What's new

Aero India 2023

.
AEWCS Mk-2 will have 300° coverage, there's a portion of radar in the nose too.

360° will come on DRDO AWACS project. It's development is also underway. A330 will be used most likely for that.


Let's wait.
How many awacs aircrafts are currently in service
 
.
Youtube knowledge lol

Positive G - blood gets pulled down from brain to parts below, during supersonic turns (guess left or right at supersonic speeds)

Negative G - flying upside down basically, like a monkey hanging upside down a tree or like kids on poles or branches. Blood gets pushed down to brain, only this is at much faster rate in a plane flying upside down at supersonic speeds. So negative g

So overall nothing to do with Tejas, it's more of the pilot's ability to do this.
Fly upside down on a level flight will exert 1 G.
 
.
How many awacs aircrafts are currently in service
5 (3 phalcons and 2 145s)

1 more is being used as a testbed. Can be transferred to IAF in case of conflict.

6 A321s cleared for conversion (likely to a couple of years to start)

6 A330/B767 based ones under development

6 emb145 is under consideration
 
.
I read somewhere that Tejas performed a negative-g turn during Aero India.
What is great about it? Must be something unusual since it was specifically mentioned. Moreover, is it first time that it did this thing?
Aren’t all fighters capable to do turns of all kinds?
Google might help, but hearing it from members here would be better.
Well, most modern fighter aircraft are capable of performing negative-g maneuvers, not all pilots are trained to do so, and it requires specialized equipment and training to do so safely.
 
.
TEDBF design specs have been changed quite a bit since the last time they were published at DefExpo 2022.

Looks like an Indian Rafale now. Not that I'm complaining, given what a looker the Rafale and how amazing it's performance is.

FpN6dt4aAAAHRE1


DefExpo 2022 specs-

Length: 16.30 m (53 ft 6 in)
Wingspan: 11.20 m (36 ft 9 in) (unfolded), 7.6m (24 ft 11 in) (folded)
Max takeoff weight: 26,000 kg (57,320 lb) (expected)[36]
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric F414 afterburning turbofan, 58.5 kN (13,200 lbf) thrust each dry, 98 kN (22,000 lbf) with afterburner
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6

Aero India 2023 specs-

Length: 17 Meters
Wingspan: 11.6 m (unfolded), 8.3 m (folded)
Service Ceiling: 55,000 ft
Max Speed: 1.8 Mach.
 
.
TEDBF design specs have been changed quite a bit since the last time they were published at DefExpo 2022.

Looks like an Indian Rafale now. Not that I'm complaining, given what a looker the Rafale and how amazing it's performance is.

FpN6dt4aAAAHRE1


DefExpo 2022 specs-

Length: 16.30 m (53 ft 6 in)
Wingspan: 11.20 m (36 ft 9 in) (unfolded), 7.6m (24 ft 11 in) (folded)
Max takeoff weight: 26,000 kg (57,320 lb) (expected)[36]
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric F414 afterburning turbofan, 58.5 kN (13,200 lbf) thrust each dry, 98 kN (22,000 lbf) with afterburner
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6

Aero India 2023 specs-

Length: 17 Meters
Wingspan: 11.6 m (unfolded), 8.3 m (folded)
Service Ceiling: 55,000 ft
Max Speed: 1.8 Mach.
Seems they have made some progress
 
. .
TEDBF design specs have been changed quite a bit since the last time they were published at DefExpo 2022.

Looks like an Indian Rafale now. Not that I'm complaining, given what a looker the Rafale and how amazing it's performance is.

FpN6dt4aAAAHRE1


DefExpo 2022 specs-

Length: 16.30 m (53 ft 6 in)
Wingspan: 11.20 m (36 ft 9 in) (unfolded), 7.6m (24 ft 11 in) (folded)
Max takeoff weight: 26,000 kg (57,320 lb) (expected)[36]
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric F414 afterburning turbofan, 58.5 kN (13,200 lbf) thrust each dry, 98 kN (22,000 lbf) with afterburner
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6

Aero India 2023 specs-

Length: 17 Meters
Wingspan: 11.6 m (unfolded), 8.3 m (folded)
Service Ceiling: 55,000 ft
Max Speed: 1.8 Mach.
Design is much better and refine, only concern is about the timeline.
 
.
Continued No 5 :





------------------------------------------------------

India's state-owned Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is preparing for a series of user trials featuring its Rudram-I anti-radiation missile (ARM) integrated with Indian Air Force (IAF) Su-30MKI fighter aircraft.

A DRDO official told Janes at the Aero India 2023 show, being held in Bangalore from 13 to 17 February, that the Rudram-I – previously referred to as the New Generation Anti-Radiation Missile (NGARM) – has completed development trials and that preparations are now under way for user trials that are scheduled to start by mid-2023.

The Rudram-I was first test-fired from an Su-30MKI in January 2019. The missile, which has been in development since 2012, is scheduled to eventually replace existing Kh-31 (AS-17 ‘Krypton') and Martel ARMs in the IAF inventory.

Leadership 01.jpg


The Rudram-I is powered by an indigenously developed dual-pulse, solid-propellant rocket motor, and can be guided by a combination of passive and millimetric-wave (MMW) seekers.

---------------------------------------------------------

Twin Engine Deck based Fighter Jet

TEDBF.jpg
 
Last edited:
.
TEDBF design specs have been changed quite a bit since the last time they were published at DefExpo 2022.

Looks like an Indian Rafale now. Not that I'm complaining, given what a looker the Rafale and how amazing it's performance is.
Can’t TEDBF and LCA MK II be combined and developed as a common platform meeting the requirements of both the users? Same aircraft without folding wings can do service for AF too?
What is so unique about them? Or is it just service rivalry where they can’t come to common requirements and want to go separate ways?

Actually, bottom of the pamphlet says “project director LCA Navy MK 2”.
 
.
AMCA Project Director talks about the current status of the program. Will complete Critical Design Review soon and go to the CCS for sanctioning of funds for the prototype fabrication to start.

 
.
Can’t TEDBF and LCA MK II be combined and developed as a common platform meeting the requirements of both the users? Same aircraft without folding wings can do service for AF too?
What is so unique about them? Or is it just service rivalry where they can’t come to common requirements and want to go separate ways?

Actually, bottom of the pamphlet says “project director LCA Navy MK 2”.

They cannot.

Simply speaking, they're in two different categories for two different services. The same platform will not necessarily work well for both of them.

They tried to make a naval fighter out of the LCA and the results were disappointing in many areas where the LCA was designed from the bottom up to meet Air Force requirements. I have spoken to the senior most Naval LCA test pilot and he had very explicitly told me (back in 2013 itself) that the most sensible approach was to go with a clean sheet naval fighter rather than taking an Air Force fighter and trying to navalise it.

Once again, the earlier Naval LCA Mk2 (shown below with stabilators) was offered to the Indian Navy and they eventually came back and said that they didn't want a single engine fighter at all.

This Naval LCA Mk2 was in many ways similar to the Tejas Mk2 (but still had substantial differences) and was the closest we ever got to having a somewhat similar platform for the IAF and IN.

But that was not to be, because as far as the IN is concerned, STOBAR ops with a single engine fighter are restricted in payload and range and consequently don't meet all their mission requirements.

2560px-A_model_of_Naval_Tejas_Mk2_during_an_exhibition_by_DRDO_%26_HAL_on_September_19%2C_2019.jpg


The Tejas Mk2 offers a single engine 4.5 gen Mirage-2000 class fighter of 17.5 ton MTOW to the IAF for the next 40 years.1 X F-414 to power it. It sits in the "sweet spot" of as far as the IAF is concerned, which is the medium weight single engine fighter.

The TEDBF offers a twin engine 4.5 gen MiG-29K/Eurofighter class fighter for the IN which is a 26 ton MTOW fighter. 2 X F-414 to power it.

Very different in many ways, payload, range especially. The economics of the two, as far as operating costs and acquisition costs go, are also quite different. the Tejas Mk2 will be far cheaper than the TEDBF.

But having said that, I can tell you for sure that were the IAF to ever want a Su-30MKI replacement fighter in the 2040-2050s, an Air Force version of the TEDBF may be ideal platform to create an ORCA from. It will be cheaper than the AMCA, offers semi stealth and has the payload and range to do so.

Also the Tejas Mk2 is in prototype fabrication stage and hence at least 3 years ahead of the TEDBF overall. The TEDBF is in PDR stage and the design hasn't yet been frozen as we can still see several changes in the design from last year's Def Expo.
 
.
Seems they have made some progress

Yes indeed. The last we had seen of the TEDBF was this image of it going for Wind Tunnel Testing. Obviously they would've been doing WTT of the intakes as well and have as a result of these tests modified the forward fuselage significantly.

The images of the TEDBF that I've seen at Aero India 2023 also seem to indicate a much more refined wing-body blending as well. Plus the dimensions have grown, both in length as well as wing span. As has the payload and top speed.

IMG_20210416_160403.jpg
 
.
They cannot.

Simply speaking, they're in two different categories for two different services. The same platform will not necessarily work well for both of them.

They tried to make a naval fighter out of the LCA and the results were disappointing in many areas where the LCA was designed from the bottom up to meet Air Force requirements. I have spoken to the senior most Naval LCA test pilot and he had very explicitly told me (back in 2013 itself) that the most sensible approach was to go with a clean sheet naval fighter rather than taking an Air Force fighter and trying to navalise it.

Once again, the earlier Naval LCA Mk2 (shown below with stabilators) was offered to the Indian Navy and they eventually came back and said that they didn't want a single engine fighter at all.

This Naval LCA Mk2 was in many ways similar to the Tejas Mk2 (but still had substantial differences) and was the closest we ever got to having a somewhat similar platform for the IAF and IN.

But that was not to be, because as far as the IN is concerned, STOBAR ops with a single engine fighter are restricted in payload and range and consequently don't meet all their mission requirements.

2560px-A_model_of_Naval_Tejas_Mk2_during_an_exhibition_by_DRDO_%26_HAL_on_September_19%2C_2019.jpg


The Tejas Mk2 offers a single engine 4.5 gen Mirage-2000 class fighter of 17.5 ton MTOW to the IAF for the next 40 years.1 X F-414 to power it. It sits in the "sweet spot" of as far as the IAF is concerned, which is the medium weight single engine fighter.

The TEDBF offers a twin engine 4.5 gen MiG-29K/Eurofighter class fighter for the IN which is a 26 ton MTOW fighter. 2 X F-414 to power it.

Very different in many ways, payload, range especially. The economics of the two, as far as operating costs and acquisition costs go, are also quite different. the Tejas Mk2 will be far cheaper than the TEDBF.

But having said that, I can tell you for sure that were the IAF to ever want a Su-30MKI replacement fighter in the 2040-2050s, an Air Force version of the TEDBF may be ideal platform to create an ORCA from. It will be cheaper than the AMCA, offers semi stealth and has the payload and range to do so.

Also the Tejas Mk2 is in prototype fabrication stage and hence at least 3 years ahead of the TEDBF overall. The TEDBF is in PDR stage and the design hasn't yet been frozen as we can still see several changes in the design from last year's Def Expo.

Can it be other way round. Can TEDBF be configured to serve as twin engines for IAF (Su-30MKI-38.8 MTOW- Wow!!) equivalent or to fulfil IAF's current MRCA requirement.

F-35 is a single engine serving both purpose.
F/A-18 is a 23.5 Ton MTOW twin engine doing the same excellently.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom