TEDBF or ORCA Updates

Rajaraja Chola

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2016
Messages
160
Likes
275
Country flag
TEDBF: Navy and Air Force might have agreed to commit 150 jets

Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) has been given go head by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to start work on New Twin Engined Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) jet as per latest media reports and as per information provided to idrw.org, Senior officials from both Indian Air Force (IAF) and Indian Navy (IN) were present at the meeting and both have agreed to commit 150 jets jointly before the MOD agreed to give Go head clearance for the New ADA project. While actual numbers of a jet produced might vary since the jet in question is at least 10 years away from entering production. MOD needed a number before another fighter jet program could have got a clearance and as per information provided to idrw.org, the Navy has agreed to procure a minimum of 100 jets for its Carrier-based operations and IAF is willing to commit to procuring 50 jets if the jet meets its Operational requirements. Navy and ADA will head the TEDBF program and most of the orders will come from the Navy, while IAF will be back seat driver in the program. Navy has decided that it now abandon its plans to acquire 57 new carrier-based fighter jets from foreign vendors and instead will buy TEDBF when it’s ready for production from 2030 onwards. IN also plans to replace its current Mig-29k fleet with TEDBF from 2035-40 onwards. IAF version of TEDBF called Omni Role Combat Aircraft (ORCA), will be the same aircraft minus TEDBF’s landing gears, Tailhook, foldable wings some Navy instruments, and electronics. ORCA will also be lighter by 1.5tonnes due to lighter mid and rear fuselage section but there won’t be any major design changes in IAF’s version but it will be identical in terms of design, features, and performance if the project gets a go-head by IAF. The development of ORCA might not be done parallelly but only once TEDBF Prototype is available for testing and evaluation purposes for IAF. IAF has given fully backing Tejas Mk2 and AMCA program and already has committed to procure 100 aircraft types each. Initially, IAF had agreed to procure 200 Tejas Mk2 jet but later curtailed it to 100 jets, which many see was possibly done to make room for ORCA in near future But people close to idrw.org believe that ultimately it will come down to Operational capabilities and cost at the end since both Tejas Mk2 and ORCA will have same avionics, Radar, electronics and engines, it will depend on which of the two will emerge as better aircraft at the end because Tejas Mk2 won’t enter production till 2028 and TEDBF will be ready in 2026, IAF will be a good position to decide on procurement of ORCA by then or continue procurement of Tejas Mk2 beyond 100 jets which already has been committed.
If this is true then nearly 400+ aircrafts in IAF inventory is going to be on mercy of the Americans. Either F414 or F404. Though it's good news we are going for our designs anyway.
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
2,667
Likes
7,293
Country flag
First of all clearing misconceptions regarding AMCA then its wing area has nothing to do with enhanced stealth. F-22 has a wing area of 78 sq. metre, almost double than that will be of AMCA's 40 sq. mtr
Ok true. F-22 may compensate by material & coating... But there was research paper posted in AMCA thread affirming otherwise.
As far as the renders are concerned then it is still not confirmed whether TEDBF will feature a Delta wing design or not. Everything is at wind tunnel testing stage as of now with all options being considered.
Sorry there's no evidence of your words. Actually no, whatever evidence is available points to the contrary, ie, a large winged delta canard TEDBF.
Now you are saying that it has 50% larger wing than Tejas mk.1 which makes TEDBF's total wing area at 57 sq mtr., a little smaller than Su-30 mki's 62 sq mtr. and that is "too much"...
...which will render the available twin GE powerplants useless thus generating insufficient thrust.
Again these are just what you think, with nothing to backup your opinion.
As far as those official released renders are concerned, the wings are indeed 1.5 times the size of MWF & NLCA Mark2, about 50-55 sq.m minimum. While 5-10kN more than Rafales, TEDBF is to have 40kN more installed wet-thrust than Rafale (75kn each) with F414 (95kN each) & 60kN more with K10 (105kN each).

However those are merely crude representations. We will see what happens as top the design's size & specs as it advances into the development stages. Gotta wait till 2021 Aero India atleast.
 
Last edited:

aerokan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
953
Likes
634
Country flag
Ok true. F-22 may compensate by material & coating... But there was research paper posted in AMCA thread affirming otherwise.
Sorry there's no evidence of your words. Actually no, whatever evidence is available points to the contrary, ie, a large winged delta canard TEDBF.
Again these are just what you think, with nothing to backup your opinion.
As far as those official released renders are concerned, the wings are indeed 1.5 times the size of MWF & NLCA Mark2, about 50-55 sq.m minimum. While 5-10kN more than Rafales, TEDBF is to have 40kN more installed wet-thrust than Rafale (75kn each) with F414 (95kN each) & 60kN more with K10 (105kN each).

However those are merely crude representations. We will see what happens as top the design's size & specs as it advances into the development stages. Gotta wait till 2021 Aero India atleast.

From the article you asked him to re-read again a page or 2 back..


"At least three variations of the design of the new fighter are being studied presently and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) tests and wind tunnel modelling will ensure the optimum shape of the fighter to match its projected operational capabilities. It's still unclear whether the new fighter will be a tail-less delta platform, similar to the IAF's LCA Tejas fighter or, for that matter, feature canards, a small forewing placed ahead of the main wing of the aircraft to aid manoeuvrability"

Also even if it's canard-delta design, the render that you gave in the last page seems to have part of the canards superimposing over the wing. If the canard-delta is taken up.. the canards will be placed with a gap between the actual main wing to ensure canards serve a purpose. so the wing area will be a little less than what you are expecting. HOw much is anybody's guess!!
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
2,667
Likes
7,293
Country flag
"At least three variations of the design of the new fighter are being studied presently and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) tests and wind tunnel modelling will ensure the optimum shape of the fighter to match its projected operational capabilities. It's still unclear whether the new fighter will be a tail-less delta platform"
Well noted, but variations are normal during development. There are atleast 10 versions of AMCA they pondered with. My renders alone has 2 variants. Lol. One from NLCA Mark2, another from AMCA fuselage.

Technically everything is unclear unless they release a preliminary design. But for now, those renders are cannon (& logically canarded delta-wings can take off skyjump with more load than conventional). That fact may change later if absolutely any info is foundmin Aero India 21.
If the canard-delta is taken up.. the canards will be placed with a gap between the actual main wing to ensure canards serve a purpose. so the wing area will be a little less than what you are expecting. HOw much is anybody's guess!!
Noone can make such absolute comments on future design parameters without presenting aerodynamic data validating the same. In this case, your comment outright disproved by MWF having part of canards superimposing over the wings!.. Where canards are placed is not set in stone, anywhere "ahead of the main wing of the aircraft".

I initially copied ^that MWF pattern with my initial models to avoid too much guess work. That's how I found out the differences... because my final work looked nothing like what they released.
Later on I followed this & wings starts where canard end.
ERLTOenVAAERxUX.jpeg


Also overlap of wings & canards don't reduce the net wing-area (you sounded like you think they do, so clearing that up)... As I explained in last post, with 40-60kN more thrust than it, TEDBF will still have superior performance with 50m² wing area, similar to Rafale with 55m². Like Mirage-2000 was benchmark for MWF, Rafale is for TEDBF.
 
Last edited:

Bajirao

Regular Member
Joined
May 3, 2019
Messages
154
Likes
233
Country flag
Is there a reliable source for the $2Bn figure? The entire Tejas program has used $1Bn. to date... considering the synergies between the LCA and this platform, I doubt the 2 Bn Dollar figure
Vishnu som mentioned usd 1 billion ...ada have basic tech. for deck operation..money will be mainly spent on 5-6 prototype..outside prototyping very little money needed
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
2,667
Likes
7,293
Country flag
Vishnu som mentioned usd 1 billion ...ada have basic tech. for deck operation..money will be mainly spent on 5-6 prototype..outside prototyping very little money needed
You don't need that much for making TDs & prototypes. They cost lesser than LSPs (as built without subsystems). We'll even have several F414 handy.
 

aerokan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
953
Likes
634
Country flag
Well noted, but variations are normal during development. There are atleast 10 versions of AMCA they pondered with. My renders alone has 2 variants. Lol. One from NLCA Mark2, another from AMCA fuselage.

Technically everything is unclear unless they release a preliminary design. But for now, those renders are cannon (& logically canarded delta-wings can take off skyjump with more load than conventional). That fact may change later if absolutely any info is foundmin Aero India 21.
Noone can make such absolute comments on future design parameters without presenting aerodynamic data validating the same. In this case, your comment outright disproved by MWF having part of canards superimposing over the wings!.. Where canards are placed is not set in stone, anywhere "ahead of the main wing of the aircraft".

I initially copied ^that MWF pattern with my initial models to avoid too much guess work. That's how I found out the differences... because my final work looked nothing like what they released.
Later on I followed this & wings starts where canard end.
ERLTOenVAAERxUX.jpeg


Also overlap of wings & canards don't reduce the net wing-area (you sounded like you think they do, so clearing that up)... As I explained in last post, with 40-60kN more thrust than it, TEDBF will still have superior performance with 50m² wing area, similar to Rafale with 55m². Like Mirage-2000 was benchmark for MWF, Rafale is for TEDBF.

Nobody questioned the variations.. but since you asked for a source from him.. I gave one just to satisfy the bureaucrat in you as a reponse to below statement: 😜

"Sorry there's no evidence of your words. Actually no, whatever evidence is available points to the contrary, ie, a large winged delta canard TEDBF".

The logic that we don't have evidence applies not just to him but also you. What's the point of asking him evidence when everybody here already know that we are all speculating at this point on TEDBF?

What i said about canards was a generic config of canards to be useful on TEDBF. It's a generic one at best and nothing near absolute. MWF with canards is just a patch work with stretching the existing design and canard addition. 3D nature of the existing Tejas leading edge is to reduce the negative effects of the lack of canards. Canarded MWF is not an optimal canard-delta. So taking up MWF canards is not a good idea to support your argument.

Coming to the area part.. what i said is not what you inferred. Since this is more of less going to be a clean slate design, what i meant was that the main wing area compared to 1:1 stretched version of the existing Tejas main wing model can be possibly reduced and the gap for the canards will come because of that as an optimal canard-delta config.
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
2,667
Likes
7,293
Country flag
The logic that we don't have evidence applies not just to him but also you. What's the point of asking him evidence when everybody here already know that we are all speculating at this point on TEDBF?
There is opinion & there is informed opinion... I based my speculations on whatever evidence (& variables of the equation) we do have on hand. They will change as more info gets available on it.
  1. Those few officially renders of proposed TEDBF concept.
  2. Their Mirage/Rafale related backgrounds & tendency to use them as performance benchmarks.
  3. The skyjump takeoff load limitation, which factor gives an edge to large winged delta-canard designs.
  4. That^ silhouette with zero overlap, zero gap between wing-canard was shared by HVT, is a safe bet. (Fuselage:Wing=1:1.5)
    NLCA Mark2 TEDBF.jpg
Following are just assumptions... Rather all info indicate the opposite.
MWF with canards is just a patch work with stretching the existing design and canard addition. Canarded MWF is not an optimal canard-delta. So taking up MWF canards is not a good idea to support your argument.
Since this is more of less going to be a clean slate design, what i meant was that the...

@Kuntal your friend Kashyap posted a grand chart with MWF landing gear. Quite different compared to the NLCA Mark2 one above.
MWF.jpg
 
Last edited:

Yatharth Singh

Knowledge is power.
Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Messages
743
Likes
168
Country flag
Again. First you said AMCA is small to enhance stealth. I proved otherwise.

Then you said TEDBF will have giant Delta wings, i gave you reasons that why it is not possible to have a wing size of 57 sq mtr.

Then in your next post to prove your point, you quote Rafale's wing area as 55 sq mtr. whereas i clearly mentioned before that it is 45 sq mtr. Also you reduced your 50% increase in wing area claim from 57 to 50 sq mtr.

In all your post you accused me of having no evidence while you yourself relied on a fanarts each and every time.

The reason I dont quoted source is because first I didn't knew that this was some national Court of defence debate and second all that information I gave is easily available and common knowledge.

If TEDBF was to be a similar Delta wings as that of Tejas then there is no point in having such a long deadline for the project. It will be an entirely new aircraft with design still not finalized (which I'm literally shouting from the first post in discussion). I'm not fascinated by a fanarts until it's official.

As far as application of K10 on TEDBF is considered like you said then keeping in mind the size of TEDBF as medium category fighter then I cannot comment on that as of now. Because mating such a high a performance engine designed for supercruise and 5th gen aircraft on. TEDBF may not be feasible. But can't comment on that.

Last if you want me to say that only you have the perfect opinion and your opinions are informed then mate I will gladly say that for the sake of your happiness. I'm not getting Bharat Ratna for winning a DISCUSSION (not debate) over here.
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
2,667
Likes
7,293
Country flag
It's not about winning debates. But if someone is making statements that could possibly misinform people, it needs to be addressed... Neither accusations, nor personal.

Again. First you said AMCA is small to enhance stealth. I proved otherwise.
No, you proved no such thing! :nono:
  • I pointed out a fact that RCS increases exponentially with size of the surface.
  • You only cited F22's large wing as example.
  • But that's not disproving research results. Thats presenting an exception.
  • While it can't be said for sure how LM compensated for that large area, but it is possible Yanks have better material & RAM coating technology.
  • Technology which we may not possess, thus AMCA's smaller wings in our case instead of larger that would have been very helpful.




Then you said TEDBF will have giant Delta wings, i gave you reasons that why it is not possible to have a wing size of 57 sq mtr.

Then in your next post to prove your point, you quote Rafale's wing area as 55 sq mtr. whereas i clearly mentioned before that it is 45 sq mtr. Also you reduced your 50% increase in wing area claim from 57 to 50 sq mtr.
No, you clearly have neither read nor understood my post very well before hastily starting to type. :nono:

I'll repeat in simpler sentences...
  • TEDBF's wing-area is 5-10m² more than Rafale.
  • But Rafale's installed wet-thrust is 75kn each.
  • TEDBF with F414 will have 95kN each (conservative).
  • TEDBF will thus have 40kN more net thrust than Rafale.
  • TEDBF can't not have greatly superior performance than Rafale if its wing-area is ±50m² (5m² more only).
  • TEDBF may have more similar performance as Rafale, if wing-area is greater at ±55m².




you yourself relied on a fanarts each and every time.
Not just fanarts, but making fanarts. :nono: That is something that requires you to do measurements & compare sizes.

Width of fuselage with twin F414 & wings of NLCA Mark2.
Screenshot_20200606_130529.jpg

Width of same F414 engines & wings of proposed ORCA.
IMG_20200606_132206.jpg


As one with understanding of mathematics & measurements will realise, my 50% increase in wing-area to some 50m²+ value, is a least possible bare minimum!

Finally again, unless we find anything that suggest otherwise ^THAT remains the closest (& only) official representation of ORCA concept... Speculation has to be based on atleast some available information or reasoning.
Unlike the following:
If TEDBF was to be a similar Delta wings as that of Tejas then there is no point in having such a long deadline for the project. It will be an entirely new aircraft with design still not finalized (which I'm literally shouting from the first post in discussion).
Seriously??!!!.. Timeline of MWF being extrapolated from LCA was 2015-2025... 10 YEARS!
2026 firstflight deadline for TEDBF is too short for anything except similar extrapolation from MWF being feasible. Maybe even existing AMCA's available rear fuselage will be used for simultaneous development. Not. Possible. Otherwise.


Rest of your comments I agree with.
 
Last edited:

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
6,742
Likes
23,081
Country flag
If this is true then nearly 400+ aircrafts in IAF inventory is going to be on mercy of the Americans. Either F414 or F404. Though it's good news we are going for our designs anyway.
GE is ready to build engines here once ordered in bulk for mwf and amca . That way we will have secure supply of enngines in as well as maintenance and spares facility.

Also f404 /f414 have a very long life and only hot parts need replacement. So we can always build up a decent stock.
 

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
6,742
Likes
23,081
Country flag
GE is ready to build engines here once ordered in bulk for mwf and amca . That way we will have secure supply of enngines in as well as maintenance and spares facility.

Also f404 /f414 have a very long life and only hot parts need replacement. So we can always build up a decent stock.
Another good thing is when k10 comes we will have replacement for all these f414 !!
 

yoggs

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
81
Likes
245
Country flag
GE is ready to build engines here once ordered in bulk for mwf and amca . That way we will have secure supply of enngines in as well as maintenance and spares facility.

Also f404 /f414 have a very long life and only hot parts need replacement. So we can always build up a decent stock.
Looking at the plethora of fighter planes we are building, how many GE engines we might order?

Its good if they have a set up here from IAF and IN plane's operational point of view. We should put a clause that parts that are required throughout the life cycle of engines should be indigenous with the help of local company. We won't be asking for core.
 

WolfPack86

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
7,226
Likes
9,233
Country flag
5 of the Unique features of India’s ORCA


First Computer generated renders of India’s upcoming Twin-engine Medium Class Omni-Role Combat Aircraft (ORCA) fighter jet have been floating around the Internet and it is difficult to miss some of the unique features which have been disclosed in the renders which will all hope to see in the final design and much more when it is ready for first flight in 2026 and when it enters production in 2030.


5 of the Unique features of India’s ORCA has been listed below.


1) Diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI): ORCA will feature DSI air intakes just like seen in F-35 and J-20 fighter jet. The rounded bump of the DSI compresses and redirects the oncoming boundary lawyer airflow that otherwise causes airflow disruption in the engine. A DSI can be optimized for any Mach number and Mach 1.6 seems to be the right spot for the ORCA. Mach 1.6 speed could have been arrived at by also incorporating S-shaped duct arrangement which is known to limit high-speed flight to around Mach 1.6-2.0 based on the aircraft design and category. Medium Weight Fighter (MWF) design did not feature a DSI intake but it could be adopted in MWF too since MWF and ORCA have heavy design influence. 2) Canards: Medium Weight Fighter (MWF) was first to feature Canards and it seems ORCA will also carry forward the same close-coupled canard configuration to benefit a supersonic delta-wing design of the aircraft which will bring stability to the aircraft design. some of the other advantages of Canards are that it reduces take-off distance, can act as air-brakes while landing and also reduce wing-loading. 3) Conformal fuel tanks (CFTs): ORCA will be first to feature Conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) to reduce the aerodynamic penalty compared to external drop tanks. Two additional advantage of the using CFTs is that aircraft’s radar cross-section will see marginal improvement and it also frees up additional hard-points but some of the major disadvantages of CFTs are that it cannot be discarded in flight like drop tanks once it is empty and it also imposes slight g-load limits.


4 ) Hard-points: ORCA will have 13 Hard-points which is 2 more then what was seen in the Medium Weight Fighter (MWF) and 5 more Hard-points the what is in LCA-Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A. As seen in the above picture is the weapons load pointed and it seems to be in a Standoff Strike configuration. ORCA has Four hard-points under each wing and Four on the Fuselage and One reserved for the Targeting pod. Use of Dual-Pylons in weapon load is highly likely since the weapons load is close to 9 tonnes.


5) Folded Wings: ORCA which is primarily designed for the Indian Navy will feature folding wing configuration which helps the aircraft to occupy less space in a confined hangar of the aircraft carrier thus also reducing the footprint of the aircraft when parked on the flight deck or inside the hangar. A folding wing has some disadvantages compared to a fixed-wing. It is heavier and has more complex due to connections for electrical, fuel, aerodynamic and structural systems. In Renders, we can see both ORCA in the fixed-wing configuration for Air force and folding wing configuration fo the Navy. Naval ORCA will be 1 tonne heavier at 24 tonnes when compared to Air force ORCA which will around 23 tonnes due to the heavier undercarriage and strengthen and raised landing gears which add 700-800kgs and another 200 kgs for folding wing system and its additional hinges. Since the final design of ORCA is yet to be frozen, renders are still off in terms of real scales but it is expected that we will see some final design of ORCA by Aero India 2021.
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
2,667
Likes
7,293
Country flag
Looking at the plethora of fighter planes we are building, how many GE engines we might order?

Its good if they have a set up here from IAF and IN plane's operational point of view. We should put a clause that parts that are required throughout the life cycle of engines should be indigenous with the help of local company. We won't be asking for core.
Sacarily high... 100-200 MWF. 150 TEDBF (2 each). 100-150 AMCA (2 each). Plus lifetime replacements.

HVR indicated that we might get ToT for F414, so does wiki. Hopefully we will develop K-10 in time.
Then comes in size constraint. Maybe K-10 and will be slightly fatter or longer to fit into the existing designs.
 

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
6,742
Likes
23,081
Country flag
Sacarily high... 100-200 MWF. 150 TEDBF (2 each). 100-150 AMCA (2 each). Plus lifetime replacements.

HVR indicated that we might get ToT for F414, so does wiki. Hopefully we will develop K-10 in time.
Then comes in size constraint. Maybe K-10 and will be slightly fatter or longer to fit into the existing designs.
Amca is being build to be later upgraded with 110kn class engine . Same will happen with tedbf / orca . They will be build to be able to accommodate slightly bigger engine later .
 

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
6,742
Likes
23,081
Country flag
When do you think we can get good news on K10? Any progress updates?
We are pretty close to finish line. If we double down on investment and testing we might get 90-100kn engine within a decade. Which can replace f404 and f414 in lca and mwf. (K9)

K10 is a 110 kn engine which might take a bit longer by 2035 I guess. As it will be cutting edge . It's also challenging but required for amca mk2 to supercruise. If k10 is delayed we will have to go far gef414 epe program for amca. But I'm hopeful with recent investments in engine tech we will get there by 2030-35. Timeframe.
 

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
6,742
Likes
23,081
Country flag
Looking at the plethora of fighter planes we are building, how many GE engines we might order?

Its good if they have a set up here from IAF and IN plane's operational point of view. We should put a clause that parts that are required throughout the life cycle of engines should be indigenous with the help of local company. We won't be asking for core.
We can anyway build cold parts ourselves . And France and Europe is ready to build a hybrid engine with India which has their core and everything else ours.

So GE would be ready to do that too. But it's pretty meaningless where we are now. Our core works we have issue with overall stability and more thrust .
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top