TEDBF or ORCA Updates

[SavageKing456]

@SavageKing456 what will be the aproxx rcs of amca, and tejas mk2, tedbf considering that next gen ram will be used in it ??

Amca I can say close to f35 initially,but when it gets mature it surpasses f35.
Tejas mk2 will have some form of less RCS but not much,tedbf idk

 

[MonaLazy]

but if we manage to put the jv engine in tedbf then it will wreak other fighter jets in high altitude
with its fucking huge t/w ratio.

I'm sure in the 10 years it takes to come online- we'll be calling 2x110kN also underpowered. We are perpetual whiners. It's not the engine that is a problem, it's this mentality that nothing world beating can come out of ADAs hangers and we can't produce something that will beat the cr@p out of anything else available. We have to trust our capabilities more. If we feel our folks are not doing a good job maybe join them and show them how to do it.

Otherwise numbers are just that- numbers! Today it is 110kN we are lusting after. In 10 years that needle will move to 150kN. Same bull$hit fills pages after pages on all defence forums.

 

[IndianHawk]

@MonaLazy @SavageKing456 and others, what are the detection capabilities of a warship based radars to detect and track a stealth FA? If they could see a non-stealth FA at 250km(say, for example only) and stealth FA at 200km(again just assumption), stealth will hardly be a value addition in anti-shipping roles? The A2A dominance still remains intact though but they don't usually do air wars of naval jets. Also, with the networking capabilities, the ship could guide the jets?
PS- the reason I ask this is because Navy must have found something that negates the benefits of a stealth jet on carriers for all the pain it comes with. Also keeping in mind the enhanced capacities of radars in years to come, geometric stealth and material coating won't improve at the same pace.

Naval jets follow different doctrine then air force jets and even that varies from country to country.

In Indian context primary role of naval jets is anti ship attack and secondary role is land attack when necessary. So in that role it doesn't matter if enemy warship sees you at 300 km because you will launch your stand off antiship missile from 300-500 km away ( scalp or bramhos) or 1500km away ( air launch nirbhay). You won't stay there anyway.

They will avoid air to air battles if they can. They only carry such weaponary for self defence. They preserve their fuel because they don't have solid land nearby in case they are short of fuel during air to air battle , hence they also carry fuel tanks mostly cause if your carrier is under attack where will you land.

So primary responsibility of carrying heavy stand off antiship missile and drop tanks with more fuel already make stealth useless for most naval jets.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

The navy is being practical and grounded in reality. The TEDBF do not have space for a main internal weapon bay without sacrificing space for fuel or internal avionics.

Agreed, today we have space issues & T/W constraints but after 10 years with production model we may not or should not. There is no harm in talking, exploring the theories, posibilities in future.
My 1st comment in this forum said we should choose 1 of the 2 CG models & produce them, & further clarified that they should be developed FURTHER. Evolution cannot be stopped. When will it happen & who takes the lead are the real questions.
10 years is a lot of time, it is not necessary that exhibition/protoype model can't/won't evolve till induction. I have given examples of X-35 Vs F-35 & YF-22 Vs F-22. But if we follow Russian model where they don't modify the airframe size, volume, from 1st prototype to induction then discussion is over. They used basic Su-27 airframe & dragged it till Su-35 & then finally they made the Su-57. But both Sukhoi & MiG used common airframe for AF & Navy.

Space is dependant on T/W ratio, especially for naval jets.
I already showed calculation
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.

A side internal weapon bay that can carry ccms or short range missiles is also of no use. A standard A2A loadout will have 2 BVRs and 2 CCMs. Even if side internal weapons bay can carry 1 CCM each, the larger BVRs like Astra2, upcoming SFDR and Rudrams have to be carried in external pylons-stealth is already compromised. Then whats the use of CCMs in internal weapons bay? Its better that that space is useful for something else.

Else for a TEDBF with main, Internal bays and still considerable fuel for a Naval fighter with all the weight constraints for a heavier landing gear and underbodyframe, the GEF414 are grossly inadequate. AL31 are another size class engine for Su-27 family sized jets.

Only the main weapon bay is useful for a fighter. It is large enough to carry multiple BVRAAMs and other A2G and AShM missiles. Side weapons bay is useful if there is already a main weapon bay as it can complement latter by moving CCMs out of it.

By this logic F-35C would have never come to existence.
Newer gen jets require newer gen weapons also. For example in the age of GPS guided bombs, LGBs, some with gliding capability with folding wings/fins, etc, we don't justify plain gravity unguided bombs used by 3rd & 2nd gen jets.
Future missiles will also use multi-spectral sensors, in RF & IR/UV bands to increase Pk (Probability of kill). Example - RIM-116 who's HAS upgrade enables to engage Helicopter Aircraft Surface. National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System (NASAMS) have both AMRAAM & AIM-9X as SAMs.
The combination of AIM-9X-2 and OFS 8.3 makes an AIM-9X Block II missile which can hit both aircrafts & ground targets. So Sidewinder has demonstrated AAM, AGM, SAM capabilities.
Hence a future missile could be used not only both as CCM & BVRAAM but also AAM & AGM.

Some people are talking about longer missiles while some are talking about shorter missiles like SACM/CUDA. It wil decrease missile range but with multi-spectral sensor may drastically increase Pk & doubles the # of missiles.

The following CG pic of Checkmate shows the side bays can carry both the CCM & BVRAAM.
Just imagine a modified version of this CG pic as future version of TEDBF - V-tail replaced by 1 vertical tail, wing moved back, canards added, main gear & side bays will also move back a bit & fuselage width increased due to twin engines.

Side bays can also be part of wing root like in Su-57, not necessarily part of fuselage.

It is speculated that AMCA will have folding-fin version of all A2A & A2G weapons being developed, then that can be applied to TEDBF future iteration too.

Today we can have current TEDBF MK1 TD prototype without IWB
then MK2 TD protoype with only main IWB, no SWB
then MK3 TD prototype with MWB & SWB
If the cancelled N-LCA with LEVCON can be researched (we all know all the reasons) & there are CG model of N-LCA MK2 also, then why can't we make TEDBF MK2 with same GE F414 engines & later the MK3 with newer more powerful engines?

This space constraint is also the reason why IAF opted out of side weapon bays for AMCA. 2 BVR and 2 CCMs can be comfortabily carried in the main weapon bay.

On the +ve side at least they implemented main IWB. There were people skeptical about it in beginning & just wanted an inflated LCA as MWF, that's all. So imagine if all this AMCA plan never existed.
Hence similarly, today we have to start talking about a future concept then only it will be prototyped after few years, researched & then produced with better engines, etc as technology with time progresses.
Moreover again, we have T/W constraint today but may not be after 10 years & AMCA also has so many design iterations

The 1st protoype can be called MK1 on track as usual, without SWB.
AMCA MK2 with stronger engines may evolve to have SWB.

The navy also knows the reality that a true 5th Gen Naval-AMCA with 75KN engine won't fly anytime before 2040.

And that's why it is important to start talking about it today to bring that timeline closer, that's what i'm trying to do.
Every OEM country has initial & then modified variants, like USA has A/B then C/D then E/F, we can also have something similar. Nobody can remain stubborn that "this exhibition model is final design & won't evolve in next 5/10/15 years"

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

Great news (And sad times for those bashing tedbf)

Tedbf Preliminary Design Review started.

 

[Vamsi]

So does that mean that Navy jet in every country should not evolve beyond 4th gen EVER in future while the AF jet will keep on evolving?

As I and @IndianHawk said, the primary role of a carrier based fighter is Anti-Ship strike. Brahmos-NG or anyother futuristic Scramjet powered hypersonic Anti-Ship missile cannot be carried internally . Also a deck based aircraft must carry more fuel ,which means it must carry fuel externally.
Both the above requirements are impossible for a fully stealth aircraft like F-35 without compromising stealth.

I never said Navy must stick to 4th Gen aircraft. IWB is NOT the only defining feature of a next gen aircraft. Radar, avionics,EW suite, Sensor fusion , Network centric warfare ,DAS,ATOL, Manned-unmanned teaming etc. are also the most important features of a next gen aircraft.

That said all of the above features can be achieved without having an IWB.

I am not against having IWB, but in Navy's case IWB is useless and it compromises other important requirements.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

My ultimate point in every reply is that R&D shouldn't stop, delays should be avoided, that's all.
In the era of every gen some people were sceptical about the new gen platform.
Sceptical about 4th gen in era of 3rd gen
Sceptical about 3rd gen in era of 2nd gen
Sceptical about 2nd gen in era of 1st gen
But this didn't alter the cardinal characteristics of each gen.

As I and @IndianHawk said, the primary role of a carrier based fighter is Anti-Ship strike.

.I respect your view but i disagree on this & i have already explained that new gen jet concentrates on new weapons, doctrine, tactics. This is true not just for 5th & 4th gen but also for 3rd, 2nd gen jets in their era.

The main idea is to disable the combat capability of a ship by taking out its sensors or command-deck, like a sniper, not sink it World-War era style. just like SAM launchers are useless without radar.

AF jets can aslo be used against approaching naval assets of enemy.

Brahmos-NG or anyother futuristic Scramjet powered hypersonic Anti-Ship missile cannot be carried internally

Can Su-57 carry Oniks/Brahmos/Zirkon? Can AMCA carry Brahmos-NG inside as per current design iteration? 5th gen jet doesn't have to depend on such weapons or vice-versa. Such missiles can be launched by 4.5gen jets, ships, subs, coastal launchers.

Also a deck based aircraft must carry more fuel ,which means it must carry fuel externally.
Both the above requirements are impossible for a fully stealth aircraft like F-35 without compromising stealth.

I am not against having IWB, but in Navy's case IWB is useless and it compromises other important requirements.

Depends on mission type. It may not require stealth as long as it is present in its CBG's area-denial envelope & hence may carry external load.
Or it may just be on a CAP (Combat Air Patrol) with internal AAMs. 1 other wingman may have SDBs kind of ammo. If they detect hostiles, other jets are kept & launched on alert status.
Everything changes with time including doctrine & tactics.

I never said Navy must stick to 4th Gen aircraft. IWB is NOT the only defining feature of a next gen aircraft. Radar, avionics,EW suite, Sensor fusion , Network centric warfare ,DAS,ATOL, Manned-unmanned teaming etc. are also the most important features of a next gen aircraft.

That said all of the above features can be achieved without having an IWB.

Certainly there are a set of feature which define a gen of jet, not 1 feature alone & they may be independent too. But the thing to notice is that only after inventing new features for future gen they are tried to be made backward compatible if possible with legacy jets.
However, some features are cardinal characteristics of a particular gen. IWB is 1 of such for 5th gen to maintain stealth in a stealth mission. Don't consider times of non-stealthy ones.

As 1 more example, Laser pods are being tested for Apache helo & legacy jets. That doesn't make them 6th gen aircrafts.
They will always remain 4.5gen, not even 5.5gen.

Now think, does this laser pod testing on legacy patforms stops R&D for 5th & 6th gen? NO.

 

[Vamsi]

The main idea is to disable the combat capability of a ship by taking out its sensors or command-deck, like a sniper, not sink it World-War era style. just like SAM launchers are useless without radar.

Why would you just destroy ONLY the radar and CIC if you can sink the whole ship??

 

[Vamsi]

Can Su-57 carry Oniks/Brahmos/Zirkon? Can AMCA carry Brahmos-NG inside as per current design iteration? 5th gen jet doesn't have to depend on such weapons or vice-versa. Such missiles can be launched by 4.5gen jets, ships, subs, coastal launchers.

AMCA won't carry Brahmos-NG in Day 1 of the war. It will do SEAD/DEAD missions in pure stealth mode. ONLY after complete Air superiority is achieved, only then, it will fly in Beast mode.

This scenario doesn't make any sense with the Navy, Why would you just destroy only the Radar of a Ship in a SEAD/DEAD mission, if you can just sink the goddamm ship

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Why would you just destroy ONLY the radar and CIC if you can sink the whole ship??

Same reason why SAM radar is attacked 1st rather than launchers. That would be enough to change course of battle with min. human loss.
It is like if u hav a sword kind of weapon which is long, rather than trying to avoid snake byte, just cut the head off & save effort.

 

[Vamsi]

Same reason why SAM radar is attacked 1st rather than launchers. That would be enough to change course of battle with min. human loss.
It is like if u hav a sword kind of weapon which is long, rather than trying to avoid snake byte, just cut the head off & save effort.

Why are you comparing the land based scenario with a ship based scenario. Both are completely different.

Why the hell do you care about the enemy loss?

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

AMCA won't carry Brahmos-NG in Day 1 of the war. It will do SEAD/DEAD missions in pure stealth mode. ONLY after complete Air superiority is achieved, only then, it will fly in Beast mode.

As I said in few pages earlier, Air Force scenario & Navy scenario are both completely different. U cannot compare them both. What you are doing is assuming Air force scenarios for the Navy.

And i also clarified that today all types of SAMs are deployed on ships & land; In 5th gen jet, sensor fused avionics display all targets at once - land, sea, air. So ultimately all it matters is whether the jet can sneak on radar/SAM & disable it somehow. Any radar needs some min.threshold of RF energy to lock & fire, Stealth reduces this range & return RF intensity to lock & fire.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Why are you comparing the land based scenario with a ship based scenario. Both are completely different.

Why the hell do you care about the enemy loss?

Already explained many times that sensor fused avionics presents 1 battle picture. Sneak & kill like sniper.

I don't care about enemy losss, it is just a natural, quick, economical outcome.
It is like early days required carpet bombing but today precision strike can quickly change course of war economically.

 

[SARTHAK]

As I and @IndianHawk said, the primary role of a carrier based fighter is Anti-Ship strike. Brahmos-NG or anyother futuristic Scramjet powered hypersonic Anti-Ship missile cannot be carried internally . Also a deck based aircraft must carry more fuel ,which means it must carry fuel externally.
Both the above requirements are impossible for a fully stealth aircraft like F-35 without compromising stealth.

I never said Navy must stick to 4th Gen aircraft. IWB is NOT the only defining feature of a next gen aircraft. Radar, avionics,EW suite, Sensor fusion , Network centric warfare ,DAS,ATOL, Manned-unmanned teaming etc. are also the most important features of a next gen aircraft.

That said all of the above features can be achieved without having an IWB.

I am not against having IWB, but in Navy's case IWB is useless and it compromises other important requirements.

why so much fight about iwb aren't we getting semi reccessed bays for tedbf for a2a ,so why worry unneccessary

 

[Vamsi]

Already explained many times that sensor fused avionics presents 1 battle picture. Sneak & kill like sniper.

TEDBF will have sensor fusion and all other toys of a 5th gen aircraft except the IWB.

"Kill like a sniper" thing will be achieved by Brahmos-NG or other Anti-Ship missile from a very long standoff range. Instead of just destroying the Radar, we are sinking the whole ship. Simple.

 

[Vamsi]

why so much fight about iwb aren't we getting semi reccessed bays for tedbf for a2a ,so why worry unneccessary

I explained why IWB are useless for TEDBF , he is the one crying for IWB.

 

[SARTHAK]

I explained why IWB are useless for TEDBF , he is the one crying for IWB.

for me navy is going good becoz in a2a aircraft wud have low rcs and for anti ship role rcs won't matter much ,so we get both benefits ,as far as stealth is considered i wud have liked trapezoidal design to have selected ,but again navy ,ada know much much more than me

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

TEDBF will have sensor fusion and all other toys of a 5th gen aircraft except the IWB.

"Kill like a sniper" thing will be achieved by Brahmos-NG or other Anti-Ship missile from a very long standoff range. Instead of just destroying the Radar, we are sinking the whole ship. Simple.

When u say "very long standoff range" then 4.5 gen jet can do that. Why to use 5th gen jet? IDK why ur mind is fixed on this combination like the 5th gen jet only has to attack with a big missile.
5th gen jet & supersonic/hypersonic missiles are independent weapons, the Stealth leader USA doesn't have such missile for F-35. Su-57 also cannot carry Oniks/Zircon internally.
A ship or land SAM, if they can't get enough RF return they may still see but can't lock & fire upon 5th gen jet.

Consider previous gen jets & weapons of their era also which we don't justify today anymore. Doctrine, tactics change with time/tech.

Here is example of F-22 simulator showing SAM lock & fire range without & with stealth. Same thing with F-35, Su-57, etc also.

 

[Vamsi]

When u say "very long standoff range" then 4.5 gen jet can do that. Why to use 5th gen jet? IDK why ur mind is fixed on this combination like the 5th gen jet only has to attack with a big missile.
5th gen jet & supersonic/hypersonic missiles are independent weapons, the Stealth leader USA doesn't have such missile for F-35. Su-57 also cannot carry Oniks/Zircon internally.
A ship or land SAM, if they can't get enough RF return they may still see but can't lock & fire upon 5th gen jet.

Consider previous gen jets & weapons of their era also which we don't justify today anymore. Doctrine, tactics change with time/tech.

Here is example of F-22 simulator showing SAM lock & fire range without & with stealth. Same thing with F-35, Su-57, etc also.

View attachment 128416
View attachment 128417

Deyy, how many times I have to tell you ? Requirements for F-22,Su-57,F-35 & TEDBF are different. Why are you comparing all of them with TEDBF.

Primary requirement for TEDBF is Anti-Ship strike. Inorder to achieve this ,it need to carry Anti-Ship missile. A long range Anti-ship missile cannot be carried internally. Hence , IWB has no use for TEDBF. For pure air to air missions it has recessed bays. Except IWB , all other 5th gen features will be incorporated in TEDBF.

 

[Kuldeepm952]

Hold your horses guys. Time will tell if 4.5 gen jets without IWBs will be viable in future warfare scenarios or not. Though I am of the favor that, IWB should be added even if for AtoA or AtoG roles. Signature increament while slinging external payloads is massive, one would be able to remain undetectable by a huge margin if carrying weapons internally. And by the way IWBs on conception stage won't hurt anybody. There are many advantages to IWB, disadvantage are none if any.
And for guys saying china and Pakis having jets without IWBs in future, I want IAF to outmatch and not just match their capability.
Signature management is a prime and essential requirement for future warfare.