TEDBF or ORCA Updates

[THESIS THORON]

That's exactly what i noticed & showed in my modified comparison. And this should be showed to our DoD guys & questioned.

maybe mk2 will have it

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

maybe mk2 will have it

I sincerely hope & pray that its airframe evolves as per 5th gen std.

 

[SARTHAK]

Mate Sriram is a journalist at Delhi Defense Review, who conducted the interview of the ADA person incharge of TEDBF at Aero India 2021.

when i asked sriram about semi conformal bays had no mention in the interview he said he asked about it after the interview and so the point of semi conformal bays came into light

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Mate Sriram is a journalist at Delhi Defense Review, who conducted the interview of the ADA person incharge of TEDBF at Aero India 2021.

Thanks for sharing the video.
The designer talks about confidence with TEDBF but gave weight addition by IWB as excuse. By that logic a Naval jet should never ever have IWB Then he gives example of cancelled N-LCA's experience which implemented LEVCON & this experience will be used for canards in TEDBF. Then all other new things like sensors, glass cockpit, DSI, HMDS, etc will be implemented. But still no S-Duct & IWB.
USA has already done it with F-35C, now these guys will wait for other countries also to do it & then panic for replacement.
We still have time, I sincerely hope that before finalizing production design the new generation of engineers & designers will bring things on track in accordance with future.

 

[SARTHAK]

here is one more ----AMCA will never have side bays but response comes from hvtiaf himself

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

here is one more ----AMCA will never have side bays but response comes from hvtiaf himself

Hmm, that's almost 2 years back. It can be done just like Su-57 & Checkmate have done so far.
I again hope that realizations will happen & things will change . Otherwise, good luck for next 3-4 decades.

 

[flanker99]

Thanks for sharing the video.
The designer talks about confidence with TEDBF but gave weight addition by IWB as excuse. By that logic a Naval jet should never ever have IWB Then he gives example of cancelled N-LCA's experience which implemented LEVCON & this experience will be used for canards in TEDBF. Then all other new things like sensors, glass cockpit, DSI, HMDS, etc will be implemented. But still no S-Duct & IWB.
USA has already done it with F-35C, now these guys will wait for other countries also to do it & then panic for replacement.
We still have time, I sincerely hope that before finalizing production design the new generation of engineers & designers will bring things on track in accordance with future.

F35c's max take off weight is way higher than what they aimimg for tedbf.ie 25-26t vs over 30tons so the bit about weight is definitely a valid argument and they are aiming to roll out the jet asap with the added complexities of IWB's aggressive timelines wont be possible.
Do keep in mind that they are designing what navy is asking if navy thinks iwb are unnecessary then pissing on ada is foolish

 

[Tshering22]

Operating from STOBAR, its very unlikely that TEDBF payload capacities will be appreciably superior to Rafale M operating from same deck.

I'm sure a small difference will be there due to F414s as opposed to M88s but the question is how much - and does such a marginal difference validate the need to take on the risk of developing an entirely different aircraft?

As of IWBs, like already said by others, external stores are always possible.

The whole idea of TEDBF is a noble one - it is to allow India to transition to a completely domestic fighter jet that is within the reasonable expense envelope compared to the more expensive AMCA. The TEDBF will be somewhere between a Rafale M and AMCA. The design characteristics are semi-stealth.

Rafale-Ms will tie us to a foreign supplier again for another 30 years and the Navy is not keen on that. They are the most vociferous supporters of domestic technology, unlike the IAF which is literally owned by the foreign arms lobby.

Given the timespan of TEDBF (If at all happening), it will most likely feature the future JV engine with either RR or Safran, rather than GE.

The Navy is going to be the future bulwark of India's interests and in order to do that, it will have to be autonomous of any foreign influence to the extent possible. That is what the long-term plan is and to make it happen, they are willing to take up extra cost and time in developing a new fighter from scratch.

 

[Tshering22]

The financial & skilled manpower burden of 3 simultaneous programs is immense. We seriously run the risk of slowing down all 3 programs by dividing up resources from the same limited pool.

Golden words, my friend.

I would rather Navy relenting to joining IAF in developing a common 5.5 generation fighter. We don't have the R&D budget for 3 fighter jet programs simultaneously, especially when we are expecting retiring of support aircraft in the future.

56 C-295s are not going to be enough to replace 108 An-32s, and HAL is already batting for an indigenous design transport aircraft in this category.

 

[MonaLazy]

Golden words, my friend.

I would rather Navy relenting to joining IAF in developing a common 5.5 generation fighter. We don't have the R&D budget for 3 fighter jet programs simultaneously, especially when we are expecting retiring of support aircraft in the future.

56 C-295s are not going to be enough to replace 108 An-32s, and HAL is already batting for an indigenous design transport aircraft in this category.

HAL & ADA-DRDO are two separate entities. Mk1A is HALs baby. ADA is only designing the mk2 and AMCA both programs on for very long. Canards were studied for Mk1 Tejas. Mk2 has nothing new, in the interest of saving time they did not even bother with DSI. The only real challenge is AMCA but all the components are ready there also (reference Guru Kota in HT). Finally, it's production has been offloaded to L&T. It's difficult but not impossible.

 

[Tshering22]

HAL & ADA-DRDO are two separate entities. Mk1A is HALs baby. ADA is only designing the mk2 and AMCA both programs on for very long. Canards were studied for Mk1 Tejas. Mk2 has nothing new, in the interest of saving time they did not even bother with DSI. The only real challenge is AMCA but all the components are ready there also (reference Guru Kota in HT). Finally, its production has been offloaded to L&T. It's difficult but not impossible.

You are talking as if HAL & ADA-DRDO are like Boeing & Lockheed Martin. Both these entities belong 100% to the Ministry of Defence and by extension the government.

Given their efficiency and the bureaucracy, do you really, really think that it is sensible for HAL and ADA-DRDO to run so many projects simultaneously? Look at what happened to LCH and LUH. They have to be shoved down the throats of the military.

 

[India Super Power]

HAL & ADA-DRDO are two separate entities. Mk1A is HALs baby. ADA is only designing the mk2 and AMCA both programs on for very long. Canards were studied for Mk1 Tejas. Mk2 has nothing new, in the interest of saving time they did not even bother with DSI. The only real challenge is AMCA but all the components are ready there also (reference Guru Kota in HT). Finally, it's production has been offloaded to L&T. It's difficult but not impossible.

Then sir why too much of time being spent on mk2 testing nearly 4-5 years if most of the things are validated or tested and most of the things are not new

 

[IndianHawk]

Golden words, my friend.

I would rather Navy relenting to joining IAF in developing a common 5.5 generation fighter. We don't have the R&D budget for 3 fighter jet programs simultaneously, especially when we are expecting retiring of support aircraft in the future.

56 C-295s are not going to be enough to replace 108 An-32s, and HAL is already batting for an indigenous design transport aircraft in this category.

We have more than enough money and manpower to support all these programs because alternative ( import ) means spending multiple times more money that too in foreign currency.

Transport aircrafts are much easier to build compared to fighter jets. They don't have to break mach limits or do aerobatic manuevers. Even their avionics is pretty simple. HAL can easily do it . It's simply a matter of funding.

 

[IndianHawk]

Then sir why too much of time being spent on mk2 testing nearly 4-5 years if most of the things are validated or tested and most of the things are not new

4 years is shortest possible timelines for these kinds of development. While most components and LRUs are old and validates MWF airframe is much larger and hence new and must be tested thoroughly during those 4 years.

 

[IndianHawk]

You are talking as if HAL & ADA-DRDO are like Boeing & Lockheed Martin. Both these entities belong 100% to the Ministry of Defence and by extension the government.

Given their efficiency and the bureaucracy, do you really, really think that it is sensible for HAL and ADA-DRDO to run so many projects simultaneously? Look at what happened to LCH and LUH. They have to be shoved down the throats of the military.

Boeing hasn't build any new jet since f18.
And Lockheed Martin developed F35 haven't even achieved ioc yet and is plauged by multiple issues. It's operational cost are still much much more than what LM promised.


But both these companies are still successful because USA supports them despite their failures and doesn't run to import from next possible seller neithe does usa doubts it's scientific community the way every Tom dick and harry does in india.

 

[IndianHawk]

Do keep in mind that who makes the mistake with requirement, a force guy or an engineer/designer, doesn't matter to a tax paying citizen. Otherwise all these fan sites & channels should be shut down & journalism be terminated if we can't question to clarify.
No offence, let me know if u r a common citizen tax payer, a R&D guy or a force guy bcoz it seems some of u guys r connected to the interviewers over Twitter, etc.
This blame game b/w the force guys & R&D guys has affected other wings also.

Now kindly help me with the calculation, i hope the values are correct.
F-35C
Empty weight: 34,581 lb (15,686 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 60,000 lb (31,751 kg)
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 = 0.46 dry, 0.71 with AB.

MiG-29K
Empty weight: 11,000 kg (24,251 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 24,500 kg (54,013 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Klimov RD-33MK afterburning turbofan engines, 52.96 kN (11,905 lbf) thrust each dry, 88.3 kN (19,840 lbf) with afterburner
Thrust/weight ratio = 0.97 dry, 1.61 with AB

Rafale M
Empty Weight: 10,600 kilograms (23,400 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 24,500 kg (54,013 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Snecma M88-4e turbofans, 50.04 kN (11,250 lbf) thrust each dry, 75 kN (17,000 lbf) with afterburner
Thrust/weight ratio = 0.91 dry, 1.38 with AB

TEDBF looks identical to Rafale so let me guess TEDBF's empty weight to be slightly higher
TEDBF
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 = 1.01 dry, 1.69 with AB

I'm IT engineer, not mechanical engineer so let me guess & add 25% weight for IWB, that's 12Tx1.25=15Tons=33,000 lbs with IWB. Thrust/weight ratio becomes 0.8 dry, 1.33 with AB.

F-35C: Thrust/weight ratio with IWB = 0.46 dry, 0.71 with AB.
TEDBF: Thrust/weight ratio W/o IWB = 1.01 dry, 1.69 with AB
TEDBF: Thrust/weight ratio with IWB = 0.8 dry, 1.33 with AB
Then why TEDBF cannot have IWB?

Because NAVY hasn't asked for IWB. It's as simple as that. Unless you somehow know what is better for navy more then the navy itself.

If and when navy demands it such possibility can be explored in next varient of tedbf.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

F35c's max take off weight is way higher than what they aimimg for tedbf.ie 25-26t vs over 30tons so the bit about weight is definitely a valid argument and they are aiming to roll out the jet asap with the added complexities of IWB's aggressive timelines wont be possible.
Do keep in mind that they are designing what navy is asking if navy thinks iwb are unnecessary then pissing on ada is foolish

It doesn't matter to tax payer who makes mistakes, force guys or R&D guys.
This blame game b/w the force guys & R&D guys has affected other wings also.

Now kindly help me with the calculation, i hope the values are correct.
F-35C
Empty weight: 34,581 lb (15,686 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 60,000 lb (31,751 kg)
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 = 0.46 dry, 0.71 with AB.

MiG-29K
Empty weight: 11,000 kg (24,251 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 24,500 kg (54,013 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Klimov RD-33MK afterburning turbofan engines, 52.96 kN (11,905 lbf) thrust each dry, 88.3 kN (19,840 lbf) with afterburner
Thrust/weight ratio = 0.97 dry, 1.61 with AB

Rafale M
Empty Weight: 10,600 kilograms (23,400 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 24,500 kg (54,013 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Snecma M88-4e turbofans, 50.04 kN (11,250 lbf) thrust each dry, 75 kN (17,000 lbf) with afterburner
Thrust/weight ratio = 0.91 dry, 1.38 with AB

TEDBF looks identical to Rafale so let me guess TEDBF's empty weight to be slightly higher
TEDBF
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 = 1.01 dry, 1.69 with AB

I'm not mechanical engineer so let me guess & add 25% weight for IWB, that's 12Tx1.25=15Tons=33,000 lbs with IWB.
Weight of IWB = 3 tons = 6,615 lbs.
Max. T/o weight = 29 tons = 64,000 lbs
Thrust/weight ratio becomes 0.41 dry, 0.68 with AB.

If empty weight can be reduced to 11 tons or 24,250 lbs without IWB & weight due to IWB is considered 20%, that's 11Tx1.2=13.2 tons = 29,100 lbs
Weight of IWB = 2.2 tons
Let's consider Max. T/o weight = 25+2.2=27.2 tons = 60,000 lbs
Thrust/weight ratio becomes 0.44 dry, 0.73 with AB.

F-35C: Thrust/weight ratio with IWB = 0.46 dry, 0.71 with AB.
TEDBF: Thrust/weight ratio W/o IWB = 1.01 dry, 1.69 with AB
TEDBF: Thrust/weight ratio with IWB = 0.44 dry, 0.73 with AB (20% more weight due to IWB)
Now this is almost same as F-35C. Then why TEDBF cannot have IWB?
I know now people will say that T/W ratio has reduced a lot due to IWB so it will affect max speed & range. Agreed but all 5th gen jets will suffer this penalty. But the danger is much higher risk of detection & loss of life & benefit is stealth & survivability.
Is staying alive & returning to base & family due to stealth worth the penalty in speed, range or not????
And by having stronger engines, we can increase back the T/W ration, speed, range.

 

[abingdonboy]

ILS is already used on INS Vikramaditya though, but in case if it’s failure, the hypothetical the pilots of the LCA MK2 based carrier aircraft may face difficulties in landing compared to pilots of other aircraft.

It’s not exactly ILS but operates in the same way

the 3D approach takes them down but usually they’ll land visually making use of a visual reference system (the ball) pretty much the carrier equivalent of PAPIs, so even if the 3D approach system fails they can land visually no problems

this isn’t unique to IN, this is the basics of carrier aviation all over the world

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Unless you somehow know what is better for navy more then the navy itself.

Kindly don't pass personal & obnoxious comments.
If discussing is bad then let's delete this website & all other such sites & channels. No public debates, no journalism, let's leave the forces & R&D guys in peace to resolve everything.

If and when navy demands it such possibility can be explored in next varient of tedbf.

When? After 3-4 decades?

 

[abingdonboy]

There are 20+ fan channels like "Alpha Defence". So it is better to quote 1st hand info from DRDO/HAL/NAL/ADA.
However, like i already showed that design can change any time, realizations can jolt humans any time, final production jet can be different from 1st prototype or just an exhibition or CAD model.
X-35 didn't have IWB but it changed in F-35.
View attachment 128207
And upcoming jets like Sukhoi Checkmate also has IWB in accordance with present era of 5th ge
n jets.
View attachment 128208

Both of them are single engined, then it makes perfect sense for Twin-Engined jet to have IWB. If F-35C can have IWB so can/must TEDBF with enough power/weight ratio due to 2 engines. This is perfect opportunity to implement IWB + the partial common airframe advantage which will pave future std. of our Naval 5th gen jets.
OTHERWISE.......WAIT FOR ANOTHER 3-4 DECADES FOR 4.5GEN TEDBF TO RETIRE, BAD HISTORY WILL REPEAT.

IWB are not the be all and end all. If needed they can design external IWB like the silent hornet