CSAW
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2022
- Messages
- 907
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Continued No 4 :
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How many awacs aircrafts are currently in serviceAEWCS 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.
Fly upside down on a level flight will exert 1 G.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.
5 (3 phalcons and 2 145s)How many awacs aircrafts are currently in service
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.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.
Seems they have made some progressTEDBF 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.
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.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.
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.
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?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”.
Seems they have made some progress
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.
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.