Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)

TEDBF is another disaster in the making. The engines are going to be extra powerful resulting in sub optimal range performance. By putting a Ferrari engine to Maruti800 you cant make it a Ferrari. The engine will kill the car itself. Same is true with the choice of using LCA airframe for TEDBF. You need a new design which has engines performing as per the airframe and do not over stress the airframe or result in operating at sub optimal levels. A jet engine has best SFC between 85-90% RPM. anything below and above it gives poor performance. It seems we have learnt nothing from HF-24 and LCA. Both had sub optimal engines and excellent airframe. But in case of TEDBF, we have reversed it. Now we have a bad airframe and better engines. repeating the history in a different manner.
 
TEDBF is another disaster in the making. The engines are going to be extra powerful resulting in sub optimal range performance. By putting a Ferrari engine to Maruti800 you cant make it a Ferrari. The engine will kill the car itself. Same is true with the choice of using LCA airframe for TEDBF. You need a new design which has engines performing as per the airframe and do not over stress the airframe or result in operating at sub optimal levels. A jet engine has best SFC between 85-90% RPM. anything below and above it gives poor performance. It seems we have learnt nothing from HF-24 and LCA. Both had sub optimal engines and excellent airframe. But in case of TEDBF, we have reversed it. Now we have a bad airframe and better engines. repeating the history in a different manner.
How did you evaluate the airframe?
 
If there's already the pseudo 5th Gen AMCA Mk1 expected to come out between 2025-30 timeline, having the ORCA doesn't serve any purpose. If cost rationalization is offered as justification in terms of the price tag of a single jet fighter to pursue both ORCA & TEDBF then, the TEDBF itself will be procured in numbers exceeding 100. It could well be 120-150 which should be enough to bring down the cost per jet. This should be seen for what it is. HALs attempt to undermine the MMRCA 2.0 . Plus the fact that they won't be the manufacturing partner for the AMCA as per preliminary reports. They just want to get in with their foot in the door. Having said that

Having said that , I'd like to see HAL partner IAF to develop a TD on the lines of the NLCA if only to gain design expertise & emerge as a full blown OEM in the future. We need at least 2 design houses for Fighter Aircrafts in the future with ADA being one of them

@randomradio ; @Ashwin ; @Gautam ; @vstol Jockey ; @Milspec

My post, unfortunately, is going to OT.

There is a sustained effort to HAL out of business, it's doing its part to survive, unfortunately, it's too late to the game. It should have shouldered the responsibility of being the "other" guys from the day one of LCA, with its own low-cost light combat version. HAL unfortunately trapped itself into a process of chopping its own legs off. And on a bigger scale, all of them BEL, BDL, HAL etc need to protect their turf. HTT40 is the prime model, HAL needs to follow for its other products, All of them. Whether its the LUH, Maritime Helos, AJT, MRCA, AMCA. Not just this instance of TEDBF/ORCA, HAL also needs to pitch an alternate AMCA. Just see the fire it's set under ADA's butt with its own MRCA.

The advantage of Private participation in the market is to bring in competition and make the products offer better value. I am hoping HAL takes cognizance of the changing dynamics of the market and starts building strengths in design, manufacturing, and supply chain by improving its leadership and leveraging its own industry partnerships across the board. There is no reason why HAL cannot cut down on it's development time and beat ADA to the punch by buying off the shelf entire design projects from the Knaapo or irkut and other Russian agencies.
 
I thought the Rafales were for the IAC - 3 .

IAC-1 and IAC-2.
TEDBF is another disaster in the making. The engines are going to be extra powerful resulting in sub optimal range performance. By putting a Ferrari engine to Maruti800 you cant make it a Ferrari. The engine will kill the car itself. Same is true with the choice of using LCA airframe for TEDBF. You need a new design which has engines performing as per the airframe and do not over stress the airframe or result in operating at sub optimal levels. A jet engine has best SFC between 85-90% RPM. anything below and above it gives poor performance. It seems we have learnt nothing from HF-24 and LCA. Both had sub optimal engines and excellent airframe. But in case of TEDBF, we have reversed it. Now we have a bad airframe and better engines. repeating the history in a different manner.

Okay, I found out that this ORCA design is not a serious design, it's simply an "official fan art" made by HAL.

It has nothing to do with any official program of any capacity. It's literally an "official" photoshop.
 
First official mention of TEDBF

The Developmental Naval LCA Achieves Major Technological Milestone

The developmental LCA (N) MK1 achieved an important milestone on 11 Jan 20 with the successful Arrested Landing on board the naval aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya. The aircraft was piloted by Commodore JA Maolankar who also undertook the maiden Ski Jump Take-Off from the carrier today - 12 Jan 20.

A Technology Demonstrator, LCA (Navy) has earlier been successfully tested during extensive trials at the Shore Base Test Facility at the Naval Air Station at Goa.

With the completion of this feat, the indigenously developed niche technologies specific to deck based fighter operations have been proven which will now pave the way to develop and manufacture the Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter for the Indian Navy, which is expected to proudly fly from the aircraft carriers by the year 2026.

This landmark event demonstrates the professional commitment and synergy between various agencies including ADA, HAL, CEMILAC and Indian Navy in harnessing the potential of our scientists, engineers and naval flight testing community towards meeting the expectations of the nation.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Gautam
IAC-1 and IAC-2.

The elevators, I believe, were designed & procured, keeping the MiG 29K in mind.

Okay, I found out that this ORCA design is not a serious design, it's simply an "official fan art" made by HAL.

It has nothing to do with any official program of any capacity. It's literally an "official" photoshop.

It maybe more than that. I believe they're testing the waters.
 
The elevators, I believe, were designed & procured, keeping the MiG 29K in mind.

More or less. LCA is also 8m wide. The arrestor gear is also set up to accept only Mig-29K and LCA (also reluctantly, Gripen E).

They probably didn't expect these jets wouldn't meet expectations, for obvious reasons.

It maybe more than that. I believe they're testing the waters.

It's not gonna have any takers if it exists only on paper. This is the same story with Vstol's jet. As long as it's not an officially IAF requested aircraft, it's not going to work, probably unless you change their mind with something that actually flies.

As I mentioned before, the main goal behind TE MII is gaining access to a "fully" operational jet, not an R&D jet. One of the primary reasons why Gripen E and Mig-35 were rejected during the last contest.
 
Interesting : it carries Meteor .... and SCALP (much more Taurus, no?)

uggly !
TEDBF with OMNI role has the following proposed Loadout, with 13 hardpoints
TEDBF.jpg
 
TEDBF with OMNI role has the following proposed Loadout, with 13 hardpoints
View attachment 13178
what about the range in such an improbable config ?
Any delta-winged, tailless deck fighter will be a disaster for IN. The FBW certification for the complex flight dynamics will take a considerable amount of time.
See N Tejas. It is a delta without tail.
Just add close coupled canards and you can lower the speed approach (and increase the load capacity).
FBW don't seem to be a problem for india.
 
Surprising that the french went in for the Rafale M.
Even the french Navy was sceptical.
But it was before. Now they fully applause to this bird.
It's just that Delta is the specialty of Dassault.
Yes its correct statement as Rafale has an approach alpha of about 15*. Even during development they found this problem and had to lower the nose to improve forward visibility.
It's true. The nose cone was lowered by 1.5° after the first flight tests. But now it's no more a problem.
 
Amiet Kashyap commented on TEDBF long before it was public knowledge. It was immediately after the CNS's comment. Don't know for sure if it was a tweet or a post with a caption on you tube. Will post it here if I come across it.
Random people can say all kind of things. That's not the point. This is a clear mention by CNS in public.

Also, we know IN wants twin-engine fighter. We knew that from the last tender. News here is altogether ditching of N-AMCA in favour of a new navy first Indian design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdityaH2R
JANUARY 8, 2020
Giant Super Tejas revealed: Our analysis

orca-tejas.jpg


The Tejas effort to create an indigenous fighter for India took a dramatic turn with last week’s reveal of a plan for a twin-engined variant with twice the thrust and almost doubled weight. The new aircraft is a close-coupled canard delta in the same class as the Rafale. Jim Smith gives his analysis.

Update here.

“At the turn of the year, Harsh Vardhan Thakur, a test pilot with Hindustan Aerospace, released an image of a twin-engine version of Tejas, identified as ORCA – an acronym for Omni-Role Combat aircraft. Subsequently, comments on the ORCA rendering were made by defenceupdate.in, and by ndtv.com. Having provided a couple of quick comments to @Hush_Kit on the ORCA image, I have been asked to provide an item for the blog.

Firstly, it is apparent that, as is normal with Tejas, the story is not as simple as at appears at first sight. In addition to ORCA, a concept for a twin-engine deck-based fighter (TEDBF) also exists, and if such a project were to proceed, ORCA would essentially be an air force variant, with lower weight, as, among other changes, the deck-landing capable undercarriage could be replaced with lighter landing gear. Neither of these variants relate to the existing air force or navy procurement plans, or directly to the development of the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), a future Indian-developed stealthy fighter, although some technology developments for ORCA and TEDBF might provide risk reduction for AMCA.

Configuration Design

The ORCA rendering shows a close-coupled canard using the Tejas wing planform with twin-engines. Dimensions, weights, engine-specifics are unstated, but the render shows a significant external weapons payload, and what appear to be conformal fuel tanks located on the upper shoulder of the fuselage, as in late-model F-16s.

Initial commentary by defenceupdate.in appears to assume the use of two GE F404 engines, rather than the more powerful F414 engines, and draws attention to the significant design changes that would be required to develop this configuration from the existing Tejas.

Subsequent commentary by ndtv.com provides significantly more detail, focussed primarily on the TEDBF variant. This indicates that TEDBF would be a significantly larger aircraft than Tejas, would feature wing fold and would use two GE F414 engines. These engines are stated (Janes All the Worlds Aircraft) to have a maximum take-off thrust of 22,000 lb (97.9 kN), compared to 18,000 lb (80 kN) for the GE F404 variant fitted to Tejas. The GE F414 is the engine for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, while the GE F404 is the powerplant of the F/A-18 ‘Classic’ Hornet.

orca3.jpg


The most startling aspect of the TEDBF discussion is the stated weight of the aircraft, which is quoted as 23 tonnes, compared to 13.5 tonnes for Tejas Mk1. As an indication, 23 tonnes is close to the max overload weight of the Typhoon, and similar to quoted maximum take-off weights for Rafale. So TEDBF is in no way the cheap and cheerful solution that might originally have been considered as an outcome of Tejas.

orca2.jpg


In addition, the TEDBF is expected to carry a significantly greater weapons payload than Tejas, stated to be 9 tonnes, and to have an integrated sensor and avionics suite including AESA radar, IRST, datalinks and sensor fusion.

Configuration comments

1-1.png


On the whole, the illustrations available of TEDBF and ORCA appear credible as twin-engine evolutions of Tejas. However, there are some interesting differences between the designs, and some questionable features. Firstly, the ORCA rendering does not seem to allow sufficient fuselage width to accommodate two engines, noting that there will need to be a strong firewall between the two engines. For TEDBF, it would appear logical to use such a structure as the anchor point for the arrestor hook, but no hook is apparent in the illustrations.

The fuselage of TEDBF appears slightly longer than shown in the ORCA illustration, resulting in a slightly further forward position of the canard relative to the wing. Of course, this might result from the concept drawings representing as-yet unrefined designs, or perhaps related designs at different stages of concept definition. In my view, both ORCA and TEDBF would benefit from a fuselage plug to lengthen the aircraft and position the canards slightly further forward, so that they do not overlap the wing leading edge. I would expect this to improve the canard-wing aerodynamics and lift-dependent drag, as well as increasing fuselage fineness ratio, which should improve wave drag slightly, and provide additional volume for fuel or avionics.


Of course, the big unanswered question is whether the aircraft has GE F404 or F414 engines. I would assume the latter, given the quoted weights, and if so, the larger fan diameter, and airflow requirements for the engine are likely to require larger intake ducts than in the original Tejas.

Tejas: thoughts on an unusual wing here


Development Issues

The ndtv.com commentary on the TEDBF quotes project sources as indicating a cheap and rapid development path exists, building on Tejas experience, and further suggests a development timescale of 6 years from go-ahead.

orca2-1.jpg


Let’s consider what would need to be done. Firstly, the propulsion system change will require substantial redesign of the fuselage, together with revision of the structure to accommodate the additional weight and size of the airframe. While some aspects (such as the wing) appear to re-use Tejas components, I suggest this is a superficial resemblance, since the use of a canard, rather than Leading-Edge Vortex Controllers (LEVCONs), will change the aircraft aerodynamics, stability and control and control laws. The significantly higher weight will result in increased loads and require redesign of the structure. Additionally, the landing gear will need to accommodate higher weights, and, presumably will be rearranged for the TEDBF so that the arrestor hook can take advantage of the engine-bay firewall as an attachment point.

1.png


To deliver the required operational flexibility and capability, a substantial weapons, sensors and avionics integration programme will be required. Much of this might piggyback on existing or planned integration work for Tejas and other platforms, but type-specific weapons integration, carriage and release programmes will also be required.

Should all this development work succeed, the operational TEDBF will emerge as an aircraft with the same size, weight, configuration and, perhaps, capability as the Rafale aircraft currently just being delivered to India. They would supplement the capability of that aircraft, and would have the imprimatur of being Indian designed and built. Could the ORCA variant then replace the SU-30 MKI? Perhaps, but this seems to be the intent for the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) programme.

orca.jpg




Where would ORCA sit compared to the AMCA? If that aircraft is to be stealthy, a further increment of technical difficulty is added in configuration design, manufacturing and propulsion and sensor integration. If the ultimate aim is for India to be able to design its own 5th or even 6th generation stealthy fighter, then the necessary confidence in aerodynamics, control system design, propulsion and system integration gained in a ORCA/TEDBF programme would de-risk at least some platform and system elements. But ORCA/TEDBF could at best be a reduced signature aircraft – more significant configuration changes would be needed to achieve a low signature outcome.

top-aviation-blog.png


Notwithstanding some risk reduction for AMCA from ORCA/TEDBF, the challenges of materials, build standard, internal weapon and, integrated sensors, stealth system maintenance and operations planning of a 5th or 6th generation system would still remain as the step up to AMCA.”

Update here.

We spoke to Tejas test pilot Harsh Vardhan Thakur who noted – ” These are (one of) many concept drawings. There are many more. Canards will not overlap with the main planes.” So perhaps caution should be exercised in reading too much into the artwork.

Over 99.9% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £12. Keep this site going.
orca-tejas-1.jpg