TEDBF or ORCA Updates

[flanker99]

In TEDBF?

Yes

 

[Johny_Baba]

I'm sorry kinda out of updates,
will current model of TEDBF (one that looks like Rafale at front) have confrontal fuel tanks? i mean previous illustrations by our guys here shown that if i remember correctly.

 

[FalconSlayers]

I'm sorry kinda out of updates,
will current model of TEDBF (one that looks like Rafale at front) have confrontal fuel tanks? i mean previous illustrations by our guys here shown that if i remember correctly.

It seems so that the streamlined bulge out of the upper fuselage seems to have one and it also appears in the specs as it’s fuel carrying capacity is higher than usual 4th Gen aircrafts.

 

[Karthi]

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

Internal Weapons bay not possible , need a complete redesign , but they can do it if they want but We have naval AMCA so the possibility is slim.

TVC once again we can incorporate if we want but chances are slim , Fluidic Thrust Vectoring we developed is for Ghatak so need time to prove the tech again they can adopt it if they want . It's all depends on the choice of the Navy

 

[FalconSlayers]

In TEDBF?

@Kuntal please make a rendering of an AMCA with CATS Hunter and CATS Alfa on pylons with 4 Ghatak UCAVs and 2 Wingmans on its flank with pseudo satellite hovering above, with a decent background scenes of snowy mountains of Kashmir, Deserts of Rajasthan, Coasts of Goa and Forests of North East. Bhai please will look awesome .

 

[Bleh]

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

Teddy already has a moderately serpentine intake as you can see, but not as much as AMCA. I don't know why it'll reduce thrust... It probably generates more area-drag & creates vortex in the airflow. Not sure.

I'm sorry kinda out of updates,
will current model of TEDBF (one that looks like Rafale at front) have confrontal fuel tanks? i mean previous illustrations by our guys here shown that if i remember correctly.

Absolutely not!.. The fuselage shaping has confused a some laymans who can't tell a what's a CFT.
Above you will notice that ADA has shaped Teddy's fuselage like that to increase internal volume instead, while getting better alignment with area-rule without that bulged spine like MWF & (new) AMCA... But there's no conformal tank. It's part of the main fuselage.


.
Speaking of spine. @Kuntal noticed that the CFD from ADA Brochure don't have a spine, but a smooth back. Theoretically it should reduce both drag & RCS.

Should it be ditched in the render (ADA might do it in future)? Opinions?

 

[Bleh]

Teddy with & without a spine...

 

[gutenmorgen]

Internal Weapons bay not possible , need a complete redesign , but they can do it if they want but We have naval AMCA so the possibility is slim.

TVC once again we can incorporate if we want but chances are slim , Fluidic Thrust Vectoring we developed is for Ghatak so need time to prove the tech again they can adopt it if they want . It's all depends on the choice of the Navy

Naval AMCA?? When did that happen?
Source please..

 

[Lonewolf]

Naval AMCA?? When did that happen?
Source please..

In 2036 or after , when naval stealth fighter will become a viable option , we don't need high stealth in naval mission , where will they invade with stealth , they need capability of area denial and anti ship role , some air to air combat too, but too stealthy isn't a requirement right now , main threat are china and Pakistan , china will never send it's all aircraft carrier to IOR , we can expect a carrier battle group with j 16 only / su 33 , their stealth fighter is in development for naval purpose and won't be ready by 2025 or later , even then they will use it against india as they have to tackle US in SCS region .

They are developing fc 31 for naval role , but poor production quality is a problem with it , maintainability will be a issue as it is being a cost effective fighter not some top notch jet , also it's engine are not too much power generating so won't have good avionics , if our Teddy incorporate a good avionics suite with it's awesome weapon payload it will eat up fc 31

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

Naval AMCA was in Navy's mind, since 2015-16. ADA even completed a feasibility study for them. However few things came up:

1. Navy wanted Naval AMCA to be designed and developed first, based on that Airforce version to be developed.

2. However, little interest was shown to Navy's proposal from IAF or ADA.

3. Thus the situation was made clear to the Navy that airforce version of AMCA will be developed first, based on which Naval version was to be developed.

4. Navy studied this proposal and concluded that timeline of NAMCA was to be 2035-40 at the earliest. The developement can only begin once airforce version has flown by 2025. Aany delay in Airforce version will cause likely delay in the start of NAMCA programme.
Also, this NAMCA will have operational compromises as a naval fighter, like Naval Tejas.

5. Navy further studied its own operational requirement about payload carrying capacity, and the fact that carriers can be spotted from satellite.

6. Thus in 2019-2020 Navy decided to go for a clean sheet 4.5 gen TEDBF to be inducted by 2031.

 

[MonaLazy]

Teddy .. serpentine intake.. don't know why it'll reduce thrust..

Hello Bleh.. Big fan of your posts here and on the bird app..


Coming from TEDBF PD Vinod Kumar Sir @AI2021

"No serpentine intakes because we want good pressure recovery to launch an aircraft at 125m(lightweight config)-195m so thrust generation we cannot compromise at all. Any loss of thrust for the sake of stealth is a compromise. We are not even attempting serpentine intakes- to whatever extent we can shield the engine face that'll be happening."

 

[Bleh]

In 2036 or after , when naval stealth fighter will become a viable option , we don't need high stealth in naval mission , where will they invade with stealth , they need capability of area denial and anti ship role , some air to air combat too, but too stealthy isn't a requirement right now , main threat are china and Pakistan , china will never send it's all aircraft carrier to IOR , we can expect a carrier battle group with j 16 only / su 33 , their stealth fighter is in development for naval purpose and won't be ready by 2025 or later , even then they will use it against india as they have to tackle US in SCS region .

They are developing fc 31 for naval role , but poor production quality is a problem with it , maintainability will be a issue as it is being a cost effective fighter not some top notch jet , also it's engine are not too much power generating so won't have good avionics , if our Teddy incorporate a good avionics suite with it's awesome weapon payload it will eat up fc 31

With J-31 the kinks surfacing exactly what we would if we would attempted to convert AMCA into a naval version instead of tailorfp-made the Teddy for IN.

Like Mig-29K, even Su-33 & J-15 can't take off with anything more than 4-6 AAMs.

 

[Bleh]

@Kuntal's teddy... Almost ready...

But 1st it'll need NASM-SR, RudraM-2 & CATS Hunter (I doubt it can take off sky-jump with Nirbhay-ALCM, Brahmos-NG or RudraM-3)... Plus an escort-jammer pod for centreline pylon.

 

[Johny_Baba]

Just wondering if it's possible to integrate F-35 style EOTS on both TEDBF and AMCA, of course integrated with the aircraft under its radome//nose cone or something like that.

 

[FalconSlayers]

Just wondering if it's possible to integrate F-35 style EOTS on both TEDBF and AMCA, of course integrated with the aircraft under its radome//nose cone or something like that.

What’s the purpose of an EOTS when we can use Targetting pod.

 

[Bleh]

What’s the purpose of an EOTS when we can use Targetting pod.

Exactly @Johny_Baba. EOTS is meant for fulky stealthy aircrafts carrying weapons internally, trying to remain as clean as possible.

 

[Johny_Baba]

What’s the purpose of an EOTS when we can use Targetting pod.

having another free pylon for something ? besides we're aiming to increase payloads on both jets so maybe such thing could help a bit ?

 

[FalconSlayers]

having another free pylon for something ? besides we're aiming to increase payloads on both jets so maybe such thing could help a bit ?

The pylon using Targetting Pods can’t be used for weapons afaik.

 

[FalconSlayers]

Exactly @Johny_Baba. EOTS is meant for fulky stealthy aircrafts carrying weapons internally, trying to remain as clean as possible.

Bro if F-35 has DAS then why does it require an EOTS with IRST in it?

 

[Bleh]

Bro if F-35 has DAS then why does it require an EOTS with IRST in it?

In simple words... EOTS for attack, DAS for defence. Teddy might get AMCA's DAS, but it won't need EOTS because it already has plenty of large crap under wings. What's one more pod?

That's why it's getting escort-jammer pod.