some irregularities here my friend TEDBF will come with surplus sensors embedded in its airframe…
Ok, but at this time it is not clear that extra volume will be occupied by fuel or how many sensors. Even in AMCA also DoD has not shown the sensors yet.
So "surplus" need to be elaborated bcoz future oriented jets, 4+ or 5th gen, need to have a minimum set including DAS/MAWS, EOTS, L-Band, VHF/UHF/SATCOM & other bands for EW. The RF & optical sensors should give spherical cover, no blind spots.
There cannot be any discount on senson package bcoz these are also multi-functional themselves, like DAS functions also as MAWS & fixed IRST, EOTS also functions as IRST. Similarly future antennas, front/upper/lower/rear will act as radar/jammer/MADL, etc, F-35 to some extent already doing it, work is in progress even for Rafale F5/6 till FCAS comes. Many dedicated H/w circuit functions are migrated to S/w defined functions.
BTW, Rafale uses separate big heavy EOTS/LDP pod even after having OSF which serves upper hemisphere only, this is unacceptable in future.
And the present structure of TEDBF needs massive tweaking for RCS reduction, i will explain in another post. Its canards are a big concern. Hence till we don't implement IWB & other aspects, we need very strong EW.
DIRCM has also emerged as a requirement like in Su-57 which has a slender airframe & we have worked to some extent with Russians before rejecting it rightly overall. So hopefully our future platforms should also have it.
f16 is a metal plane it is supposed to be heavier than any composite one
I can't comment in detail bcoz i don't know how much weight reduction composite does against metal. But entire airframe cannot be composite. Some areas require titanium, aluminium, etc due temperature, pressure & chemical constraints.
Moreover moving from F-16 to F35 using more composites also the empty weight jumped from 8.5 to 13.1 tons. We should not panic aboutweight increase bcoz it is about a gen leap which requires a stronger engine to maintain T/W ratio which matters more.
Rafale with twin Engines weights less than 10T
Tedbf being slightly bigger, expect it to weight same as AMCA 11T(without IWB & all navy stuff)
specs:-
empty weight:-11T
Internal fuel :- 7.5T(6.5T is for AMCA, navy fighters need more fuel)
Payload. :- 7.5T
if they wanted heavier fighter than AMCA of IAF they would have been happy with the naval version of it, lesser funding require!!
N-AMCA with IWB 13T(easily doable) without it 12-12.5T.
So, a Single engine fighter if AMCA & TEDBF had a baby
with one less f414 engine(1.1T) smaller size than AMCA 18M to 16M(atleast 1T) but a slightly bigger engine (300-400kg)
11T(AMCA weight)-(1.1+1)T +.4T=9.3T
Rounding off everything to 9.5T approx same weight as rafale(for reference) another composite material build fighter with twin engine we traded one engine for IWB & slightly longer frame by 0.7m but definitely smaller wings!!
a 9.5T is doable with all the techs rafale comes with, the golden child of IAF!
In previous reply i took F-16 as base. Now if we take Rafale as base then as per public data, Rafale M weighs 10.6 tons & AF/C variant weighs 9.9 tons. So TEDBF by size/volume comparison has to be b/w 11-12 tons.
I considered 12 tons bcoz like i said Rafale uses external EOTS/LDP pod, only 2 DDM hemispherical MAWS on rudder but its fuselage & wing creates huge blindspot. It has 3 LWRs & 3 jammers giving full coverage which is good.
F-35 use multiple directional MADL antennas which Rafale doesn't.
F-35 has inbuilt towed RF decoy which is separate external attachment under wing in Rafale.
So if we add all these things then
Rafale C (9.9 tons) + EOTS/LDP + 2 more DDM + CFT + towed decoy + other aux/secret components = easily 11.5-12 tons, may be more.
Here is a basic raw but cool artist's CG of modified Rafale
And i personally would like to see 3 DIRCM apertures, flares alone may not be enough. So add 1 more ton, now empty weight becomes 14tons (30,856 lbs) as F-35 doesn't have DIRCMs.
It is the T/W ratio which matters more.
At this time, looking at equiment miniaturization & compaction, composite usage, stealth features, etc, F-35A/CTOL weighing 13 tons seems to be best reference point for 1-engine 5th gen AF jet.
Hence the puzzling thing about TEDBF Vs AMCA is TEDBF w/o IWB is assumed/quoted 12 tons & AMCA with IWB is assumed/quoted 11 tons, how? I really fear now that AMCA might compromise fuel capacity & EW package.
Somehow we need to clear the weight diff. of individual components like -
- Naval & AF landing gear
- Naval & AF wing
- 1 Vs 2 rudders
- weight of IWB structure
At this time i cannot take AMCA's weight as a base to derive something. We don't know its RF & EO sensor package yet.
If TEDBF w/o IWB is quoted 12 tons then N-AMCA with IWB, all sensors would be easily 14-15 tons empty.
we can’t even compare F35 tech with AMCA why will we try compete with ORCA what matters is it suffices our needs. We should first learn to walk then Run and after that we can compete!
Walk is Tejas mk1,mk1a,mk2
Run will be TEDBF,AMCA,ORCA
then will see…too early to expect F35 type
We boast about our global CEOs, S/w engineers, Indian brains, so what's the problem?
Look at Russia, frozen popsicle country. Russian Ruble & INR have 1:1 ratio but Russia alone has always stood up till date, from World War to Cold War to Cyprus/Syria to now in Crimea/Ukarine. USA+EU also skeptical in conventional war.
We should know precisely what/where we are lagging & in how much time we can level-up, otherwise our education system is crap.
When we say OUR needs, we have to very careful bcoz time, technology evolution, adversary's advancement won't wait. With J-10 China went slightly ahead of us, with J-20 they leaped ahead & now another leap with J-35. I hate to say this but communist/socialist economy has this benefit, they never allow business tycoons to become so powerful like white-collar mafia that they can run/puppet/challenge/fund/deny the government. Beyond certain limit every profit goes to government, compared to capitalit economy.
Freshers are buying costly gadgets on EMI, LOL! Same goes with other over-budgeted things like cars, apparels, accesories, etc. These foreign companies are draining our wealth & funding their R&D.
We can't nationalize/socialize these things; rather than sanitizing typical "sarkari naukri latsahab" attitude we are talking about more privatization in a heterogenous country.
Fuel prices cannot be hiked.
From where will money come for our R&D?
For how long we will give excuse & remain a follower rather than leader?
On the name of crawling then walking then running,
In electronics goods industry do we manufacture vaccum tubes 1st? NO. Do we perform practical in engineering colleges on vaccum tubes? NO. I'm BE in CT.
We didn't design 1st gen, 2nd gen, 3rd gen but directly 4th gen LCA.
So whats stopping our R&D? The corrupted politicians, our own spoiled expenditure habit, importing attitude, inferiority complex but still boasting & bragging, being delusional, not learning even in decades.
ORCA with same specs as Rafale but indigenous & a single engine fighter, IAF couldn’t resist!
Crew: 1 or 2
Length: 16 m
Wingspan: 9.9m
Height: 5.34 m
Wing area: 45.7 m2
Empty weight: 9,500 kg
Gross weight: 15,000 kg
Max takeoff weight: 22,500 kg
Fuel capacity: 4,800 kg (10,362 lb) internal for single-seater (C); 4,400 kg (9,700 lb) for two-seater (B)
Powerplant: 1 × Ganga turbofans, 100.04 kN thrust dry, 144 kN with afterburner
Performance
Maximum speed: 2,400 km/h, Mach 2.0 at high altitude 1,390 km/h, 860 mph, 750 kn / Mach 1.1 at low altitude
Super-cruise: Mach 1.5
Combat range: 1,850 km (1,150 mi, 1,000 nmi) on penetration mission with three tanks (5,700 L combined), two SCALP-EG and two MICA AAMs.
Ferry range: 3,700 km (2,300 mi, 2,000 nmi) with 3 drop tanks
Service ceiling: 16,000m
g limits: +9 −3.6 (+11 in emergencies)
Rate of climb: 304.8 m/s (60,000 ft/min)
Wing loading: 328 kg/m2 (67 lb/sq ft)
Thrust/weight: 1.07
i wish they add twin canted vertical stabilisers to TEDBF design.
This is photo of early CALF/JAST design prototype, not production jet. Just like there is diff. b/w incomplete X-35 & complete F-35.
And i don't even wanna consider LCA or N-LCA.
Also, if we talk about sensor fusuion, AI/ML then 2nd pilot/WSO is not needed, especially in small/medium jet. That precious space can be used for fuel, avionics or equipment. Just like in a videogame the digital wingmen can be instructed to attack, defend, escort, recon, change formation, etc, same can be done by pilot to its UCAV/drone wingmen.
Hence I already explained with calculation that 9.5tons empty weight with 5th gen requirement/components is simply impossible. Can't stress more.
But I will be glad if someone can show me weight of individual 5th gen components & add them below 10 tons. I tried it few years back, couldn't pull it down much. I wish i had saved that table.
1 vertical tail dangerously reflects RF waves to sides at 90 degrees. It is like broadcasting sideways "I'M HERE". Angled twin tails of lesser size will have to do the trick.
We need cheap fighters like mk1a, mk2 we don’t need rafale let alone AMCA for Pakis!
They went for j10 as soon as tejas mk2 cdr got completed although the talks were going on for past couple of years. Abit disappointed with HAL for delaying mk2 few months would have been a sight to watch if it was rolled out on 15Aug22.
What we sow is what we reap. It applies to every country - Bharat, China, Pak, US, UK, France, Russia, S-Korea, etc.
If we go for cheap jets then we have to be prepared for massive attrition as well bcoz SAMs & AAMs are evolving everywhere.
All 4th gen jets will be shot down like mosquitos on both sides.
Instead we should invest in drone/UCAVs for lobbying missile salvos & IDN (Integrated Defence Network) of SAMs. That way in a 2-front war also if they try to overwhelm us with their numbers then they will face tough time with more pilot lost than us.
Repeating myself, today, a sub-continental country like ours doesn't suit light small jet, its airframe & engine are simply not enough. Light jet is good for small countries like Sweden, BD, SriLanka, SE Asian countries, SAfrican countries who can't afford anything properly alone & are dependant on union of countries heavily. So overloading LCA airframe to MK1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, etc won't suffice in future, that's why it is being inflated to MK2/MWF, hence i said that MWF should have been switched to immediately in early 2000s to counter J-10. Now J-10C has TVC with canards which MK2/MWF should have.
But airframe has not evolved except canards, no proper stealth treatment has been given either to J-10 or MWF but we have an opportunity to do it before J-10D/E does it. I'm sure they will try to copy Sukhoi Checkmate in a new design perhaps.
That could never have happened as IAF culture is buying foreign platforms going to shopping rather than creating one with the team, See how navy is committing itself to TEDBF working closely with them to get the desired results.
Already said above:
typical "sarkari naukri latsahab" attitude
corrupted politicians,
our own spoiled expenditure habit,
importing attitude,
inferiority complex but
still boasting & bragging,
being delusional,
not learning even in decades,
inter-state racism,
jealosy
On this forum itself & elsewhere, some members instead of discussing politely, try to pass personal comments on new members without introduction & knowing them.
VTOL fighter could be a different fighter if that would have been done with F35 it would have been the best of the best fighter. Why try everything with the same airframe! TEDBF’s canards will be great for navy as will help in landing at lower speeds. AMCA doesn’t need this so a different design but with same components ranging from radar to engines!
In F-35C & overall in all 3 versions, the need for canard has been removed from early CALF/JAST designs. Instead they used a AERODYNAMIC-LIFTING-BODY concept, if we look at the nose, chin, cheek, intake closely. Without VTOL F-35 could have used TVC.
The MCA in LCA days was tail-less TVC delta concept which changed to traditional tandem bi-plane AMCA. During that time itself instead of delta-canard TEDBF, using lifting body concept we should have created N-AMCA MK1 w/o IWB & the MK2 could have IWB when stronger engine would be available.
The USN will probably extend the aero-lifting-body concept through partially blended-wing-body concept as depicted in 2 engined F/A-XX concept which we can also do with N-AMCA while there is time.
en.m.wikipedia.org
). Lockheed Martin showed concept of laser pod on F-16 but that doesn't make F-16 as 6th or even 5.5 gen jet.
