Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)

vstol Jockey said:
This is nothing but earning pension for next two generations for the children of ADA scientists. I had posted in detail about how this airframe design itself is unfit for deck operations and we also discussed the issue of unsuitability of canard designs for deck operations. i just do not know on what basis ADA is persisiting with Canard design.
Click to expand...

I think this is not a final design. It's just an graphical representation. I guess even detailed design phase hasn't even started. Then there is review, ddp 2, ddp3 etc before final design is adopted.
Navy will also be involved with the design. If they feel canards have no shortcomings definitely they will see it through.
 
Nikhil said:
so what to do then?
Click to expand...
The tailless or canard design is unsuitable for any job which involves lifting large loads in limited runway conditions and also for landing on shorter runways. A wing-Tail design has been found to be the most suitable in all the research done by Americans. They studied Canard designs much before Europeans did. I have those studies with me. I can very clearly say that ADA needs to revise the design to a wing-tail design with unstability. Yes unstability and not RSS just the way F-22 and F-35 are. RSS designs are fraud.

Ashwin said:
Its not an issue in this case. Mig-29Ks have enough life left.
If you go by the recent noises, AMCA timelines have been pushed. ADA can now concentrate on LCA mk2 and TEDBF.
Click to expand...
Let us see what comes out first, MWF, TEDBF, AMCA or MSA?
Vicky said:
I think this is not a final design. It's just an graphical representation. I guess even detailed design phase hasn't even started. Then there is review, ddp 2, ddp3 etc before final design is adopted.
Navy will also be involved with the design. If they feel canards have no shortcomings definitely they will see it through.
Click to expand...
Irrespective of what design they finalise, They still can't beat a stealth design with an unstealth design in any role.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: randomradio and Sathya
vstol Jockey said:
Let us see what comes out first, MWF, TEDBF, AMCA or MSA?
Click to expand...
  • For the air force, my bet would be on MWF LCA MK2.
  • For the Navy, I would 100% back a stealthy design over the current Tejas-based twin engine proposal. I think we must move on from Tejas-based design now. Given that Navy would be operating only 2 carriers till 2035 at least and Mig 29Ks will be sufficient to cater to our carrier needs until then, we must work on a clean slate design that is contemporary to be inducted during 2035-40 time frame. Even a semi stealth design would be good.
 
Rakshit said:
  • For the air force, my bet would be on MWF LCA MK2.
  • For the Navy, I would 100% back a stealthy design over the current Tejas-based twin engine proposal. I think we must move on from Tejas-based design now. Given that Navy would be operating only 2 carriers till 2035 at least and Mig 29Ks will be sufficient to cater to our carrier needs until then, we must work on a clean slate design that is contemporary to be inducted during 2035-40 time frame. Even a semi stealth design would be good.
Click to expand...
A stealth design is of utmost requirement for IAF & IN. Why must we still be messing around with 4th gen aircraft when we can design superior aircraft. I flew Sea Harriers in IN and we flew without diversion far deep at sea from carrier even at dark night. I hope you know the meaning of non diversonery flight operations deep at sea and that too on a dark night. A dark night is a night without moon. We were not scared and we did not loose even one aircraft in such operations. I hope you know that Sea Harrier was a single engine aircraft.
Now we have F-35 replacing all aircraft within USAF/USN. Are Americans stupid? They have largest experience of operating deck based fighters in the world and till date Sky Hawk A-4 remains the most formidable fighter which delivered the largest amount of bombload on Vietnamese. And they did not crash for want of second engine. Please remember that IN is now in the same bed as IAF. IN never ever had any relationship with Imported Airforce all these years but now they too have been corrupted. They are now under the influence of the aircraft mafia which is led by the Imported Airforce.
I want to ask you one question, why 2035-40 time frame and not 2026-27 time frame?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kane
We need a detailed white paper first followed by putting out the requirements of Navy for next 15 years in Parliament.

Its useless to invest on TEDBF if we do not see ourselves able to put aside another 30 billion USD for raising the 3rd CBG.

Aircraft Carrier means 10-12 billion USD investment in fighter jets minimum, followed by 5 billion on the construction of Carrier itself. Another 6-8 billion USD for 6-7 Destroyers/Frigates another 2-3 billion for additional SSN and then another 1-2 billion USD for procurement of Refuelers Vessels and associated costs.

It's time IN come to senses about 3rd AC plan, IAF comes to senses about operating helicopters and Army comes to senses on actual modernisation of its armour.
 
vstol Jockey said:
A stealth design is of utmost requirement for IAF & IN. Why must we still be messing around with 4th gen aircraft when we can design superior aircraft.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. If we are planning for something in 2035, it has to be a very low observable design with enough internal capability to carry an A2A load atleast at all costs.
 
vstol Jockey said:
I want to ask you one question, why 2035-40 time frame and not 2026-27 time frame?
Click to expand...

2035-40 because that is a more realistic timeline aligned with the other stealth aircraft (AMCA) under development. I am assuming that the stealth technologies developed for AMCA will also flow into the Navy version (if they take up a new clean slate design like MSA).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chain Smoker and Bon Plan
Rakshit said:
2035-40 because that is a more realistic timeline aligned with the other stealth aircraft (AMCA) under development. I am assuming that the stealth technologies developed for AMCA will also flow into the Navy version (if they take up a new clean slate design like MSA).
Click to expand...
More like we don't have the resources to get results so quick. So 2035.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya
Ashwin said:
At least three variations of the design of the new fighter are being studied presently and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) tests and wind tunnel modelling will ensure the optimum shape of the fighter to match its projected operational capabilities. It's still unclear whether the new fighter will be a tail-less delta platform, similar to the IAF's LCA Tejas fighter or, for that matter, feature canards, a small forewing placed ahead of the main wing of the aircraft to aid manoeuvrability.
Click to expand...

@_Anonymous_

There you go. Now suddenly even Som isn't clear what the jet will look like.
 
randomradio said:
@_Anonymous_

There you go. Now suddenly even Som isn't clear what the jet will look like.
Click to expand...
This has no bearing whatsoever on ORCA & whether the ORCA is a land based fighter cum derivative of the TEDBF.

I'm of the opinion ORCA doesn't exist nor will it ever come into existence. Unless we've any confirmation of the same from official channels any discussion on it is & will be futile.

Right now the only jets whether on paper or in the works from the ADA / HAL are the Mk-1a, MWF / Mk-2, TEDBF & AMCA - Mk 1 / Mk 2.
Ashwin said:
He is also claiming he broke the story. 😯
Click to expand...
Why do you doubt his claim?
 
vstol Jockey said:
This is nothing but earning pension for next two generations for the children of ADA scientists. I had posted in detail about how this airframe design itself is unfit for deck operations and we also discussed the issue of unsuitability of canard designs for deck operations. i just do not know on what basis ADA is persisiting with Canard design.
Click to expand...

Yep. If they choose the same LCA airframe, then there's no future for the jet. But ADA is talking about a clean sheet design.

And let's not forget they have given themselves 6 years to get the jet flying. So that's plenty of time to design a new jet.
Ashwin said:
If you go by the recent noises, AMCA timelines have been pushed. ADA can now concentrate on LCA mk2 and TEDBF.
Click to expand...

I think they have a different team handling AMCA.
 
randomradio said:
And let's not forget they have given themselves 6 years to get the jet flying. So that's plenty of time to design a new jet.
Click to expand...

It took ADA 3-4 years to come up with the new MK2 design (note that it started after MK1A came into the picture). And expect then another 3 years to build the 1st jet (1st flight expected in 2022-23).

I think 6 years time line to design a new jet is very very optimistic. That too for a deck based aircraft.
 
Rakshit said:
It took ADA 3-4 years to come up with the new MK2 design (note that it started after MK1A came into the picture). And expect then another 3 years to build the 1st jet (1st flight expected in 2022-23).

I think 6 years time line to design a new jet is very very optimistic. That too for a deck based aircraft.
Click to expand...

From Mk1 to Mk1A how long are we taking?

Do you believe they ll do it in 6 ?
I don't think it ll be done < 10 years ..
 
Rakshit said:
It took ADA 3-4 years to come up with the new MK2 design (note that it started after MK1A came into the picture). And expect then another 3 years to build the 1st jet (1st flight expected in 2022-23).

I think 6 years time line to design a new jet is very very optimistic. That too for a deck based aircraft.
Click to expand...

The current MWF was designed much quicker than 3 years. It went through multiple iterations as well before they finally fixed on the Gripen E template.

But they already know what they want out of TEDBF since the template already exists in the form of Rafale-M.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom