- Messages
- 9,978
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
- Messages
- 3,220
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
It looks awesome!
- Messages
- 9,978
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
fire starter
Well-known member
- Messages
- 314
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
- Messages
- 9,978
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
I was about to move it to Tejas thread, but then I realised why you posted it here.....please add relevant connection like the following when you can.
www.theigmp.org
In a significant development the Naval Tejas Mk 1 NP-5 trainer has completed its fabrication and has been moved from its assembly line to another section of the Light Combat Division of Hindustan Aeronautics facility in Bengaluru where it will start low and high speed taxi trials followed by its first flight next month.
The NP-5 will be used as a Technology Demonstrator project for the Twin-Engine Deck-Based Fighter (TEDBF) program.
The NP-5 will be used to carry out of nominal landing trials during which it will mimic bad weather conditions that could affect the rear fuselage and landing gears during carrier landing in adverse weather conditions and the collected data will be crucial for the development of landing gears for the TEDBF program by Hindustan Aeronautics and any design changes that could be required for the aircraft to last its operational lifespan.
Naval Tejas MK1 NP-5 moved from the assembly line, taxi trial soon for TEDBF testbed
Naval Tejas MK1 NP-5 moved from the assembly line, taxi trial soon for TEDBF testbed
In a significant development the Naval Tejas Mk 1 NP-5 trainer has completed its fabrication and has been moved from its assembly line to another section of the Light Combat Division of Hindustan Aeronautics facility in Bengaluru where it will start low and high speed taxi trials followed by its first flight next month.
The NP-5 will be used as a Technology Demonstrator project for the Twin-Engine Deck-Based Fighter (TEDBF) program.
The NP-5 will be used to carry out of nominal landing trials during which it will mimic bad weather conditions that could affect the rear fuselage and landing gears during carrier landing in adverse weather conditions and the collected data will be crucial for the development of landing gears for the TEDBF program by Hindustan Aeronautics and any design changes that could be required for the aircraft to last its operational lifespan.
Fulcrum 007
New member
- Messages
- 2
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Hello! I am new here.
I always wondered as to why we are not pursuing a possible N-AMCA for carrier ops. So could the main reason be the lack of additional lift generating surfaces such as LERX/LEVCON/canards in AMCA's current frozen configuration? I have heard that such control surfaces help control the aircraft's pitch rate when performing a jump at a certain AoA from a ski-jump.
I always wondered as to why we are not pursuing a possible N-AMCA for carrier ops. So could the main reason be the lack of additional lift generating surfaces such as LERX/LEVCON/canards in AMCA's current frozen configuration? I have heard that such control surfaces help control the aircraft's pitch rate when performing a jump at a certain AoA from a ski-jump.
- Messages
- 9,978
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
AMCA Naval variant will need a proven air force system first before that can be ruggedized and optimized (in various ways) for naval operations. AMCA is just not mature enough.
In interim there is TEDBF program (also needs maturing) or acquiring of rafale/hornet that fit navy requirements well enough. TEDBF may just end up being a naval AMCA, we have to see.
....and welcome to the forum!
- Messages
- 9,978
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
- Messages
- 5,331
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
I dont get it,why not the AMCA in 2032,wont the TEDBF be 4,5 gen?
- Messages
- 2,782
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Yikes, delayed again
- Messages
- 9,978
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
It likely will be AMCA variant given this delay. Consolidating this program into AMCA makes more sense anyway.
There is shift in same conference indicating more attention priority to submarine program which is very lacking in numbers compared to requirement, so this consequence on naval aviation (and carrier program) is somewhat expected.
Bhartiya Sainik
Active member
- Messages
- 65
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
There is an indication by IN about 5gen TEDBF, means complete stealth.
Current TEDBF design could be scrapped or heavily modified.
So this is different from the earlier linear roadmap which IMO is contributing problem rather than parallel, independent projects.
We have our RAMs & RAS now, we need geometric structure.
It's good that IN understand now that Naval jets won't get threat concession by enemy SAMs, AAMs, jets.
The era of 5gen is said to begin with B-2 & F-117 revealed in 1988, then YF-22/23 revealed in 1990. They were developed in 1980s & initiated in 1970s. So we are 30-40 years behind that way.
But we are 15 years down the line with AMCA & many common components with MWF, TEDBF. There are 3 options now -
- tweak AMCA like F-35 A & C models.
- tweak current TEDBF design. The MWF can act as TD like X-35 & final Naval TEDBF can be stealthy like F-35C, although inflated to 2-engine jet.
- cleansheet AHCA with stronger engines for a good airframe TWR to take-off & carry sufficient minimum custom weapons.
Our engine JV shoud cater to this, meanwhile we should arrange interim engine for prototype.
Also, a panic has been created about humidity, salinity, higher CAPEX & OPEX of naval jets, etc as if it is a solid barrier in way of tech advancement. It sounds like 4.5gen is the end of line & pinnacle of Naval jet tech & no future version of RAM & RAS can protect the jets in affordable cost.
On land/sea, in space, deep under water, if something needs to be done, will be done. So let's not fuel this point which goes against stealth naval jet rather than being constructive & progressive.
The next carrier should have EMALS which should be sanctioned a.s.a.p.
Current TEDBF design could be scrapped or heavily modified.
So this is different from the earlier linear roadmap which IMO is contributing problem rather than parallel, independent projects.
We have our RAMs & RAS now, we need geometric structure.
It's good that IN understand now that Naval jets won't get threat concession by enemy SAMs, AAMs, jets.
The era of 5gen is said to begin with B-2 & F-117 revealed in 1988, then YF-22/23 revealed in 1990. They were developed in 1980s & initiated in 1970s. So we are 30-40 years behind that way.
But we are 15 years down the line with AMCA & many common components with MWF, TEDBF. There are 3 options now -
- tweak AMCA like F-35 A & C models.
- tweak current TEDBF design. The MWF can act as TD like X-35 & final Naval TEDBF can be stealthy like F-35C, although inflated to 2-engine jet.
- cleansheet AHCA with stronger engines for a good airframe TWR to take-off & carry sufficient minimum custom weapons.
Our engine JV shoud cater to this, meanwhile we should arrange interim engine for prototype.
Also, a panic has been created about humidity, salinity, higher CAPEX & OPEX of naval jets, etc as if it is a solid barrier in way of tech advancement. It sounds like 4.5gen is the end of line & pinnacle of Naval jet tech & no future version of RAM & RAS can protect the jets in affordable cost.
On land/sea, in space, deep under water, if something needs to be done, will be done. So let's not fuel this point which goes against stealth naval jet rather than being constructive & progressive.The next carrier should have EMALS which should be sanctioned a.s.a.p.
Last edited:
Bhartiya Sainik
Active member
- Messages
- 65
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Now ADA is in a dilemma on how to cater to IN.
- tweak AMCA to N-AMCA
- or tweak TEDBF to ATEDBF
- or new design
- when to officially initiate
- define timeline keeping in mind global tech advancements.
AMCA & current TEDBF would use same engines in twin config. so their dimensions, weight, size are also identical.
Following is a scaled comparison as per their width:
This comparison is identical to F-16 Vs F-35:
Although unofficial CADs are not the ultimate thing, the AMCA CAD looks relatively matured but if the TEDBF needs to be tweaked then clearly some things have to be modified like -
- lengthening & widening fuselage.
- reshaping narrow cockpit & over-sized canopy.
- create space for frontal sensors.
- adjust smaller intake area.
- pull up intakes & increase belly width for IWB.
- reduce bulky shoulder like fused CFT.
- remove vertical tail to twin canted ones.
- blend the wing more into fuselage.
- perhaps increase wing width/area little more.
- remove wingtip hardpoint by conformal tapered EW antennas.
- tweak AMCA to N-AMCA
- or tweak TEDBF to ATEDBF
- or new design
- when to officially initiate
- define timeline keeping in mind global tech advancements.
AMCA & current TEDBF would use same engines in twin config. so their dimensions, weight, size are also identical.
Following is a scaled comparison as per their width:
This comparison is identical to F-16 Vs F-35:
Although unofficial CADs are not the ultimate thing, the AMCA CAD looks relatively matured but if the TEDBF needs to be tweaked then clearly some things have to be modified like -
- lengthening & widening fuselage.
- reshaping narrow cockpit & over-sized canopy.
- create space for frontal sensors.
- adjust smaller intake area.
- pull up intakes & increase belly width for IWB.
- reduce bulky shoulder like fused CFT.
- remove vertical tail to twin canted ones.
- blend the wing more into fuselage.
- perhaps increase wing width/area little more.
- remove wingtip hardpoint by conformal tapered EW antennas.
