Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)
- Thread starter Gautam
- Start date
Oh I hope It should or at least a twin engine Gripen E purely on aesthetic ground.
These along with F22 is most aesthetically pleasing designs for a fighter jet, I’ve seen till date
I just expect you will make a better "copy and paste" than the chinese with J11.....
I’ll not bet on it.
I’ll take anything better than that American pig F18
PS: hey buddy instead of getting butthurt, you should take pride in that a minnow player is taking inspiration from something you people designed decades ago and moved onto next level with NGF
Enough of this beautiful wife complex
Last edited:
LCA was also inspired from Mirage 2000, but with a desi mix. The IAF's Mk2 requirement is basically to match the M2000, although ADA wants to go one step ahead. So the TEDBF is a natural successor to the Rafale, which could again perhaps have a desi mix in it and may see a further evolution in the Rafale's airframe design.
If we can make a modernised Rafale airframe that's much more suitable for STOBAR operations and add F4.2 or higher grade of avionics, then we are in business. I can only imagine what a Rafale++ with 90KN engines will be like.
With actual frontal stealth as well.
Slightly OT, but I remember reading somewhere that stealth does not offer a significant advantage in carrier borne operations. I understand that the a/c is no longer stealthy when it is carrying an AShM, but what about otherwise? Your views
@randomradio @Milspec @Ashwin @_Anonymous_ @Picdelamirand-oil
There was an old Rafale NG CGI released by Dassault which had stealth shaping and weapon pods, but that's unnecessary now.
The reason is quite simple. In the first place, it's very difficult to hide from ship radars, especially with all the multistatic capability present with multiple ships. And with ships constantly on the move, you can't target them as effectively as you can land-based radars, which are mostly static when in operation, which allows the effective use of standoff ARMs but doesn't work against ships.
Battle at sea requires long range/high endurance aircraft with standoff weapons, so stealth doesn't come into play as much for their air force counterparts. Rather, stealthy weapons and/or speed are more important, like the LRASM. Who's gonna bother about stealth from 100Km when you will be firing missiles at the enemy from 500Km?
And when it comes to attacking land targets, SEAD/DEAD will be conducted from long range using drones, so the drones need to be able to penetrate enemy airspace, not the carrier fighter. Also, the expectation is the air force will lead such missions, hence the navy doesn't have to concentrate as much on SEAD/DEAD.
I’ll be more than happy if ADA/HAL can come up with something like these @Bon Plan @Picdelamirand-oil
Novi Avion
Atlas carver
I believe Dassault was involved in designing of both of these fighters one way or another.
@randomradio what if we try to purchase design blueprints and entire data (testing and trials etc) of any one of these. Will it help us to rapidly develop a competent fighter jet ? Or it’s not feasible at all ?
I know ADA are competent enough to come up with something similar but still it will possibly help us cut short the developmental cycle. it’s like how Chinese did with IAI Lavi and FC1
Last edited:
low band radars on frigates. F35 or F22 are stealth only versus X band radars.
It's why US navy don't actively support F35. They rely mainly on SH18 .
old design indeed. with magic 2 and super 530 missiles !
The last ones was unknown for me before your post. Thanks.
Buying some other design won't help. It's actually quite useless. Most of the old designs have not taken RCS or modern avionics into consideration. Even the original Rafale design under F1, F2 and F3 are old now, we need a brand new design just so it can carry more advanced avionics, including the ones coming in 20 years down the line.
Anyway, the PDP of TEDBF is pretty much complete. ADA's gonna show it off in Feb.
Old, but so nicely studied ! Rafale weapon system evolved without budget issue, without delay and without technical problem since 20 years.
Even F4 rely on this old but mature and clever design.
It's all the contrary of the F35 case. Why? because it was not matured enough before, and now they have to run after the time, building new standards on previous ones not fixed.
From what I understand, some of the Rafale F4.2 upgrades cannot be applied to aircraft that are older than F3R, so everything from F1 to F3.4 will require their own upgrade path, hence my point being they are old designs, while F3R and F4.2 will be built to newer standards.
And also wing folding.
NP5 will join Np1 & 2 in April.
NP5 will be in production standard.
Then in all likelihood we'd see a naval squadron of trainers soon.
@vstol Jockey
Your thoughts on this new info wrt TEDBF please.
Amca frontal section including DSI + canards + wing folding.
Your thoughts on this new info wrt TEDBF please.
Amca frontal section including DSI + canards + wing folding.
I am making a prediction today and you must quote me on the official twitter handle of this site. The TEDBF design will make us loose a carrier if we go ahead with it. And with the loss of a Carrier will come over 3500 lives of highly trained and skilled officers and men.