Search results

Naval jets follow different doctrine then air force jets and even that varies from country to country. In Indian context primary role of naval jets is anti ship attack and secondary role is land attack when necessary. So in that role it doesn't matter if enemy warship sees you at 300 km...

Well we have GaN components already in production and going in various ground based radar systems already. ( Airborne radar like uttam take some more time for GaN components which will be there in mk2 and tedbf by 2025-26). AMCA mk1 will come only by 2030 as a production ready version. So...

That may only happen at MLU many years later. For now they will remain with GaAs components. Mk2 will get GaN components from the get go and so will tedbf while AMCA may get something far more advanced than even GaN.

Mk1 will be converted to mk1a with Uttam aesa but TRM will remain same because of power and cooling requirement of aesa .

From time to time forum gets one or two such posters who don't read anything but just keep posting their own point of view. It is better to ignore than bother and move on.

Your own comments are in bad faith and filled with stupid nonsense. What's of the point of this 3 decade comment?? So you even know what is indian naval doctrine?? What does navy wants it's jets to do?? Yet you simply jump in and write all these post in absolute vaccum . And expect others to...

Because NAVY hasn't asked for IWB. It's as simple as that. Unless you somehow know what is better for navy more then the navy itself. If and when navy demands it such possibility can be explored in next varient of tedbf.

Boeing hasn't build any new jet since f18. And Lockheed Martin developed F35 haven't even achieved ioc yet and is plauged by multiple issues. It's operational cost are still much much more than what LM promised. But both these companies are still successful because USA supports them despite...

4 years is shortest possible timelines for these kinds of development. While most components and LRUs are old and validates MWF airframe is much larger and hence new and must be tested thoroughly during those 4 years.

We have more than enough money and manpower to support all these programs because alternative ( import ) means spending multiple times more money that too in foreign currency. Transport aircrafts are much easier to build compared to fighter jets. They don't have to break mach limits or do...

Atleast 1200+ TRM for sure. MWF itself has 1000 TRM approx. And tedbf will be much wider and will have much more power available for bigger radar and cooling.

It's optimised for naval flying. Where you need all the thrust you can get and for that you need straight intakes to get maximum possible airflow for your Engine. This also reduced work and makes thing much simple.

I love tedbf even more than I love MWF because it's then true evolution of lca program . It's the culmination of all that hardwork done for all these years. And it's and absolutely beauty and absolute beast .

So navy is sticking with indeginous product. Tedbf is coming boys . Nacho BC:balleballe::india::balleballe:

5.3 ton , 5300 kg. Jaldi jaldi me mistake hi gyi sahab . :scared1: Btw our frigates carry 8 Anti ship missiles. Lca can carry two anti ship missiles at once. Just four sorties and you have your flying frigate. 😆

Can't stop development waiting for a new engine. All development work will be done with engine available now . F414. If an indian engine is ready by the time of production that will be used in serial production if not is engine will continue to be used for initial batches.

This is from HAL https://hal-india.co.in/Product_Details.aspx?Mkey=54&lKey=&CKey=20 Payload is 5300 ton . No more no less than gripen C.

It doesn't really matter if tedbf has more payload than Rafale or bit less since all these 8-9 ton payload figures are maximum and never used in actual missions. If a Rafale or tedbf goes for anti ship mission it will probably carry two fuel tanks + 1 large anti ship missiles + 2 sraam for...

Gripen C payload is aften quoted as 5300 kg in brouchers and lca was said to be under 4 tons only. This was marketing blitz by saab where they always printed the max possible take of payload in very favorable conditions. While ADA being just a development agency never cared for brouchers...