Please add armament , detailed aerodynamic study , more emphasis on stealth , give uttam radar capability and approx trm configuration , add rafale m , fa 18 in comparable aircraft in see also section.
I need license of image and source of this model. Once we get source, we have to contact the owner of image for license.
That is not true, canards dont necessarily contribute to high RCS, J-20 features planform alignment. If that were true then Northrop Grumman wouldn't have proposed a delta-canard derivate of the ATF/YF-23 for the NAT program and of course Boeing's 6th generation fighter is also a delta-canard design!
Except those advanced "features" in right, everything is available on article.
Can mods talk to @Yusuf? If yes then an article by him on TEDBF can serve the purpose.
Are you from India
?
Oh yes. Please don't be mistaken just by seeing my username.Are you from India
Jai Jai Shree Ram.Jai Shree Ram
1.No,for now there isnt any plans for an internal weapons bay in tedbf.Navy wants to slung big and heavy standoff weapons from tedbf and iWB will limit the no of hardpoints that will be able to carry them and it will also complicate the jets and testing will take more time and navy wants these jets ASAP.
But isn't that being a bit short-sighted?? I do agree with their reasoning of being able to carry more/heavier payloads but even in the near future there will be stealthy threats to our carriers, either ground based ones or from another carrier (JC-31). IN will have to scramble their own jets in such situation. They should have at least a few of them for such faceoffs. Not just for stealth but also for better manoeuvrability (lesser drag, better flight envelope, etc etc).
Stealth isnt cheap and navy 's budget is tight and adding stealth to any platform will again complicate the testing and timelines.They could break the program in two parts like korean kfx but can navy buy or fund that many jets?
IMHO, it still is a shame. Having a background in IT means I have limited knowledge about aerodynamics but I would think that since TEDBF is already designed with a flat belly, having an IWB wont change too many flight dynamics. It can be taken up after doing all the research for the non stealth version but there should be a clear roadmap that they are going to do this. KFX programme is doing exactly that. IAF should pitch in. They would need an aircraft with higher thrust for different scenarios, just like how they needed the mig-29s.
Don't think what Chinese have done is the best , the operate su 33 from carriers , most unwise design , and naval air warfare is not suitable for stealth aircraft , in sea environment air is salty it affect stealth coating , also we have no plan for a super carrier in near future , what would be use of a stealth platform in sea , most of naval mission don't require stealth as the have to take down ships or some land based assets in enemy territory , but you can only carry aam in iwb which also decrease load capacity of under belly pylons also lenght restrictions come into play , drone would be the mainstay of navy for many mission like cats warrior .
I am not denying the drone warrior idea, nor am I saying that what chinese are doing is better(it was just a non technical, light hearted point). Carrier aircrafts are not only used for offence but also defence. They are somewhat important when it comes to defending against air based assets of an enemy or even to deter them, in case there isn't a full scale war. This is especially true for Carriers because they will go beyond your territory and possibly into the range of enemy aircrafts. Your own carrier doesn't have to go anywhere, an enemy aircraft can make that situation happen. In the near future, those enemy aircrafts will be stealth ones so why give that disadvantage to our own aircrafts.
all depends on what navy needs and what can be built with little resources and very limited timeline.The interviews by tarmak007 was very informative and it was really good to know navy and ada is working with each other from the get go.
Well, I think by design, TEDBF will have more T/W ratio than AMCA (considering whatever engine can be mounted on AMCA can be mounted on TEDBF as well). Sometimes it is beneficial to have better T/W ratio than better RCS. This was the reason for IAF deploying Mig-29s in Ladakh. That is why I believe that there certainly is a case for an IAF TEDBF (ORCA?). And TEDBF should be cheaper/easier to manufacture in numbers.
