TEDBF or ORCA Updates

[randombully]

There's another solution

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

No.

 

[eastern_bhartiya]

Redirect Notice

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

 

[eastern_bhartiya]

Can F-35 be launch from ski-jump type carries, it seems to be able to do so from Queen Elizabeth class.

 

[NerVik]

Redirect Notice

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

Link seems fishy, is there any other source for this?

 

[eastern_bhartiya]

Link seems fishy, is there any other source for this?

Pretty much only source

 

[vicky]

View: https://youtu.be/lZo2zwrKrME?si=bU70f6p4AuOALM2J

 

[eastern_bhartiya]

View: https://youtu.be/lZo2zwrKrME?si=bU70f6p4AuOALM2J

Defence matrix makes these video where he just states some possibilities, they don't have any misinformation but aren't that helpful imo.

 

[vicky]

India is rapidly advancing in military technology with two indigenous fifth-generation fighter programs, the TEDBF for the Navy and the AMCA for the Air Force, aimed at enhancing its defence capabilities and achieving self-reliance.​

Amid China concerns, India ramps up its 5th gen fighter jet programs

India is rapidly advancing in military technology with two indigenous fifth-generation fighter programs, the TEDBF for the Navy and the AMCA for the Air Force, aimed at enhancing its defense capabilities and achieving self-reliance.

www.indiatoday.in

 

[Azaad]

India is rapidly advancing in military technology with two indigenous fifth-generation fighter programs, the TEDBF for the Navy and the AMCA for the Air Force, aimed at enhancing its defence capabilities and achieving self-reliance.​

Amid China concerns, India ramps up its 5th gen fighter jet programs

India is rapidly advancing in military technology with two indigenous fifth-generation fighter programs, the TEDBF for the Navy and the AMCA for the Air Force, aimed at enhancing its defense capabilities and achieving self-reliance.

www.indiatoday.in

From the article

While it will not have full stealth capabilities, it will incorporate radar-evading technologies to enhance survivability.

5th Gen tech will come only after TEDBF has received FOC followed by FOC of AMCA Mk-1 & FF of AMCA Mk-2 i.e post 2035.

As of now only the US operates a 5th Gen Naval Fighter . I'd take Chinese claims of J-35 being 5th Gen with a fistful of salt. The very fact they've designated it for the export market & not the J-20 is a giveaway . At best it's a quasi 5th Gen FA.

Secondly maintanence of the F-35 on land is a tough cost intensive exercise. You can well imagine the kind of maintenance it'd take to keep up operational availability & tempo in case of a war at sea where salinity & humidity take a huge toll on the FA's life & performance.

This means the IN which has the least budget of all the forces will be severely constrained in operating the 5th Gen FA. That'd happen only if their budget is pumped up for which we need to get from a 4 trillion + USD GDP to at least an 8 trillion USD GDP.

Besides as far as the IN goes it needs a CATOBAR AC to fulfill its wish of flying a 5th Gen FA . Where's it ? As of now we haven't even seen CCS sanction for the IAC-2 which has been pending for 3-4 yrs . Let that come through.

Whatever we're considering w.r.t to 5th Gen be it in realising the tech or the platform for it will all be for the 2030s & later. I'd argue even if we go in for a 65,000 Ton CATOBAR AC or IAC-3 with IEPS it'd still serve as a platform for the TEDBF.

After all we've seen reports for procurement of 60 nos TEDBF . Not all of it will go into the proposed IAC -2.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

@SKC @Blademaster @Suryavanshi @Vinash @Indx TechStyle @haldilal
Something has to be done to avoid redundancy.
Either rename older thread to like "4th gen TEDBF", " Naval 4th gen fighter", etc, or merge these 2 threads.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

There is an indication by IN about 5gen TEDBF, means complete stealth.
See the 1st ticked point.

View attachment 25330

IDK the complete video or transcript but the current TEDBF design could be scrapped or heavily modified. Bcoz MWF will fly 1st so 1st-hand delta-canard expertise will come through it, no need for redundant Naval delta-canard, basically same airframe design. So MWF can act as TD like X-35 & final Naval TEDBF can be stealthy like F-35C, although inflated to 2-engine AHCA.
So, ideally a bigger Su-33 size airframe would be required. To hope for Naval AMCA, 1st DoD needs to show custom weapons for AMCA's IWB (not just SAAW), increased IWB capacity more than 4 AAMs. And then will-power to modify AMCA or cleansheet design AHCA. But the 1st step of RFI/RFP itself is missing.

The era of 5gen is said to begin with B-2 & F-117 revealed in 1988, then YF-22/23 revealed in 1990.
They were developed in 1980s & initiated in 1970s.
There has been only indication by IN for 5gen TEDBF. IDK if RFI/RFP has been released.
So we are 30-40 years behind



There are 2 options now - tweak AMCA or current TEDBF design, but IMO they need to be inflated with stronger engines for a good airframe TWR to take-off & carry sufficient minimum custom weapons.
Our engine JV shoud cater to this, meanwhile we should arrange interim engine for prototype.

Also, a panic has been created about humidity, salinity, etc as if it is a solid barrier in way of tech advancement. It sounds like 4.5gen is the end of line & pinnacle of Naval jet tech & no future version of RAM & RAS can protect the jets in affordable cost. On land/sea, in space, deep under water, if something needs to be done will be done. So let's not fuel this point which goes against stealth naval jet rather than being constructive & progressive.

The next carrier should have EMALS which should be sanctioned a.s.a.p.

 

[Azaad]

The era of 5gen is said to begin with B-2 & F-117 revealed in 1988, then YF-22/23 revealed in 1990.
They were developed in 1980s & initiated in 1970s.
There has been only indication by IN for 5gen TEDBF. IDK if RFI/RFP has been released.
So we are 30-40 years behind

View attachment 25584

There are 2 options now - tweak AMCA or current TEDBF design, but IMO they need to be inflated with stronger engines for a good airframe TWR to take-off & carry sufficient minimum custom weapons.
Our engine JV shoud cater to this, meanwhile we should arrange interim engine for prototype.

Also, a panic has been created about humidity, salinity, etc as if it is a solid barrier in way of tech advancement. It sounds like 4.5gen is the end of line & pinnacle of Naval jet tech & no future version of RAM & RAS can protect the jets in affordable cost. On land/sea, in space, deep under water, if something needs to be done will be done. So let's not fuel this point which goes against stealth naval jet rather than being constructive & progressive.

Frankly I don't think you've understood what I've written there. There're technology constraints & then there's the OPEX as far as the IN goes TODAY , which isn't an assumption or speculation, it's a plain fact.

Further please check on the OPEX spent by the USAF on maintaining the F-35A which is the land version. You may get similar OPEX statistics for F-35B & C versions from the GAO website as well.

Now extrapolate that to the Indian scenario & check the IN's OPEX budget & tell me the amount you think theyd be able to spare for OPEX of say a N-AMCA in TODAY'S context.

I've never written developments in Naval Aviation with 4.5th Gen ends coz of technology constraints like what you've mentioned.

The IN were in discussions with ADA for a potential N-AMCA till it was made clear by the latter they lack the resources to develop two 5th Gen FA simultaneously , that too one Deck Based FA for the IN.

Eventually both charted out a road map for executing an advanced 4.5th Gen ++ FA which would theoretically serve the same purpose as the LCA Mk-2 for the AMCA Mk-1 , in demonstrating certain technologies which goes into the AMCA or the N-AMCA in case of the IN & wait for full realisation of the AMCA Mk-1 , post which they'd go in developing the N-AMCA.

The next carrier should have EMALS which should be sanctioned a.s.a.p.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Frankly I don't think you've understood what I've written there. There're technology constraints & then there's the OPEX as far as the IN goes TODAY , which isn't an assumption or speculation, it's a plain fact.

Further please check on the OPEX spent by the USAF on maintaining the F-35A which is the land version. You may get similar OPEX statistics for F-35B & C versions from the GAO website as well.

Now extrapolate that to the Indian scenario & check the IN's OPEX budget & tell me the amount you think theyd be able to spare for OPEX of say a N-AMCA in TODAY'S context.

I've never written developments in Naval Aviation with 4.5th Gen ends coz of technology constraints like what you've mentioned.

The IN were in discussions with ADA for a potential N-AMCA till it was made clear by the latter they lack the resources to develop two 5th Gen FA simultaneously , that too one Deck Based FA for the IN.

Eventually both charted out a road map for executing an advanced 4.5th Gen ++ FA which would theoretically serve the same purpose as the LCA Mk-2 for the AMCA Mk-1 , in demonstrating certain technologies which goes into the AMCA or the N-AMCA in case of the IN & wait for full realisation of the AMCA Mk-1 , post which they'd go in developing the N-AMCA.

Buddy, i sense a change in your replies as if someone has taken over your account.
I didn't quote you, so it is not about your statement, but i've watched certain reasons given so many times that i feel some people are reflexive negators, discouragers, possible psycological influencers, misleaders, saboteurs. So much negativity & pessimism, I doubt if they really want something better for our forces. We've seen the drama on StartFront which still continues, right?

Technology constraints, challenges, hurdles, complexities, etc are NORMAL part of Engineering.
Some people panic way too much.
So whatever be the CAPEX & OPEX, it didn't stop making of F-35, F-22, F-117, B-2, B-21, NGAD.
Moreover, repeating myself, our Socialist mixed economy is supposed to be more economical than Capitalist free market one. If we can't regulate properly, it is our fault.
We have our RAM & RAS today.

In most populous country with technical colleges in almost every city, 10s of 1000s of tech students passing out every year, If ADA, DRDO, HAL lacks resources then obviously it should expand. we need private startups also which are coming actually in aerospace for example, but not so critical in aeronautics yet.
Hence, I also said that our linear approach is contributing problem, rather than parallel, independent projects like in USA, Russia, China.



ADA, DRDO, HAL have monopoly w/o competition, accountability which is a big problem. And they keep blaming each other.

A decade after YF-22/23, with F-35 underway, our people in early 2000s were thinking about 1-engine N-LCA. But our RAM & RAS R&D might have started in 2000s, right?
MWF was initiated in 2009 as upgrade of LCA, ok fine but it should have been AMWF.
We got MiG-29K in 2009 onwards.
AMCA was initiated in 2010, very late. J-20 flew in 2011.
TEDBF was initiated in 2020, again very late.
So whatever ROADMAP the IN, ADA, GoI/MoD/CCS had made is not working anymore
Deep into era of 5gen they couldn't see this coming earlier?



Again i said this earlier that after revealing of YF-22/23, 35 years have been less for ADA to give stealth geometry to MWF & TEDBF.
Don't worry, IAF will also cry against MWF soon if it doesn't transforms to AMWF, otherwise Su-75 import tender will come.
Can't people see a simple thing that every fighter jet flies with some minimum payload. We just have to bring them closer to center-line in an IWB, that's all, nothing rocket science. I'll come up with an updated diagram of following which i showed earlier on MWF thread:



So bcoz our RAM & RAS R&D started long back, hence right from beginning,
> MWF could have been 5gen AMWF.
> either AMCA & TEDBF could have been 1 program of common-fuselage jet like Rafale & F-35.
OR
TEDBF could have been steathy 5gen.

Defence is something, either you adapt, upgrade, catch up with time or be ready for war, defeat, invasion, occupation, slavery, territory snatching, looting, etc. We alread had our 1000+ years.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Now ADA is in a dilemma on how to cater to IN.
- tweak AMCA to N-AMCA
- or tweak TEDBF to A-TEDBF
- or new cleansheet design
- when to officially initiate
- define timeline keeping in mind global tech advancements.

AMCA & current TEDBF would use same engines in twin config. So their dimensions, weight, size are also identical.
Following is a scaled comparison as per their width:




The above front view is identical to F-16 Vs F-35-C :




Although unofficial CADs are not the ultimate thing, the AMCA CAD looks relatively matured but if the TEDBF needs to be tweaked then clearly some things have to be modified like -
- lengthening & widening fuselage.
- reshaping narrow cockpit & over-sized canopy.
- create space for frontal sensors.
- adjust smaller intake area.
- pull up intakes & increase belly width for IWB.
- reduce bulky shoulder like fused CFT.
- remove vertical tail to twin canted ones.
- blend the wing more into fuselage.
- perhaps increase wing width/area little more.
- remove wingtip hardpoint by conformal tapered EW antennas.

 

[Azaad]

Now ADA is in a dilemma on how to cater to IN.
- tweak AMCA to N-AMCA
- or tweak TEDBF to A-TEDBF
- or new cleansheet design
- when to officially initiate
- define timeline keeping in mind global tech advancements.

AMCA & current TEDBF would use same engines in twin config. So their dimensions, weight, size are also identical.
Following is a scaled comparison as per their width:

View attachment 26636
View attachment 26635

The above front view is identical to F-16 Vs F-35-C :

View attachment 26634


Although unofficial CADs are not the ultimate thing, the AMCA CAD looks relatively matured but if the TEDBF needs to be tweaked then clearly some things have to be modified like -
- lengthening & widening fuselage.
- reshaping narrow cockpit & over-sized canopy.
- create space for frontal sensors.
- adjust smaller intake area.
- pull up intakes & increase belly width for IWB.
- reduce bulky shoulder like fused CFT.
- remove vertical tail to twin canted ones.
- blend the wing more into fuselage.
- perhaps increase wing width/area little more.
- remove wingtip hardpoint by conformal tapered EW antennas.

By the looks of it, the TEDBF which should've been a natural evolution in design from the N - LCA Mk-1 -> Mk-2 -> TEDBF is showing more & more similarities with the Rafale M.

My gut instinct is the IN is awaiting the induction of the first Rafale M before freezing the CDR of the TEDBF. That'd give them the quasi 5th Gen FA they're looking out for.

Alternative arguments about going in for a 5th Gen FA makes no sense as every AF whether sea or land based requires a work horse to do the heavy lifting which 5th Gen FA by their very nature aren't supposed to be or a role they're expected to perform.

Hence the future path for IN looks some thing like this : TEDBF ->5th Gen FA since navalizing an AMCA would be a tedious job not that it can't be done for the ADA learnt it the hard way by navalizing the LCA Mk-1 to come up with the N-LCA.

 

[randombully]

By the looks of it, the TEDBF which should've been a natural evolution in design from the N - LCA Mk-1 -> Mk-2 -> TEDBF is showing more & more similarities with the Rafale M.

My gut instinct is the IN is awaiting the induction of the first Rafale M before freezing the CDR of the TEDBF. That'd give them the quasi 5th Gen FA they're looking out for.

Alternative arguments about going in for a 5th Gen FA makes no sense as every AF whether sea or land based requires a work horse to do the heavy lifting which 5th Gen FA by their very nature aren't supposed to be or a role they're expected to perform.

Hence the future path for IN looks some thing like this : TEDBF ->5th Gen FA since navalizing an AMCA would be a tedious job not that it can't be done for the ADA learnt it the hard way by navalizing the LCA Mk-1 to come up with the N-LCA.

The design of rafale is best mixture of lift, weight and compactness.
This design generates lot more lift and have high payload capacity for relatively small/compact size and weight.
And higher lift and payload capacity in a compact package is pretty important for naval fighters( rafale was initial designed as naval fighters then airforce varient was developed) especially for" stobar carrier."

So if we're not looking for stealth jet then rafale like design is the best design for our carriers.
Though we can also stealthify it while keeping the same delta wing and close coupled canards and changing the single vertical tail yo two smaller slanted v tails and add an IWB and can have fighter jet which still have lots of advantage in terms of lift to weight to compact Ness ratio and is decently stealthy( I would say much closer to f35 than j20)

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

By the looks of it, the TEDBF which should've been a natural evolution in design from the N - LCA Mk-1 -> Mk-2 -> TEDBF is showing more & more similarities with the Rafale M.

My gut instinct is the IN is awaiting the induction of the first Rafale M before freezing the CDR of the TEDBF. That'd give them the quasi 5th Gen FA they're looking out for.

Alternative arguments about going in for a 5th Gen FA makes no sense as every AF whether sea or land based requires a work horse to do the heavy lifting which 5th Gen FA by their very nature aren't supposed to be or a role they're expected to perform.

Hence the future path for IN looks some thing like this : TEDBF ->5th Gen FA since navalizing an AMCA would be a tedious job not that it can't be done for the ADA learnt it the hard way by navalizing the LCA Mk-1 to come up with the N-LCA.

> LCA designers went after Mirage-2000 & TEDBF designers went after Rafale.
In every industrial domain, the ultimate thing is that laggers must catch up & compete with leaders.
So, if the forces (IN/IAF) put requirements which are obsolete or late then they are accountable.
If forces put requirements on time matching leaders but designers (ADA+DRDO) are not matching leaders then designers are accountable. The ADA slide on linear roadmap was pathetic.
So as i said long back that 35 years after revealing 5gen jets also if stealthy AMCA got initiated but not stealthy TEDBF then this is a blunder, there cannot be any excuses. Between 4.5gen & 5gen we don't need 4.75gen in emerging era of 6gen

> We've come a long way from WW era's carpet bombing to precision attack. Hence a stealth jet's payload can obviously never be compared with beast mode. But the stealth jet also has external hard points ready for external weapons, so the heavy lifting translates to beast mode which even the stealth jet can do once SEAD/DEAD is done in stealth mode.

> Every job domain has its own types of challengers, hurdles, tediousness, etc actually, which could be normal daily thing for professionals inside the domain but big deal for outsiders. So navalizing a jet is not that big deal as non-techies think. Bcoz we always had funding problems arranging engine for R&D hence LCA got chosen to learn 1st hand on naval jet, otherwise it is a puny jet not good even for IAF looking at our sub-continental nation.

Anyways, now when IN has at least indicated stealth naval jet, i'm very eager to see official response on new roadmap of ADA.

 

[randombully]

> LCA designers went after Mirage-2000 & TEDBF designers went after Rafale.
In every industrial domain, the ultimate thing is that laggers must catch up & compete with leaders.
So, if the forces (IN/IAF) put requirements which are obsolete or late then they are accountable.
If forces put requirements on time matching leaders but designers (ADA+DRDO) are not matching leaders then designers are accountable. The ADA slide on linear roadmap was pathetic.
So as i said long back that 35 years after revealing 5gen jets also if stealthy AMCA got initiated but not stealthy TEDBF then this is a blunder, there cannot be any excuses. Between 4.5gen & 5gen we don't need 4.75gen in emerging era of 6gen

> We've come a long way from WW era's carpet bombing to precision attack. Hence a stealth jet's payload can obviously never be compared with beast mode. But the stealth jet also has external hard points ready for external weapons, so the heavy lifting translates to beast mode which even the stealth jet can do once SEAD/DEAD is done in stealth mode.

> Every job domain has its own types of challengers, hurdles, tediousness, etc actually, which could be normal daily thing for professionals inside the domain but big deal for outsiders. So navalizing a jet is not that big deal as non-techies think. Bcoz we always had funding problems arranging engine for R&D hence LCA got chosen to learn 1st hand on naval jet, otherwise it is a puny jet not good even for IAF looking at our sub-continental nation.

Anyways, now when IN has at least indicated stealth naval jet, i'm very eager to see official response on new roadmap of ADA.

If we stealthify the design( still a twin engine, close coupled canard delta wing design) of tedbf and put an iwb( single one Like amca with no swb), how good of a stealth jet can it become while still retaining lots of its advantages in lift to weight to compactness ratio that it's rafale like design provides.

 

[shade2]

By the looks of it, the TEDBF which should've been a natural evolution in design from the N - LCA Mk-1 -> Mk-2 -> TEDBF is showing more & more similarities with the Rafale M.

My gut instinct is the IN is awaiting the induction of the first Rafale M before freezing the CDR of the TEDBF. That'd give them the quasi 5th Gen FA they're looking out for.

Alternative arguments about going in for a 5th Gen FA makes no sense as every AF whether sea or land based requires a work horse to do the heavy lifting which 5th Gen FA by their very nature aren't supposed to be or a role they're expected to perform.

Hence the future path for IN looks some thing like this : TEDBF ->5th Gen FA since navalizing an AMCA would be a tedious job not that it can't be done for the ADA learnt it the hard way by navalizing the LCA Mk-1 to come up with the N-LCA.

The design of rafale is best mixture of lift, weight and compactness.
This design generates lot more lift and have high payload capacity for relatively small/compact size and weight.
And higher lift and payload capacity in a compact package is pretty important for naval fighters( rafale was initial designed as naval fighters then airforce varient was developed) especially for" stobar carrier."

So if we're not looking for stealth jet then rafale like design is the best design for our carriers.
Though we can also stealthify it while keeping the same delta wing and close coupled canards and changing the single vertical tail yo two smaller slanted v tails and add an IWB and can have fighter jet which still have lots of advantage in terms of lift to weight to compact Ness ratio and is decently stealthy( I would say much closer to f35 than j20)

Chalo so the reason they're going for TEDBF over a Naval AMCA is for "missile truck" capabilities like F-18/J-15/Su-33.

Mystery solved for me.

I'd assume the "stealth" shape of AMCA hampers it's aerodynamic qualities, which means lower payload carrying ability and decreased range also, because it carriers lesser fuel, I guess the IWB has to be fit somewhere.

If navy was provided with more budget, maybe we could see both on a future carrier, N-AMCA being the scalpel and TEDBF being the battle-axe, but desh gareeb hai :/

 

[randombully]

Chalo so the reason they're going for TEDBF over a Naval AMCA is for "missile truck" capabilities like F-18/J-15/Su-33.

Mystery solved for me.

I'd assume the "stealth" shape of AMCA hampers it's aerodynamic qualities, which means lower payload carrying ability and decreased range also, because it carriers lesser fuel, I guess the IWB has to be fit somewhere.

If navy was provided with more budget, maybe we could see both on a future carrier, N-AMCA being the scalpel and TEDBF being the battle-axe, but desh gareeb hai :/

Not missile truck but decent payload.
Our mig29k's currently can only carry about 1-1.3 ton payload( my previous guess of 2-2.5 ton was wrong) with 60% fuel using longer runway of vikrant and Vikramaditya which will give it a combat radius of approx 400-550km with that payload without aerial refuling.
Rafale is be able to carry significantly more payload using same longer runway.
And have significantly more combat radius than mig29k with similar payload.
But even with that missile truck like configuration is not realistic.

It's less have to do with stealth shape.
More have to do with large delta wings( like tejas, mirage, rafale, gripen etc) able to generate significantly more lift while being relatively compact in size and weight
Rafale was from scratch designed as a naval fighters jet and at that time it was not confirmed whether future aircraft carrier will be catapult or stobar, so they assumed worst( stobar)and designed rafale around it, though even for catapult this design is still better also the compactness helps in carrier operation, later airforce varient of rafale was developed.