TEDBF or ORCA Updates

[flanker99]

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.

IMO too many minus but less plus points for IAF,IAF has not publicly commented on ORCA yet to show support unlike navy so lets see.
The only way i see them getting ORCA is they scrap MRFA go and for 36 more rafales which would leave a gap in the category that can be fulfilled by it but i wont be betting on it

 

[FalconSlayers]

IAF should openly accept ORCA, as their support will be critical and will make sure the aircrafts go into production early.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

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.

TEDBF will be slightly heavier than AMCA. Also, it will carry more weapons. So AMCA will have better T/W ratio (if both aircrafts has same engine) and not the other way round.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

IAF should openly accept ORCA, as their support will be critical and will make sure the aircrafts go into production early.

Currently ORCA will be piggybacking on TEDBF project. Problem is first Navy should settle on a preliminary design for TEDBF. Currentlt both canard-delta as well as trapezoidal wings+tail configuration is considered. Only after TEDBF design finalization, ORCA can be conceptualized. Hence IAF is not blindly saying YES to ORCA programme, even though the requirement of such fighters exists.

 

[gutenmorgen]

TEDBF will be slightly heavier than AMCA. Also, it will carry more weapons. So AMCA will have better T/W ratio (if both aircrafts has same engine) and not the other way round.

I haven't found anything regarding the weight of TEDBF so I could be wrong but I don't see how that is possible since TEDBF is almost a full metre shorter than AMCA. Also a high T/W ratio is a necessity for the Navy(STOBAR carriers) and not something that is nice to have.
If possible, please point me to the source of this info.

 

[gutenmorgen]

IMO too many minus but less plus points for IAF,IAF has not publicly commented on ORCA yet to show support unlike navy so lets see.
The only way i see them getting ORCA is they scrap MRFA go and for 36 more rafales which would leave a gap in the category that can be fulfilled by it but i wont be betting on it

So IMHO, MRFA is for immediate requirement only. ORCA should be looked as extra airframes which will come in the future. IAF will need more squadrons in the future. Regional and world scenario is changing fast.

 

[A chauhan]

From Defence Matrix :-

 

[FalconSlayers]

From Defence Matrix :-

 

[FalconSlayers]

Ya’ll Nibbiars

 

[FalconSlayers]

Ya’ll Nibbiars

@Bleh, isn’t the canopy too huge?

 

[Akula]

From Defence Matrix :-

View attachment 78693

@BON PLAN

 

[Bleh]

.

 

[Killbot]

.

View attachment 79201

IWB??!! Is this a fan render or something official?

 

[Bleh]

IWB??!! Is this a fan render or something official?

Forward landing-gear

@Kuntal is working on the model.

But we must not expect the final iteration of TEDBF to look anything like this. This is just going into wind-tunnels & you know what happened with Tejas Mark2 & AMCA designs.

 

[FalconSlayers]

Forward landing-gear

@Kuntal is working on the model. View attachment 79206

But we must not expect the final iteration of TEDBF to look anything like this. This is just going into wind-tunnels & you know what happened with Tejas Mark2 & AMCA designs.

This design definitely is not matured, but one thing I notice is a conformal fuel tank streamlined with the airframe design with 0 drag. And the Cockpit is very huge, it occupies the nose cone heavily, I feel a GaN radar will be used If this design’s nose cone and cockpit will remain same, and it’s canards position might change.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

I would like the canard in TEDBF to be plainform aligned with the wing. Would help to reduce frontal RCS.

 

[Killbot]

Forward landing-gear

Sorry I was really off the mark lol

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

Serpentile intake is ruled out due to loss of thrust (as per DDR interview).

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

I hear MWF will roll out in 2022

 

[FalconSlayers]

Serpentile intake is ruled out due to loss of thrust (as per DDR interview).

In TEDBF?