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 ?
LCA, M2000, Rafale etc date back to the 60s and 70s, Rafale first flew in the mid-80s. They are not modern designs, and Rafale is only relatively modern. And ADA is merely using time-tested designs for their own work so that there is some surety of delivering a successful product. The F-16 and F-15 are also deltas. So is the Su-27/30, it's actually something between a swept wing and a delta.
The Americans left delta designs only starting with the F-22. Even the F-35 is a cross between a swept wing and a delta, while the X-32 was a delta.
The only true modern designs are still coming up, like the FCAS. The US may come out with even more modern airframe designs for NGAD, the Chinese may also release more modern designs, their J-20 is a delta as well.
Delta is basically the most safe design, which is why pretty much everybody choose it over a more modern but very risky design. Now most other new countries, even India, are chasing after the F-22's trapezoidal design because the US has done it and is considered safe. But now even this design dates back to the 70s and 80s, just 10 years ahead compared to the basic delta.
The problem what Vstol is referring to is not the delta design itself, but the sweep of the wing. LCA's sweep is excellent, but extremely risky for a carrier due to its confined space. One of the main reasons for this is the approach speed of deltas is very high. On land, you have an endless amount of runway to land on, but on a carrier, you get less than 100m, so it's not a good idea to design a delta for carriers in the first place, and it gets worse for the LCA due to its sweep.
The F-14 solved that issue by using swing wings which had variable sweep. So the wing would adjust itself based on whether the fighter jet wants high speed or low speed performance.
Earlier when the TEDBF was announced, ADA said that it would be a clean-sheet design, which was very good news. But later news came out that ADA will be base it on the LCA itself, which is extremely bad news due to the above problem. So unless TEDBF is a clean-sheet design, with a new wing design, it will fail as a carrier.
But my problem with TEDBF is none of the above, all of that is Vstol's thought. My issue is the TEDBF has to be a 750-1000nm fighter if it needs to be relevant, ie, roughly 1.5-2x the combat range of the SH. To put that in numbers, the SH does 1000Km whereas TEDBF needs to be able to do at least 1500Km, and in terms of basic range it means if the SH can do 2500Km, the TEDBF should be able to do more than 3500Km. So the TEDBF needs to carry 6 tons of fuel internally while being within the same weight as the Rafale-M, which is around 11 tons empty and carries 4.7 tons of fuel. If that's not achieved, then the alternative is to operate within the strike range of the enemy.
Just trying to learn from experts, I don't have any expertise in this area.
@vstol Jockey &
@randomradio are experts.
Personally, since I was in Junior High School in late 90's, Rafale has been the backbone/workhorse of my
dream IAF force-structure (imagination).
Rafale was pure love - at first sight - simply based on what was being published in print-media reports of those days around Kargil war & post-Kargil war era. The newspapers I read then was The Pioneer, The Hindu/Frontline Magazine.
Also, because of my schooling background, had regular access to Jane's Defense releases (weeklies), Janes heavy publications (reference books) & occasionally, to my seniors in IAF & Indian armed-forces, in general.
My love-affair with Rafale continues. Nonetheless, that infatuation or reading some stuff on warfare/equipment wouldn't make anyone an expert, right ?
I continue to have an unquenchable inquisitiveness for subjects that fascinate me, buttressed by an innate yearning towards inexorable learning.
I'm definitely not an expert, but
@vstol Jockey is definitely an expert even amongst experts. We are lucky to have him here.
