There are a few issues with the canard design on the TEDBF, particularly wake interactions aft of the stern; there's a team at ADA using some of (late) Dr. DM Rao's work at NASA Langley to figure it out.
Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)
- Thread starter Gautam
- Start date
There are a few issues with the canard design on the TEDBF, particularly wake interactions aft of the stern; there's a team at ADA using some of (late) Dr. DM Rao's work at NASA Langley to figure it out.
Yep, it's a giant.
Anyway I don't think this design is the final one. TEDBF still has to finish the PDP process. Considering the trap design wasn't unveiled, it's likely that both designs are still WIP, and only a tentative model of the TEDBF was cleared for public release.
Nice work. .
But attention to details is bit lacking.. Waiting for Kuntal biswas work..
Too many eggs in the basket. At this stage, we simply lack manufacturing prowess and there will be no aircraft in the next 15-20 years after which, space based tech will take over the skies. Full attention must be devoted to a 100 kN service-worthy engine and a 5th gen, medium weight AC.
That was my doubt..
Private sector should be roped in to speeden up manufacturing.
Mk1A until 2029
Mk2 don't know how long ..
Tedbf Can't wait that far .. Has to be concurrently produced hopefully by L&T before building amca
The comparison of TEDBF with Rafale show very clear resemblence to what I had been stating here till date. The wing area of TEDBF is going to be larger than Rafale with much higher thrust and the sweepback angle also seems to be 48* which I had stated manytyms that no deck based fighter ever had a sweepback angle of over 50*. I would have kept the sweep back angle to 42* as in my CFD analysis for MSA, I found that peak L/D ratio is achieved for canard designs at 45* SB and 3* eitherside, that is 42* and 48* SB angle the L/D ratio is same. But a 42* wing gives much superior lifting capability compared to 48*SB wing resulting in smaller wing area and lower empty weight as a result. Hwever the Mach divergence is higher for higher sweep angles.
The STOBAR launch has two distinct phases about it. First is the deck roll accelaration and second is the post launch stability from ski jump and the time available to reach the take off safety speed before hitting the top of the curve in case of one engine failure during launch. TEDBF design of ADA addresses these issues by having higher thrust and larger wing area. IMHO, it could have been done better with lower wing area with lower SB angle and higher thrust. The stupid facination with canards is going to ruin us all.
The STOBAR launch has two distinct phases about it. First is the deck roll accelaration and second is the post launch stability from ski jump and the time available to reach the take off safety speed before hitting the top of the curve in case of one engine failure during launch. TEDBF design of ADA addresses these issues by having higher thrust and larger wing area. IMHO, it could have been done better with lower wing area with lower SB angle and higher thrust. The stupid facination with canards is going to ruin us all.
The requirements are different for both, I mean conventional aircraft and space-based ones. You need both.
The navy currently doesn't need a stealth airframe, they need standoff and EW instead, so TEDBF is fine for the next 20-30 years. Their main job is to prevent PLAN from entering the IOR during war, so it's mainly going to be about shooting long range missiles from our side until they sink or leave.
It's when a CATOBAR carrier shows up that a stealth jet is needed. That's when all the assets needed to perform attacks against IADS can be employed.
We definitely have the ability to manufacture. We didn't have it 10 years ago, but we do now.
Interestingly, Godzilla has a French connection and King Kong has an American connection.
Pre Design Proof. It's part of a new series of tech nomenclature that only ADA & resident optimist are privy to. Consider yourself lucky. Pls get accustomed to it ASAP. You're going to be witness to a lot more such terms in the coming decade beginning 2022.
So "PDP process" -i.e Project Definition Phase Process...
Very interesting, what does it constitute, what does it look like and which gate? How does the design finalization play into this PDPP?
"Process" is in lowercase "p", not part of the PDP nomenclature. So it's not PDPP.
Process:
Definition of PROCESS
progress, advance; something going on : proceeding; a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
This is basic English.
Bother me about it when I use capital "P".
I have know of standard Phase Gate for product development that HAL and ADA uses. I have never seen anything called PDP process, given you are claiming such a thing exists, please educate us about it. What does it consist of, how is it structured, what are preceding activities, what happens after this "PDP process", which part of the Gate review does it lie in?"Process" is in lowercase "p", not part of the PDP nomenclature. So it's not PDPP.
Process:
a series of actions or operations conducing to an endDefinition of PROCESS
progress, advance; something going on : proceeding; a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result… See the full definition
This is basic English.
Bother me about it when I use capital "P".