Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
10,891
8,228
India
This is one of the various configurations of fighter design being tested during the initial phase of the AMCA program. The design work just began then. It is possible the TEDBF uses design cues from previous simulations. Why blur the image its been out there for a while ? Here is another design. Almost looks like a F-16 this one :

View attachment 11422

They should have experimented with dozens and dozens of designs. They only need to pick one for TEDBF.
 

hellbent

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
651
1,400
There are good reasons behind the skepticism.

This is one of the various configurations of fighter design being tested during the initial phase of the AMCA program. The design work just began then. It is possible the TEDBF uses design cues from previous simulations. Why blur the image its been out there for a while ? Here is another design. Almost looks like a F-16 this one :

View attachment 11422

The pic was very low resolution , i zoomed it so it blurred otherwise at original resolution it would have looked like a crow shit dropping

And i have not seen the amca model you posted before , so i have no idea on that or i would not have posted my pic

As for the pic i posted it is possible they might go for a similar design
The one is the pic has
Prominent rear stabilators
LERX for vortex generation

Features desirable in a carrier based fighter
 
Last edited:

hellbent

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
651
1,400
Rafale M should be the natural choice not F18
Why increase overhead costs by buying a new type.

Buy Rafale M and get the French to give us the know why on technologies we lack
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya

Gautam

Team StratFront
Feb 16, 2019
12,077
8,339
Tripura, NE, India
They should have experimented with dozens and dozens of designs. They only need to pick one for TEDBF.
They did do that. Only a few of them were put out to the public.
The pic was very low resolution , i zoomed it so it blurred otherwise at original resolution it would have looked like a crow shit dropping

And i have not seen the amca model you posted before , so i have no idea on that or i would not have posted my pic

As for the pic i posted it is possible they might go for a similar design
The one is the pic has
Prominent rear stabilators
LERX for vortex generation

Took me a while to go through the old hard drive. Here is a better pic :
1574175116382.png


This is the wind tunnel model :
1574175189080.png

1574175243643.png


This was one of the earliest models of AMCA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m_itsme

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
4,595
7,420
Bangalore
Reasons for not going for an N-AMCA is not clear here.
  • A twin-engine naval fighter with F-414s will have all the general characteristics of AMCA mk1. Max take-off weight, payload, T/W ratio etc.
  • Basically, it will be our version of F/A-18 SH with an additional requirement of better performance from STOBAR. (Thus lighter)
  • Except not optimizing for radar signature reduction. A fighter envisioned for the 2030s not having basic stealth features is just a baffling perspective. Just design a version of AMCA mk1 without an internal bay with strengthened of landing gear and over-the-nose vision cockpit.

All i can think of is the fear of going to the same trap of LCA. Having to redesign a fighter to naval use from the airforce version is never optimal.
hmm...

 
  • Like
Reactions: HariPrasad

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
4,595
7,420
Bangalore
Rafale M doesn't need a more powerful engine because it's empty mass is below 10 t compare to 14 t for the F-18 SH. That's 40% difference, it's like if the M-88 thrust was 10,5 t!
It does matter when you need to take off from a STOBAR with a full combat load. Neither of the platforms is optimies for it.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
2,251
2,733
73
France
transition.wifeo.com
It does matter when you need to take off from a STOBAR with a full combat load. Neither of the platforms is optimies for it.
Dassault has already said that the Rafale had no problem taking off from a STOBAR, this is because its aerodynamic formula allows it to take off very short because the canards considerably increase the lift and because the FCS have been tested even at - 40 Kt without problems!
It's likely that you will not take off with a full combat load of 9.5 t but you will take off with a significant combat load higher than that of an F-18 SH.
 

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
4,595
7,420
Bangalore
Dassault has already said that the Rafale had no problem taking off from a STOBAR, this is because its aerodynamic formula allows it to take off very short because the canards considerably increase the lift and because the FCS have been tested even at - 40 Kt without problems!
It's likely that you will not take off with a full combat load of 9.5 t but you will take off with a significant combat load higher than that of an F-18 SH.
As I said both platforms are not optimized for it. Dassault will claim so many things, end of the day we will have to pay billions just to modify it to our use case. When the requirement is post-2030s why not spend the money on our design?.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vingensys

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
10,891
8,228
India
Bigger disappointment is no Tejas at Dubai airshow. Why a country of Gujratis , Marwaris , Sindhis , Parsis lacking in marketing ???

'Cause it's not ready for export yet. It's only going around to countries where there is actual demand even for the basic Mk1, like Malaysia.

Also the more advanced version is kitted with Israeli stuff, so it's pointless to parade it around in the ME. Once MWF comes into the picture, things will take off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deathstar

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
10,891
8,228
India
Rafale M doesn't need a more powerful engine because it's empty mass is below 10 t compare to 14 t for the F-18 SH. That's 40% difference, it's like if the M-88 thrust was 10,5 t!

Power is always necessary. Especially when you go higher, where engine power drops. And in places like over the Himalayas, where air pressure is already low, the engine power drops drastically. The lack of engine power is also the reason why Rafale is inferior to Typhoon and Su-35 at very high altitude.

1.2 is the most optimal TWR for Indian conditions, both the Himalayas and the Equator. That's why AMCA is designed to have a TWR of 1.2 with 100% fuel and 1.5 with 50% fuel, which is more than Typhoon, F-22, PAK FA etc. Different story whether we can achieve it.
It does matter when you need to take off from a STOBAR with a full combat load. Neither of the platforms is optimies for it.

Shouldn't be a problem for either SH or Rafale.
As I said both platforms are not optimized for it. Dassault will claim so many things, end of the day we will have to pay billions just to modify it to our use case. When the requirement is post-2030s why not spend the money on our design?.

The MRCBF and TEDBF shouldn't be in competition with each other anyway. Both are needed.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
2,251
2,733
73
France
transition.wifeo.com
Power is always necessary. Especially when you go higher, where engine power drops. And in places like over the Himalayas, where air pressure is already low, the engine power drops drastically. The lack of engine power is also the reason why Rafale is inferior to Typhoon and Su-35 at very high altitude.
This is not true: The mirage 2000 for example is superior to the Typhoon for speed and altitude, its engine could allow it to go to Mach 3 but the airframe is not designed for that. And yet it is even less motorized than the Rafale.

As for the loss of power at altitude, it is very much related to the bypass ratio. The Rafale's is 0.3 and the Typhoon's is 0.4, which means that the Typhoon needs more air for the same thrust and therefore the lack of air at altitude will affect it more. The closer you get to a turbojet, i. e. with a low bypass ratio, the lower the power loss at altitude will be.

The Rafale is not limited in altitude but to exceed the altitude that Dassault recommends, it is necessary to wear a special suit, especially to survive in case of ejection. For the other planes too. France has decided not to use this kind of suit, but if India wants to go higher there is nothing to change in the Rafale and it is enough to wear a stratospheric suit.

To go faster, there is no point in increasing the thrust of the engines, it is better to add mobile air inlets such as "Mirage souris" for example.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
10,891
8,228
India
This is not true: The mirage 2000 for example is superior to the Typhoon for speed and altitude, its engine could allow it to go to Mach 3 but the airframe is not designed for that. And yet it is even less motorized than the Rafale.

As for the loss of power at altitude, it is very much related to the bypass ratio. The Rafale's is 0.3 and the Typhoon's is 0.4, which means that the Typhoon needs more air for the same thrust and therefore the lack of air at altitude will affect it more. The closer you get to a turbojet, i. e. with a low bypass ratio, the lower the power loss at altitude will be.

I think it depends on how you look at it. The Swiss evaluation also showed it, that the Typhoon's performance in air policing is superior to the Rafale. Also the fact that the Typhoon can pull higher Gs at higher speeds at higher altitudes, almost rivaling the F-22 even. AFAIK, the Rafale is not capable of that. It shouldn't be a big difference, but it's going to end up being important over mountains. I believe this is also one of the reasons why Typhoon scored so highly in the Indian evaluations.

But then, you do not have to believe me. Your own pilot will tell you the same.
Flying & fighting in the Dassault Rafale: Interview with a Rafale combat veteran
Has the Rafale sufficient engine power, would you like more?

“You never have enough power. You find a guy who tells you he has too much power- he’s a liar – or he’s not manoeuvring his aircraft hard enough. The aircraft is overpowered in air show conditions — you know when you’re flying with all the bombs and stuff it’s not the same aircraft at all. Air-to-air it’s a good jet, but we could always always use more power – but then that means using more fuel maybe. I’ll go with a nine ton version – right now its 7.5 tons per engine – I’d go with a 9 ton version any day. That’s just how we are – we want extra power all the time.”


On a different topic, there's something important about the difference between MICA and AMRAAM as well.

It’s a great aircraft at high level, but we’re not dumb enough to try to fight Typhoons at 50,000 feet or 45,000 feet. We’re going to put them outside their comfort zone. Against devious tactics. Now if you want to rate a Typhoon with AMRAAMs against a Rafale at 50,000 ft, then, yeah, Typhoon is going to have better performances for sure. But as a Rafale pilot, I’m stupid if I take him on like that, so I’m going to move the combat a bit. I”l fake a combat at 50,000 feet and I’m going to send a guy sneakily low level to surprise the Typhoon, it’s more easy than you think!”

Astra will be a great equalizer versus the AMRAAM in this case. So it's not such a problem for us, but is a problem for France when comparing with the Su-35 and their own AMRAAM-equivalent RVV-SD, not to mention the K-77M with double the range.

The Rafale is not limited in altitude but to exceed the altitude that Dassault recommends, it is necessary to wear a special suit, especially to survive in case of ejection. For the other planes too. France has decided not to use this kind of suit, but if India wants to go higher there is nothing to change in the Rafale and it is enough to wear a stratospheric suit.

To go faster, there is no point in increasing the thrust of the engines, it is better to add mobile air inlets such as "Mirage souris" for example.

No, I'm not referring to the Armstrong line, just high altitude, or above 40,000 feet.

IAF has little interest in speed actually. More interested in endurance. Which is among the reasons why IAF did not want variable inlets for their version of the Indo-Russian FGFA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashwin

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
2,251
2,733
73
France
transition.wifeo.com
I think it depends on how you look at it. The Swiss evaluation also showed it, that the Typhoon's performance in air policing is superior to the Rafale. Also the fact that the Typhoon can pull higher Gs at higher speeds at higher altitudes, almost rivaling the F-22 even. AFAIK, the Rafale is not capable of that. It shouldn't be a big difference, but it's going to end up being important over mountains. I believe this is also one of the reasons why Typhoon scored so highly in the Indian evaluations.

But then, you do not have to believe me. Your own pilot will tell you the same.
Flying & fighting in the Dassault Rafale: Interview with a Rafale combat veteran
Has the Rafale sufficient engine power, would you like more?

“You never have enough power. You find a guy who tells you he has too much power- he’s a liar – or he’s not manoeuvring his aircraft hard enough. The aircraft is overpowered in air show conditions — you know when you’re flying with all the bombs and stuff it’s not the same aircraft at all. Air-to-air it’s a good jet, but we could always always use more power – but then that means using more fuel maybe. I’ll go with a nine ton version – right now its 7.5 tons per engine – I’d go with a 9 ton version any day. That’s just how we are – we want extra power all the time.”

I didn't say that the Rafale is better at high altitude compare to the Typhoon, I just said that it will not improve if you increase the thrust and it will improve if you add mobile air inlets.

No, I'm not referring to the Armstrong line, just high altitude, or above 40,000 feet.
The official ceiling of the Rafale is not 40000 feet but 50000 feet:
Rafale specifications and performance data
And yes to go above 50000 feet you need a special suit in case of ejection:
Above 50,000 feet with any form of oxygen -- sustained human life is not possible without a pressure suit like astronauts wear.
The Air Up There
 

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
4,595
7,420
Bangalore
Power is always necessary. Especially when you go higher, where engine power drops. And in places like over the Himalayas, where air pressure is already low, the engine power drops drastically. The lack of engine power is also the reason why Rafale is inferior to Typhoon and Su-35 at very high altitude.

1.2 is the most optimal TWR for Indian conditions, both the Himalayas and the Equator. That's why AMCA is designed to have a TWR of 1.2 with 100% fuel and 1.5 with 50% fuel, which is more than Typhoon, F-22, PAK FA etc. Different story whether we can achieve it.


Shouldn't be a problem for either SH or Rafale.


The MRCBF and TEDBF shouldn't be in competition with each other anyway. Both are needed.
Full STOBAR capability is a problem. refer the last post with Saurav Jha tweet.

Obviously current tender has nothing to with this program. It is for SH or Rafale M.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
10,891
8,228
India
I didn't say that the Rafale is better at high altitude compare to the Typhoon, I just said that it will not improve if you increase the thrust and it will improve if you add mobile air inlets.

Right now, Rafale is the most performance-rated aircraft the IAF will operate. But we have to see in the future if its actual performance above 40,000 feet is good enough compared to aircraft like the J-20 or whatever comes next. 'Cause the J-20, at least the definitive version, seems to have much greater TWR than the Rafale.

The problem is, as the Rafale pilot in the interview said, instead of fighting the Typhoon directly, they would much rather send the aircraft out from below, just 100 feet above ground. But that's impossible for us because of the mountains. And even 100 feet above the peaks would still mean the Rafale has to defeat the radars that are below and pointing up, with SAMs. And the geography is such that we have more mountain on our side while they have more plateau on their side. So, in the end, we need to have the bigger radar and longer range missile compared to the Chinese, which the Rafale may not provide, not counting Rafale's other capabilities.
Full STOBAR capability is a problem. refer the last post with Saurav Jha tweet.

Obviously current tender has nothing to with this program. It is for SH or Rafale M.

That's in reference to elevators. The launching and takeoff itself won't be a problem. The problem is fitting both aircraft into the elevators, which can possbly be insurmountable.
 

Gautam

Team StratFront
Feb 16, 2019
12,077
8,339
Tripura, NE, India
India’s DRDO To Ditch LCA Navy Mk2 For Cleansheet Twin-Engine Jet Design

By Shiv Aroor.
Nov 20 2019, 10:47 am
1574241667631.png


A new twin-engine naval fighter design proposal is taking shape at India’s principal combat aircraft design house in Bengaluru to supply the Indian Navy with a future fighter for its aircraft carriers. The proposed fighter, with officially stated plans for a first flight by 2026, effectively shelves the Mk.2 version of the single-engine naval Light Combat Aircraft (N-LCA).

The proposal is a dramatic shift in plans by the DRDO-administered Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which until as recently as February, had been fine-tuning design changes on the LCA Navy Mk.2. Plans on the new jet design were first revealed earlier this week on Delhi Defence Review here.

The proposal, intended as a convergence of work done thus far on the LCA Navy Mk.2 and the twin engine design studies on the concept fifth generation AMCA stealth fighter, has an ambitious deadline right out the door.

The top leadership of ADA told Livefist on Tuesday, “The Indian Navy is looking for a twin-engine deck based fighter in lieu of the LCA Navy Mk.2. With confidence generated from AMCA design, we have developed twin engine competence. Hence configuration is currently being worked out. This is being targeted as a replacement for the MiG-29K with a first flight by 2026.”

1574241688152.png


The baseline LCA Navy is currently in flight test, and has completed a series of arrested landings this year at the Shore-based Test Facility in Goa. The proposed Mk.2 version of the LCA Navy, borne from the need from a higher performance fighter, was envisaged as a jet with a more powerful engine, increased internal fuel and weapons carrying capability, better mission performance and maintainability. In February this year, Livefist posted the first pictures of significant changes to the LCA Navy Mk.2 design, including the addition of tailplanes, larger wings and tweaked engine intakes:

1574241705677.png


The decision to curtail plans on the LCA Navy Mk.2 and instead pursue a twin-engine design isn’t surprising. The Indian Navy, while consistently supportive of the LCA Navy program, has made it clear it needs twin-engine fighters for its carrier decks. A prospective future fighter selection contest for 57 such aircraft is likely to be a fight between two twin-engine jets — the Rafale and Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet.

These are embryonic days for the new proposal, but the ADA leadership’s suggestion that the new jet will be proposed as a MiG-29K replacement indicates it will be built as a STOBAR jet for operations off the INS Vikramaditya and first Vikrant-class aircraft carriers. A first flight by 2026 also indicates the DRDO is setting itself a a very tight deadline for the full design and prototyping phase. The ADA is, however, confident that it can navigate this critical path diligently.

1574241725764.png

LCA Navy Mk.1 in flight test in 2018

We have all the elements required from both projects (LCA Navy and AMCA) to assemble the new design,” says the ADA leadership. “We are also equipped with knowledge of the pitfalls in the design and prototyping phase from past projects, so we have an adequate level of confidence. The bigger picture is that the next deck-based fighter of the Indian Navy should be an Indian design.”

The LCA Tejas is already in service with the Indian Air Force’s 45 Squadron in Sulur, Tamil Nadu, with more aircraft being inducted at a steady rate. The IAF will operate 123 aircraft in the Mk.1 and improved Mk.1A configurations. The LCA Tejas Mk.2 was revealed earlier this year in a new avatar, christened the Medium Weight Fighter (MWF), with the notable addition of canard foreplanes and a generally meatier frame. This will remain a single-engine fighter design, albeit with the baseline LCA’s F404 engine replaced with the more powerful F414.

1574241452701.png

The Medium Weight Fighter, ealier LCA Tejas Mk.2

While the project is still only a proposal, Livefist understands the Indian Navy has shown willingness to support the twin engine carrier fighter path, especially since it gives the navy a chance for closure on the LCA Navy, a project that has had dramatic ups and downs through the ongoing development cycle. The LCA Navy’srecent flight test successes come in the wake of steady turbulence, including a fight for the project’s very survival.

With all the several variables, here’s what we can say with reasonable certainty:

The new design will be a twin-engined version of the LCA Navy Mk.2. While this will clearly involve major airframe changes, it almost definitely won’t go the AMCA way. The latter is a heavier (and purpose built stealth) fighter design, and while a naval AMCA has been part of overall plans, the new twin engine jet will likely seek to only incorporate twin-engine configuration studies gleaned on the AMCA program. While the LCA Navy Mk.2 effectively ends with this proposal, plans for a navalised AMCA theoretically continue. It appears likely that the new jet will be designed, like the AMCA, with a twin F414 engine configuration in mind.

As with all indigenous projects, the Indian Navy will be hoping that ambitious timelines don’t disrupt existing modernisation plans. As things stand, the newly proposed twin-engine fighter will likely be pursued parallel to the intended acquisition of 57 CATOBAR fighters for the proposed Vishal-class flat-top carriers.

https://www.livefistdefence.com/201...k2-for-cleansheet-twin-engine-jet-design.html
 

Gautam

Team StratFront
Feb 16, 2019
12,077
8,339
Tripura, NE, India
The top leadership of ADA told Livefist on Tuesday, “The Indian Navy is looking for a twin-engine deck based fighter in lieu of the LCA Navy Mk.2. With confidence generated from AMCA design, we have developed twin engine competence. Hence configuration is currently being worked out. This is being targeted as a replacement for the MiG-29K with a first flight by 2026.”
The new design will be a twin-engined version of the LCA Navy Mk.2. While this will clearly involve major airframe changes, it almost definitely won’t go the AMCA way. The latter is a heavier (and purpose built stealth) fighter design, and while a naval AMCA has been part of overall plans, the new twin engine jet will likely seek to only incorporate twin-engine configuration studies gleaned on the AMCA program.
We have all the elements required from both projects (LCA Navy and AMCA) to assemble the new design,” says the ADA leadership.We are also equipped with knowledge of the pitfalls in the design and prototyping phase from past projects, so we have an adequate level of confidence. The bigger picture is that the next deck-based fighter of the Indian Navy should be an Indian design.”
@randomradio @Ashwin looks like a lot of work of the AMCA and LCA-N will flow to the TEDBF. And the TEDBF might provides us with the experience needed in making a twin-engined stealth fighter.

Some more photos of the early AMCA wind tunnel model :
1574244086166.png

1574244070159.png

1574243841207.png

1574243900599.png

1574244279350.png


The early model wasn't as refined but it did have serpentine intake :
1574243970394.png

It also had side weapon bays. ADA seems to have dropped that in the current model. Until recently it also looked like ADA dropped the plan of getting DSI for the AMCA but it seems those are back. Who knows, side-weapon bays maybe back too.
1574243995116.png


A wind tunnel model that came much later :
B-Oa4hOCYAASIia.jpg large.jpg


This only came out a few years back :
1574244667535.png


Any of the configurations here would serve as a base of a fine 4.5 gen fighter. But I personally would prefer the ADA going with something closer to the final design shown above. That way the TEDBF can serve as a perfect test bed for many upcoming tech to be used in the AMCA. So I guess I am going with what @randomradio said about the South Korean 4.5 gen fighter.