- Joined
- Jul 6, 2024
- Messages
- 1,082
- Likes
- 2,503
I guarantee it won't come anywhere before 2040. Mwf supposed to be there in 2017, now it's 2027. The design will evolve for 5 years. Atleast copying from Rafale shortened that span.According to this TEDBF will come after amca, Why the fuck, would navy operate a non stealth jet from 2038 onwards.
If Navy will operate around 100+ fighter jets then why no make them all stealth, especially given we can easily afford them by 2035+.
According to this TEDBF will come after amca, Why the fuck, would navy operate a non stealth jet from 2038 onwards.
If Navy will operate around 100+ fighter jets then why no make them all stealth, especially given we can easily afford them by 2035+.
I guarantee it won't come anywhere before 2040. Mwf supposed to be there in 2017, now it's 2027. The design will evolve for 5 years. Atleast copying from Rafale shortened that span.
TEDBF has no logic. It's supposed to be a twin f414 based design. We could've done something like this from AMCA & just navalised the fuselage..
View attachment 24536
But noooooo. They had to start with a clean sheet design & take 3 more decades.![]()
Atrocious Ppt quality aside, Amca timeline looks about right, not sure who was delulu enough to believe that it's gonna be into mass production before 2035-40According to this TEDBF will come after amca, Why the fuck, would navy operate a non stealth jet from 2038 onwards.
If Navy will operate around 100+ fighter jets then why no make them all stealth, especially given we can easily afford them by 2035+.
If your gonna design clean sheet, then take amca design, modify the design for naval operations.It's time to bin the TEDBF aircraft. Start clean sheet naval fighter with stealth shaping
Time for some hard decisions like they did with nlca mk2 and rightly soView attachment 24652
Can AMCA be modified for STOBAR ? How much would it compromise it's performance ? And would the compromise be worth modifying AMCA or a clean sheet is better ? IDK. These are the decisions navy/ada has to makeIf your gonna design clean sheet, then take amca design, modify the design for naval operations.
Boom, new design for naval stealth aircraft.
With this approach you can have higher parts commonality in airframe too( already parts commanlity in engine and avionics in amca and tedbf).
Modifying amca design should not be Harder than clean sheet design.Can AMCA be modified for STOBAR ? How much would it compromise it's performance ? And would the compromise be worth modifying AMCA or a clean sheet is better ? IDK. These are the decisions navy/ada has to make
TEDBF program should definitely be repurposed to a ORCA but with 'dry-kaveri + BrahMos afterburner'![]()
"2038".To be honest, a Rafale with:-
1. DSI
2. Retractable Refueling Probe
3. Foldable Wings
Doesn't seems bad for our needs.
Can AMCA be modified for STOBAR ? How much would it compromise it's performance ? And would the compromise be worth modifying AMCA or a clean sheet is better ? IDK. These are the decisions navy/ada has to make
TEDBF program should definitely be repurposed to a ORCA but with 'dry-kaveri + BrahMos afterburner'![]()
Well F35B kinda design will be even more complicated
"Sub-optimal" is a generinc word. What exactly is sub-optimal?Nope. AMCA cannot be used as Naval Fighter. The program base is clear they will not pursue an dual variant AMCA for Navy and AF stating time delay in design and development.
Currently modifying the design will lead to suboptimal plane.
Personally, we should look into F35 B kind of planes. Lift fan and glorious single engine plane.
That's a nice point, and I Completely agree."Sub-optimal" is a generinc word. What exactly is sub-optimal?
Every Naval jet is inferior & sub-optimal to its AF couner-part bcoz of heavier LG & structure, bigger folding wing.
The most optimal plane would be simplest cylindrical one with simple wing, like MiG-21.
If AMCA cannot be modified then how was F-35 A/B/C modified from X-35?
How was Rafale modified?
Most 5gen & 6gen jets have identical fuselage shape due to planform shaping & IWB - F-22, F-35, FCAS, GCAP, AMCA, Kaan, J-20, J-35. The dimensions, aspect ratios & angles are slightly different.
If ADA says modifying AMCA for IN would be sub-optimal then do they have any preliminary optimal stealth naval design to produce confidence among citizens?
TEDBF is highly sub-optimal design from 5/6gen PoV.
If a cleansheet design has not been initiated then some day it has to start. When will that day come? "Better to be late than never, but how much late? Too much late actually becomes never"
Hence there is no ISO standard or formula for optimal combat jet design.
It depends on era to era, what kind of tech/aspect is prevailing, primary, more priority.
It depends on what kind of jet is being made.
It also depends on decision of makers. For example J-20 is heavily criticized for its canards, etc but if Chinese scientists want it & consider it as priority then what can anybody do?
Su-57 is criticized for exposed blocker & levcons from RCS PoV.
F-22 has lowest RCS but still can be said to be sub-optimal bcoz it didn't have EOTS, IRST, HMDS, etc & ow getting MLU. F-22 was optimised from YF-22 which was redesign in just 3-4 months from initially proposed design.
F-35 has been heavily criticized as it couldnt supercruise, didn't have TVC, bad gunfighter, now getting ECU & other MLU. F-35 was optimised from X-35.
The very word UPGRADE means something was sub-optimal.
F-35-B's lift fan is very delicate thing & accidents have been happening. The fan connsumes precious space for fuel, etc. We don't need VTOL jet.
I can be inaccurate, wrong, so agree with technology & economics. I'm just giving my low IQ I/pThat's a nice point, and I Completely agree.
But one mistake, rafale was designed as a naval jet, then airforce varient came out later.
Tho, if we're not going "stealth" Then rafale like design is best for naval fighters especially stobar carriers, because of high lift, larger percent of its body generate lift, less dead weight and compact airframe, rafale rivals superhornet in payload and range while being shorter and less wide also somewhat weaker engine, and it's payload from vikrant using stobar would be significantly higher than mig29k even if combined max thrust of its engines is lower than combined max thrust of mig29k while the composites in rafale do help in lowering
weight and increasing payload, but design plays a bigger role.
But going for a non stealth airframe in 2038 is stupid.
But still, we have chinese j35(land based)as an example.
Which was modified to become j35A(airforce) and j35c(navy).
Amca design will need extensive modifications but it will not be harder than clean sheet design.
Plus going this route will also make the naval stealth jet share lots of airframe components( avionics and engines are already shared) with amca.
And we get that jet by 2038-2040.
Infact we can also design it from ground up to prioritise higher electrical power and cooling for future advanced avionics and architecture to completely integrate and become part and command the future system of manned and unmanned aircrafts all if which will act like a distributed single unit/system.
But na fuckin navy going for a non stealth airframe in 2038
How does "modifying AMCA design" for navy impacts the ongoing AMCA program. Maybe you misunderstood my comment.Nope. AMCA cannot be used as Naval Fighter. The program base is clear they will not pursue an dual variant AMCA for Navy and AF stating time delay in design and development.
Currently modifying the design will lead to suboptimal plane.
Personally, we should look into F35 B kind of planes. Lift fan and glorious single engine plane.
No.There's another solution
If the next aircraft carrier is CATOBAR then you can easily modify the AMCA design for a new naval fighter
Link seems fishy, is there any other source for this?
The Indian Navy is also looking to acquire the indigenous fifth-generation aircraft which will be developed in the next few years by the Defence Research and Development Organisation