TEDBF or ORCA Updates

Bhartiya Sainik

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2021
Messages
377
Likes
1,035
Country flag
Again I want to say something here. I am not sure about the design of ORCA ,most people on this Forum assume that ORCA is just a TEDBF version for Indian Airforce and nothing else. Okay now let's assume that ORCA is actually nothing but TEDBF which is configured for Airforce than the following changes will have to be made in the Aircraft:
View attachment 131453
1) Remove the Arrestor hook from the Aircraft.
2) Reduce the strength of the undercarriage because TEDBF has a harderned undercarriage because Deck Based Fighters generally have that.
3) Retain the same engines which which might be used in TEDBF.

Etc.....


I am aware that US Airforce doesn't use the FA-18 Super Hornet but the US navy does. US navy Operates into Different divisions which are known as the:
1)Pacific Fleet squadrons
2)Atlantic Fleet squadrons
3)Test and Evaluation squadrons
4)Warfighting Development Centers
5)Flight Demonstration squadrons

View attachment 131451
Also Each U.S. Navy deployable "Fleet" VFA squadron is Said to have a standard unit establishment of 12 aircraft. The original F-18 was never Designed for the Airforce but was designed for the Navy. So you can't say that FA-18 is not operated by its own armed forces be it Navy, Airforce or any other armed branch for that matter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with the rest of your points Though.
Why r u peeling the words & shiftling focus so precisely on F-18?
Basically US Armed forces = Army + Navy + AF + Marines. I'm not counting space force, coast guard & other hybrid, auxilliary & sub-divisions.
Demontration team like Blue-Angles, experimental jets like F-18 HARV & other test jets, chase planes for photography, etc, these jets are very less in number, why are u comparing these to active duty jets?
We are talking basically about Navy & AF, that's it. USAF doesn't use F-18 bcoz it trusts their F-15 & F-16 more, but other countries AF use F-18 means F-18 is worth AF of some country.
Similarly, in my opinion, light jet is good for small countries but not worth big sub-continental countries like ours, that's all.
Returning to topic of this thread, ORCA is not a big deal if TEDBF manifests. It will add to manufactuing experience & confidence. And if TEDBF/ORCA evolves to something like F/A-XX then our domestic & export future can be secured.
 

Super Flanker

Aviation and Defence Enthusiast
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2021
Messages
3,641
Likes
7,113
Country flag
Why r u peeling the words & shiftling focus so precisely on F-18?
Basically US Armed forces = Army + Navy + AF + Marines. I'm not counting space force, coast guard & other hybrid, auxilliary & sub-divisions.
Demontration team like Blue-Angles, experimental jets like F-18 HARV & other test jets, chase planes for photography, etc, these jets are very less in number, why are u comparing these to active duty jets?
We are talking basically about Navy & AF, that's it. USAF doesn't use F-18 bcoz it trusts their F-15 & F-16 more, but other countries AF use F-18 means F-18 is worth AF of some country.
Similarly, in my opinion, light jet is good for small countries but not worth big sub-continental countries like ours, that's all.
Returning to topic of this thread, ORCA is not a big deal if TEDBF manifests. It will add to manufactuing experience & confidence. And if TEDBF/ORCA evolves to something like F/A-XX then our domestic & export future can be secured.
Uhm I guess I might have gone a little overboard with my points right there. My argument is rendered useless at this point now, LOL.
 

Ar.gaurav28

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2021
Messages
193
Likes
651
Country flag
If the armed forces & R&D bodies have put this timeline & if they say they can manage & deliver then let's monitor progress on yearly basis. 10 years is a huge time for prototyping.
Do you know it has been 11+ years since we are developing AMCA and still there are few years to get even a single prototype let alone production line!
Putting up another prototype in the same time line we(iaf) could derail AMCA(the urgent need)
And compared to a new design it is easier to modify only small parts like gear & wing b/w AF & Navy especially when Navy is 1st priority then AF.
Your statement is my answer as it’s easier to change TEDBF to ORCA thus IAF will play smart and won’t be bothered about it till it’s ready and they feel a need for it(which will be bad news As it means AMCA failed)
But few more years of delay is ok if the DoD guys can deliver in their stated timeline & funding doesn't stop.
we are atleast a decade late bro China is about to make it’s 2nd 5th gen functional(j-31/35)
Rafale & TEDBF are 4.5 or 4++, some call it 4.75 (i wonder if there is a scale of 4.1 to 4.9 :lol:). 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.
no 2 fighters are same su30 and f15 are of same gen developed at almost at the same time but there is still difference between the two, rafale was designed in 1983.
TEDBF will have lower RCS, more powerful radar , bigger arms packages, the design suggests better transonic flight, potential of making it a true stealth fighter with internal weapons bay,etc
Why comparing TEDBF to F-15?
wasn’t comparing just giving an estimate about TEDBF’s maintenance cost!
yes, AMCA MK1 won't/shouldn't be as costly as F-22/35 bcoz F-22 is not exported even to closest allies, i wonder what super secret things it is still hiding & recently there is 11 Billion US$ MLU approved for F-22.
I read in some defence articles the real reason f22 wasn’t given to any allies was the tech in it would have been easily been reverse engineered thus cost of R&D would have been in vain.
this was also the very reason allies were added to f35 program very early to earn money in the name of R&D(my thinking)
MWF's MK2 version needs to evolve further into something like Sukhoi Checkmate.
if you think that way then developing TEDBF into a single engine fighter like su75 is much easily possible than converting mk2!
A single engine variant of the design with internal weapons bay like f35(space available after removing an engine) & having a common first half for the navy & IAF thus creating commonality and reducing maintenance and production costs.(all the important stuff are in the first half of a fighter except the engine)

Personally if it was upto me I would have scrap the MRFA and would have put half of that $25B into joint development with any of the worthy 6th gen projects most likely Japanese as coz of the ties between us two countries plus the common enemy!!
While getting your hands on 6th gen techs developing any 4-5th gen would have been cheaper and convenient!
& till that time would have produced as many tejas mk2 with the rest of the $12.5B…(200-300units)
By the time 2035 would have come, we could have all our indigenous fighter from 4th-6th gen in our airforce!!
 

SwordOfDarkness

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2021
Messages
1,447
Likes
7,143
Country flag
not much is out there it is still in it early phase drdo and various institutions(iits) are working on it but nothing concrete is out there!!


if the trend is to be believed
tejas mk1a-$41-45m(we know for sure)
rest might be…
tejas mk2-$60-70m
tedbf. -$80-90m
AMCA. -$110-150m
my prediction although media is ball parking prices pretty low and unrealistic…
somewhere i read AMCA‘s per unit cost expecting to be $80m!
Amca wont be 150 mill, HAL is a government entity, not lockheed martin whose job is making profit..... Even F35 is 90 mill. Maybe AMCA will be 100mill with full package included, but not 150mill by any stretch
 

MonaLazy

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Messages
986
Likes
6,118
Amca wont be 150 mill, HAL is a government entity, not lockheed martin whose job is making profit..... Even F35 is 90 mill. Maybe AMCA will be 100mill with full package included, but not 150mill by any stretch
+ innovation is cheaper in India.

 

Bhartiya Sainik

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2021
Messages
377
Likes
1,035
Country flag
Our concerns & priorities match but in addition i said that R&D & just the prototyping should not stop if situation, budget, etc are favorable.

Do you know it has been 11+ years since we are developing AMCA and still there are few years to get even a single prototype let alone production line!

Putting up another prototype in the same time line we(iaf) could derail AMCA(the urgent need)
11 years?? The basic concept of tail-less MCA was there since 20 years or so but we didn't see any tail-less TD LCA testing also.
1642142796079.png

Your concern is absolutely right, shared by me too. But i spoke of just TD prototype 1st then based on situation, comparison with MWF, export possibility, budget, etc we can decide further. So building 1 or 2 TD jets won't derial an entire AMCA program. The ultimate goal is to have a competent 5-5.5gen jet but that's should not stop R&D.

Your statement is my answer as it’s easier to change TEDBF to ORCA thus IAF will play smart and won’t be bothered about it till it’s ready and they feel a need for it(which will be bad news As it means AMCA failed)
How can we common citizens say when they will have need for what when geopolitics & technology are changing fast? What if they come up with MRCA 3.0 or 4.0 where Sukhoi Checkmate, Rafale F5/6 & other revealed jets will compete?

we are atleast a decade late bro China is about to make it’s 2nd 5th gen functional(j-31/35)

no 2 fighters are same su30 and f15 are of same gen developed at almost at the same time but there is still difference between the two, rafale was designed in 1983.

TEDBF will have lower RCS, more powerful radar , bigger arms packages, the design suggests better transonic flight, potential of making it a true stealth fighter with internal weapons bay,etc
Again, i also have same concern & their Naval J-35 is 5th gen but our TEDBF is not. So i shared idea of TEDBF MK1/2/3 options depending upon stronger engine availability in future. i even shared some basic calculation comparing to F-35.

wasn’t comparing just giving an estimate about TEDBF’s maintenance cost!
Naval jet should be compared with other naval jets like Rafale M, F-18E/F.

if you think that way then developing TEDBF into a single engine fighter like su75 is much easily possible than converting mk2!

A single engine variant of the design with internal weapons bay like f35(space available after removing an engine) & having a common first half for the navy & IAF thus creating commonality and reducing maintenance and production costs.(all the important stuff are in the first half of a fighter except the engine)
Sure, why not but with a very powerful engine like in F-35 & also with TVC. Who knows Sweden, S-Korea, Japan, Turkey, etc are secretly working on something similar. There are many concept CG models on the net.
Otherwise with GE-414, not really at all.
1642142973297.png

The debate b/w 1-engine economy & 2-engine redundancy & power, is never ending, there are people on both sides. Navies generally desire redundant 2 engines,it was tough to convince USN for 1 engine F-35. AF may have mix of both. Also depends on export desires.
The future gen needs to have both, but overall the sub-systems should be balanced.

Technically, definition wise, TEDBF, ORCA, MWF are just acronyms. Currently we have associated them with a preliminary shape & design, otherwise a MEDIUM WEIGHT jet can be 1 or 2 engined & these days every jet is supposed to be OMNI ROLE.
Traditional tandem biplane we have seen in small to big sizes & 1 or 2 engined.
Delta-canard can be small like Grippen or big like J-20.
In inevitable evolving future we will have HWF/AHCA but don't have preliminary shape & design yet.

But changing wing size & gear space are on the outermost layer of airframe, modifying them right from beginning from design board doesn't require much R&D headache.
While if huge central component like engine, duct are removed then associated accesories like heat exchangers, cooling tubing, gearbox, turbines, generators, electronic controllers, electrical wirings, cooling inlets & exhausts, so many things have to be repositioned or even redesigned. The shape & performance of airframe will drastically change, it will be a new jet altogether, which has to be built & tested actually, meaning far more money & time.
LM designed F-22 & F-35 of same gen yet they are so different.
Some people call F-35 as a FAT 1-engine jet, LOL! But it has a very powerful engine that's why it can have IWB & all 5th gen EW package.

While TEDBF, AMCA, MWF initially will use GE-414 engines which we have to use as a work-around. Actually more power is required for superior agility, IWB, power the electronics.
How much powerful engine we will have by domestic/import/JV & in how many years is a mystery for now.
So if 1-engine is removed from AMCA & TEDBF/ORCA but retaining same dimensions & volume then it will create IWB, blended CFT, but only 1 GE-414 cannot handle the desired T/W ratio.
There is no harm in doing some CAD/CFD modelling & preliminary R&D on 1 engine stealth ORCA &/or stealthy MWF. They can be same jet or 2 different jets.
Here is example of a Russian 1-engine stealth jet:
1642143190487.png


There was/is a Korean concept of a stealth 1-engine jet too
1642189287531.png


Personally if it was upto me I would have scrap the MRFA and would have put half of that $25B into joint development with any of the worthy 6th gen projects most likely Japanese as coz of the ties between us two countries plus the common enemy!!

While getting your hands on 6th gen techs developing any 4-5th gen would have been cheaper and convenient!

& till that time would have produced as many tejas mk2 with the rest of the $12.5B…(200-300units)

By the time 2035 would have come, we could have all our indigenous fighter from 4th-6th gen in our airforce!!
You gave example of of China's progress & it is supplementing Pak.
So MRCA/FA type of foreign tenders are put up when geoplitics & technology suddenly change & domestic builders cannot induct a desired platform in the desired time. We have come up only with LCA MK1 & can't defeat a jet like Rafale/EF-2000 & other contenders in most engagement instances. 1A & its inflated cousin MWF are still in progress. Hence the tenders 1.0, 2.0 & we might see 3.0 as well in future if TEDBF/ORCA/MWF/AMCA either don't come up in time or don't perform well as expected.

Japan will be joining Tempest program. S-Korea & Israel left. Nobody, forums, YT channels, talk shows, interviews, ever even talks about AHCA/HWF, i wonder why.

Beyond 2040, 4+ gen will be shot down like mosquitos, same like fate of retiring/retired jets today. It is a natural rule of evolution which not even USA, Russia, EU can avoid. The only thing which can be done is permutations of strategy & tactics.
 

Ar.gaurav28

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2021
Messages
193
Likes
651
Country flag
Sure, why not but with a very powerful engine like in F-35 & also with TVC. Who knows Sweden, S-Korea, Japan, Turkey, etc are secretly working on something similar. There are many concept CG models on the net.
Otherwise with GE-414, not really at all.
Not that much power needed a 140-150kn can do the job as we are already reducing the weight of TEDBF by removing one engine and smaller wings & lighter landing gears and no hook as it’s for IAF lesser fuel will do.
Single engine variant of TEDBF specs:-
Empty weight:- 9tons
Fuel capacity:- 4.5tons
MTW. :- 21.5tons(1.5tons internal)
is very much possible…f16‘s are powered by 132kn engine so xf9 engine(147kn) on which japan & uk(RR) are working on, we can join that!

The debate b/w 1-engine economy & 2-engine redundancy & power, is never ending, there are people on both sides. Navies generally desire redundant 2 engines,it was tough to convince USN for 1 engine F-35. AF may have mix of both. Also depends on export desires.
The future gen needs to have both, but overall the sub-systems should be balanced.
Agreed and somehow this is what the biggest obstacle for ORCA as we have su30 then AMCA & Rafale, except for tejas there wouldn’t be any single engine fighter in IAF inventory by 2035, if they(HAL) successfully builds AMCA the IAF‘s next request will be a single engine variant with same capabilities as it happened with F22/F35

Technically, definition wise, TEDBF, ORCA, MWF are just acronyms. Currently we have associated them with a preliminary shape & design, otherwise a MEDIUM WEIGHT jet can be 1 or 2 engined & these days every jet is supposed to be OMNI ROLE.
Traditional tandem biplane we have seen in small to big sizes & 1 or 2 engined.
Delta-canard can be small like Grippen or big like J-20.
In inevitable evolving future we will have HWF/AHCA but don't have preliminary shape & design yet.
True, I like the USAF philosophy back then of high-low combination as f16/f15 & was supposed to be f35/f22
something like that would be good for us as well…a 15-20t in combo with 25-30t just engines needs to be efficient and highly distortion resistant!

But changing wing size & gear space are on the outermost layer of airframe, modifying them right from beginning from design board doesn't require much R&D headache.
While if huge central component like engine, duct are removed then associated accesories like heat exchangers, cooling tubing, gearbox, turbines, generators, electronic controllers, electrical wirings, cooling inlets & exhausts, so many things have to be repositioned or even redesigned. The shape & performance of airframe will drastically change, it will be a new jet altogether, which has to be built & tested actually, meaning far more money & time.
LM designed F-22 & F-35 of same gen yet they are so different.
Some people call F-35 as a FAT 1-engine jet, LOL! But it has a very powerful engine that's why it can have IWB & all 5th gen EW package.
As it happened with fa18 hornet to super hornet!
f35’s so high expectations became its limitation as such a single fighter for all services, that’s why I was happy with navy’s decision to go with TEDBF than a naval version of AMCA a sorted approach!

You gave example of of China's progress & it is supplementing Pak.
No. more like Russian Tech & Chinese progress(reverse engineering or cooperate espionage) thus Western Tech & Indian progress…well India cant do both thus joint development like brahmos,etc

This might turn out to be Paks Azm project so much similarities to jf17!
1642143190487.png
 

Bhartiya Sainik

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2021
Messages
377
Likes
1,035
Country flag
Not that much power needed a 140-150kn can do the job as we are already reducing the weight of TEDBF by removing one engine and smaller wings & lighter landing gears and no hook as it’s for IAF lesser fuel will do.
Single engine variant of TEDBF specs:-
Empty weight:- 9tons
Fuel capacity:- 4.5tons
MTW. :- 21.5tons(1.5tons internal)
is very much possible…f16‘s are powered by 132kn engine so xf9 engine(147kn) on which japan & uk(RR) are working on, we can join that!
Not really, i'm talking about a 5th gen IWB stealth derivative of TEDBF, 9 tons is quite less weight, just above F-16.
F-16 is 4th gen without IWB & F-35 is 5th gen with IWB, 5tons more internal fuel & many embedded optical & RF sensors.
F-16 uses P&W F100-PW-229 giving 17,800 lbf (79 kN) thrust dry & 132 KN with AB. We will need much more than that for minimum requirement to design 5th gen TEDBF derived ORCA with 1-engine, IWB, embedded sensors.
We should consider dry thrust for economy & calculation, not afterburner.

Let's see the calculation:

let's take a base of F-16C Block 50/52 with CFT
Empty weight: 18,900 lb (8,573 kg)
Fuel weight: 7,000 pounds (3,200 kg) internal
Max takeoff weight: 42,300 lb (19,187 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 afterburning turbofan (for Block 52 version), 17,800 lbf (79 kN) thrust dry, 29,560 lbf (131.5 kN) with afterburner
Thrust/weight ratio = 0.42 dry, 0.7 with AB.

As we are talking about AF-ORCA, i will take example of only available stealth IWB jet F-35A CTOL:

Empty Weight: 28,999 lb (13,154 kg)
Internal fuel 18,250 lb (8,278 kg)
Max TOW: 70,000 lb (31,800 kg)
F-35C empty weight = 34,581 lb (15,686 kg)
So the diff. in weight of landing gear+hook+bigger wing = 2.5 tons.
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135-PW-100 afterburning turbofan, 28,000 lbf (125 kN) thrust dry, 43,000 lbf (191 kN) with afterburner
Thrust/weight ratio for F-35A CTOL = 0.4 dry, 0.61 with AB.

So we clearly observe that IWB, embedded RF & EO sensors, 5tons more internal fuel & minimum agility requires far more powerful engine.
Compared to F-16, 54% more empty weight & 65% more MTOW requires 58% more dry thrust & 45% more AB thrust.
Empty weight diff. of 4.5 tons includes IWB, embedded sensors, some aux equipments.
1642321754165.png

1642321814700.png


For TEDBF
From comparison of TEDBF & Rafale it seems TEDBF is sightly bigger & will have more fuel like a blended streamlined CFT.
Empty Weight: 12,000 kilograms (26,456 lb) (GUESSING)
Max takeoff weight: 26,000 kg (57,320 lb) (expected)
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric F414 afterburning turbofan, 58.5 kN (13,200 lbf) thrust each dry, 98 kN (22,000 lbf) with afterburner
Thrust/weight ratio = 0.46 dry, 0.76 with AB

So we observe the striking diff. that
F-35 with IWB but 1 engine is 13.1/31.8 tons empty/MTOW,
TEDBF without IWB but 2 engines will be 12/26 tons empty/MTOW,
and AMCA with IWB & 2 engines is 11/25 tons empty/MTOW.
So this also indicates more internal fuel in TEDBF than AMCA, this is funny.
1642321574816.png

From CAD models it seems TEDBF has slightly higher volume/weight. The volume which AMCA has used for IWB has been used by TEDBF for fuel perhaps.

GE F-414 Diameter: 35 in (89 cm), Dry weight: 2,445 lb (1,110 kg), 13,200 lbf (58.5 kN) thrust each dry
F-15 & 16's F100-PW-229 Diameter: 34.8 inches (88 cm), Dry weight: 3,829 pounds (1,737 kg), 17,800 lbf (79 kN) thrust dry
F-35's F135-PW-100 Diameter: 46 in (117 cm), Dry weight: 3,750 lb (1,701 kg), 28,000 lbf (125 kN) thrust dry
F-22's F119-PW-100 Diameter: Approx. 46 in (120 cm), Dry weight: 3,900 lb (1,800 kg), 26,000 lbf (116 kN) thrust dry

So an intermediate power engine b/w GE414 & F135 i'm assuming 1,500Kg, 400kg more than GE414, 200Kg less than F135.
Diff. in extra weight of landing gear+hook+bigger wing = 2.5 tons.
So for 1-engine AF-ORCA derived from TEDBF
empty weight = 12T - 2.5T - 1.1T + 0.4T = 8.8T, 200Kgs more than F-16.
If IWB+sensors is taken 4.2 tons (300Kg less than F-35) then empty weight = 8.8+4.2=13 tons (equal to F-35), 1 ton more than TEDBF (not bad).

So a TEDBF derived 1-engine 5th gen IWB stealth ORCA will be equivalent of F-35's weight.
Now the MTOW desired & engine power are related. MTOW ranges 2-2.4 times empty weight.
Rather than 70,000lb in F-35 which is 2.2 times, let's take MTOW as same as TEDBF's 26 tons (57,320 lb)
To have T/W ratio of at least 0.4/0.6 an engine of 22,928 lb (102 KN) dry thrust & around 140-150KN AB is needed.

Ultimately it could look like F-35's early CALF concept
1642323166341.png


If TVC is added then better
1642323308269.png


But they got rid of the canard due to stealth reasons. So an AMCA derivative ORCA with TVC could look like following F-35 derivative
1642324297512.png



Agreed and somehow this is what the biggest obstacle for ORCA as we have su30 then AMCA & Rafale, except for tejas there wouldn’t be any single engine fighter in IAF inventory by 2035, if they(HAL) successfully builds AMCA the IAF‘s next request will be a single engine variant with same capabilities as it happened with F22/F35
That's why i compared MWF with Sukhoi Checkmate. We have to work on evolution of MWF from now only. If 4+ gen want's survive then they will need agility, strong EW package & enough electricity generation by engine(s) to power them. Of 1 reliable engine can do it then good otherwise 2 engines required. When we will get a powerful engine is the ultimate deciding factor.


True, I like the USAF philosophy back then of high-low combination as f16/f15 & was supposed to be f35/f22 something like that would be good for us as well…a 15-20t in combo with 25-30t just engines needs to be efficient and highly distortion resistant!
Right from beginning, we should have built MWF instead of LCA, & AHCA/HWF instead of AMCA. We take pride in operating big jets like retired MiG-25 & Su-30MKIs but hesitant in building one. At least we had a tail-less TVC concept of MCA but nothing for HWF/HCA.


As it happened with fa18 hornet to super hornet!
f35’s so high expectations became its limitation as such a single fighter for all services, that’s why I was happy with navy’s decision to go with TEDBF than a naval version of AMCA a sorted approach!
Biggest & costliest problem with F-35 is its VTOL concept in B version. Hopefully we won't have requirement to replace our retired Harriers with a VTOL jet.
 

Ar.gaurav28

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2021
Messages
193
Likes
651
Country flag
If IWB+sensors is taken 4.2 tons (300Kg less than F-35) then empty weight = 8.8+4.2=13 tons (equal to F-35), 1 ton more than TEDBF (not bad).
some irregularities here my friend TEDBF will come with surplus sensors embedded in its airframe…
f16 is a metal plane it is supposed to be heavier than any composite one

So we observe the striking diff. that
F-35 with IWB but 1 engine is 13.1/31.8 tons empty/MTOW,
TEDBF without IWB but 2 engines will be 12/26 tons empty/MTOW,
and AMCA with IWB & 2 engines is 11/25 tons empty/MTOW.
So this also indicates more internal fuel in TEDBF than AMCA, this is funny.
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!

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

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
6191E081-BC8B-40F1-BFA2-CD91A3FDFD29.jpeg

F9A59E27-E334-47BA-B1C2-6C26C82FF26A.jpeg

i wish they add twin canted vertical stabilisers to TEDBF design.

That's why i compared MWF with Sukhoi Checkmate. We have to work on evolution of MWF from now only. If 4+ gen want's survive then they will need agility, strong EW package & enough electricity generation by engine(s) to power them. Of 1 reliable engine can do it then good otherwise 2 engines required. When we will get a powerful engine is the ultimate deciding factor.
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.

Right from beginning, we should have built MWF instead of LCA, & AHCA/HWF instead of AMCA. We take pride in operating big jets like retired MiG-25 & Su-30MKIs but hesitant in building one. At least we had a tail-less TVC concept of MCA but nothing for HWF/HCA.
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.

Biggest & costliest problem with F-35 is its VTOL concept in B version. Hopefully we won't have requirement to replace our retired Harriers with a VTOL jet.
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!
 

Bhartiya Sainik

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2021
Messages
377
Likes
1,035
Country flag
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.

1642394345915.png

1642393801443.png

1642393880612.png


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
1642395943469.png


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.
1642397116246.png


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.
 

pipebomb

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2021
Messages
448
Likes
960
Country flag
Wow, that is very cool delta canard concept, wonder if this design could be adopted to tedbf since it still in wind tunnel stage.
Just remove the twin tail for simplicity, then imagine. No internal weapons bay at this point or serpentine air intake needed. Just change the shape of canards and make it coplaner. I think it could be done without Hassel , tedbf is still in wind tunnel stage.

Make tedbf future proof.
 
Last edited:

Javelin_Sam

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2019
Messages
143
Likes
993
Country flag
Using specs from internet and designing fighter aircraft in defence forum is easy. To design one, build, fly and prove is not. To those people who takes the F-35, Checkmate and gives do this, do that... gyan on fighter design project must realise the ground reality that all ADA has is the experience of designing and realising one 4.5th gen light combat aircraft. Tejas MK2, AMCA, TEDBF all needs to be derived from this humble background. Not just the aircraft, but the complex electronics, communication and sensor equipments too. To expect Lockheed Martin, Sukhoi or Dassault level optimal designs from them doesn't realise the fact that Engineering or Aerospace-4.5th, 5th gen Fighter engineering is an extremely complex task that someone cannot just jump the shortcut substituting decades of experience executing dozens of large scale programs with all the complex aerodynamic and fluid dynamics data acquired over this time to research out and freeze the designs.

Else we should take a path like what Koreans did it with KFX. US or European handholding. But it will come with several *terms and conditions that will be okay for a American client state like S.Korea but not our policy makers and IAF
I am sure in whatever form the AMCA, TEDBF platforms are realized, it will be the best that our designers can come up with. The buck stops there. As we are discussing here, several compromises would've already made on the design and internal configuration. Dreams don't have limits. Reality is different.

And please. Hold the horses on these lets evolve Tejas MK2 into something like Sukhoi Checkmate and think of this twin engine design and now take-out one engine from that for this new derivative design like wild theories.
 

johnj

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
460
Likes
749
Country flag
Using specs from internet and designing fighter aircraft in defence forum is easy. To design one, build, fly and prove is not. To those people who takes the F-35, Checkmate and gives do this, do that... gyan on fighter design project must realise the ground reality that all ADA has is the experience of designing and realising one 4.5th gen light combat aircraft. Tejas MK2, AMCA, TEDBF all needs to be derived from this humble background. Not just the aircraft, but the complex electronics, communication and sensor equipments too. To expect Lockheed Martin, Sukhoi or Dassault level optimal designs from them doesn't realise the fact that Engineering or Aerospace-4.5th, 5th gen Fighter engineering is an extremely complex task that someone cannot just jump the shortcut substituting decades of experience executing dozens of large scale programs with all the complex aerodynamic and fluid dynamics data acquired over this time to research out and freeze the designs.

Else we should take a path like what Koreans did it with KFX. US or European handholding. But it will come with several *terms and conditions that will be okay for a American client state like S.Korea but not our policy makers and IAF
I am sure in whatever form the AMCA, TEDBF platforms are realized, it will be the best that our designers can come up with. The buck stops there. As we are discussing here, several compromises would've already made on the design and internal configuration. Dreams don't have limits. Reality is different.

And please. Hold the horses on these lets evolve Tejas MK2 into something like Sukhoi Checkmate and think of this twin engine design and now take-out one engine from that for this new derivative design like wild theories.
True but, you also need to consider performance of DRDO, ADA & HAL under different political leadership and IAF changing requirements. Always ''imported'' comes first. First lets see how many jets ordered by iaf and when, then evolvement of ADA.
 

Lonewolf

Psychopathic Neighbour
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
6,673
Likes
25,186
Country flag
Teddy will definitely carry 2 external drop tanks atleast, so we can expect more range ...by the way what may be payload capacity....can it be around 9000kgs??
26 ton all up weight , empty weight is around 11.5 ton if we compare with other naval fighters , with 5500 internal fuel , it would be almost 9 ton , so yeah it can be around 9 ton , with a bit of variation
 

Articles

Top