Does the Navy know what they expect from TEDBF? Do they expect it to be flown from IAC2 and follow ons or from STOBAR ones too?
Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)
- Thread starter Gautam
- Start date
It's gonna be CATOBAR capable. And the expectation is STOBAR operation is also possible. They are likely experimenting the best design for either.
Let's not forget that the elevator dimensions are still a problem on the first two carriers.
If the Navy is insisting on a twin engine aircraft, why isn't N-AMCA being explored? It is a conventional design with tail and without canards (which is what you are advocating). I understand that converting an air force version into naval version may be sub-optimal, but is such a possibility even being considered? This may be a better option instead of designing a completely new design for a handful of numbers which the Navy would be inducting.
Unlike US which operates 11 carriers, our requirements for a deck based aircraft is very limited. In that case we should either adapt an existing design or partner with another country which also requires a deck based aircraft.
Any aircraft which is designed for deck ops, is the best for land ops also but reverse is not true. So if we design a fighter for IN, it will exceed the requirements of IAF.
Just out of curiosity, What are the chances that AMCA Mk 1 with stealth would be the AF version of the TEDBF minus the stealth aspects given that the supposed ORCA will be outdated by the time it arrives in the IAF ?
Yes, I'm aware of it. But I asked the above question out of curiosity. What if the AMCA is a stealth AF version of the IN TEDBF ? Is it possible & feasible?
Rafale M use the same aero design : close coupled canard.
Results : it is 40% lighter than SH18, need 20% less thrust power, is more agile, carry 20% more load and is operated on smaller carrier than USN ones.
So I think it is a perfectly fitted design for carrier operations, as demonstrated for 20 years all day long.
Yes.
Its because Rafale is shorter in length and its MTOW is also lower plus it has nearly same wing area. Rafale has 48* wingsweep while LCA has 62.5* on the outer wing. So there is no comparison between the two. AND Rafale is true CCC design while TEDBF design as shown till date is anything but CCC.
Then I think we have our road map towards development of the AMCA - Mk 1 . It will flow from the TEDBF which in turn opens up a lot of possibilities namely it pushes the development of the AMCA Mk 1 to 2025-30 timelines instead of the 2020-25 schedule earlier where the Mk 1 will be more of a proto 5th gen in the pathway of the Korean 5th gen project instead of a classical 5th gen project like the F-22 or F-35 where as The Mk 2 will be pushed further to 2035-40 timelines & in turn will be more of a quasi 6th Gen or 5.5 gen ( if such a nomenclature can be coined) Fighter Aircraft.
This in turn makes the induction of a 5th gen FA within the IAF imperative in the latter half of the coming decade & there's no alternative today to the Su 57. Another way of justifying this hypotheses is that there's virtually no mention whatsoever of any official sanction for the AMCA project.
Earlier ( around 2016-17) it was speculated that the Ghatak UCAV would serve as the test bed for a lot of technologies going into the AMCA. Putting 2+2 together, that could only happen once those technologies are validated by the Ghatak for which the damned UCAV would first have to fly. I wonder how far has that project progressed & whether it's officially classified as some sort of as black project ( I've read articles from LiveFist reproduced here which sort of backs up this theory as no more information has been forthcoming on the said project) .
The learnings from the aerofoil shape of AMCA might very well be used. But i don't think anything else.
Ghatak will provide learning experience for the materials, airframe design and engine. The avionics experience will come from MWF. Ghatak's design is being handled by ADA whereas the rest of the development will fall under ADE. MWF will create all the technologies necessary for AMCA Mk1.
Also, AMCA Mk1 is already planned for 2025-30. They originally expected LSPs to become available by 2027-28, which means by 2029, they could begin producing AMCA Mk1 for IOC, with delivery in 2032. Add 1 year to every year there's a delay in starting the project.
To answer your earlier question about N-AMCA, they discovered the aircraft design will not be suitable for carrier ops. So TEDBF is unlikely to be an AMCA derivative. ADA plans to make a dedicated carrier aircraft separate from the AMCA for the navy in the 2030s.
Yep, right now, our only realistic 5th gen option for this decade is the Su-57. It's available in its Mk1 form, the Mk2 form should become available by the time we negotiate a contract and get the jet delivered. I'd definitely like to see a signature for 40 Su-57s before 2025, with a second order of the same before 2030, and end it there.
Do you always put the cart before the horse or do you make an exception when you quote me?
And we are adding that additional 20% thrust for better STOBAR performance.
Ghatak is a black project not under the Parliament though I wonder what is in that UCAV that needs so much secrecy. I mean Neuron UCAV is one level up altogether. And we can't even solve the issues of an simple Ruston design.
I remember this Ghatak was first spoken in 2009 and sanctioned in 2012. 9 years later 1000 crores has been sanctioned for engines.
The 1:1 scale model called swift was supposed to fly in 2018/19 with NPO engine as an update given by Ada.
If it's not a true close coupled canard, as Vstol said, the result will be better than without that extra power, but not radical.
I will disagree with you here. Acceleration is purely a product of Force/Thrust and mass. But once you get airborne, Lift becomes a major component to keep aircraft airborn and also help it accelerate by converting rate of climb into acceleration. Rafale does have a very good response to it when it leaves the ground but the engine thurst remains the defining thing in it. Rafale does have a very short take off roll as a result and also very slow speed for approach. But just like after landing, it needs to apply breaks which will determine its deceleration, similarly, the ground acceleration will determine the ground roll for take off.
You're right.
But to take off you need a proper combination of speed and lift (the two are linked but dependant of the nature of the wings and wings arrangments)
It's where the "free" canard and high wingsweep design false shorter (than a CCC design).
This. Conventional wisdom has it that a AF fighter flows out of a naval version. Yet in the case of the LCA we went reinventing the wheel & attempted to derive a naval version from an air force version which obviously didn't get anywhere.Lesson learnt, you think the ADA would go back to repeating it's mistake. There seems to be more in common the AMCA Mk 1 AF version has with the TEDBF or rather vice versa than a N AMCA which doesn't exist today & may / will come into play after the full development envelope of the AMCA AF versions are complete.
Nor has the IN expressed any interest in a 5th gen N version of the AMCA for good reason. They aren't confident of the ADA's ability to deliver nor does there seem to be any pressing reason for the Navy to induct a 5th gen Naval fighter aircraft. They seem to have their road map planned perfectly. Get the TEDBF to replace the MiG 29s & if it's good enough , go in for the same of better iterations on the INS Vishal before moving on to the development of the N AMCA where either the better iterations of the TEDBF would fly off it or the N AMCA would or both.