Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)

Shekhar Singh said:
A

And what about air intakes which can't hide engine fan from front?
Click to expand...
May be this is how they take care of RCS :

RCS Reduction in various sectors of the forward hemisphere is achieved by using S-shaped air intake duct and the coating of radar absorbing materials. But if you look closely to those images available in the public domain, diagrams and photographs, it can be concluded that the inlet guide motor vehicle (GMV), or more simply - the first stage of the compressor to blades, it seems to be very clearly visible to enemy radar.

S-shaped channel provides only reduction of RCS in the axial directions to reduce the visibility of other sectors in the forward hemisphere, engineers in Sukhoi applied shielding to the GMV. (Something which people seem to be unaware about)

In the intake passage their is set special device, partially overlapping in the axial direction of the GMV preventing electromagnetic waves. In addition to screening, this constructive solution separates inlet channel into several different cylindrical or planar voids, and, flat surface of the cavities can be both parallel and intersecting. Such a complex segmentation and channel air intake cover wall segments with radar absorbing materials to reduce the power of the electromagnetic waves reflected from the GMV and from wall cavities, thus providing a decrease of the RCS in the forward hemisphere of the aircraft.

In all likelihood, the screen, installed in the intake passage, is a structure of fine-meshed nets, whose linear size of the cell is less than a quarter of the electromagnetic wavelength, irradiating plane. Thus fine-meshed net performs the role of screen for electromagnetic waves from a radar and reduces the entire aircraft’s frontal RCS.

Western analysts who dubbed PAK-FA less stealthy than F-22 and F-35 from frontal RCS aspects did not consider this fact or rather they may do not even have knowledge of this. It is imperative that PAK-FA’s RCS should be recalculated / reassessed by them.

Above is the excerpt from below link :
fullafterburner.weebly.com

Sukhoi Su-57 - The Anti-Stealth Game Changer.

Sukhoi PAK-FA abbreviated in Russian language as Prospective Airborne Complex of Front line Aviation is a program to develop fifth generation fighter aircraft. The prototype aircraft designated as T...
fullafterburner.weebly.com
 
randomradio said:
The TEDBF could be viable. If they are to replace only 45 Mig-29Ks, then no.

But the actual requirement is for 90 jets, 45 for each carrier. Furthermore, a coastal fighter requirement can also pop up, we may see at least 2 more squadrons of up to 45 jets here. So an order for 100+ jets with avionics shared with AMCA Mk1 will make it viable. The engine for both will likely be the same as well. So qualifying the airframe and manufacturing a reasonable number of 90+ jets seems realistic.
Click to expand...
90 jets for 2 carriers? India is becoming a rich country in one night ?
 
randomradio said:
Sensor fusion is an old project. It was started as part of MKI upgrade.



News about Su-57 not being stealthy is incorrect. It has been spread by vested interests. But for all aspect stealth it needs a new engine, which it will get by 2022 and will become operational between 2025 and 2026.

Btw, what is stealth for some is not stealth for others. For example, according to the IAF, since the F-22, F-35, Su-57 etc have vertical fins that can be seen at longer wavelengths, they are not considered stealth jets. According to the IAF, only aircraft like the B-2 and Neuron are stealth jets. Overall, the Su-57 is no different in terms of stealth when compared to the F-22 or F-35.
Click to expand...
I do remember some one from IAF has said the same, only true stealth aircraft exist today is B2.
 
Bon Plan said:
90 jets for 2 carriers? India is becoming a rich country in one night ?
Click to expand...
The roadmap for the development of Carrier based fighters is quite clear if one endeavors to see it beyond the "fog of news & analysis" as it were.

The LCA Tejas was expected to be that TEDBF. When it didn't quite shape up to the INs expectations, they decided not to induct it but to continue supporting it as a TD ( the IN may yet go in for a trainer version of the naval Tejas or NLCA) to validate various parameters & concepts for a future project which has now crystallised into the TEDBF. It was also necessitated by 2 factors namely - the sub par performance of the MiG-29K & the postponement of the 3rd Aircraft Carrier project.

The option was to go in for either a 4G+ aircraft or a 5G aircraft. With development of the AMCA still in its nascent stages & except for the F-35, no other Navy having any such a developmental program ( the Chinese are rumoured to be developing a 5G carrier based fighter derived from their existing projects - the J- 20or J-31 as are the Russians expected to do something similar with their Su-57 program but we've no confirmation. You know better if the Franco German 6G program you're pursuing has a naval component ) or an active fighter doing duty, the IN decided to weigh in with the former.

With both the TEDBF & AMCA attaining a certain degree of maturity in the early 2030's , you will more than likely see a navalised version of the AMCA by the late 2030's / early 2040's take to the skies.

That is the reason why the IN & ADA is invested into the TEDBF program irrespective of the cost ( in any case, the developmental costs of such a program is going to be a fraction of what it is in the West) & numbers .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aditya10r and Sathya
_Anonymous_ said:
The roadmap for the development of Carrier based fighters is quite clear if one endeavors to see it beyond the "fog of news & analysis" as it were.

The LCA Tejas was expected to be that TEDBF. When it didn't quite shape up to the INs expectations, they decided not to induct it but to continue supporting it as a TD ( the IN may yet go in for a trainer version of the naval Tejas or NLCA) to validate various parameters & concepts for a future project which has now crystallised into the TEDBF. It was also necessitated by 2 factors namely - the sub par performance of the MiG-29K & the postponement of the 3rd Aircraft Carrier project.

The option was to go in for either a 4G+ aircraft or a 5G aircraft. With development of the AMCA still in its nascent stages & except for the F-35, no other Navy having any such a developmental program ( the Chinese are rumoured to be developing a 5G carrier based fighter derived from their existing projects - the J- 20or J-31 as are the Russians expected to do something similar with their Su-57 program but we've no confirmation. You know better if the Franco German 6G program you're pursuing has a naval component ) or an active fighter doing duty, the IN decided to weigh in with the former.

With both the TEDBF & AMCA attaining a certain degree of maturity in the early 2030's , you will more than likely see a navalised version of the AMCA by the late 2030's / early 2040's take to the skies.

That is the reason why the IN & ADA is invested into the TEDBF program irrespective of the cost ( in any case, the developmental costs of such a program is going to be a fraction of what it is in the West) & numbers .
Click to expand...

I doubt the whole TEDBF program will exceed the cost of 57 Rafale M if we had any plans to buy.

I am very sure ORCA will materialize from TEDBF to cater medium segment .

For coastal defense + Dual use over water & land like how mig 29k was used.. We may build TEDBF in more numbers.

there no dearth of need for fighters..
by fielding our own aircraft, we can also increase the squads.

we can import advanced aircrafts as tip of spear ..
 
Bon Plan said:
Jaguar was a bad solution. And at those time the requirement was for 100 units. Reduce to 71 lately.
But it was another time, where the defense budget was higher, during the cold war.

Can India afford the developpement of two medium fighters? Do India have enough skill, money and dedicated engineers to dupplicate its R&D efforts? I think it's madness.
A 60's fighter cost can't be compared to a brand new one.
Click to expand...
Why dont you let us take care of the development cost. It's ridiculously cheap compared to west. It will be worth only 4-5 Rafales. ;)

Also, our cold war is just starting.

Bon Plan said:
90 jets for 2 carriers? India is becoming a rich country in one night ?
Click to expand...
Yet you want us to order 200 + Rafales. :ROFLMAO:

Cost argument cuts both ways champ.
 
Ashwin said:
Why dont you let us take care of the development cost. It's ridiculously cheap compared to west. It will be worth only 4-5 Rafales. ;)

Also, our cold war is just starting.


Yet you want us to order 200 + Rafales. :ROFLMAO:

Cost argument cuts both ways champ.
Click to expand...
It's not only the cost (you are probably right), but the energy needed to.
See Tejas : It was not an easy ride, the result not achieved (the engine is not indian, the delay is overwhelmed. Radar? I don't remember what was the plan).
No reason suddenly you became a world class champion.
 
Bon Plan said:
It's not only the cost (you are probably right), but the energy needed to.
Click to expand...
Where is the lack of energy ? Youngest middle income nation which will be third highest in GDP soon enough.

Bon Plan said:
See Tejas : It was not an easy ride, the result not achieved (the engine is not indian, the delay is overwhelmed. Radar? I don't remember what was the plan).
No reason suddenly you became a world class champion.
Click to expand...
Tejas was the first try. Subsequent will be easier.

Other than that unlike any European nation we have big enough aviation industry. Even if we are slow that is a good enough reason to invest time in.

On engine, you shouldn't be in any delusion that a bigger order of Rafale can happen without sorting out the engine JV.
 
My take on TEDBF :

Mig29k , as reports are suggesting , is a big let down . Since Vikky and Vikrant are designed keeping only Mig29 in consideration ( as the lift will not support any other fighter ) , so it is either more Mig29 or no fighter at all . Both of which are a problem for IN .

So comes the TEDBF . Experienced gained from Naval LCA and incorporating already used systems and sub-systems , we will be able to reduce its developement time period .

Replacement of Mig 29 , air wing of Vikrant2 and IAC3 ( if its developed keeping in mind a single fighter for both CATOBAR and STOBAR ) , derivatives in ORCA , replacing the land based maritime strike squadron and some reserves will ensure that there will be quite a good number which will see service . Hence justifying its developement .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya, Killbot and Shekhar Singh
Ashwin said:
Tejas was the first try. Subsequent will be easier.

Other than that unlike any European nation we have big enough aviation industry. Even if we are slow that is a good enough reason to invest time in.

On engine, you shouldn't be in any delusion that a bigger order of Rafale can happen without sorting out the engine JV.
Click to expand...
Once again, I agree.
But if Tejas was a first attempt, and you learn a lot thanks to, is it enough to be confident in developping fluently and simultaneously 2 medium twin engine fighters?
My opinion is that the two will merge or one will be scrapped.

Ashwin said:
Where is the lack of energy ? Youngest middle income nation which will be third highest in GDP soon enough.
Click to expand...
in my words energy = engineering and R&D efforts for your 2 medium fighters !
Sure your young nation will be stronger and stronger. Higher GDP, but higher requests from your population.
 
Shekhar Singh said:
A

And what about air intakes which can't hide engine fan from front?
Click to expand...

It's not a problem. The Su-57 has S-ducts as well as S-duct radar blocker.

Defense World

View News at Defense World
www.defenseworld.net www.defenseworld.net

It works like this.
181279-6e40e889f1a5bd69c469eed41ce5167b.jpg


Performs the same function as an S duct.

Smaller aircraft needs simpler solutions like S ducts which reduce flight performance, whereas the Su-57 is large enough to use more convenient methods without reducing flight performance. And a radar blocker adds to the weight of the aircraft, but the Su-57 doesn't need to worry about such things. That's also why it has a variable inlet.

main-qimg-4597c4a5754ce5e84b017a33389db533.jpg


unnamed.png
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Sathya and Bon Plan
Lolwa said:
Actually they have had a lot of assistance from Israelis from their bvr tech to their spj's and even radar all are based on Israeli tech. Heck the J10 was based on the IAI Lavi which was sold by Israelis. The phalcon awacs was to be meant for the PLAAF but the sale was stopped by the Americans. So I do have doubts on how much difference we have in terms of electronics...
Click to expand...

Yep. The Chinese received a lot of ToT from the west in the 80s. They received AIP tech from Sweden, navigation, radar and EW suite from Israel, FBW from America, diesel engine ToT from Germany. The same with weapons, like the Israeli Python 3 and Gabriel. The PL-8 is literally the Python 3. It was all done to contain the Soviet Union. Northrop Grumman was directly involved in the development of the J-10.

Both J-10 and JH-7 use Israeli radars, based on the EL/M-2035, which is a more advanced derivative of the old EL/M-2032.

Defence relationship with China only ended in 1989 due to the Tiananmen Square massacre. And after one gravy train ended, another began with the demise of the Soviet Union.

The lessons learnt from the ridiculous amounts of technology transfers to China were later applied to India and that's why ToT is denied to India. It was only in early 2000s that the Americans grew a brain and stopped Chinese and Israeli tech cooperation.

It's ridiculous to assume Chinese 'maal' doesn't work when they have been receiving western help in their military programs since late 70s, after China opened up its economy. They have been receiving help nearly 3 decades before we did. Furthermore, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, China and India were polar opposites when it came to funding. The Chinese simply lapped up all the Soviet technology possible, including ICBM tech (remember the ISRO spy case, the Chinese succeeded while we failed, and they even directly enrolled Russians scientists into their military programs.

Anyway, now electronics is dominated by civilians, so any military tech used by any country is of similar standards. It only depends on how much money you are willing to throw at it, and that's not a problem for rich countries. It's only the exotic tech that the military still dominate, like quantum tech. So any American, Chinese, Russian, Japanese or Indian electronics hardware such as AESA at the component level are pretty much on par with each other. It's only the design and software that matters more, and there's no way to test that.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Aditya10r, yeloblu, Bon Plan and 2 others
Bon Plan said:
90 jets for 2 carriers? India is becoming a rich country in one night ?
Click to expand...

Each carrier can carry 30 fighter jets in its 'known' highest configuration. So at 70% availability, we need 45 jets for each carrier. There will be many times when both carriers will be available, but we currently have an air wing only for one carrier at a time.

The initial requirement for Mig-29K was 90 jets for 2 carriers. Obviously, the IN decided not to go ahead, notwithstanding the fact that the 2nd carrier was also very late, so Mig-29Ks became obsolete by then.

So it's natural to assume we will need 90 TEDBF. And with Mig-29Ks being pushed to shore duties for at least 10 years, they will also need replacement. I mean the IN is currently engaged in a fight with IAF regarding shore-based aircraft, so the Mig-29K will give them the perfect excuse for it once TEDBF replaces it on the carrier. So 90+45 will make the program very realistic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aditya10r
  • Like
Reactions: Aditya b7777 and Killbot
  • Like
Reactions: Killbot and Bali78
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom