuration with trapezoidal wings and stabilators will look like..I doubt it'll be this beautiful though..

I think ADA/HAL might be in the process of developing our own EOTS

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2619
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 01 Feb 2021 22:18

If this materializes, I bet IAF would also be tempted to buy a few. Stunning looks.

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

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

Postby gpurewal » 02 Feb 2021 00:17

Prithwiraj wrote:More like a desi Typhoon


It looks way better and sleeker in my eyes against the Typhoon. I'm not a fan with the Typhoon's engine nacelle placement, and I feel it destroys the aesthetics.

Hopefully, we can see this beauty fly within this decade.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2643
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 02 Feb 2021 00:52

Kartik wrote:My gosh the TEDBF with canards and delta wing is stunning! Strangely no IRST and no probe seen on the model, which could mean AMCA style retractable probe.

Wonder what the other configuration with trapezoidal wings and stabilators will look like..I doubt it'll be this beautiful though..


Still preliminary design I suppose. Lots of details will get fleshed out as it moves forward.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4332
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 02 Feb 2021 01:38

Cybaru wrote:
Kartik wrote:My gosh the TEDBF with canards and delta wing is stunning! Strangely no IRST and no probe seen on the model, which could mean AMCA style retractable probe.

Wonder what the other configuration with trapezoidal wings and stabilators will look like..I doubt it'll be this beautiful though..


Still preliminary design I suppose. Lots of details will get fleshed out as it moves forward.


More beautiful than the Katrina :mrgreen:

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 688
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

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

Postby rajsunder » 02 Feb 2021 03:07

After staring at these models, i now feel that the Stealth is from the forward look only. The multiple lines on TED-BF in the configuration might not be so stealthy when being viewed from a AWACS.
I was wondering if some learned moulana can throw some light on how much engineering effort it would need to move the wings higher WRT to the body. I feel that with the wings moved higher we will not need to have these multiple lines and we can accommodate the canards and wings in a single line with air intakes below the line

Armuan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 23
Joined: 24 Oct 2016 01:56

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

Postby Armuan » 02 Feb 2021 04:08

If beauty alone can kill! She is stunning. I imagined it would be a little more conventional than this (based on past renderings). I see this as is a sign of our maturity and confidence.

The rear fuselage is more conventional, less risk with adopting MWF design, which is a smart move. Perhaps chevron nozzles can be adopted at a later stage. USN did a study primarily for noise reduction on deck (before 2015) and simple chevron nozzles had a 3dB noise reduction which was considered quite significant.
https://navysustainability.dodlive.mil/ ... evrons.pdf

I think IRST, probe retraction, APU inlet, etc... are not shown here probably as they are either evolving or not included as it is only a display model? Though the wing folding lines are visible.

This wing appears to be a pure delta. For the gurus, are there any advantages of having both the canard and cranked wing of the LCA/ MWF?
Radar signature may be one reason for not having it and perhaps the crank is superfluous when a canard is present. Like the crank though; amongst other things, allows one way for a larger wing area if desired.

Davidrock
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 10 Mar 2019 12:07

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

Postby Davidrock » 02 Feb 2021 12:15

The third pic looks a bit boxy, probably they are CFT ? From other angles it looks cool.
Just a comment, if the french can build a beauty Rafael in 1986, I think we can still do a better job in 2021.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5422
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 02 Feb 2021 12:19

Latest TEDBF pic from Livefist

Twitter link

Image

nash
BRFite
Posts: 898
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

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

Postby nash » 02 Feb 2021 14:15

Here is the specification.

Service ceiling : 60K feet - 18 KM.

It is longer and wider than Rafale but with folded wing it can operate from both Vikaramaditya and IAC-1.

Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5422
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 02 Feb 2021 14:43

nash wrote:Here is the specification.

Service ceiling : 60K feet - 18 KM.

It is longer and wider than Rafale but with folded wing it can operate from both Vikaramaditya and IAC-1.

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

So the TEDBF is +8G/-3G. This is due to the wing folding mechanism that basically breaks the spars into 2 sections that are hinged. For an IAF version based on this, it should be an all out +9G/-3G fighter since it won't need a wing folding mechanism and will have a lighter airframe structure and landing gear.

sooraj
BRFite
Posts: 1522
Joined: 06 May 2011 15:45

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

Postby sooraj » 02 Feb 2021 15:21

Image
Image
Image

sooraj
BRFite
Posts: 1522
Joined: 06 May 2011 15:45

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

Postby sooraj » 02 Feb 2021 15:31

Image


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Rakesh and 59 guests