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.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8867
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 21 Jun 2020 20:18

arvin wrote:As per this link, Group Captain HV Thakur, deputy chief test pilot, HAL says


I've replied in the Int. thread - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7625&p=2441239#p2441239

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9328
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 29 Jun 2020 21:38


basant
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 29 Jun 2020 22:07

^^^
The radome looks circular. Not like AMCA's and definitely not of Mk.2. :?:

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9328
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 29 Jun 2020 22:10

Someone in that tweet link said it was TEDBF, that is why I posted it in here.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 29 Jun 2020 22:54

^^^
Sorry, missed that. He further tweeted:
We'll campaign so hard in Twitter hashtags and make a nationwide consensus about TEDBF and it's top-class features we want. We will manipulate their plan of "no retractable IFR in TEDBF" (if any) by doing so and we'll succeed.
9:22 AM · Jun 28, 2020

Just going by first TEDBF model shared as the one of the several being considered that 'looked okay', I doubt if this is how the radome would be. It was also said that TEDBF "may imbibe technologies being developed for the IAF's Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) but will not be a stealth fighter in the same class." So it is a possibility, but I wonder if the saw-tooth circular radome shown above would serve much purpose.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2924
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

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

Postby abhik » 29 Jun 2020 23:30

Its just fan art, lets just enjoy the visuals and not try to over analyse it.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1987
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

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

Postby srin » 03 Jul 2020 09:04

This is a good time to have an engine bake off and get F414, EJ200, M88 in a contest, like we did for Tejas Mk2 (between EJ200 and F414).

Just too nervous about all engines being in Khan basket.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 03 Jul 2020 12:30

There is a USN War study on the carrier in IN doctrine. A lengthy study.In short it questions the efficacy of our " light" carriers as the VikA and new Vikrant, in carrying out full spectrum carrier warfare as practised by the USN.Reasons are the foll:

STOBAR launch,lesser payload carried,range too.
Too few aircraft ( around 30 to 40 max) to undertake comprehensive attacks from the sea against inland land targets.50% of those serviceable will be on air defence duty.
The dedicated anti-ship aircraft of the enemy in prosecuting attacks against the CBG/ CTF. Equipped with LR ASMs, and supported by AWACS . This pushes the enemy's defensive boundary outwards significantly. The cost factor of a CV,carrier air group,plus escorts,et al., One could get 10 AIP subs for the cost of just one carrier,etc.

In brief, the best use of IN CVs are to escort and protect convoys of our merchant fleet,tankers,etc. and strike at enemy surface groups .Sea control. Limited strikes at land targets could be carried out with exg. aircraft using stand-off PGMs. The prosecution of enemy subs too and using the extra advantage of land based aircraft for air cover,AEW, etc.Interdicting enemy long- endurance UUVs on the surface and underwater.
The vulnerability of carriers from new supersonic missiles is another factor. Blockading Paki coastlines will be more difficult from now on,a task better suited to sub warfare and mining approaches.

Any new TEDBF will have to fit within the footprint of the 29K and lifts of our two CVs.There is v.little likelihood of the 3rd. CV getting the nod before 2025,given the Chin gambit in Ladakh and elsewhere.The IA and IAF will get first pick and understandly so.Whatever funds the IN gets will first go to the sub service, hundreds of ASW and LUH helos reqd. and hopefully LR supersonic maritime strike bombers.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7758
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 07 Jul 2020 04:27

srin wrote:This is a good time to have an engine bake off and get F414, EJ200, M88 in a contest, like we did for Tejas Mk2 (between EJ200 and F414).

Just too nervous about all engines being in Khan basket.

M88 is not in the same thrust class as the other two. TEDBF needs quick decisions and a relatively short development timeline. We don;t have time for an engine bake-off.

schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1703
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

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

Postby schinnas » 07 Jul 2020 17:41

Just order more of F414, in exchange for healthy offsets in India, availability of spares and quick servicing. Standardising on few components simplifies the supply chain, cross cannibalization when needed (let's say future sanctions) and most importantly maintenance and skilled manpower logistics.

Barath
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

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

Postby Barath » 07 Jul 2020 23:18

Philip wrote:There is a USN War study on the carrier in IN doctrine. A lengthy study.In short it questions the efficacy of our " light" carriers as the VikA and new Vikrant, in carrying out full spectrum carrier warfare as practised by the USN.Reasons are the foll:

STOBAR launch,lesser payload carried,range too.
Too few aircraft ( around 30 to 40 max) to undertake comprehensive attacks from the sea against inland land targets.50% of those serviceable will be on air defence duty.
The dedicated anti-ship aircraft of the enemy in prosecuting attacks against the CBG/ CTF. Equipped with LR ASMs, and supported by AWACS . This pushes the enemy's defensive boundary outwards significantly. The cost factor of a CV,carrier air group,plus escorts,et al., One could get 10 AIP subs for the cost of just one carrier,etc.

In brief, the best use of IN CVs are to escort and protect convoys of our merchant fleet,tankers,etc. and strike at enemy surface groups .Sea control. Limited strikes at land targets could be carried out with exg. aircraft using stand-off PGMs. The prosecution of enemy subs too and using the extra advantage of land based aircraft for air cover,AEW, etc.Interdicting enemy long- endurance UUVs on the surface and underwater.
The vulnerability of carriers from new supersonic missiles is another factor. Blockading Paki coastlines will be more difficult from now on,a task better suited to sub warfare and mining approaches.

Any new TEDBF will have to fit within the footprint of the 29K and lifts of our two CVs.There is v.little likelihood of the 3rd. CV getting the nod before 2025,given the Chin gambit in Ladakh and elsewhere.The IA and IAF will get first pick and understandly so.Whatever funds the IN gets will first go to the sub service, hundreds of ASW and LUH helos reqd. and hopefully LR supersonic maritime strike bombers.


Not aware of US study on carrier in Indian doctrine (!); there have been enough on carrier in US doctrine; from which the observations can be carried over.

The US and thus the USN has vastly different needs and context than India. Simply put, the USN uses supercarriers for power projection and was willing to pay high capital expenses for those large nuclear supercarriers. However at the same time, it was also de-facto creating presence capability with Ambhibious assault based wings (also part of discussion of navy's 355+ ship revisit) and has rehearse surge. Also US carrier kill chain disruption strategy does not copy paste over to India.

At the same time, India has little need of carriers for deep land strikes or as floating airstrips globally. And some of those sortie/power projection ratios can be tilted by smart force multipliers (eg stealth tanking, drones for the recon/intelligence portion of CAP etc, emals etc, longer range missiles or planes, naval awacs/networks) in general.

Baby steps

Barath
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

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

Postby Barath » 07 Jul 2020 23:21

schinnas wrote:Just order more of F414, in exchange for healthy offsets in India, availability of spares and quick servicing. Standardising on few components simplifies the supply chain, cross cannibalization when needed (let's say future sanctions) and most importantly maintenance and skilled manpower logistics.


To add to that, IN TEDBF numbers may not favor high leverage. even with 2x engines per plane.

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5372
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

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

Postby SBajwa » 11 Jul 2020 03:27


ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 544
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

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

Postby ashishvikas » 14 Jul 2020 09:35

Navy to get new carrier-based jet by 2032, to replace MiG-29K
The Navy is expected to start receiving new twin-engine aircraft carrier-based fighter aircraft being developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) by 2032 and it will be a replacement for the Russian MiG-29K carrier jets in service, a defence source said.

“The Navy is expected to get the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL)-built twin-engine carrier aircraft by 2032. It will replace the MiG-29Ks in service which are scheduled to start going out by 2034,” the source said.


https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 070823.ece

basant
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 16 Jul 2020 13:44

From HVT's tweet. It's wing is more of Mirage than Tejas, not double-delta!

This may not be the real design, read through.

Image

Harsh Vardhan Thakur
@hvtiaf
Technologies
#TEDBF #LCA

STABILATOR at the aft end.
Provides Direct Lift Control. A very unique & unconventional technology. Excellent control of the aircraft.

Huge wing compared to Mk-1.

Massive performance, range & endurance.

Always in Beast mode

10:07 AM · Jul 16, 2020


Continuing Nilesh Rane's thread

Image

#JustForFun - #NLCA MK2 twin-engine version Smiling face with open mouth #TEDBF

Wings moved outboard to make space for two engines. This increases the length by 0.5m. Larger stabilators and VT due to larger wing and bigger length. Wing area would be close to 52 sq m.

+

In reality, if NLCA Mk2 is to be designed as Twin engined jet, the fuselage shape and wing-fuselage blending would look very different, both on the top and bottom. It could be much cleaner bottom side than the current ugly one of NLCA MK2.

+

So we have one report each from
@delhidefence
and
@livefist
with details on IN's new Naval Fighter program #TEDBF. Interestingly the DDR report mentions #TEDBF would use Vortex Flaps indicating it could be modified version of NLCA MK2, while Livefist report indicates the design

+

could be on the AMCA's lines, likely from one of the many configs studies in the program. There is a third possibility that it could be a modified version of MWF. And forth but least likely possibility that it could be a fresh design, something we have not seen so far.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 16 Jul 2020 17:09

^^^
Another HVT's tweet for the above pic.

This is the finalised LCA (Navy) Mk-2 Design from the official brochure. Now, Mk-2 is being upgraded with two engines (TEDBF) as is widely known.

Good features will be naturally carried forward, with additional advantages accrued out of two engines.

Apologies for any confusion.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 28 Jul 2020 14:32

Cross post from Mk2

HVT's tweet
Big shoes to fit in.
Tejas Mk-2 will probably be more up-to-date than Rafale, when it enters service. It's really the TEDBF-like, twin-engine-cousin of Mk-2 that'll exceed the teering performance of Rafale.

1:38 PM · Jul 28, 2020


Optimistically cautious! Love it! :D

nash
BRFite
Posts: 883
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

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

Postby nash » 28 Jul 2020 23:07

This bird will surely beat Rafale in looks and I wish it also outmatched Rafale in capability.

DRDO/ADA or IAF should hire person like Kuntal for their marketing.

https://twitter.com/Kuntal__biswas/stat ... 3115490304

Image

Image

Image

Image

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 626
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

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

Postby rajsunder » 29 Jul 2020 08:18

nash wrote:This bird will surely beat Rafale in looks and I wish it also outmatched Rafale in capability.

DRDO/ADA or IAF should hire person like Kuntal for their marketing.

https://twitter.com/Kuntal__biswas/stat ... 3115490304

These CGI fighter jets look more like a Twin engined variant of Gripen.

The only thing that looks out of place in this rendering is that of the canards. From what i read about TEDBF/ ORCA, the front end of the MWF is going to be used for TEDBF/ORCA. Which i understand would mean that the canards would not be behind the Air Intakes but in front similar to MWF.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 29 Jul 2020 10:16

To me it looks mostly like Mirage 4K, and for a good reason too. It's okay with me if it looks like Mirage 4K and performance is close to Rafale M.

Image

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4444
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 29 Jul 2020 11:21

basant wrote:To me it looks mostly like Mirage 4K, and for a good reason too. It's okay with me if it looks like Mirage 4K and performance is close to Rafale M.

Image

Exactly so! I want to see those damned levcons and the cranked Delta, which are are so uniquely LCA. My guess is that they have to do canards or something for low speed control...

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12156
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 29 Jul 2020 11:35

If it has 2 GE 414 engines, they will have more thrust but consume more fuel than Rafale, we use composites, Rafale also composites. So it will need to carry more Internal fuel for the same range, buts its Payload and acceleration should be better than Rafale. Hopefully Uttam AESA will have higher power output than RBE-2, more T/R modules with better processing capability and hopefully with a longer ranged SFDR.- missile can be lanched with better parameters.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7758
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 30 Jul 2020 00:50

Cain Marko wrote:Exactly so! I want to see those damned levcons and the cranked Delta, which are are so uniquely LCA. My guess is that they have to do canards or something for low speed control...

Even the Mk2 is going to have canards from what we have learnt. IIRC HVT sir mentioned that canards were considered even for the original Mk1 design initially but were dropped in favor of the cranked delta which was a lower risk alternative as far as creating the control laws for the FBW was concerned. They have far more confidence in their ability now after the experience with the Mk1.

LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 234
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

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

Postby LakshmanPST » 30 Jul 2020 03:42

I guess TEDBF/ORCA will come with Stabilators instead of Canards...
IIRC, Naval Tejas Mk2 model that was displayed had stabilators... And I guess TEDBF will be based on Naval Tejas Mk2 design...

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22851
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 30 Jul 2020 13:44

schinnas wrote:Just order more of F414, in exchange for healthy offsets in India, availability of spares and quick servicing. Standardising on few components simplifies the supply chain, cross cannibalization when needed (let's say future sanctions) and most importantly maintenance and skilled manpower logistics.


for a prederermined % value of the contract, they decide the contents of the offsets and not us.

Thus far we have got some useless sheet metal work, some LRU racks and boxes, low level FRP and carbon fibre stuff and suchlike.

everyone knows how to play the game and for those new to the game, they either get paid off or shunted out PDQ.

every point that you have made above is exactly what the goras will not give away or allow you to get by way of "offsets".

exactly what great offsets have come to us as part of the rafale contract :mrgreen:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 30 Jul 2020 14:52

I enjoy the great Indian paperplane chase! after 4 decades our great achievement has been around 12 LCA MK-1s,of 'late 80s vintage performance.We now want to build a MK-1A,MK-2 now twin-engined,another TEDBF,AMCA,all simultaneously ,gosh! For reminders,the M2K upgrade costing $50M a pop,$2.5B for the 54,is nowhere from completion,a bitter spat between the IAF and HAL for extra labour costs above the $50B! in contrast,all 64-69 MIG-29s are being/have been upgraded for just $900M. MKI upgrades are nowhere on the horizon too. I dare not speak of the IJT (what's that?),for fear of reopening old wounds,but gamely ask where are the engines for these birdies coming from.The phantom Cauvery or what?

Seriously,this is not a flame post,but in the age of CV and hugely downsized eco activity with funds v.scarce,we have to rationalise.A former ACM said yesterday on a Rafale arrival debate,that the aim of the IAF was to REDUCE types of aircraft not increase them! In the decade of 4 stealth aircraft in the air; the F-22,F-35,SU-57 and J-20,the latter two just entering service,with several other nations like SoKo,Japan,Turkey,the EU,UK,Fr. too,all revealing their advanced concepts under development,reinventing the wheel ,4th-gen aircraft that too with expensive desi-built birds (take LCA MK-1 costs for ex.),would be back to the future.

Therefore. to rationaliose the IAF's inventory,the foll. should be a way forward. One LCA type with incremental improvements built in large nos. for cost-effectiveness replacing all old MIG -21 types,full thrust to the AMCA,and the TEDBF only if it going to be stealthy and better than the Rafale-M ,should be our new fighter programmes .Apart from those,upgrades of existing types especially the huge no. of heavyweight SU-30MKIs into Super-Sukhois( BMos /BMos -NG/BMos-H capable),which are the backbone of the fleet.In fact the TEDBF could be a naval variant of the AMCA to reduce both time and development costs and at one stroke give us a naval stealth fighter! I would also plump for a stealth bomber programme like the Ru PAK-DA given the PRC challenge. Our upgraded M2K and MIG-29s can serve us upto 2035,where with concentrated effort they can start being replaced even from 2030 onwards.The progress of our secretive UCAV is unknown.Nevertheless,whatever programmes we ultimately plump for,the absence of engines for the above aircraft would cripple the entire modernisation and future planning of the IAF. This failure to develop a desi fighter engine is the achilles heel of our indigenous aircraft development.We have learnt little from the days of the HF-24.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Postby Manish_Sharma » 30 Jul 2020 19:55

Philip wrote:I enjoy the great Indian paperplane chase! after 4 decades our great achievement has been around 12 LCA MK-1s,of 'late 80s vintage performance.



Yes LCA is 80s vintage BUT Mig29 is fresh new Modern design. So much poison against indigenous platforms.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7758
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 31 Jul 2020 00:00

Philip wrote:I enjoy the great Indian paperplane chase! after 4 decades our great achievement has been around 12 LCA MK-1s,of 'late 80s vintage performance.


You just came off a ban in May and have been warned and banned numerous times for disparaging the LCA or some other indigenous weapon system while continuing to peddle every Russian piece of equipment the first chance you get. Take a month long vacation. I have no confidence you will learn any lesson this time either.

bharathp
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 24 Jul 2017 03:44

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

Postby bharathp » 31 Jul 2020 00:11

Philip wrote:In the decade of 4 stealth aircraft in the air; the F-22,F-35,SU-57 and J-20,the latter two just entering service,with several other nations like SoKo,Japan,Turkey,the EU,UK,Fr. too,all revealing their advanced concepts under development,reinventing the wheel ,4th-gen aircraft that too with expensive desi-built birds (take LCA MK-1 costs for ex.),would be back to the future.

so much wrong with this. so if some country unveils 5th gen fighter we stop production of our own 4th gen? have they all stopped producing any 4th gen fighters?
lets say we concentrate on AMCA and get it ready by 2035, then we will still be a gen behind US/EU which is working on 6th gen birds. so we stop 5th gen and work on 6th gen? all without having the confidence and knowhow of a 4th gen fighter?

kaha se aathe hein ye log?

we have 2 major adversaries. even if we can replace all imports to tackle the "lesser" adversary, we are golden. and all our desi efforts are more than enough for atleast that objective.

support and bring pressure on the govt to go with more desi efforts - even if they are 70% of foreign maal.
we started as minnows in cricket. then developed expertise in spin dept (our strength for a long time)
then one star batsman
then a lot of star batsmen
then a few good pacers
now a lot of good pacers

finally a team that can beat any.

if LCA can start there - composites and design as its strentgh
then add desi missiles (astra)
then add radar (uttam)
then add more weapons (mk2)

then incorporate all these to AMCA
finally a bird that can beat any

but we got to start somewhere.
it takes time - be patient.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 31 Jul 2020 01:18

My view has been a bit different on this. In sometime (sooner than we think in terms of developmental cycles of fighter a/c), 4th gen would have limited utility. We already have Tejas FOC that is very good, Mk1A is almost there and the effort is by HAL and not ADA. We should repurpose the available resources from Mk2 to AMCA, Ghatak and 6th gen. Because at some point we will have to have cutting edge and with the will, pace and resources at our disposal, chances look dim. The reason for 6th gen is that the technologies being developed could be fed into AMCA or it's MLU. In such a scenario, Mk2 will have limited utility considering the cost it will impose on development of 5th gen and unmanned vehicles. Mk2 feels good, and definitely will be an improvement, but its return on investment would be much less than that on other projects. Just my 2p.

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 626
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

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

Postby rajsunder » 31 Jul 2020 05:01

basant wrote:My view has been a bit different on this. In sometime (sooner than we think in terms of developmental cycles of fighter a/c), 4th gen would have limited utility. We already have Tejas FOC that is very good, Mk1A is almost there and the effort is by HAL and not ADA. We should repurpose the available resources from Mk2 to AMCA, Ghatak and 6th gen. Because at some point we will have to have cutting edge and with the will, pace and resources at our disposal, chances look dim. The reason for 6th gen is that the technologies being developed could be fed into AMCA or it's MLU. In such a scenario, Mk2 will have limited utility considering the cost it will impose on development of 5th gen and unmanned vehicles. Mk2 feels good, and definitely will be an improvement, but its return on investment would be much less than that on other projects. Just my 2p.


Best guesstimate of the time it will take to operationalize AMCA is 15-20 years. MK2 and ORCA is a risk management ploy and will be a good defensive platform whenever it is needed.
India would still need a Heavy Jet (May be PAK-FA or its equivalent) down the line

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3699
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 31 Jul 2020 13:27

basant wrote:My view has been a bit different on this. In sometime (sooner than we think in terms of developmental cycles of fighter a/c), 4th gen would have limited utility. We already have Tejas FOC that is very good, Mk1A is almost there and the effort is by HAL and not ADA. We should repurpose the available resources from Mk2 to AMCA, Ghatak and 6th gen. Because at some point we will have to have cutting edge and with the will, pace and resources at our disposal, chances look dim. The reason for 6th gen is that the technologies being developed could be fed into AMCA or it's MLU. In such a scenario, Mk2 will have limited utility considering the cost it will impose on development of 5th gen and unmanned vehicles. Mk2 feels good, and definitely will be an improvement, but its return on investment would be much less than that on other projects. Just my 2p.


USAF just ordered more F15 and USN more F18.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12156
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 31 Jul 2020 14:14

Shows that while 5th gen can tip of the sphere 4th gen aircraft with updated avionics will be useful for atleast the next 40 years. Long live Tejas, LCA Mk 2, TEDBF

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5290
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 31 Jul 2020 15:34

LakshmanPST wrote:I guess TEDBF/ORCA will come with Stabilators instead of Canards...
IIRC, Naval Tejas Mk2 model that was displayed had stabilators... And I guess TEDBF will be based on Naval Tejas Mk2 design...


ADA is studying multiple configurations, including the one with the stabilators and one with canards but no stabilators. We'll only get to know sometime next year as to what is the final design configuration that's chosen.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 285
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 31 Jul 2020 15:40

^^^
Tejas Mk2 design frozen and Naval Mk2 is no more on cards, courtesy TEDBF. So I doubt stabilators being considered for any of the platforms in design

sajaym
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 04 Feb 2019 09:11

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

Postby sajaym » 31 Jul 2020 17:24

I wonder who was the man who proposed this design. He was truly a visionary. Had his design been accepted, there would have been no separate 'MK-2', TEDBF, ORCA, AMCA drama. His design combines the current 3 aircrafts into one (four if you consider that this design could be used for UCAV also), -- and he thought of this 10-15 years back! Salute to you sir, whoever you are, wherever you are!

Image

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Postby Manish_Sharma » 31 Jul 2020 17:52

srin wrote:This is a good time to have an engine bake off and get F414, EJ200, M88 in a contest, like we did for Tejas Mk2 (between EJ200 and F414).

Just too nervous about all engines being in Khan basket.

Very true, also EJ200 claimed they can increase thrust significantly in next upgraded version + thrust vectoring is also available.

We don't want our big part of indigenous fleet grounded due to American sanctions. They are anyway trigger happy in sanctions. See CAATSAW for example.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1542
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

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

Postby Gyan » 31 Jul 2020 19:32

sajaym wrote:I wonder who was the man who proposed this design. He was truly a visionary. Had his design been accepted, there would have been no separate 'MK-2', TEDBF, ORCA, AMCA drama. His design combines the current 3 aircrafts into one (four if you consider that this design could be used for UCAV also), -- and he thought of this 10-15 years back! Salute to you sir, whoever you are, wherever you are!

This design was called MCA & First released publically in 1996. I think in an Article by Hormuz Mama.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9328
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 04 Aug 2020 19:22


suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3697
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

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

Postby suryag » 08 Aug 2020 07:57

Saw air marshal nambiar sirs interview he says the Rafale can super cruise at 1.4 ma h with 4 missiles and drop tank curious if the TEDBF can accomplish the same


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anoop, g.sarkar, Google [Bot] and 41 guests