TEDBF or ORCA Updates

[AbRaj]

It is your logic, not mine.
F35 is short on agility, supercruise and it's even not clear the Data fusion is working well.
DO YOUR MATHS.
Mine is made for years about F35.

French logic- A got +10 and -2 while B got +2 and -8 in a competition, B is better because I have been shouting so sine years.

 

[Bleh]

View: https://x.com/Indrani1_Roy/status/1888472578777563163

 

[randombully]

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+.

 

[Bleh]

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..



But noooooo. They had to start with a clean sheet design & take 3 more decades.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

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.

Right. This ADA slide is a proof of wrong linear approach rather than independent, concurrent, parallel approach. There is monopoly of design by ADA. It has 1000+ highly qualified tech staff divided into sub-teams for different projects but it seems decisions ar still taken linearly.
After YF-22 & YF-23 revealed in 1990, cable TV was showing ATF project progress in mid-1990s, then ADA could have decided to choose stealth geometry even for LCA, launched RFP/RFI of AMWF/AMCA in late 1990s itself. After exiting FGFA, we should have continued wth our own AHCA concept.
My college senior, batch topper, cracked GATE exam well & joined LCA project, told us some generic unclassified things about it. Later he completed MTech also & told us that among 1000s of employees there're difference of opinions in there also. Then we lost touch.
But i don't understand how these MTech, PhD people having ultimate decison making power not initiate stealth geaometry at least since 1990, that's 35 years already for a cleansheet design.
J-20 flew 2011. Our stealth 1-engine ALCA->AMWF, 2-engine AMCA->AHCA/TEDBF could have been inducted by now easily.
Our 3 decades has already been misused, after hiring bright minds from IIT, NIT, A grade colleges.

Now someone who has friends, family, relatives, association among GoI/MoD/DoD will counter by saying that how are we unqualified armchair expert fanboys challenging ADA. They think that 10s of 1000s of tech grads passing out every year are dumb not to understand even the superficial basics, or need to be proper aero-professional to express views or discuss. Some of them use IAF/IN as shield, setting them on collision course with citizens, stating IAF/IN understands the needs & didn't request.

 

[eastern_bhartiya]

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+.

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 2035-40

dafuq is tedbf timeline? 2038 . That means we're gonna induct a 4.5 gen jet like 2 years after we would have supposedly start producing a 5th gen jet ?

Are they planning to buy naval rafale in a large number or something ? Also tejas mk2 can be solid with indigenous aesa and if they integrate astra mk3

 

[pipebomb]

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 so

 

[randombully]

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

If 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).

 

[pipebomb]

If 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).

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'

 

[randombully]

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'

Modifying amca design should not be Harder than clean sheet design.
And I'm not saying some modifications I'm saying radically modify it if you need to.
The thing I'm talking about is to increase parts commonality between airframe of naval stealth design and amca.
Again, it's a parts sharing while good thing to have is not a basic requirement

 

[high_IQ_bharatiya_sainik]

To be honest, a Rafale with:-
1. DSI
2. Retractable Refueling Probe
3. Foldable Wings
Doesn't seems bad for our needs.

 

[randombully]

To be honest, a Rafale with:-
1. DSI
2. Retractable Refueling Probe
3. Foldable Wings
Doesn't seems bad for our needs.

"2038".

 

[ArjunMK1A]

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'

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.

 

[high_IQ_bharatiya_sainik]

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.

Well F35B kinda design will be even more complicated

 

[ArjunMK1A]

Well F35B kinda design will be even more complicated

Will get into that phase where we demand an F35B equivalent plane. It gives an better strike capability.

Damn. I talking like American Dalal.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

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.

"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.

 

[randombully]

"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.

That'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

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

That'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

I can be inaccurate, wrong, so agree with technology & economics. I'm just giving my low IQ I/p
I've watched documentaries on all jets, can't remember micro details, don't have need of it. The example of Rafale is not about the order of version for AF, Navy but ultimatly a common airframe jet.
I've already said many times that better to design from Navy PoV 1st.
Naval jets won't get any threat discount by enemy SAMs & AAMs.
Naval jets will always be sub-optimal than AF jets, slightly more costlier to maintain, but that's not excuse to delay technology. Cost only increases with time.

So obviously going for non-stealthy brand new jet just to save cost & time is actually wasting even more money & time.
GoI/MoD+IAF+ADA+DRDO must collectively answer -
- why in last 35 years 1-engine Su-75 like stealth jet was not initiated.
- why AHCA not initiated.
Such ignorance has created situation for possible import of Su-57 & Su-75. May be it was pre-planned for international diplomacy.

Different people have different perception of EXTENSIVE as per their academic & professional profile.

There are some members on every forum trying to take public focus off these ignorant mistakes in past & also present. They are blind supporters, justifiers & echoers of whoever is doing the mistakes. They never give any tech input like pic, diagram, graph, table, calculation, etc. Whichever enthusiast citizen tries to raise voice & concerns, even if technically qualified & experienced, is being labeled as military critic, political toolkit, etc.

 

[pipebomb]

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.

How does "modifying AMCA design" for navy impacts the ongoing AMCA program. Maybe you misunderstood my comment.

We were discussing whether AMCA design could serve as a baseline for a new hypothetical 5th gen naval fighter or does it need to be a clean sheet ? That's all. Who says anything about changing the ongoing air force AMCA program.

And why would you suggest imported f-35b for it ?

 

[pipebomb]

There's another solution

If the next aircraft carrier is CATOBAR then you can easily modify the AMCA design for a new naval fighter