This is what i used to tell from begening,KAAN will be a better aircraft tha AMCA duebto the engine choice.
Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)
- Thread starter Gautam
- Start date
PW f100 was used to power F15 back then, and i am sure F15 is an older aircraft than LCA.
The turks have two advantage over us. First is they were part of the f35 program so they have first hand experience on working on a proper fifth gen aircraft so they know the concepts. We have no real idea unlike the turks.
Second is there manufacturing superiority. First is in engine and the other is in electro-optical tech. Out of all fifth gens the tai-tfx seems to have the stealthiest design for an irst and it also has an eots. They also have eo based munitions and cruise missiles like som j. While we use active radar.
We have a recon cam and irst on amca.
The tedbf ng needs to be atleast have eodas, eots, 110kN+ engine, iwb's. That's it. They can seperate the tedbf make it a 4.5+ naval program with ge-414 and transition those technologies on a fresh sheet naval design
All the Turks did was buy the jets. India worked on FGFA in detail.
F110 is a quite "old" engine. It remains a very potent one, but heavier and bigger than a modern alternative, even with less power (because lighter).
You're not simulating the future well. let me know about your profile a bit so that i can customize my reply for you, like if you are school/college kid &/or non-tech stream, otherwie if i start putting tech terms, acronyms, graphs, diagrams, etc, it'll bounce off your head.
> But for now you should understand that naval jet even if flying low can be detected by high flying air assets, over the horizon radars, etc.
> Many nations are developing & improving anti-stealth radars, so 4.5gen ets dont stand any chance in future unless long range threats have been destroyed.
> Destroyers, Frigates, etc can also have long range LR-SAMs.
> With future networked warfare, a submarine can also fire cold-launched SAM with active terminal seeker into a general area of confirmed targets.
> We're not in era of dedicated jets like Land Attack, Maritime Attack, Interceptor, Fighter, etc.
> We don't need to waste our time & resources sailing at snail's speed to South China Sea. Our peninsular IOR is already vast to defend. Shore targets in Pakistan would also be our primary concern + possible targets around Red Sea endangering our ships + possible hostility from Bangladesh or even Myanmar, who knows the future?
> J-35 has progressed a lot since FC-31 days. Now their production capacity has increased. The next protoype could be fully equipped, production ready model, before 2030.
> Their J-36 & naval version of J-50 will also progress fast. We're deep in era of affordable supercomputing, automation, robotics & now AI, ML, etc.
> We're most populous country now with 10s of 1000s of students passing out of colleges every year, who needs to be absorbed into industry. Hence ADA, DRDO, HAL & private firms need to expand their facilites & employees.
> We need to be future oriented, not sentimental, nostalgic, dragging obsolete things like LCA/inflated-MWF airframe which was inspired by Mirage-2000, designed in 1970s/80s. A jet needs to be good from both inside & outside. Only fitting latest internal components not enough.
> Being practical doesn't mean keep on compromising & lagging decade ater decade. Wherever we are unable to deliver, i think we should setup a court of enquiry into bureaucratic babu system.
A few pieces of a suitable engine w/o ToT can power prototypes, that's all. The airframe R&D should not get hit.
When F-15/16 have been pushed to us then citizens would obviously wanna know if we asked just for the engine & what was USA's response.
And if we consider Russia so friendly then AL-31 could have been used. Now when they have built AL-51 then we should get few AL-41.
Also, looking at differences b/w TD & production jet, like YF-22 Vs F-22, X-35 (no IWB) vs F-35, we should make our TD prototypes with modular engine bay to adjust multiple types of engines with managable dimension differences.
F-16 different blocks used -
> F110-GE-100 (182" long, 36" inlet dia.)
> F110-GE-132 (182" long, 46.5" inlet dia.)
> F110-GE-132A (185" long, IDK inlet dia.)
> F100-PW-229 (191" long, 35" inlet dia.)
F-15E has used F-100-PW-229, F110-GE-129 & 132.
Russian engines longer.
AL-31 (198" long, 36" inlet dia.)
AL-41 (198" long, 37" inlet dia.)
We see that most engines have identical inlet diameter 35/36/37", except F110-GE-132 with 46.5". Lengths are easier to manage.
Then can you please tell us how to improve this design?Do you really want me to give my opinion?
Well then I think it's a model to illustrate a concept but it's not at all intended to fly:
But if I say all that it is so that one calls me arrogant, like that I would have the impression to be French...
- As @Bon Plan has already said, where the fuselage would have to be wasp-sized to obey the law of the areas, there is a widening of the airframe. So just with that alone this airframe will present problems in supersonic and will be dragged up to subsonic. Except to push like a brute.
- The bumps excrescences which replace the boundary layer traps seem to me too little accentuated and the surface of the air inlets insufficient.
- The air inlet closes unnecessarily in its upper part to do like the Rafale which has boundary layer traps. So either you trap or you take off the airflow through the bumps, but not both. Or you've got it all wrong.
- The ducks are undersized.
- The antenna in front of the air inlets is off-centre and not just a little! They could at least take care of a model.
- The pitot probes won't pick up anything at the slightest angle of attack. Not to mention that they are just in the vortex formed by the angular apex of the nose. You have to put them underneath.
TEDBF's real mission was to reduce the number of MRCBFs that India buys from 57 to 26. Mission accomplished! Now we can throw out the project and start a new one, incorporating stealth as a new requirement.
To accomplish its mission, the TEDBF did not need to be optimised.
MRCBF numbers dropped down when carrier requirement switched from Vishal to a second Vikrant.
And you think the stealth TEDBF will be ready at the same time as the second Vikrant?
To be fair, the real mission of the second Vikrant was to reduce the number of Vishal CVs from 1 to 0. Mission accomplished! Now we can throw out the project and start a new one, re-incorporating EMALs as a requirement and further pushing out induction.
Also one potentially incorporating 2-3 CLWR B2 190 MW nuclear reactors. Even 2 will be enough to power a 60-65,000 tonne carrier with EMALS. C
The current TEDBF program will continue as is, to replace the Mig-29Ks from 2040 onwards. If Vikrant II is sanctioned this year or the next, it could take until 2030-31 to begin construction. 7 years to build means we will need TEDBF by 2038 or so, which is the current estimated TOA for both, ie 12 years.
And another stealth jet program will begin after 2030 or so for a CATOBAR carrier, as part of a future multi-carrier program. Rafale will be important for use as a template. We can assume this jet will be ready by 2050. This plan draws parallels from IAF's plan of inducting a new jet every 10 years; Rafale for 2030s, TEDBF for 2040s, stealth jet for 2050s. It's enough time to develop a ship reactor too.
As for the pro-stealth crowd:
I suspect Vikramaditya will be with us until the 2050s, so with 3 carriers feeding into the TEDBF it doesn't make sense to compromise the performance of the CATOBAR stealth jet for STOBAR operations from small carriers.
And the IN needs very large stealth jets that can carry large payloads to long ranges. If they get themselves a literal AMCA-class jet, they will end up flying it in Beast Mode all the time. That was one of the main reasons why a stealth design was abandoned. For CATOBAR, we will need a sufficiently large stealth jet and a stealth bomber, neither operable from STOBAR with equal efficiency.
south block aint sanctioning another aircraft carrier, they most probably are moving with a 75k ton super carrier, a vikrant reorder would only happen in a case where vikramaditya's operational conditions would hamper the national security
govt now will move with frigates corvettes and ssk and support fleet like tankers, minesweeper, landing dock etc, and rest funds will move towardds the next decades projects like p18, next carrier and its battle group, and most important of all iaf's squadron strength and army's artillery and tanks strength