TEDBF or ORCA Updates

[Lonewolf]

Ya it should have citations, but I’ve edited it long ago, check wikipedia.

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.
Some info on design elements from amca , like cockpit , stealth shaping , more info on higher fuel capacity

 

[Indx TechStyle]

The model itself is the biggest proof of DSI and Serpentine intake, you can clearly see it as well, the DSI atleast is as visible as the sun in a clear sky.

Ya it should have citations, but I’ve edited it long ago, check wikipedia.

I need license of image and source of this model. Once we get source, we have to contact the owner of image for license.

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

TEDBF is a 4th Generation aircraft but it has geometric stealth like 5th Generation Aircraft and Canards are added (5th Generation Aircrafts usually don’t have canards ) I haven’t seen any 4th Generation Aircrafts with this type of design it’s a 4.5th Generation Aircraft in true sense Rafales are 4th Generation Aircrafts marketed as 4.5 Generation but rafales don’t have stealth geometry like TEDBF
Chinese CJ-20 qualifies to be called as 4.5th Generation not 5th Generation Because it also has stealth geometry with canards

 

[Adrian Corvus]

I need a reliable source which says it has a serpentine or DSI intake. Only then I can add. Further, this image can't go in lead infobox as it doesn't reveal aircrafts body. It will only go in design and development section.

Hard points, I'm myself looking for source before adding them.

If you haven't already considered, Aero India 21 ADA brochure has some pics and info which could be used in there...

 

[WarriorIndian]

TEDBF is a 4th Generation aircraft but it has geometric stealth like 5th Generation Aircraft and Canards are added (5th Generation Aircrafts usually don’t have canards ) I haven’t seen any 4th Generation Aircrafts with this type of design it’s a 4.5th Generation Aircraft in true sense Rafales are 4th Generation Aircrafts marketed as 4.5 Generation but rafales don’t have stealth geometry like TEDBF
Chinese CJ-20 qualifies to be called as 4.5th Generation not 5th Generation Because it also has stealth geometry with canards

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!

 

[Indx TechStyle]

View attachment 77839
If you haven't already considered, Aero India 21 ADA brochure has some pics and info which could be used in there...

Except those advanced "features" in right, everything is available on article.
I say I need a proper source. Either someone of you should have own camera pictures from Aero India. Or bring a website or at least a tweet from a credible journalist like Shiv Aroor.

 

[FalconSlayers]

Except those advanced "features" in right, everything is available on article.
I say I need a proper source. Either someone of you should have own camera pictures from Aero India. Or bring a website or at least a tweet from a credible journalist like Shiv Aroor.

Can mods talk to @Yusuf? If yes then an article by him on TEDBF can serve the purpose.

 

[gutenmorgen]

Heya fellas,
I have been visiting this forum for a long time. Only now, I decided to make an account and ask a few questions. I hope to be in your care.
I have two basic queries about TEDBF.
1) Will it have an internal weapons bay, at least in the future? Is HAL/ADA even planning for this at all?
2) From the infographics posted above, it looks like they are saying they have the tech but are they planning to have TVC on the platform, fluidic or otherwise?
Here is an interesting research paper by Mr. Vinayagam from ADA and Mr. Sinha from IIT Madras, regarding the important role TVC could play at shortening the take off distance for a given platform. They are taking F-18s with two GE404s as the main example here. Not exactly something unknown to the forum members here but its still a good read. 28% reduction in ground roll distance and 6% reduction in overall take off distance can be achieved with the use of TVC, according to their calculations.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270772777_Optimal_Aircraft_Take-off_with_Thrust_Vectoring

 

[FalconSlayers]

Heya fellas,
I been visiting this forum for a long time. Only now, I decided to make an account to ask a few question. I hope to be in your care.
I have two basic queries about TEDBF.
1) Will it have an internal weapons bay, at least in the future? Is HAL/ADA even planning for this at all?
2) From the infographics posted above, it looks like they are saying they have the tech but are they planning to have TVC on the platform, fluidic or otherwise?
Here is an interesting research paper by Mr. Vinayagam from ADA and Mr. Sinha from IIT Madras, regarding the important role TVC could play at shortening the take off distance for a given platform. They are taking F-18s with two GE404s as the main example here. Not exactly something unknown to the forum members here but its still a good read. 28% reduction in ground roll distance and 6% reduction in overall take off distance can be achieved with the use of TVC, according to their calculations.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270772777_Optimal_Aircraft_Take-off_with_Thrust_Vectoring

Are you from India ?

 

[gutenmorgen]

Are you from India ?

Oh yes. Please don't be mistaken just by seeing my username.

 

[FalconSlayers]

Oh yes. Please don't be mistaken just by seeing my username.

Jai Shree Ram

 

[gutenmorgen]

Jai Shree Ram

Jai Jai Shree Ram.

 

[flanker99]

Heya fellas,
I have been visiting this forum for a long time. Only now, I decided to make an account and ask a few questions. I hope to be in your care.
I have two basic queries about TEDBF.
1) Will it have an internal weapons bay, at least in the future? Is HAL/ADA even planning for this at all?
2) From the infographics posted above, it looks like they are saying they have the tech but are they planning to have TVC on the platform, fluidic or otherwise?
Here is an interesting research paper by Mr. Vinayagam from ADA and Mr. Sinha from IIT Madras, regarding the important role TVC could play at shortening the take off distance for a given platform. They are taking F-18s with two GE404s as the main example here. Not exactly something unknown to the forum members here but its still a good read. 28% reduction in ground roll distance and 6% reduction in overall take off distance can be achieved with the use of TVC, according to their calculations.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270772777_Optimal_Aircraft_Take-off_with_Thrust_Vectoring

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.
Im not making this up the same guy who told me about that cats warrior side bay thing also gave me this info ,he talked with the tedbf project director

 

[gutenmorgen]

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).

 

[flanker99]

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?
Imo just like AF navy too will be heavily dependent on drones like warrior.

 

[gutenmorgen]

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?
Imo just like AF navy too will be heavily dependent on drones like warrior.

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.
Not to mention, it would have been sort of poetic. The chinese having a canard delta for their air force and a non canard one for their navy, while we doing the exact opposite.

 

[Lonewolf]

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.
Not to mention, it would have been sort of poetic. The chinese having a canard delta for their air force and a non canard one for their navy, while we doing the exact opposite.

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 .

 

[gutenmorgen]

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.
Stealth is a comparatively new concept so we don't know what the future will hold but F-35s are already on carriers( the troubles they are facing will be ironed out). And JC31s will probably be next. All I am saying is that there should at least be a version of TEDBF capable of doing that because chances of a navy AMCA is close to none. Our carriers currently carry close to one and a half squadron of fixed wing aircrafts. They can have a full squadron of non stealth TEDBFs along with 6-8 stealth ones.
That is why I am saying that IAF should pitch in because navy probably wont be able to fund this for only a dozen or more of these types.

 

[flanker99]

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.
Not to mention, it would have been sort of poetic. The chinese having a canard delta for their air force and a non canard one for their navy, while we doing the exact opposite.

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.
I agree with u on IWB but navy seems to be giving bigger ordenance and fuel tanks more priority.
I dont think IAF will bother with ORCA if they go ahead with MRFA and mig29 will be replaced by tejas mk2 also do note tedbf has overlapping timelines with amca.If IAf wants a new jet more AMCA is no brain er.

 

[gutenmorgen]

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.
I agree with u on IWB but navy seems to be giving bigger ordenance and fuel tanks more priority.
I dont think IAF will bother with ORCA if they go ahead with MRFA and mig29 will be replaced by tejas mk2 also do note tedbf has overlapping timelines with amca.If IAf wants a new jet more AMCA is no brain er.

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.
IMHO quantity matter too.