TEDBF or ORCA Updates

Ar.gaurav28

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2021
Messages
153
Likes
442
Country flag
Now what the heck is rv mk2
And is it stealthy?
Could be a single engine stealth fighter maybe manned or could be unmanned!
nothing concrete is explained neither denied...
thus which means it’s on Back burner according to latest development as ada already have its plate full!
 

SavageKing456

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2020
Messages
991
Likes
4,289
Country flag
Research Vehicle.

Basically two numbers of prototype vehicles. One scale model for ground test, another for flight test for various active stealth tech.

Out of these, one is already made.
Too many question cooking in my mind ;)
1.Wouldn't it be developed into a combat aircraft?
2.Source of one is already made?
3.is this the design,if yes then imo good looking(took from idrw though)
large.jpg
 

[email protected]

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,325
Likes
4,907
Country flag
Too many question cooking in my mind ;)
1.Wouldn't it be developed into a combat aircraft?
2.Source of one is already made?
3.is this the design,if yes then imo good looking(took from idrw though)View attachment 88482
1. I think this RV is nothing but the TD models which is to be developed befor AMCA first prototype roll out in 2024.
2. We heard that VEM is constructing a 1:1 scale model for RCS testing and it was to be completed by 2020 or 2021.
3. This image from idrw is just a fanart nothing else.
 

MonaLazy

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Messages
322
Likes
1,599
Can anyone tell if TEDBF has certain design compromises to be able to cater to IAC-1 and VKD?
Yes, folding wings for one which increase complexity (hence maintenance) & weight and generate yet another possible point of failure in an already complex system like naval aircraft. Folding wings are necessary to be able to use the lifts of our ACCs.

The other compromise is since our ACCs are STOBAR, and don't assist take-offs with a catapult- it limits weight to missiles & fuel tanks that can be air borne powered purely by engines.
 
Last edited:

Trololo

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2017
Messages
497
Likes
1,305
Country flag
Yes, folding wings for one which increase complexity (hence maintenance) & weight and generate yet another possible point of failure in an already complex system like naval aircraft. Folding wings are necessary to be able to use the lifts of our ACCs.

The other compromise is since our ACCs are STOBAR, and don't assist take-offs with a catapult- it limits weight to missiles & fuel tanks that can be air borne powered purely by engines.
Folding wings are a proven technology. I hope that for IAC-2 and later they make a Mk2 version of TEDBF where STOBAR restrictions are junked and perhaps an IWB is added. TEDBF design from outside at least looks like it is taking KFX route which will have IWB in subsequent versions.
 

MonaLazy

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Messages
322
Likes
1,599
Folding wings are a proven technology.
Proven it may be, but it is a compromise with the capability of the aircraft. The mechanism for folding wings & its control cables occupies space and adds weight which could have been used for payload (fuel+weapons). Not to mention, something that needs periodic inspection & maintenance and is another point of failure the servicing technicians need to worry about. Because of IVHMS there will be sensors and wiring monitoring its health and reporting on pilot's/service engineer's dashboard- weight penalties all around.

Rafale M evades this compromise totally. The only reason IAF has it as a mandatory ASQR is because of physical limitations of the carrier lifts on both our ACCs- if the lifts were large enough for one or even two planes of TEDBF size to operate with full wing span, then we would not be talking about this.
 

Trololo

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2017
Messages
497
Likes
1,305
Country flag
Proven it may be, but it is a compromise with the capability of the aircraft. The mechanism for folding wings & its control cables occupies space and adds weight which could have been used for payload (fuel+weapons). Not to mention, something that needs periodic inspection & maintenance and is another point of failure the servicing technicians need to worry about. Because of IVHMS there will be sensors and wiring monitoring its health and reporting on pilot's/service engineer's dashboard- weight penalties all around.

Rafale M evades this compromise totally. The only reason IAF has it as a mandatory ASQR is because of physical limitations of the carrier lifts on both our ACCs- if the lifts were large enough for one or even two planes of TEDBF size to operate with full wing span, then we would not be talking about this.
Then it only makes sense that IAC-2 avoid this corundum and it gets designed so that a Mk1A or even a Mk2 of the TEDBF can be made which doesn't have folding wings. But in all likelihood that won't be the case because of the space benefits of the folding wings
 

MonaLazy

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Messages
322
Likes
1,599
space benefits of folding wings
It is a lot more involved than that, as someone from the other forum points out-

image_2021-05-13_205952.png


Every design choice on a high performance aircraft is a trade-off. As a designer ADA has to see if it is comfortable with what it gets for its choices, as compared to what it lets go.

Unfortunately, in this case there is no choice really- since if you do not have folding wings on TEDBF it will not be housed in the parking bays of both our present ACCs. & I'm guessing from the folded wing compromise they are happily making it is imminently more difficult to enlarge the lifts on the two carriers. Legacy platforms/bad design choices made decades ago ensure a sub-par TEDBF design long into the 2030s.
 

Ar.gaurav28

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2021
Messages
153
Likes
442
Country flag
1. I think this RV is nothing but the TD models which is to be developed befor AMCA first prototype roll out in 2024.
2. We heard that VEM is constructing a 1:1 scale model for RCS testing and it was to be completed by 2020 or 2021.
3. This image from idrw is just a fanart nothing else.
1.If that’s the case why rv mk2 where is rv mk1?why nobody is asking about when we could see Mark 2 rv??
Mark 2 rv stealth aircraft program in itself states it’s another/second stealth aircraft program!
2.Scale model and rv are two different things. Why after all the hype Tejas mk2 being called MWF, now it’s suddenly dropped??any plans for a 20ton maximum take off 5th gen fighter??
3. I completely agree with this view as of now I feel it only on papers nothing concrete thus nobody is talking and everyone in the defence fraternity is tight lip about it!
...
Does anyone have any idea about the empty weight of TEDBF.?
 

Lonewolf

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
3,600
Likes
10,347
Country flag
1.If that’s the case why rv mk2 where is rv mk1?why nobody is asking about when we could see Mark 2 rv??
Mark 2 rv stealth aircraft program in itself states it’s another/second stealth aircraft program!
2.Scale model and rv are two different things. Why after all the hype Tejas mk2 being called MWF, now it’s suddenly dropped??any plans for a 20ton maximum take off 5th gen fighter??
3. I completely agree with this view as of now I feel it only on papers nothing concrete thus nobody is talking and everyone in the defence fraternity is tight lip about it!
...
Does anyone have any idea about the empty weight of TEDBF.?

11 ton , if targeting pod is internalized ,then some 11.5 ton type .
 

Trololo

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2017
Messages
497
Likes
1,305
Country flag
For the 3rd carrier the TEDBF should be inducted in a Mk2 form with internal weapons and greater stealth features. This assumes the 3rd carrier will be CATOBAR and the TEDBF's evolution path is similar to KFX.
 

[email protected]

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,325
Likes
4,907
Country flag
For the 3rd carrier the TEDBF should be inducted in a Mk2 form with internal weapons and greater stealth features. This assumes the 3rd carrier will be CATOBAR and the TEDBF's evolution path is similar to KFX.
TEDBF has provisions for external weapons only because Navy demanded it. They specifically rejected a Naval version of AMCA because of the restrictions imposed by its stealth design on its aerodynamic, and weapons carrying capability in a Naval operations.
 

Ar.gaurav28

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2021
Messages
153
Likes
442
Country flag
TEDBF has provisions for external weapons only because Navy demanded it. They specifically rejected a Naval version of AMCA because of the restrictions imposed by its stealth design on its aerodynamic, and weapons carrying capability in a Naval operations.
A TEDBF with internal weapons bay like f35 can do it both!
* low radar cross section (compared to rafale)
* better aerodynamic performance
* lighter than what Naval AMCA would have been!
* could be used as stealth fighter with just internal weapons for deep penetration inside enemy territory (south China/Corona sea) & as well as in beast mode in front on conflict!

On each side of the fuselage there is a hard point, if a weapons bay like f35 is added then it can carry 2 missiles on each sides raising it total 4 missiles!!
 

MonaLazy

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Messages
322
Likes
1,599
rejected a Naval version of AMCA
For some reason, folks here keep bringing that up. Stealth is not the answer to everything! If anything it is an aerodynamic compromise for being low observable. TEDBF is best the way it is because no one knows their requirements better than IN!

If you really start thinking stealth TEDBF:
  1. Are you OK with the low pressure recovery, and hence low power output with serpentine intakes?
  2. Are you OK with low weapons load take off from carrier deck? How many missions can you fulfill with a light load?
  3. Is TEDBF to take out enemy planes in the air, or to also target their vessels? What is the weight/size of anti ship missiles vs A2A missiles? Again are you willing to compromise on take-off weight + safety margin on an air strip which is itself bobbing about on the sea?
  4. What about operating costs? The cost of flying stealth is an order of magnitude more expensive.
  5. What about maintenance costs? Especially in harsh marine environs?
..there may be many more
 
Last edited:

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top