Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)

[Bon Plan]

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.

It is not the case, technically.
But it will be too costly to upgrade older Rafale to F4.2 so at least for France it will not be the case (and it is probably one reason explaining why we selled 12 old Rafale to Greece and may be 12 more to Croatia...).
Planes built before the Qatar and Indian ones (so Egypt and Frances ones so far) will practically be limited to the lower ambitious F4.1

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Cost to upgrade an old Rafale to F4.2 will be like the cost to upgrade Rafale F1 to Rafale F3: we get 10 Rafale F3 with an upgrade costing the price of 3 such Rafale.
But it could be done with the MLU and a SLEP program.

 

[Aditya b7777]

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.

Could you elaborate?

 

[JustCurious]

designed to be fast, less than 5 minutes in total, and it can be done at the same time as you fix the weapons under the wings.
Likewise the assembly and disassembly of the wingtips, which is similar to the assembly and disassembly of the pylons under the wings, can be done in hidden time.
Have you ever seen what it's like to make a pit stop in a Formula 1 race: it mu

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.

Why every ADA design is Delta-wing in some form - cropped, compund-delta or its variations in some form ?
Same question for French fighter jets...

If Delta-wing is so awesome with respect to agility like low wing-loading, high rate of lift-, high ITR, higher fuel-volume without significant drag-increase, why is it that USAF or Russian Su-xx series or CHINESE (Mod Edit) fighter jets don't opt for it ?

 

[Bon Plan]

If Delta-wing is so awesome with respect to agility like low wing-loading, high rate of lift-, high ITR, higher fuel-volume without significant drag-increase, why is it that USAF or Russian Su-xx series or Chinks fighter jets don't opt for it ?

Eurofighter, IAI (Lavi), SAAB, the chinese, Dassault use delta wing form. It's not without reasons.
It's not THE universal answer, but when mastered, a very good one. Specially with FBW, and now with closed coupled canards.

Main weakness for me : a higher drag in hard turn (but higher instantaneous turn rate).

 

[STEPHEN COHEN]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1352087814054178819

 

[AbRaj]

Why every ADA design is Delta-wing in some form - cropped, compund-delta or its variations in some form ?
Same question for French fighter jets...

If Delta-wing is so awesome with respect to agility like low wing-loading, high rate of lift-, high ITR, higher fuel-volume without significant drag-increase, why is it that USAF or Russian Su-xx series or Chinks fighter jets don't opt for it ?

J10 and J20 are deltas very similar to Rafale/Typhoon/Gripen/LCA
Rest of their jets are illegal copies of russian Su29

Its mainly due to different philosophy in case of Europe and US/Russia.
Deltas are superior for supersonic flight and when equipped with sophisticated avionics and Weapons are meant for early turn and kill. but it bleeds more energy than contemporary design like F16/15 and Su29 etc during turning fights.
US and Russians designs are more focused on traditional dogfights.

 

[Bon Plan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1352087814054178819

A question : is the indian navy market enough to justify such a new project ?
Developpement of this TEDBF and AMCA together aren't a waste of money and energy?
I'm afraid one of the two will be scratched, and the other accomodate to the second service.

 

[raghu1974]

A question : is the indian navy market enough to justify such a new project ?
Developpement of this TEDBF and AMCA together aren't a waste of money and energy?
I'm afraid one of the two will be scratched, and the other accomodate to the second service.

Very valid question and concern. I think TEDBF will be the one that would not go forward, if AMCA's progress is getting impacted. That said, ADA, DRDO & HAL are super confident that they have now got to a point where they have the basic building blocks of technologies to conceptualize, design & build such a variety of jets. That said, production and producing in numbers will continue to be a challenge. AMCA being built in Coimbatore (that's tthe plan so far) with a private player, HAL between now and 2025 has to increase its production capacity to 36 jets for all these programs to be successful. Else the manufacturing of these jets will not end until 2035.

 

[randomradio]

Why every ADA design is Delta-wing in some form - cropped, compund-delta or its variations in some form ?
Same question for French fighter jets...

If Delta-wing is so awesome with respect to agility like low wing-loading, high rate of lift-, high ITR, higher fuel-volume without significant drag-increase, why is it that USAF or Russian Su-xx series or Chinks fighter jets don't opt for it ?

That's something for @vstol Jockey to answer.

 

[randomradio]

A question : is the indian navy market enough to justify such a new project ?
Developpement of this TEDBF and AMCA together aren't a waste of money and energy?
I'm afraid one of the two will be scratched, and the other accomodate to the second service.

That's going to be the biggest problem. If the IN plans to build only 45 TEDBF, then the program is bound to fail. It's actually why HAL wants to create the ORCA for the IAF based on TEDBF to make the project viable, but that's pretty much a running joke.

 

[randomradio]

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.

Most definitely. None of the IN's current options are decent carrier fighters that can be used beyond 2035.

 

[Sathya]

Most definitely. None of the IN's current options are decent carrier fighters that can be used beyond 2035.

TEDBF wing design may be changed as per needs since folding mech is already planned.

 

[Sathya]

That's going to be the biggest problem. If the IN plans to build only 45 TEDBF, then the program is bound to fail. It's actually why HAL wants to create the ORCA for the IAF based on TEDBF to make the project viable, but that's pretty much a running joke.

I hope to see we make SE mk1, mk1A, Mk2 in 200-240 numbers this decade before moving onto TE TEDBF, ORCA & Amca next decade.

 

[JustCurious]

J10 and J20 are deltas very similar to Rafale/Typhoon/Gripen/LCA
Rest of their jets are illegal copies of russian Su29

Its mainly due to different philosophy in case of Europe and US/Russia.
Deltas are superior for supersonic flight and when equipped with sophisticated avionics and Weapons are meant for early turn and kill. but it bleeds more energy than contemporary design like F16/15 and Su29 etc during turning fights.
US and Russians designs are more focused on traditional dogfights.

But US fighters are based on first-look, first-shoot, first-kill. Isn't it ?
Then, how is it accurate to say that "US and Russians designs are more focused on traditional dogfights" ?

 

[JustCurious]

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.

@vstol Jockey Sir, why every ADA design is Delta-wing in some form - cropped, compound-delta or its variations in some form ? Same question for French fighter jets...

If Delta-wing is so awesome with respect to agility like low wing-loading, high rate of lift-, high ITR, higher fuel-volume without significant drag-increase, why is it that USAF or Russian Su-xx series fighter jets don't opt for it ?

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

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.

Sir, could you please elaborate on the reasons a bit, for the laymen ?

Also, could you please share the options you propose & their benefits/feasibility ?

 

[vstol Jockey]

@vstol Jockey Sir, why every ADA design is Delta-wing in some form - cropped, compound-delta or its variations in some form ? Same question for French fighter jets...

If Delta-wing is so awesome with respect to agility like low wing-loading, high rate of lift-, high ITR, higher fuel-volume without significant drag-increase, why is it that USAF or Russian Su-xx series fighter jets don't opt for it ?





Sir, could you please elaborate on the reasons a bit, for the laymen ?

Also, could you please share the options you propose & their benefits/feasibility ?

Delta planforms became popular in 60s when the engine thrust was low and the the aircraft needed to go supersonic. Russians were the first to use the delat-tail design and that remains the most effective aircraft design using delta wings. The french perfected it using RSS and FBW to remove the inherent disadvantages of a pure delta but they too realised that tailless delta is not the best whatever you may do. Then started the EuroCanards to overcome the disadvantages of a tailless delta. But canard is same as delta-tail design in which you put the tail in front and call it canard.
The low wing loading is a misnomer. Highly swept wings have low wing loading as we do not take into consideration the overall lift generated by the wing which is a function of cosine of leading edge sweepback angle. As the SB angle increases the lift generated by the wing reduces and to overcome that, you need more wing so deltas have low wingloading. A 40* swept wing will produce more lift than a Delta with 57* SB angle for the same wing area. Delta wing with high SB angle will reach its peak Cl max at a higher alpha compared to a wing with low SB. Higher alpha means higher drag. The best planform is supposed to be an unstable tri plane config like SU-30MKI. The second best is supposed to be Unstable Tailed delta config with LERX and third best is CCC config like Rafale. Tailless delta is the worst of them all.
An Unstable Lerx-delta-Tail design has no negative loads and every surface contributes to lift resulting in smaller wing area, lighter structure and more agility with no restrictions on pitch rate.
LCA has the worst planform for a deck based fighter and using it with canards will only add to the problem. ADA must redesign the wing with a SB angle of less than 45*. Than only TEDBF will have some merit in it.

 

[randomradio]

TEDBF wing design may be changed as per needs since folding mech is already planned.

Folding wings is irrelevant. You can make TEDBF carrier compatible, but it won't be mission compatible. It won't be able to do everything that's actually needed from a carrier jet.

At the very least, TEDBF will require a massive fuel fraction, competitive with the Flanker. But that's extremely difficult to achieve given the size constraints. Given our geography, we need TEDBF to have a 750-1000nm combat radius. But if it ends up at the same level as the Rafale or even lesser, then it's going to be useless.

Also, as mentioned by @vstol Jockey since the beginning, TEDBF cannot have the same wing design as the LCA, or someday it's going to fail spectacularly when landing on a carrier.

 

[JustCurious]

Delta planforms became popular in 60s when the engine thrust was low and the the aircraft needed to go supersonic. Russians were the first to use the delat-tail design and that remains the most effective aircraft design using delta wings. The french perfected it using RSS and FBW to remove the inherent disadvantages of a pure delta but they too realised that tailless delta is not the best whatever you may do. Then started the EuroCanards to overcome the disadvantages of a tailless delta. But canard is same as delta-tail design in which you put the tail in front and call it canard.
The low wing loading is a misnomer. Highly swept wings have low wing loading as we do not take into consideration the overall lift generated by the wing which is a function of cosine of leading edge sweepback angle. As the SB angle increases the lift generated by the wing reduces and to overcome that, you need more wing so deltas have low wingloading. A 40* swept wing will produce more lift than a Delta with 57* SB angle for the same wing area. Delta wing with high SB angle will reach its peak Cl max at a higher alpha compared to a wing with low SB. Higher alpha means higher drag. The best planform is supposed to be an unstable tri plane config like SU-30MKI. The second best is supposed to be Unstable Tailed delta config with LERX and third best is CCC config like Rafale. Tailless delta is the worst of them all.
An Unstable Lerx-delta-Tail design has no negative loads and every surface contributes to lift resulting in smaller wing area, lighter structure and more agility with no restrictions on pitch rate.
LCA has the worst planform for a deck based fighter and using it with canards will only add to the problem. ADA must redesign the wing with a SB angle of less than 45*. Than only TEDBF will have some merit in it.

Thank you Sir for detailed explanation. Do you know what could be the possible motivations behind opting for aerodynamically worst-designs like:

1. CCC config like Rafale
2. Persisting with Tailless delta in the 90's when designing LCA MK1

Why not instead opt to learn & build upon the aerodynamically best designs like unstable tri plane config (SU-30MKI) or the second best: Unstable Tailed delta config with LERX ?

What prevents ADA/IAF to opt for better designs which are available within the country & doggedly persist with poor design-choices made in 80's & early 90's ?

Especially, when SU30MKI is backbone of our IAF & was inducted in late 90's ? Why didn't we learn from the best available design ?

How do you rate MWF design, which has canards (not sure, CCC or not) ? It's definitely a better design than LCA MK1A, but its design at par with Unstable Tailed delta config with LERX

For TEDBF, you have already shared the explanation in your previous post. Thank you for that.

 

[JustCurious]

Folding wings is irrelevant. You can make TEDBF carrier compatible, but it won't be mission compatible. It won't be able to do everything that's actually needed from a carrier jet.

At the very least, TEDBF will require a massive fuel fraction, competitive with the Flanker. But that's extremely difficult to achieve given the size constraints. Given our geography, we need TEDBF to have a 750-1000nm combat radius. But if it ends up at the same level as the Rafale or even lesser, then it's going to be useless.

Also, as mentioned by @vstol Jockey since the beginning, TEDBF cannot have the same wing design as the LCA, or someday it's going to fail spectacularly when landing on a carrier.

Then, why do you think ADA/HAL & IN are opting for the worst-possible design, when the design can't deliver on its missions ?

What are these experienced entities/institutions ready to part with precious $$$ funding for a a dangerous faulty design-choice, especially, when they do have time at hand (around 5 years) to design it form scratch (clean-sheet) ?

Or, why not learn from masters of naval-aviation & use F-18 design (which IN themselves like, since they are buying it), or maybe jump on Rafale-bandwagon ? or fund, AMCA for a naval-derivative ?

Is IAF/IN persisting with delta+canard designs because they prefer indigenous engine & they know our engines will not generate required thrust in coming decades ?



Isffffffff





Do you think Rafale like CCC design suits the role of a naval-aviation fighter ? What would have been your preferred design-choice for TEDBF ?