Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)

zinswinsin said:
Not really, silent service had a defective torpedo well into 1943. "From December 1941 to November 1943 the Mark 14 and the destroyer-launched Mark 15 torpedo had numerous technical problems that took almost two years to fix."

Underrated in the general public obviously, bit overrated historically. Not to say submarines aren't of supreme importance, it's just the US was really hamstrung by torpedos and tactics.

First 6 months of the Pacific War was the hardest and won by 4 carriers. Only 1 submarine(crucial, but only because the route and Hornet was messed up) did anything at Midway. The next year after saw that carrier number whittled down to 1 carrier.

It's not like Japan had any way of protecting the convoys from airpower after being outnumbered 30 to 4 in carriers.

You can win logistically or through combat, or you could be like the US and do both. Would it have been harder without submarines yes, was it not even close if Japan had infinite shipping? yes. Even with unlimited resources the IC of Japan was too small compared to the USA. Only the USSR and USA mastered mass production techniques for war.

This is the main reason US beat Japan.

Click to expand...

The answers lie in the specifics. While the American naval buildup was impressive, it still wasn't sufficient to invade Japan. Apparently the invasion of Taiwan alone would have eaten most of the fleet. Japan surrendered to America because they didn't want to fight and be conquered by the Soviet Union.

What's more interesting is, while Japan did not have the resources for such a buildup, America had already squeezed Japan's ability to procure resources pretty much the same way as what the West has done to Russia today, except they didn't have a China or India to bail them out. Until 1937, the US supplied Japan with oil, steel and other metals. The search for more resources compelled the Japanese to invade SE Asia and attack Pearl Harbor in order to cut off America from SE Asia's resources. Before 1931, the US and Japan were allies.

In any case, this was in the past. Today, China is able to repeat America's achievement. The combined Indian and US naval buildup must surpass China's in the long run, or we are definitely gonna be in trouble.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: SammyBoi
_Anonymous_ said:
Because from the highs of 2019 we've hit ground realities in 2023. News coming out w.r.t existing program schedules are bad enough. Who wants to be further depressed? I suggest you chat with you know who to cheer up.
Click to expand...

(( I was shocked yesterday.. U were posting like Optimist No. 3 ))

Just a bit of expectation whether if Tedbf could be inducted before Amca since it isn't 5 th generation.
 
Sathya said:
(( I was shocked yesterday.. U were posting like Optimist No. 3 ))

Just a bit of expectation whether if Tedbf could be inducted before Amca since it isn't 5 th generation.
Click to expand...
I still believe the T/L is doable : LSP of Mk-2 in 2028-30 & LSP of AMCA Mk-1 in 2030-32 . Will they do it? Of course not.

TEDBF is being handled by a different team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bali78, Abheer and Sathya
randomradio said:
It's all to do with the strength of the landing carriage in this case.

Developing an aircraft for CATOBAR needs a much stronger landing carriage, including the airframe. But that comes with a weight penalty. So ADA has to design TEDBF with the weight penalty for it to become CATOBAR-capable right from the beginning.

Rather what ADA has chosen to do is, they will make TEDBF STOBAR-only for now, but they can modernise it for CATOBAR operations if necessary in the future. Alternatively, they are also keeping a new CATOBAR-capable stealth design as an option. So it's totally unnecessary to make the TEDBF 1 ton heavier than it needs to be for a capability that may never be used. Similarly, the TEDBF's landing carriage has to be re-engineered to be lighter if it's to be sold to air forces.

The N-LCA also uses a different landing carriage, it can absorb 5 times the energy as the air force version. But it's still not CATOBAR-capable.

Basically, the reverse is not possible if the aircraft has been designed for efficiency from the start.
Click to expand...
The Rafale is a very light airframe for its strength, which explains why it can carry such heavy loads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bali78 and Sathya
Sathya said:
Is it possible to change the stobar aircraft to catobar aircraft mid way in its life?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is possible, but it is expensive in terms of budget and performance. It is more clever to make an aircraft capable of CATOBAR and lighten it to make a conventional or STOBAR aircraft.
Moreover, it might be possible to make a front landing gear that is intermediate between the C and the M and that accepts the compression forces without having to support the traction forces of the CATOBAR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya
https://twitter.com/x/status/1626778550815825921

Damn I liked the previous stealthy nose.

I think this Rafale like probably tondonwith visual field while landing..

FpN6dt4aAAAHRE1.jpeg
 
https://www.reddit.com/r/IndianDefense/comments/119oamj

This is a DRDO/ADA representative (as he mentions late in the interview), talking about the AMCA simulator. Whilst talking about it, he says something that piqued my interest.
"we have to see that the stealth capabilities are maintained, stealth is the primary focus. This will be a fully 5th gen aircraft with a high amount of stealth. This will be the natural progression from the [tejas] MK2. And then we also will have a naval version of this [while pointing to the AMCA model], which is a twin engined deck based fighter".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya
Abheer said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IndianDefense/comments/119oamj

This is a DRDO/ADA representative (as he mentions late in the interview), talking about the AMCA simulator. Whilst talking about it, he says something that piqued my interest.
"we have to see that the stealth capabilities are maintained, stealth is the primary focus. This will be a fully 5th gen aircraft with a high amount of stealth. This will be the natural progression from the [tejas] MK2. And then we also will have a naval version of this [while pointing to the AMCA model], which is a twin engined deck based fighter".
Click to expand...
For it to be VLO, the TEDBF will need to have internal weapon bays and an AMCA-like nose rather than a Rafale-like nose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya
Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) for IN In order to provide Indian Navy with a combat aircraft that will accomplish missions to neutralize the threat from adversaries, a Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) that will operate from IN carriers is being developed. It has an all up weight of 26 Ton. Apart from superior Mission and combat performance capabilities, TEDBF is custom designed to interface with the Indian Navy carriers (INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant) for sustained operations. TEDBF would be much improved version and lethal than the aircraft in operation currently with IN. Aircraft to be inducted as replacement for MiG-29K for operations by 2031”.

- PSC's report
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aditya10r, RASALGHUL and marich01
randomradio said:
It's all to do with the strength of the landing carriage in this case.

Developing an aircraft for CATOBAR needs a much stronger landing carriage, including the airframe. But that comes with a weight penalty. So ADA has to design TEDBF with the weight penalty for it to become CATOBAR-capable right from the beginning.

Rather what ADA has chosen to do is, they will make TEDBF STOBAR-only for now, but they can modernise it for CATOBAR operations if necessary in the future. Alternatively, they are also keeping a new CATOBAR-capable stealth design as an option. So it's totally unnecessary to make the TEDBF 1 ton heavier than it needs to be for a capability that may never be used. Similarly, the TEDBF's landing carriage has to be re-engineered to be lighter if it's to be sold to air forces.

The N-LCA also uses a different landing carriage, it can absorb 5 times the energy as the air force version. But it's still not CATOBAR-capable.

Basically, the reverse is not possible if the aircraft has been designed for efficiency from the start.
Click to expand...
You can add that delta wings arrangement always give very strenght frame naturly. And Dassault is the delta master.
 
TEDBF CCS clearance is delayed till the year end..

Seems like MRCBF decision is going to be delayed.
 
Can an NLCA based MUMT be a viable alternative to the MiG-29K on Vikramaditya, and a complement to the MRCBF on IAC1 and IAC2 till TEDBF enters service?

This will free-up MiG-29Ks to be transferred to IAF to make up squadron numbers? Won't this make logistics management easier for IN?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom