Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)

Milspec said:
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?
Click to expand...

Feasibility phase > PDP > DDP > FSED I > FSED II

Too bad you've never heard of it, but ADA uses it.

While progressing the task of LCA development, ADA has also been assigned the task of studies for the Project definition Phase (PDP) of the naval variant of LCA, exploitation of resources created in the LCA programme for earning revenue is also being attempted.

The Project Definition Phase (PDP) document of LCA prepared by ADA (December 1988) had been reviewed by Air HQ (March 1989) who found it deficient in the crucial parameters of aerodynamic configuration, volume and weight as set in ASR, particularly with reference to significant increase in weight of LCA, which could adversely affect performance.

HAL uses the term Preliminary Design Phase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chain Smoker, Milspec, Ironhide and 1 other person
randomradio said:
Feasibility phase > PDP > DDP > FSED I > FSED II

Too bad you've never heard of it, but ADA uses it.

While progressing the task of LCA development, ADA has also been assigned the task of studies for the Project definition Phase (PDP) of the naval variant of LCA, exploitation of resources created in the LCA programme for earning revenue is also being attempted.

The Project Definition Phase (PDP) document of LCA prepared by ADA (December 1988) had been reviewed by Air HQ (March 1989) who found it deficient in the crucial parameters of aerodynamic configuration, volume and weight as set in ASR, particularly with reference to significant increase in weight of LCA, which could adversely affect performance.

HAL uses the term Preliminary Design Phase.
Click to expand...
Kudos for standing up your ground using proper explanation and references
 
  • Like
Reactions: Milspec
Tatvamasi said:
Why? was that a requirement? Does Rafale M have it?
Click to expand...
Rafale don't need conformal tanks. It has greater legs than SH18.
If it was not a IN requirement, it was a proud part of the Boeing proposal. it fails.

Do the americans always skilled in aircraft ?
SH18 : with its outcantered external tanks (seems as a noob skier) and now deleted conformal tanks.
F35 that is under reviews even in USA.
B737 crash.
B777 US engine failures.
now B787...
Tatvamasi said:
I thought the tender was canceled.
Click to expand...
An indian specialty. Nothing new under the indian sun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killbot
Bon Plan said:
Rafale don't need conformal tanks. It has greater legs than SH18.
If it was not a IN requirement, it was a proud part of the Boeing proposal. it fails.
Click to expand...
So what do you call this?

5691gif_5691.gif


Don't BS, Rafale also failed in conformal tanks. There is no way the heavier M version could carry more load from a STOBAR.

Bon Plan said:
An indian specialty. Nothing new under the indian sun.
Click to expand...
We will decide what we need and when we need it. You don't have the luxury to cry about it.
 
Tatvamasi said:
So what do you call this?

5691gif_5691.gif


Don't BS, Rafale also failed in conformal tanks. There is no way the heavier M version could carry more load from a STOBAR.


We will decide what we need and when we need it. You don't have the luxury to cry about it.
Click to expand...
Dassault made first try of conformal tanks nearly 20 years ago ! No customer need it, BECAUSE THE RANGE OF RAFALE IS NICE WITHOUT IT. so it was frozen.

STOBAR is at best a 2nd choice for naval fighter. If you use conformal tanks you will have to reduce external tanks or load. It's as simple as that.
But a CATOBAR launched Rafale (with or without conformal tanks) with the proper catapult, can take off with more than 24 tons full weight. Up to 27T
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hydra
Bon Plan said:
Dassault made first try of conformal tanks nearly 20 years ago ! No customer need it, BECAUSE THE RANGE OF RAFALE IS NICE WITHOUT IT. so it was frozen.

STOBAR is at best a 2nd choice for naval fighter. If you use conformal tanks you will have to reduce external tanks or load. It's as simple as that.
But a CATOBAR launched Rafale (with or without conformal tanks) with the proper catapult, can take off with more than 24 tons full weight. Up to 27T
Click to expand...
Who is the customer 20 years ago ? French forces. Who is the customer now for SH block-3 ? US Navy. Same thing. If one is a failure the other is also. No one says no to extra fuel without reason.

Work a bit harder to earn your 50 cents.
 
Tatvamasi said:
Who is the customer 20 years ago ? French forces. Who is the customer now for SH block-3 ? US Navy. Same thing. If one is a failure the other is also. No one says no to extra fuel without reason.

Work a bit harder to earn your 50 cents.
Click to expand...

The SH B3's CFT got cut due to technical reasons. The Rafale's CFT got cut due to budget reasons.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Sathya and RISING SUN
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom