Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)

Gautam said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1356510375462768640

View attachment 19181
Click to expand...

Hah! Almost from the front. Someone managed something close to sensible.

Anyway, based on the specs posted, I'm speculating the important stuff. We already know the payload is 9T. So...

Option 1:
Empty weight = 11T
Fuel = 6T
Payload = 9T
Thrust = 98KN, 10T
TWR, full fuel = 1.17
Fuel fraction = 0.35

Option 2:
Empty weight = 11.5T
Fuel = 5.5T
Payload = 9T
Thrust = 98KN, 10T
TWR, full fuel = 1.17
Fuel fraction = 0.32

Rafale M:
Empty weight = 11T
Fuel = 4.7T
Payload = 9.5T
Thrust = 75KN, 7.6T
TWR, full fuel = 0.97
Fuel fraction = 0.3

TEDBF definitely needs extra fuel in order to compensate for the extra thrust. Which is why I have considered the fuel load to be more than 5T for either option, those fatter cheeks definitely help increase fuel load. I think Option 2 is the most realistic while Option 1 would be something like a dream. Either one would make TEDBF a Rafale++ due to the massive difference in TWR and fuel fraction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aditya10r and Sathya
When I think production..

Mk1 is yet to finished
Then Mk1 A
Then Mk2
Then only Tedbf.

L& T Coimbatore should be given the tedbf production..

I hope it ll save few years.
 
Sathya said:
When I think production..

Mk1 is yet to finished
Then Mk1 A
Then Mk2
Then only Tedbf.

L& T Coimbatore should be given the tedbf production..

I hope it ll save few years.
Click to expand...

Production of MK 1 is delayed because even now after FOC, they are making changes , improvements and modifications based on user Feed back

All struggles and delays of MK 1 will help in MK 1A production getting streamlined
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shekhar Singh and Sathya
1612255105383.png

EtNKunWXYAAOmhz.jpeg


EtNK5h0XIAAkKBH.jpeg


For easy viewing, instead of going through Twitter every time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aditya10r, Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik, TARGET and 1 other person
Sathya said:
Tedbf looks like stealth plane without internal weapons bay.
Need to finish it ASAP to increase the order numbers replacing the Jaguar IM ,mig 29k and additional squads for coastal air defense.


South Korea or some country is making stealth plane without internal weapons bay as mk1.. Is there naval version for it?
Click to expand...
Definitely can be classified as LO design in any case without even considering the RAM coating, if like LCA uses high amount of Carbon fiber composite material.

Its looks like much simpler and much more practical compared to air superiority focussed AMCA designs. @randomradio
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killbot and Sathya
Picdelamirand-oil said:
Rabat joie 🥳
Click to expand...
He has a point though. What do you think about this design?
To me it looks like ADA/HAL attempt to jump from Mirage to Rafale.

So him saying that It’s an attempt to copy Rafale is reasonable.
That said I don’t think we have access to any Rafale design data akin to industrial espionage. Dassault acting as design consultant to ADA is much more realistic than China like espionage. The side effects will be too much to do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killbot
AbRaj said:
He has a point though. What do you think about this design?
To me it looks like ADA/HAL attempt to jump from Mirage to Rafale.

So him saying that It’s an attempt to copy Rafale is reasonable.
That said I don’t think we have access to any Rafale design data akin to industrial espionage. Dassault acting as design consultant to ADA is much more realistic than China like espionage. The side effects will be too much to do that.
Click to expand...
Do you really want me to give my opinion?

Well then I think it's a model to illustrate a concept but it's not at all intended to fly:
  • As @Bon Plan has already said, where the fuselage would have to be wasp-sized to obey the law of the areas, there is a widening of the airframe. So just with that alone this airframe will present problems in supersonic and will be dragged up to subsonic. Except to push like a brute.
  • The bumps excrescences which replace the boundary layer traps seem to me too little accentuated and the surface of the air inlets insufficient.
  • The air inlet closes unnecessarily in its upper part to do like the Rafale which has boundary layer traps. So either you trap or you take off the airflow through the bumps, but not both. Or you've got it all wrong.
  • The ducks are undersized.
  • The antenna in front of the air inlets is off-centre and not just a little! They could at least take care of a model.
  • The pitot probes won't pick up anything at the slightest angle of attack. Not to mention that they are just in the vortex formed by the angular apex of the nose. You have to put them underneath.
But if I say all that it is so that one calls me arrogant, like that I would have the impression to be French... :giggle:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Haha
Reactions: Aditya10r, Paro, Bon Plan and 6 others
Picdelamirand-oil said:
Do you really want me to give my opinion?

Well then I think it's a model to illustrate a concept but it's not at all intended to fly:
  • As @Bon Plan has already said, where the fuselage would have to be wasp-sized to obey the law of the areas, there is a widening of the airframe. So just with that alone this airframe will present problems in supersonic and will be dragged up to subsonic. Except to push like a brute.
  • The bumps excrescences which replace the boundary layer traps seem to me too little accentuated and the surface of the air inlets insufficient.
  • The air inlet closes unnecessarily in its upper part to do like the Rafale which has boundary layer traps. So either you trap or you take off the airflow through the bumps, but not both. Or you've got it all wrong.
  • The ducks are undersized.
  • The antenna in front of the air inlets is off-centre and not just a little! They could at least take care of a model.
  • The pitot probes won't pick up anything at the slightest angle of attack. Not to mention that they are just in the vortex formed by the angular apex of the nose. You have to put them underneath.
But if I say all that it is so that one calls me arrogant, like that I would have the impression to be French... :giggle:
Click to expand...
Arrogance or confidence, let the future to judge that. Your opinion is all that matters like some others here
 
Picdelamirand-oil said:
Do you really want me to give my opinion?

Well then I think it's a model to illustrate a concept but it's not at all intended to fly:
  • As @Bon Plan has already said, where the fuselage would have to be wasp-sized to obey the law of the areas, there is a widening of the airframe. So just with that alone this airframe will present problems in supersonic and will be dragged up to subsonic. Except to push like a brute.
  • The bumps excrescences which replace the boundary layer traps seem to me too little accentuated and the surface of the air inlets insufficient.
  • The air inlet closes unnecessarily in its upper part to do like the Rafale which has boundary layer traps. So either you trap or you take off the airflow through the bumps, but not both. Or you've got it all wrong.
  • The ducks are undersized.
  • The antenna in front of the air inlets is off-centre and not just a little! They could at least take care of a model.
  • The pitot probes won't pick up anything at the slightest angle of attack. Not to mention that they are just in the vortex formed by the angular apex of the nose. You have to put them underneath.
But if I say all that it is so that one calls me arrogant, like that I would have the impression to be French... :giggle:
Click to expand...

Would you give your opinion about Amca in amca thread please.

This Tedbf configuration is not frozen yet. Like u said it could be a representative model.

But amca design is frozen I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killbot
Picdelamirand-oil said:
Do you really want me to give my opinion?

Well then I think it's a model to illustrate a concept but it's not at all intended to fly:
  • As @Bon Plan has already said, where the fuselage would have to be wasp-sized to obey the law of the areas, there is a widening of the airframe. So just with that alone this airframe will present problems in supersonic and will be dragged up to subsonic. Except to push like a brute.
  • The bumps excrescences which replace the boundary layer traps seem to me too little accentuated and the surface of the air inlets insufficient.
  • The air inlet closes unnecessarily in its upper part to do like the Rafale which has boundary layer traps. So either you trap or you take off the airflow through the bumps, but not both. Or you've got it all wrong.
  • The ducks are undersized.
  • The antenna in front of the air inlets is off-centre and not just a little! They could at least take care of a model.
  • The pitot probes won't pick up anything at the slightest angle of attack. Not to mention that they are just in the vortex formed by the angular apex of the nose. You have to put them underneath.
But if I say all that it is so that one calls me arrogant, like that I would have the impression to be French... :giggle:
Click to expand...

Based on the specs released, the aircraft is meant to do mach 1.6, so neither supercruise nor mach 2 speed. Its G limitations goes up to 8G, not 11G like on the Rafale. It's not meant to be a dog fighter or a high flying supersonic fighter jet. It's obvious that once the wing is folded, a lot of performance is lost, but it can't be helped. It's meant to exceed the Rafale in other areas, like endurance and carrier performance.

Apart from that it's both 1m longer (16.3m) and 0.3m wider (11.2m) than the Rafale, so that should take care of Whitcomb's area rule.

As for some mistakes, like the pitot or antenna, those must be mistakes made by those who arranged the model because they appear to be glued to the model. The antenna was later taken off after someone checked.

As for the inlets, it's ridiculous but it appears our defence journos are so stupid that they can't think of taking a picture from the front. We need images from 0deg, and +/-60deg from the front, and 0deg from the side. But I feel like the crossection of the aircraft is so large that the inlets appear small due to the angle of the picture. A 0deg pic should solve that conundrum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashwin, Killbot and AbRaj
randomradio said:
We need images from 0deg, and +/-60deg from the front, and 0deg from the side. But I feel like the crossection of the aircraft is so large that the inlets appear small due to the angle of the picture. A 0deg pic should solve that conundrum.
Click to expand...
Not the actual pics but can be used for above states reference.
EtRqivmUcAQEvWm.png
EtRqsn0VgAMm7RW.png

Shekhar Singh said:
Not the actual pics but can be used for above states reference.
EtRqivmUcAQEvWm.png
EtRqsn0VgAMm7RW.png
Click to expand...
It's definitely going to have huge amount of fuel and bigger AESA radar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aditya10r, Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik, Killbot and 2 others
Shekhar Singh said:
Not the actual pics but can be used for above states reference.
View attachment 19194View attachment 19195

It's definitely going to have huge amount of fuel and bigger AESA radar.
Click to expand...

Hopefully someone is able to photoshop the schematic of the Rafale over this design. The inlets are definitely big. It has a massive cross section compared to the Rafale.

Plus yeah, it's definitely carrying 6T of fuel at least. The aircraft's basic range is likely to be 3000Km, the same as the Flanker. Drop tanks could further add 1000-1500Km.

And the radar could be 50-100mm larger. I wouldn't expect a larger radar than that. In fact it could be the same as the radar meant for the LCA Mk2, it will keep things simpler and cheaper.

@Picdelamirand-oil @Bon Plan

It's in fact designed similar to the Sears-Haack body. Thin-bulge-thin.

download.jpg


EtRqsn0VgAMm7RW.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ironhide, Killbot, Shekhar Singh and 1 other person
EtSXapoVEAIwwRJ.png


+---------_------------------++

With length more than rafale, can't we have tandem pylons in Fuselage like typhoon?
 
Last edited:
Sathya said:
View attachment 19199

+---------_------------------++

With length more than rafale, can't we have tandem pylons in Fuselage like typhoon?
Click to expand...

No. The chin mounts are needed for pods. Typhoon lacks that and hence its configuration is compromised. The Typhoon has to sacrifice its centre hardpoint just to carry a targeting pod.

Anyway, the TEDBF should be able to carry more than enough missiles for its role. The Typhoon has semi-recessed points in order to achieve very high supersonic performance when carrying missiles, but TEDBF has not been designed for such high level performance given its folding wings.

I'm putting my money on the trapezoidal alternative though. I think we should aim higher rather than taking the easy way out with a safe design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom