TEDBF or ORCA Updates

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by Pulkit, Jan 5, 2020.

  1. Pulkit

    Pulkit Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs" Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    Sydney Australia
    Recently I have been hearing about TEDBF/ORCA more than Tejas or AMCA so starting this thread here.....
     
    muzzies slayer and aditya10r like this.
  2.  
  3. Pulkit

    Pulkit Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs" Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    Sydney Australia
    Bleh likes this.
  4. Pulkit

    Pulkit Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs" Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    Sydney Australia
  5. nongaddarliberal

    nongaddarliberal Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes Received:
    5,356
    ORCA is absolutely necessary if we want to expand our carrier fleet. We can't keep buying F 18's or rafales which will cost more than the carriers themselves if bought in large numbers. It will also be a major upgrade over the present Mig 29Ks. By the time INS Vishal comes in, we will be an 8-10 trillion dollar economy. I'm pretty sure we'll plan on building more carriers then.
     
  6. Hari Sud

    Hari Sud Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2012
    Messages:
    1,706
    Likes Received:
    2,046
    Location:
    Ontario
    How much of the technology we already have and how much of it is to be developed locally in what time frame? Can some technology could be purchased abroad outright with cash and no volume or export strings attached and speed up the development.

    is the ‘Private Sector’ part of the solution of this issue.
     
  7. HariPrasad-1

    HariPrasad-1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Messages:
    5,888
    Likes Received:
    8,682
    Location:
    Gujarat
    It will be a 10.5 to 11 ton fighter with a huge thrust. If GE 414 EPE is used, It will bloody kill anything. Two 98 kn engine is a plane of empty weight of 10 to 11 ton is something mind boggling. In air combat configuration, it will have a T/W ratio of 1.4 plus which will Kick anything you can imagine. Its Air force version can easily substitute MKIs. The only consideration to be kept in mind is that whether these 4+++ planes will remain relevant at that time.
     
  8. Bleh

    Bleh Laughing member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,146
    Likes Received:
    5,557
    Giant Super Tejas revealed: Hushkit analysis

    [​IMG]
    The Tejas effort to create an indigenous fighter for India took a dramatic turn with last week’s reveal of a plan for a twin-engined variant with twice the thrust and almost doubled weight. The new aircraft is a close-coupled canard delta in the same class as the Rafale. Jim Smith gives his analysis.

    “At the turn of the year, Harsh Vardhan Thakur, a test pilot with Hindustan Aerospace, released an image of a twin-engine version of Tejas, identified as ORCA – an acronym for Omni-Role Combat aircraft. Subsequently, comments on the ORCA rendering were made by defenceupdate.in, and by ndtv.com. Having provided a couple of quick comments to @Hush_Kit on the ORCA image, I have been asked to provide an item for the blog.

    Firstly, it is apparent that, as is normal with Tejas, the story is not as simple as at appears at first sight. In addition to ORCA, a concept for a twin-engine deck-based fighter (TEDBF) also exists, and if such a project were to proceed, ORCA would essentially be an air force variant, with lower weight, as, among other changes, the deck-landing capable undercarriage could be replaced with lighter landing gear. Neither of these variants relate to the existing air force or navy procurement plans, or directly to the development of the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), a future Indian-developed stealthy fighter, although some technology developments for ORCA and TEDBF might provide risk reduction for AMCA.

    Configuration Design

    The ORCA rendering shows a close-coupled canard using the Tejas wing planform with twin-engines. Dimensions, weights, engine-specifics are unstated, but the render shows a significant external weapons payload, and what appear to be conformal fuel tanks located on the upper shoulder of the fuselage, as in late-model F-16s.

    Initial commentary by defenceupdate.in appears to assume the use of two GE F404 engines, rather than the more powerful F414 engines, and draws attention to the significant design changes that would be required to develop this configuration from the existing Tejas.

    Subsequent commentary by ndtv.com provides significantly more detail, focussed primarily on the TEDBF variant. This indicates that TEDBF would be a significantly larger aircraft than Tejas, would feature wing fold and would use two GE F414 engines. These engines are stated (Janes All the Worlds Aircraft) to have a maximum take-off thrust of 22,000 lb (97.9 kN), compared to 18,000 lb (80 kN) for the GE F404 variant fitted to Tejas. The GE F414 is the engine for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, while the GE F404 is the powerplant of the F/A-18 ‘Classic’ Hornet.

    [​IMG]

    The most startling aspect of the TEDBF discussion is the stated weight of the aircraft, which is quoted as 23 tonnes, compared to 13.5 tonnes for Tejas Mk1. As an indication, 23 tonnes is close to the max overload weight of the Typhoon, and similar to quoted maximum take-off weights for Rafale. So TEDBF is in no way the cheap and cheerful solution that might originally have been considered as an outcome of Tejas.

    In addition, the TEDBF is expected to carry a significantly greater weapons payload than Tejas, stated to be 9 tonnes, and to have an integrated sensor and avionics suite including AESA radar, IRST, datalinks and sensor fusion.

    Configuration comments

    [​IMG]

    On the whole, the illustrations available of TEDBF and ORCA appear credible as twin-engine evolutions of Tejas. However, there are some interesting differences between the designs, and some questionable features. Firstly, the ORCA rendering does not seem to allow sufficient fuselage width to accommodate two engines, noting that there will need to be a strong firewall between the two engines. For TEDBF, it would appear logical to use such a structure as the anchor point for the arrestor hook, but no hook is apparent in the illustrations.

    The fuselage of TEDBF appears slightly longer than shown in the ORCA illustration, resulting in a slightly further forward position of the canard relative to the wing. Of course, this might result from the concept drawings representing as-yet unrefined designs, or perhaps related designs at different stages of concept definition. In my view, both ORCA and TEDBF would benefit from a fuselage plug to lengthen the aircraft and position the canards slightly further forward, so that they do not overlap the wing leading edge. I would expect this to improve the canard-wing aerodynamics and lift-dependent drag, as well as increasing fuselage fineness ratio, which should improve wave drag slightly, and provide additional volume for fuel or avionics.

    The fuselage of TEDBF appears slightly longer than shown in the ORCA illustration, resulting in a slightly further forward position of the canard relative to the wing. In my view, both ORCA, and to a lesser extent TEDBF, would benefit from a fuselage plug to lengthen the aircraft and position the canards slightly further forward. I would expect this to improve the canard-wing aerodynamics and lift-dependent drag, as well as increasing fuselage fineness ratio, which should improve wave drag slightly, as well as providing additional volume for fuel or avionics.

    Of course, the big unanswered question is whether the aircraft has GE F404 or F414 engines. I would assume the latter, given the quoted weights, and if so, the larger fan diameter, and airflow requirements for the engine are likely to require larger intake ducts than in the original Tejas.

    Development Issues


    The ndtv.com commentary on the TEDBF quotes project sources as indicating a cheap and rapid development path exists, building on Tejas experience, and further suggests a development timescale of 6 years from go-ahead.

    [​IMG]

    Let’s consider what would need to be done. Firstly, the propulsion system change will require substantial redesign of the fuselage, together with revision of the structure to accommodate the additional weight and size of the airframe. While some aspects (such as the wing) appear to re-use Tejas components, I suggest this is a superficial resemblance, since the use of a canard, rather than Leading-Edge Vortex Controllers (LEVCONs), will change the aircraft aerodynamics, stability and control and control laws. The significantly higher weight will result in increased loads and require redesign of the structure. Additionally, the landing gear will need to accommodate higher weights, and, presumably will be rearranged for the TEDBF so that the arrestor hook can take advantage of the engine-bay firewall as an attachment point.

    To deliver the required operational flexibility and capability, a substantial weapons, sensors and avionics integration programme will be required. Much of this might piggyback on existing or planned integration work for MWF platform, but type-specific weapons integration, carriage and release programmes will also be required.

    Should all this development work succeed, the operational TEDBF will emerge as an aircraft with the same size, weight, configuration and, perhaps, capability as the Rafale aircraft currently just being delivered to India. They would supplement the capability of that aircraft, and would have the imprimatur of being Indian designed and built. Could the ORCA variant then replace the SU-30 MKI? Perhaps, but this seems to be the intent for the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) programme.

    [​IMG]

    Where would ORCA sit compared to the AMCA? If that aircraft is to be stealthy, a further increment of technical difficulty is added in configuration design, manufacturing and propulsion and sensor integration. If the ultimate aim is for India to be able to design its own 5th or even 6th generation stealthy fighter, then the necessary confidence in aerodynamics, control system design, propulsion and system integration gained in a ORCA/TEDBF programme would de-risk at least some platform and system elements. But ORCA/TEDBF could at best be a reduced signature aircraft – more significant configuration changes would be needed to achieve a low signature outcome.

    Notwithstanding some risk reduction for AMCA from ORCA/TEDBF, the challenges of materials, build standard, internal weapon and, integrated sensors, stealth system maintenance and operations planning of a 5th or 6th generation system would still remain as the step up to AMCA.”

    We spoke to Tejas test pilot Harsh Vardhan Thakur who noted – ” These are (one of) many concept drawings. There are many more. Canards will not overlap with the main planes.”

    So perhaps caution should be exercised in reading too much into the artwork.
     
  9. Bleh

    Bleh Laughing member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,146
    Likes Received:
    5,557
    ENglU0AUEAACurl.jpg ENglVQCUwAAopGK.jpeg ENgloi0UYAE36Rk.jpeg ..l., ..l., ..l., ..l., ..l.,
     
  10. Bleh

    Bleh Laughing member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,146
    Likes Received:
    5,557
    Basically they want to pull a Super Mirage-4000 on Tejas Mark 2. v2-4476e691e545fa24c881ae9b050d5b3a_r.jpg
    But existence of AMCA means that it's very likely for ORCA/TEDBF to be only for the navy... Because LCA Navy Mark2 is officially over. The official plan now (more of a concept at this point) is to have the existing MWF design expanded to house two engines... F-414. If sanctioned, first flight by 2025-26.
    Claimed MTOW 25t & ordnance payload 9t (against MWF's 17t & 6.5t).

    Navy would prefer Naval AMCA, but for design work on that to begin, it would require AMCA to be flown & fully flight-tested first.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2020
  11. Bleh

    Bleh Laughing member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,146
    Likes Received:
    5,557
    @Kuntal This ORCA model clearly resembles Tejas AF version... ENglVrlUwAEzTqS.jpeg ...Will you be interested in making one based on the LCA Navy Mark2 (latest delta design, not one with tail-stabilisors)?

    I'll provide some reference image... just get rid of the LEVCONs & add canards, diverterless intakes, extra engin, fuel tanks etc.
    Its belly is already widened. 13 hardpoints like above. 5181069_169qcl3_jpeg1e6b2c5dc73ea376ed4e380b23cb9d8c.jpg
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG] IMGP1273 wm (Medium).jpg
    De5kAwHVQAAtOP7.jpg
    5603478_ixz2wy_jpega29d35e1346c8219a9b9e1f5bcc0e204.jpeg

    If you can ignore the tail-stabilisors, same design from different angle. LCA Navy Mk.2 Poster.jpg 8951571_d05aubducaetn6z_jpeg_jpegc92feb8286434b968c41f4042b6ad45e.jpeg
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2020
  12. nongaddarliberal

    nongaddarliberal Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes Received:
    5,356
    I still don't understand what type of guarantee we have that the Americans will sell us enough f 414's. And what about spares and support for the engines? With what confidence are we going forward with MCA and ORCA?
     
  13. Bleh

    Bleh Laughing member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,146
    Likes Received:
    5,557
    Several jets like Gripen & T-50 run production based on American engines. They'll sell us F-414... especially guaranteed if we select F-18 (just gotta copy-paste its butt then), but otherwise too.

    What we should do is get ToT for F-414 EPE & start building it in house, as well as grow 120kN+ engine based on that, instead of wasting time with Snecma whose own engine is much less powered.
     
  14. Defcon 1

    Defcon 1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    1,147
    Location:
    Lucknow
    F414 EPE doesn't exist Today. Developing it would be a significant financial commitment. Considering the fact that DRDO was too stupid to shell out 500 million to fix kaveri with the help of french, I doubt they will be will to shell even Higher to pay for development and TOT of f414 EPE.
     
  15. HariPrasad-1

    HariPrasad-1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Messages:
    5,888
    Likes Received:
    8,682
    Location:
    Gujarat
    It is time to Compare ORCA with Su 30 MKI.
     
  16. HariPrasad-1

    HariPrasad-1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Messages:
    5,888
    Likes Received:
    8,682
    Location:
    Gujarat
    We should try to make it a stealthier aircraft like EFT and Rafale. We can make this one frontal stealth at least. It will have many highly advance stuff and great potency except stealth. We must ensure that its RCS is somewhat comparable to best 4+++ generation aircraft available at that time.
     
  17. Bleh

    Bleh Laughing member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,146
    Likes Received:
    5,557
    I doubt that too... especially with K-10. But the french's own engine is far underpowered than GE ones!
    If we're planning to use F414 in 200-300 MWF, AMCA Mk1, ORCA/TEDBF it'd be wise for GOI to get ToT of it instead of direct import & build ahead based on that (like China did with WS-10).

    Too early... From what's available & compared from same engined AMCA, its MTOW should be ~25t with payload ~8-9t. Compared to MWF (~7t) empty weight should be atleast 10t which leaves ~5-6t for fuel.

    I don't see why AF will be interested in this when they'll have AMCA with same stats & specs. Navy wanted that too, but until AF AMCA it's flown & flight-tested, they can't start developing a naval version of it.
     
  18. Defcon 1

    Defcon 1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    1,147
    Location:
    Lucknow
    TOT cost will come out of DRDO budget. Buying cost will come out of IAF budget. Departmentalism to f*ck procurement again
     
  19. Bleh

    Bleh Laughing member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,146
    Likes Received:
    5,557
    Budgets can be allocated... But even now, IAF still owes HAL ₹20,000 crores!!!
    The jets need to be cheaper & ToT of F414 (whatever version) would not only be a good backup, but a more promising prospect of developing 110kN engine. GTRE-Safran collaboration over K-10 is a gamble.

    Lack of vision in leadership of is what's been fucking India.
     
  20. Indx TechStyle

    Indx TechStyle War Mongerer Veteran Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    12,979
    Likes Received:
    24,478
    Location:
    21°N 78°E / 21°N 78°E
    ORCA is more like Indian equivalent of Rafael than Su-30.
     
    aditya10r and HariPrasad-1 like this.
  21. Bleh

    Bleh Laughing member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,146
    Likes Received:
    5,557
    Below tailed delta version, uncranked leading-edge. Dz8cmNGXQAABx1e.jpg
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2020

Share This Page