Indian Navy Developments & Discussions

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
5,012
Likes
19,102
Country flag
stealthy weapon pods can be made for tedbf ,btw the diamond shaped wing design of tebdf was evaluated but not carried further and canard design was chosen above it
Ye kisne bola?.. They only told a trapezoidal winged concept exists.
Maybe it's not ready yet. The whole Teddy project started only in Dec 2019.
 

SARTHAK

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2020
Messages
318
Likes
450
Country flag
Ye kisne bola?.. They only told a trapezoidal winged concept exists.
Maybe it's not ready yet. The whole Teddy project started only in Dec 2019.
in an interview the official said "we have decided to move on with this one" for the canard version and also aero india 2021 showcased only canard version
 

[email protected]

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,232
Likes
4,484
Country flag
in an interview the official said "we have decided to move on with this one" for the canard version and also aero india 2021 showcased only canard version
In the DDR interview, ADA project director for TEDBF also said that if the Navy wants trapezoidal shaped wings + tail, it can be also considered.

The newly constituted TEDBF team of ADA is the same guys from the old Naval Tejas team. Hence they are laying more emphasis on delta configuration, based on their previous experience.
 
Last edited:

SARTHAK

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2020
Messages
318
Likes
450
Country flag
In the DDR interview, ADA project director for TEDBF also said that if the Navy wants diamond shaped wings + tail, it can be also considered.

The newly constituted TEDBF team of ADA is the same guys from the old Naval Tejas team. Hence they are laying more emphasis on delta configuration, based on their previous experience.
i think i am talking about tarmac 007 interview
 

Killbot

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
1,781
Likes
3,596
Country flag
I HOPE OUR AMCA DOES NOT BECOME "SUNDAY FERARI"
Well, the role of AMCA would be deep penetration strike/SEAD, right? That is why IAF is buying such a small number (126, Mk.1+Mk.2). So it doesn't need to be a supermaneouverable, stealthy monster like F-22 (which has problems of its own) or payload hauling beast like Su-30 or MWF or take off from ships like teddy. AMCAs would be in a central AFB, and do their thing when they need to.
 
Last edited:

Lonewolf

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
2,455
Likes
6,866
Country flag
Well, the role of AMCA would be deep penetration strike, right? That is why IAF is buying such a small number (126, Mk.1+Mk.2). So it doesn't need to be a supermaneouverable, stealthy monster like F-22 (which has problems of its own) or payload hauling beast like Su-30 or MWF or take off from ships like teddy. AMCAs would be in a central AFB, and do their thing when they need to.
Won't they change the tide with mk 2 , it will be going to be a little bigger , and side bays too will be included , also it will have a indigenous engine , so tvc will be there , can expect air superiority role too , also in beast configuration it will exceed mwf in capability , but main problem will be costly maintainability and low availability rate
 

Killbot

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
1,781
Likes
3,596
Country flag
but main problem will be costly maintainability and low availability rate
That's why it'll never be MWF. Also, beast configuration defeats the purpose of AMCA, don't you think? I don't think a TVC engine is required either, we're talking 2035, so Fluidic Thrust Controls would be better, if needed at all. Side bays are the only real 'game changer'.
 

SARTHAK

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2020
Messages
318
Likes
450
Country flag
Well, the role of AMCA would be deep penetration strike, right? That is why IAF is buying such a small number (126, Mk.1+Mk.2). So it doesn't need to be a supermaneouverable, stealthy monster like F-22 (which has problems of its own) or payload hauling beast like Su-30 or MWF or take off from ships like teddy. AMCAs would be in a central AFB, and do their thing when they need to.
THAT IS WHY I PREFER MK2 TEJAS WITH ALL AMCA SENSORS IN LARGE NO WHIE AMCA WILL BE USED TO DESTROY SAM AND HIGH VALUE ASSET QUICKLY TO GET UPPER HAND IN WAR
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
5,012
Likes
19,102
Country flag
No use. Small payload capacity and low availability rates. Teddy or MiG-29 or MWF or Su-30 would serve them better.
AMCA has 8.5ton net payload, taking off from runway! Teddy's design is only needed to takeoff with ±5tons from skyjump only.

@SARTHAK what's with the caps?.. It looks as if your shouting.
 

Killbot

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
1,781
Likes
3,596
Country flag
That's why it'll never be MWF. Also, beast configuration defeats the purpose of AMCA, don't you think? I don't think a TVC engine is required either, we're talking 2035, so Fluidic Thrust Controls would be better, if needed at all. Side bays are the only real 'game changer'.
anyway, this discussion is way off topic. @ezsasa please move irrelevant posts to appropriate thread.
 

Lonewolf

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
2,455
Likes
6,866
Country flag
That's why it'll never be MWF. Also, beast configuration defeats the purpose of AMCA, don't you think? I don't think a TVC engine is required either, we're talking 2035, so Fluidic Thrust Controls would be better, if needed at all. Side bays are the only real 'game changer'.
Here comes orca purpose , more fuel ,more payload , powerful sensor , more manuverability , intermediate stealth
 

Killbot

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
1,781
Likes
3,596
Country flag
AMCA has 8.5ton net payload, taking off from runway!.. Teddy's design is only neede to takeoff with ±5tons from skyjump only.
That's with external pylons... Why would you use AMCA in that situation instead of Su-30 or MWF?
 

SARTHAK

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2020
Messages
318
Likes
450
Country flag
That's why it'll never be MWF. Also, beast configuration defeats the purpose of AMCA, don't you think? I don't think a TVC engine is required either, we're talking 2035, so Fluidic Thrust Controls would be better, if needed at all. Side bays are the only real 'game changer'.
beast configuration defeats the purpose of AMCA? WHY, AFTER STEALTH IS NOT Required BEAST MODE WILL BE GOOD, but one solution can be there we can develop stealthy pods for it
 

SARTHAK

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2020
Messages
318
Likes
450
Country flag
AMCA has 8.5ton net payload, taking off from runway! Teddy's design is only needed to takeoff with ±5tons from skyjump only.

@SARTHAK what's with the caps?.. It looks as if your shouting.
my caps sometimes stops working. Its a mistake!
 

Killbot

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
1,781
Likes
3,596
Country flag
beast configuration defeats the purpose of AMCA? WHY, AFTER STEALTH IS NOT Required BEAST MODE WILL BE GOOD, but one solution can be there we can develop stealthy pods for it
Or we could just use MWF. Cheaper flying costs, higher payload, higher availability etc, etc.
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
5,012
Likes
19,102
Country flag
That's with external pylons... Why would you use AMCA in that situation instead of Su-30 or MWF?
He said coastal defence... AMCA from airbase runway will takeoff with more load that Teddy from aircraft-carriers skyjump.

I'm not saying they'll use it. But it can. Other than Su-30, AMCA would be out 2nd most high payload fighter.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top