Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,315
8,564
India
The aircraft can end up being smaller than AMCA. So 100KN engines will be more than enough. I hope they choose EJ2x0 for this jet, there's plenty of growth potential there. But if ADA goes ahead with F414, even that's fine.
 

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
4,720
7,686
Bangalore

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,315
8,564
India
ADA had shown some designs of LCA MK2 for deck ops. At that time itself I had stated that we need a new design for deck operations and all the fixes given to LCA will not work. I had even called AMCA unfit for deck ops. The wing loading of AMCA is too high for deck ops, especially for STOBAR carriers.

I hope to see a conventional wing design, something new there.
 

vstol Jockey

Professional
Dec 1, 2017
5,908
11,482
New Delhi
I hope to see a conventional wing design, something new there.
They need to change the wing design to a pure delta design which allows for BLC to increase lift for STOBAR launch. And a sweepback angle which allows max lift coefficient to be achieved at relatively smaller AOA with an aspect ratio of 3 or above. The modified MSA design now has 40* SB for this very reason with strong LERX to give a boost for STOBAR launch when the AOA suddenly rises to over 12* at ramp exit. This alongwith BLC system fed by the APU driven generator will provide the MSA ability to go at full load from deck.
Another aspect is that due to lower sweepback, for the same MAC, we get larger span and wing area with much higher CLmax. I have maintained the Re number of Mig-21 wing even in the new wing design.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,315
8,564
India
Correct, I was referring to the inability to take off with full load. Rafale-M with 25ton or SH with 28ton. I'm not sure if Mig-29K can do it.


Those loads are not possible anyway because of configuration.

Rafale and SH have 5 heavy hardpoints. Mig-29K has only 3, and even those 3 are not very impressive in terms of carrying capacity.

Both Rafale and SH can carry 2 Brahmos-M/SCALP/LRASM and 2 large tanks. Whereas Mig-29K can carry only 2 small tanks with 2 Brahmos. But all three aircraft can carry this loadout, and I suppose this is the heaviest warfighting configuration possible. Even then, the Mig-29K won't be able to carry as many AAMs in this configuration as the Rafale and SH will.

So even if MTOW is not possible, the Rafale and SH can take off with everything that we need for any type of mission.

Yeah , i also agree

But not 4th gen but 4.5gen

I meant airframe and performance, not avionics. Like there's no need for IWB and supercruise. Avionics are going to have to be topnotch of course, preferably the same or of similar category as AMCA Mk1.
They need to change the wing design to a pure delta design which allows for BLC to increase lift for STOBAR launch. And a sweepback angle which allows max lift coefficient to be achieved at relatively smaller AOA with an aspect ratio of 3 or above.

What about a non-delta design?
 

Sathya

Senior member
Dec 2, 2017
2,230
1,234
India
Aero Mag said Mk2 navy design is finalized, metal cutting done.
Will fly this year ..

Suddenly Project definition itself changes.

we can have Mk2 TEBDF later on.. Replacing MK1 TEBDF before the production starts so that it can fly from Cartobar.
 

smestarz

Well-Known member
Nov 30, 2017
538
323
Actung Panzers
My view is different,
We are trying to develop too many different designs

1. LCA Mk 1 A , yes go for it
2. AMCA, Good
3. Also make AMCA with the stronger airframe, and ability to be used from CATOBAR & STOBAR carriers
This is just trying to make sure its future proof

With AMCA and TEDBF having a commonality that might help spares management


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.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,315
8,564
India
For BLC to be very effective, we will need a straight trailing edge. and for that only Delta planform is the option. If they go for trapezoidal design like of present AMCA, the BLC may not be as effective.

What about more conventional wings like the Super Hornet?
 

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Banned
Dec 4, 2017
14,520
10,484
Mumbai
Aerodynamics (@Aerodynamic111) Tweeted:
Indian Navy asked for feasibility report to convert AMCA into a carrier-based fighter jet and acc to ADA for all the fighter jet programs in India it was positive that it can be done but according to many defense analysts both agreed to not to develop a Naval variant of AMCA(1/9) ( )

Aerodynamics (@Aerodynamic111) Tweeted:
LCA-Navy Mk1 seems to be a learning experience that both ADA and Navy relied on to avoid repeating the same mistakes. It is also recorded fact that airforce to navy conversion is much harder than the vice versa. Su-33 and Mig-29K which were developed from AF Version(2/9) ( )


Aerodynamics (@Aerodynamic111) Tweeted:
still have a long list of issues that simply can’t be fixed and even F-35C stealth fighter developed by united states for its Navy hs many technical issues that limit its performance against F-35A which is its air force version. Acc to the @StateDept , F-35C can only fly at(3/9) ( )



Aerodynamics (@Aerodynamic111) Tweeted:
Mach 1.3 in afterburner for 50 cumulative seconds due to which capability to do the high-speed mission is reduced and full envelope of the fighter can’t be achieved even though fixes will be applied over the years. Since each landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier is a(4/9) ( )

Aerodynamics (@Aerodynamic111) Tweeted:
controlled crash, F-35C after each landing loses some level of stealth coating after each high-stress landing due to which horizontal tail and the tail boom are losing their coating faster than the AF variant. While many of the performance issues will be fixed in due course(5/9) ( )

Aerodynamics (@Aerodynamic111) Tweeted:
of time but the fact remains is that F-35C will never be able to cover its full operational envelope like its sibling from the AF due to technical issues that will keep cropping. Only successful carrier-based modern fighter are Rafale M and F-18 H n SH which were specially(6/9) (Aerodynamics on Twitter)

Aerodynamics (@Aerodynamic111) Tweeted:
developed for carrier-based operations and the AF variant was developed from the Naval variant due to which transaction was much easier. Proposal of ADA to first develop a 4.5th gen TEDBF before it starts work on the 5th gen design of a new Navy variant seems to suggest that(7/9) (Aerodynamics on Twitter)

Aerodynamics (@Aerodynamic111) Tweeted:
a more approachable development method has been planned out. ADA will develop TEDBF so that it can develop a clean sheet 5th gen carrier-based jet for the Navy at later stage. experience n technical know how developed in the development of TEDBF will also further come handy(8/9) (Aerodynamics on Twitter)

Aerodynamics (@Aerodynamic111) Tweeted:
in the development of the TEDBF which will borrow from the LCA-Mk1/MWF program and later its successor from the AMCA program.(9/9) (Aerodynamics on Twitter)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shekhar Singh

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
4,720
7,686
Bangalore
With the current Tejas’ single General Electric (GE) F-404 engine replaced by two, more powerful, GE F-414 engines, the TED-BF will be a far bigger and heavily armed fighter.

The current Tejas Mark 1 gets airborne with a total “all-up weight” (AUW) of 14 tonnes. The air force version of the Tejas Mark 2, which will have a single GE F-414 engine, will have an AUW of 17 tonnes. And the navy’s Tejas Mark 2 (or the TED-BF), powered by two GE F-414 engines, will have a beefy AUW of 24 tonnes, says Deodhare.

ADA is targeting 2025-26 for the first flight of the TED-BF. The navy wants the fighter to be inducted into service by 2031, to replace the MiG-29K/KUB that currently flies off INS Vikramaditya and will also serve on board the first indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant, when it is commissioned in 2021.

Broadsword: Naval Tejas gets airborne with weapons, ready to operate from aircraft carrier by March
 
  • Informative
Reactions: R!cK

vstol Jockey

Professional
Dec 1, 2017
5,908
11,482
New Delhi
With the current Tejas’ single General Electric (GE) F-404 engine replaced by two, more powerful, GE F-414 engines, the TED-BF will be a far bigger and heavily armed fighter.

The current Tejas Mark 1 gets airborne with a total “all-up weight” (AUW) of 14 tonnes. The air force version of the Tejas Mark 2, which will have a single GE F-414 engine, will have an AUW of 17 tonnes. And the navy’s Tejas Mark 2 (or the TED-BF), powered by two GE F-414 engines, will have a beefy AUW of 24 tonnes, says Deodhare.

ADA is targeting 2025-26 for the first flight of the TED-BF. The navy wants the fighter to be inducted into service by 2031, to replace the MiG-29K/KUB that currently flies off INS Vikramaditya and will also serve on board the first indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant, when it is commissioned in 2021.

Broadsword: Naval Tejas gets airborne with weapons, ready to operate from aircraft carrier by March
Long long back I had told you that IN intends to take over shore based defense of its onshore and offshore assets itself from IAF. And that IN will have about 250 fighter aircraft fleet to serve three carriers and shore based squadrons. IAF will not let IN do this job and acquire more fighters. It is for this reason, IN has decided to go for indigenously developed fighters. This will help IN outsmart IAF.
 

RISING SUN

Senior member
Dec 3, 2017
9,334
4,804
Long long back I had told you that IN intends to take over shore based defense of its onshore and offshore assets itself from IAF. And that IN will have about 250 fighter aircraft fleet to serve three carriers and shore based squadrons. IAF will not let IN do this job and acquire more fighters. It is for this reason, IN has decided to go for indigenously developed fighters. This will help IN outsmart IAF.
This IN-IAF-IA internal tussle will go away hopefully when all services are integrated under CDS and further plans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deathstar

RISING SUN

Senior member
Dec 3, 2017
9,334
4,804
No way. IAF is the worst of the three. Let them first handover all attack helicopters to IA.
So why not disband the IAF and transfer all the aircraft under its utilization to IA & IN, sounds terrific!!! As I said earlier, hopefully tussle will be the thing of past when CDS and other things including theator level commands under discussion get implemented. Thank you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vstol Jockey

vstol Jockey

Professional
Dec 1, 2017
5,908
11,482
New Delhi
So why not disband the IAF and transfer all the aircraft under its utilization to IA & IN, sounds terrific!!! As I said earlier, hopefully tussle will be the thing of past when CDS and other things including theator level commands under discussion get implemented. Thank you.
We do need an AirForce but yes, we need to streamline the system. The biggest obstruction to joint commands is once again IAF. We can probably assuage them by making CDS from IAF as a mandatory condition since the CDS is going to be a four star officer.
 

Aniruddha

Member
Oct 3, 2019
225
73
Mumbai
We do need an AirForce but yes, we need to streamline the system. The biggest obstruction to joint commands is once again IAF. We can probably assuage them by making CDS from IAF as a mandatory condition since the CDS is going to be a four star officer.
The IAF should stick to operating fixed wing aircraft and not rotary. Why are the Apaches and Chinooks with the IAF and not the IA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vstol Jockey