TEDBF or ORCA Updates

[Raj Malhotra]

TEDBF, ORCA, AMCA will have MTOW of around 30 tons like F-18, if engine is F414.

 

[IndianHawk]

TEDBF, ORCA, AMCA will have MTOW of around 30 tons like F-18, if engine is F414.

Not necessarily. Eurofighter typhoon has mtow of 23.5 ton with 90kn engine.

25 ton should be the optimum balance for tedbf/ orca . Amca may reach 26-27 ton as it needs much more internal fuel.

 

[Bleh]

Not necessarily. Eurofighter typhoon has mtow of 23.5 ton with 90kn engine.

Just like MWF heavily draws inspiration from Mirage-2000, TEDBF & ORCA can be safely expected to try to match the performance of Rafale they're meant to replace/augment... IAF will compare its specs to Rafale only.
And hey we'll never ever accept a jet with that much lower MTOW!

 

[IndianHawk]

Just like MWF heavily draws inspiration from Mirage-2000, TEDBF & ORCA can be safely expected to try to match the performance of Rafale they're meant to replace/augment... IAF will compare its specs to Rafale only.
And hey we'll never ever accept a jet with that much lower MTOW!

Given f414 are way more powerful than m88 that means bigger air intake than rafale and bit bigger size. That's why I compared with eurofighter . That's a hot rod. Tedbf / orca will be even hotter with more twr than typhoon even at 24 ton mtow

 

[Bleh]

Given f414 are way more powerful than m88 that means bigger air intake than rafale and bit bigger size. That's why I compared with eurofighter . That's a hot rod. Tedbf / orca will be even hotter with more twr than typhoon even at 24 ton mtow

Actually AMCA is rated at 25t MTOW... Don't you think ORCA would be higher?

 

[IndianHawk]

Actually AMCA is rated at 25t MTOW... Don't you think ORCA would be higher?

Amca needs at least 6ton internal fuel. Empty weight would grow because everything has to be internal ( ew suite , ldp , irst and many more sensors). So 11-12 ton empty . + 6 ton internal fuel == 18 ton at cleantakeoff. And then 2 ton+ internal payload and 5-6 ton external payload.=== 26-27 ton is already reaching.

Orca will be based on tedbf which has to be as light as possible and as small as possible for carrier operation and storage.
So template for that is rafale m with mtow of 24.5 ton. But f414 needs more space and more air as it's more powerful so tedbf will have to be slightly bigger than rafale with same mtow. Hence I'm thinking 25 ton for tedbf.
But orca will shade some weight and be lighter than tedbf as doesn't need carrier based strength so it may be 1 ton lighter == 24 ton mtow == almost equal to typhoon.

 

[Bleh]

Amca needs at least 6ton internal fuel. Empty weight would grow because everything has to be internal ( ew suite , ldp , irst and many more sensors). So 11-12 ton empty . + 6 ton internal fuel == 18 ton at cleantakeoff. And then 2 ton+ internal payload and 5-6 ton external payload.=== 26-27 ton is already reaching.

Orca will be based on tedbf which has to be as light as possible and as small as possible for carrier operation and storage.
So template for that is rafale m with mtow of 24.5 ton. But f414 needs more space and more air as it's more powerful so tedbf will have to be slightly bigger than rafale with same mtow. Hence I'm thinking 25 ton for tedbf.
But orca will shade some weight and be lighter than tedbf as doesn't need carrier based strength so it may be 1 ton lighter == 24 ton mtow == almost equal to typhoon.

Yeah, for ORCA they would try to keep empty weight around 10ton... AMCA is 12.5 ton.

Still larger wings on same engines. I could be 2-3 ton higher at net MTOW.

 

[IndianHawk]

Yeah, for ORCA they would try to keep empty weight around 10ton... AMCA is 12.5 ton.

Still larger wings on same engines. I could be 2-3 ton higher at net MTOW.

What do large wings have to do with mtow? Lca has large wings and yet it's a light fighter.

 

[Bleh]

What do large wings have to do with mtow? Lca has large wings and yet it's a light fighter.

...And It has crazy MTOW for a light fighter. Probably 15t max limit, only 1500kg lower than GripenE. Wing-area increases lift & decreases wing loading.

 

[aerokan]

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)View attachment 49470

Following are just assumptions... Rather all info indicate the opposite.



@Kuntal your friend Kashyap posted a grand chart with MWF landing gear. Quite different compared to the NLCA Mark2 one above. View attachment 49469

I hope that you are right with the renders you got from HVT. But my confidence window is small on this as i remember reading HVT's one of the twitter posts and he said something like this render looks nice or something. So if you could point to the exact post.. that shared the official renders, i would be more than happy to look at it again.


In the meantime.. here is my informed opinion supposedly came from HVT again in the post #35 which you yourself shared:

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.

I can go into others as well but i will rest my case for now.

 

[Bleh]

I hope that you are right with the renders you got from HVT. But my confidence window is small on this as i remember reading HVT's one of the twitter posts and he said something like this render looks nice or something. So if you could point to the exact post.. that shared the official renders, i would be more than happy to look at it again.


In the meantime.. here is my informed opinion supposedly came from HVT again in the post #35 which you yourself shared:



I can go into others as well but i will rest my case for now.

Fair enough... You're right I suppose.
If they have the length then there is no need for overlapping canards, unless that's sort of close coupled canard proves beneficial in MWF. That might happen because the cranked compound wing's conplex is already designed to behave like canards & limits the benifit gained from actual canards (this was brought up regarding the MWF design by Vijender K Thakur.)

Fir now these two photos below of the coarse surface model, to estimate ball-park sizing & rough positioning, are best reference because they were officially released.

 

[Abhishek Singh]

Fair enough... You're right I suppose.
If they have the length then there is no need for overlapping canards, unless that's sort of close coupled canard proves beneficial in MWF. That might happen because the cranked compound wing's conplex is already designed to behave like canards & limits the benifit gained from actual canards (this was brought up regarding the MWF design by Vijender K Thakur.)

Fir now these two photos below of the coarse surface model, to estimate ball-park sizing & rough positioning, are best reference because they were officially released.

View attachment 49532

Fair enough... You're right I suppose.
If they have the length then there is no need for overlapping canards, unless that's sort of close coupled canard proves beneficial in MWF. That might happen because the cranked compound wing's conplex is already designed to behave like canards & limits the benifit gained from actual canards (this was brought up regarding the MWF design by Vijender K Thakur.)

Fir now these two photos below of the coarse surface model, to estimate ball-park sizing & rough positioning, are best reference because they were officially released.

View attachment 49532

somewhere I heard that Indian airforce will order 150 ORCA and it will be ready before the MWF i don’t know whether it’s true or not

 

[Bleh]

somewhere I heard that Indian airforce will order 150 ORCA and it will be ready before the MWF i don’t know whether it’s true or not

IRDW report... It was posted on this thread.

With HVT's twitter page gone again, there is no way to confirm the news.

 

[WolfPack86]

TEDBF: At $71 million flyaway costs, TEDBF It will be Cheaper then Rafale M and F-18 E/F
Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) Program cleared by Modi Government will cost Indian Taxpayers less than Rs.13,000 crores in Research & Development cost which will include 4 Pre-Production Prototypes and yet it will be cheaper than what it could have cost India if these jets were acquired from aboard, especially if Navy had pushed to acquire 57 jets under its “Multi-Role Carrier Borne Fighters” Tender. Rafale M per unit flyaway cost in 2011 was reported to be around $89 million, which was flyaway costs per unit, minus its weapons package but with today’s inflation, it could easily be over $120-150 million per unit and F-18 E/ F in its latest Block-III version is estimated to be around $100 million flyaway costs per unit, which could still make TEDBF quite a cheaper option for the Indian Navy since Indian weapons package for the jet will be way cheaper than French and American weapons package which cost almost like a new jet. Since Navy’s tender never moved into a request for Proposal (RFP) stage even if Lockheed Martin had jumped in and had offered its carrier-borne F-35C Joint Strike Fighter it could have set Indian taxpayers back by at least $131.2 million flyaway costs per unit, spares, and weapons package by even more. If Navy had demanded a Specific Enhancement package for these jets then the cost of each jet could have seen a considerable increase in cost per unit, since prices mentioned are what they were billed to their respected Navy and developed as per operational and staff requirements of their respected Naval requirements. IAF paid Rs.12,800 crores for Specific Enhancement package for the 36 Dassault Rafale which will have India specific modifications and enhancements but at the same price, ADA will complete Research & Development cost of Rs.13,000 crores of the TEDBF Program and yet it will still turn out to cheaper then an imported carrier-based fighter jet and will be developed as per Naval Operational requirement and will take technologies already under development for Tejas Mk2 and AMCA fighter jet program. According to ADA, the Air Force version also called ORCA will have a cost of around $65 million flyaway costs per unit and as per idrw.org report, the Navy had committed to procuring 100 and IAF 50 jets. Note: Tejas M1A costs $43.6 million flyaway costs per unit and Tejas Mk2 is estimated to cost $55-59 million flyaway costs per unit.

TEDBF: At $71 million flyaway costs, TEDBF It will be Cheaper then Rafale M and F-18 E/F – Indian Defence Research Wing

idrw.org

 

[Suryavanshi]

TEDBF: At $71 million flyaway costs, TEDBF It will be Cheaper then Rafale M and F-18 E/F
Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) Program cleared by Modi Government will cost Indian Taxpayers less than Rs.13,000 crores in Research & Development cost which will include 4 Pre-Production Prototypes and yet it will be cheaper than what it could have cost India if these jets were acquired from aboard, especially if Navy had pushed to acquire 57 jets under its “Multi-Role Carrier Borne Fighters” Tender. Rafale M per unit flyaway cost in 2011 was reported to be around $89 million, which was flyaway costs per unit, minus its weapons package but with today’s inflation, it could easily be over $120-150 million per unit and F-18 E/ F in its latest Block-III version is estimated to be around $100 million flyaway costs per unit, which could still make TEDBF quite a cheaper option for the Indian Navy since Indian weapons package for the jet will be way cheaper than French and American weapons package which cost almost like a new jet. Since Navy’s tender never moved into a request for Proposal (RFP) stage even if Lockheed Martin had jumped in and had offered its carrier-borne F-35C Joint Strike Fighter it could have set Indian taxpayers back by at least $131.2 million flyaway costs per unit, spares, and weapons package by even more. If Navy had demanded a Specific Enhancement package for these jets then the cost of each jet could have seen a considerable increase in cost per unit, since prices mentioned are what they were billed to their respected Navy and developed as per operational and staff requirements of their respected Naval requirements. IAF paid Rs.12,800 crores for Specific Enhancement package for the 36 Dassault Rafale which will have India specific modifications and enhancements but at the same price, ADA will complete Research & Development cost of Rs.13,000 crores of the TEDBF Program and yet it will still turn out to cheaper then an imported carrier-based fighter jet and will be developed as per Naval Operational requirement and will take technologies already under development for Tejas Mk2 and AMCA fighter jet program. According to ADA, the Air Force version also called ORCA will have a cost of around $65 million flyaway costs per unit and as per idrw.org report, the Navy had committed to procuring 100 and IAF 50 jets. Note: Tejas M1A costs $43.6 million flyaway costs per unit and Tejas Mk2 is estimated to cost $55-59 million flyaway costs per unit.

TEDBF: At $71 million flyaway costs, TEDBF It will be Cheaper then Rafale M and F-18 E/F – Indian Defence Research Wing

idrw.org

Damn this is how u save money.
Our aim should be to indiginise 90% of the defence by 2030-2035.

 

[yoggs]

Damn this is how u save money.
Our aim should be to indiginise 90% of the defence by 2030-2035.

One of the reasons for Modi Government to choose CDS General Bipin Rawat, Air Chief Rakesh Bhadauria and Gen M M Naravane was that they support indigenisation. So one issue of DRDO that Defence forces don't support local technology has been removed. Requirements are not too fancy but realistic now. Defence forces are ok if 70% of the requirements are met.

DRDO's chalta hain attitude is not seen as mentioned by Parikar earlier.
Lot of technology has been developed by DRDO and improvements and incremental enhancement won't take much time. Hopefully.
Also DRDO has undertaken development of many novel technology.
Its DRDO 2.0 now.

With more local orders and encouragement of Govt. for local preference, defence ecosystem will emerge and will be developed. Many start ups and pvt. companies will jump in Defence sector. Defence sector will help a lot to generate jobs in the coming decades and will be a hot sector after IT and thus we will see more innovations coming from India.

We will have local defence products to a good level in coming decade.

 

[IndianHawk]

Damn this is how u save money.
Our aim should be to indiginise 90% of the defence by 2030-2035.

And all the money is invested in India rather than going to france or USA. Further expanding indian aerospace industry.
Plus saving forex as barring engine and few other small items everything is paid in rupee.


Plus commonality of engine and components ( radar many lru , weaponry , cockpit display , etc ) Among tedbf , mwf and amca would save a lot of money on maintenance and upgrade programs in the future.

 

[Super lca]

Damn this is how u save money.
Our aim should be to indiginise 90% of the defence by 2030-2035.

Design isn't even confirmed and IDRW claims that tedbf will be priced at $71million. Ridiculous!

 

[IndianHawk]

Design isn't even confirmed and IDRW claims that tedbf will be priced at $71million. Ridiculous!

Approximate size and design parameters including engine are mostly known. This how every big project moves farward. Cost projection including r&d to procurement to operational expanse are all taken into account before sanctioning such a huge project.

Nothing moves in blanks .

 

[Bleh]

@Kuntal Biswas