Indian Naval Aviation

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Dec 2022 00:00

chetak wrote:
Rakesh wrote: Chetak, pointless to beat a dead horse. Lets agree to disagree. Thanks.
let's wait until such a discussion actually starts in some cobweb adorned power corridor or the other.

Well said Sirji.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 14 Dec 2022 04:40

Rakesh wrote: Only 18 out of the 26 Rafale Ms being acquired are carrier compatible. The remaining 8 airframes are all twin seaters and are not carrier compatible. There are rumours of Dassault doing a customized twin seater Rafale M, but nothing has been confirmed. So those 18 airframes will all come under one squadron - either No 300 or No 303 - and will serve onboard INS Vikrant.

Now if they switch the order book around and acquire all 26 single seater Rafale Ms, then perhaps yes.

If it is Rafale then they will all be M variant (single seaters) and it makes sense to club with IAF order to include the 2 seaters for common training. Not sure if IAF will be too happy about it though.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Dec 2022 07:10

@JTull: The plan with the MRCBF purchase is to have 18 single seater fighters and 8 twin seater trainers, for a total of 26 airframes.

With the F-18SH, all 26 airframes would have been carrier compatible. With the Rafale M, only 18 of them would have been so....as the twin seater Rafale B is not carrier compatible. There are rumours of a Rafale BM variant, but it would be extremely cost prohibitive considering the Indian Navy would be the sole customer of such a variant and that too for a mere 8 airframes.

If the Navy wants a greater number of carrier compatible aircraft with the MRCBF, then they will have to increase the number of Rafale Ms. But that will reduce the number of twin seater variants the Navy will have on hand to train their pilots. The best way - that I see - to address this conundrum would be to share a twin seater Rafale fleet with the Air Force.

With regards to the IAF's possible displeasure over such an arrangement, let me state this ---> If the IAF wants additional Rafale squadrons, they will gladly get behind the Navy's push for Rafale Ms for their fleet. The 114 MRFA contest is going nowhere, despite all the IAF's public claims that that this purchase is absolutely necessary. Air HQ is well aware of this fact, but equally the Govt (who controls the purse strings) is also aware. The complexities involved - financial, political, bureaucratic, etc - will not permit such a contest to ever see the light of day.

The choice of the Rafale M by the Navy gives the Govt a huge political shot in the arm, after the fake Rafale scandal that plagued the Govt. It took two Supreme Court decisions to clear the Govt's name, but it also knocked the wind out of the sails for any additional Rafale squadrons for the IAF. But with the Navy's choice, that ship will now sail again. And nobody will be more overjoyed by the Navy's decision than the Air Marshals at Air HQ. The Govt can do a reduced purchase of MRFAs for the IAF and lump it together with a MRCBF purchase for the Navy.

There is already talks of splitting the MRFA purchase right down the middle ---> 57 MRFA + 26 MRCBF for a total of 81 birds. Politically and financially, such a joint deal for the IAF and IN would help the Govt immensely. From Air HQ's stand point, they get three additional Rafale squadrons and the Navy finally gets her MRCBF as well. One of those three squadrons could possibly serve as a training unit with simulators and twin seater Rafale Bs. And the twin seater is fully combat capable as the single seater Rafale C and M variants. Everyone wins.

Choosing the F-18SH would certainly end any additional Rafale purchases for the IAF. This would seriously complicate military planning for Air HQ, because it would open the door for another MRFA to enter service with the IAF. That would have likely been the F-15EX, but in quantities way less than 114 airframes. And Air HQ would also have to deal with the added headache of having the Damocles Sword (the US Govt*) dangle over its neck with the purchase of the F-15EX. The "Pressler Amendment" scenario is best avoided by Air HQ.

*Remember the takleef the US Govt got (and still do!) over the S-400 purchase by the IAF? Imagine that scenario, but now with an American fighter in the IAF fleet. See the leverage the US Govt will have.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Dec 2022 07:39

Rakesh, Forget old plan.

It's 27 Rafale M.

Luxtor · Post by **Luxtor** » 14 Dec 2022 09:48

How did it get this far where they built an entire AIRCRAFT CARRIER with lifts not big enough for AIRCRAFT? There must've been thousands of people involved for many years in the entire design, review, approval, and building processes, and not one person raised their hand and said hey, wait a minute, the lifts are not big enough for the intented primary aircraft?

Reminds me of the fable of a man who built a boat in his basement and then couldn't get it out up the stairs to the door.

(Sorry if this point has been brought up and discussed already).

YashG · Post by **YashG** » 14 Dec 2022 10:58

Luxtor wrote:How did it get this far where they built an entire AIRCRAFT CARRIER with lifts not big enough for AIRCAFT? There must've been thousands of people involved for many years in the entire design, review, approval, and building processes, and not one person raised their hand and said hey, wait a minute, the lifts are not big enough for the intented primary aircraft?

Reminds me of the fable of a man who built a boat in his basement and then couldn't get it out up the stairs to the door.

(Sorry if this point has been brought up and discussed already).

I once spoke to a IN submarine guy, he told me everyone goes for refurbishing of submarine battery instead of replacing them since it kicks teh can down the road for two more years - within that 2 years most people in decision making will be out, so they dont care. Long term planning in Indian defence acquisition is scarce.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 14 Dec 2022 12:53

Luxtor wrote:How did it get this far where they built an entire AIRCRAFT CARRIER with lifts not big enough for AIRCAFT? There must've been thousands of people involved for many years in the entire design, review, approval, and building processes, and not one person raised their hand and said hey, wait a minute, the lifts are not big enough for the intented primary aircraft?

Reminds me of the fable of a man who built a boat in his basement and then couldn't get it out up the stairs to the door.

(Sorry if this point has been brought up and discussed already).

This may not be technology available with India and it may be part of the GFE (govt furnished equipment) in the carrier contract with CSL. It would be a bought out item with the responsibility for procurement and delivery being that of the GoI (IN)

The russkis may have made this and also been a big part of team that installed and tested it on the carrier.

It will not be easy to increase the size nor make modifications without extensive involvement of the russkis (or even the ukrainains maybe)

Kersi · Post by **Kersi** » 14 Dec 2022 13:19

Luxtor wrote:How did it get this far where they built an entire AIRCRAFT CARRIER with lifts not big enough for AIRCAFT? There must've been thousands of people involved for many years in the entire design, review, approval, and building processes, and not one person raised their hand and said hey, wait a minute, the lifts are not big enough for the intented primary aircraft?

Reminds me of the fable of a man who built a boat in his basement and then couldn't get it out up the stairs to the door.

(Sorry if this point has been brought up and discussed already).

Maybe IN thought that they are unlikely to use anything but MiG 29

Maybe Russian design n made the lifts so that IN can use ONLY MiG 29 and nothing else !!!!!

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 14 Dec 2022 13:28

Kersi wrote:
Luxtor wrote:How did it get this far where they built an entire AIRCRAFT CARRIER with lifts not big enough for AIRCAFT? There must've been thousands of people involved for many years in the entire design, review, approval, and building processes, and not one person raised their hand and said hey, wait a minute, the lifts are not big enough for the intented primary aircraft?

Reminds me of the fable of a man who built a boat in his basement and then couldn't get it out up the stairs to the door.

(Sorry if this point has been brought up and discussed already).
Maybe IN thought that they are unlikely to use anything but MiG 29

Maybe Russian design n made the lifts so that IN can use ONLY MiG 29 and nothing else !!!!!

Kersi ji,

this is the more likelier option

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 14 Dec 2022 15:27

The ship was designed with Italian consultancy.

Kersi · Post by **Kersi** » 14 Dec 2022 17:19

chetak wrote:
Kersi wrote:
Maybe IN thought that they are unlikely to use anything but MiG 29

Maybe Russian design n made the lifts so that IN can use ONLY MiG 29 and nothing else !!!!!
Kersi ji,

this is the more likelier option

That's what my wicked mind tells me

Kersi · Post by **Kersi** » 14 Dec 2022 17:20

Pratyush wrote:The ship was designed with Italian consultancy.

I don't know if the Italians were consulted regarding the aviation part of the ship.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 14 Dec 2022 17:37

Kersi wrote:
chetak wrote:
Kersi ji,

this is the more likelier option
That's what my wicked mind tells me

Kersi ji,

In all probability, the aircraft lifts are identical to those on the Vikramaditya

makes some sense in terms of stocking spares and many aspects of maintainability

Kersi · Post by **Kersi** » 14 Dec 2022 17:41

chetak wrote:
Kersi wrote:
That's what my wicked mind tells me

Kersi ji,

In all probability, the aircraft lifts are identical to those on the Vikramaditya

makes some sense in terms of stocking spares and many aspects of maintainability

Possible

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 14 Dec 2022 18:05

Some timelines:

IAC Vikrant design started: 1999
Rafale M delivery to French Navy: 2006
IAC Keel laid down: 2009
MMRCA decision favoring Rafale: 2012
IAC launch: 2013
IAC Commission: 2022

Could the IN have incorporated the possibility of Rafale-M in the Vikrant in the 1999 - 2009 timeframe (for the lift design)? I am assuming that, once the keel is laid down, it will be harder to make these changes. Its hard to fault the IN, given the MMRCA decision itself was 1 year prior to IAC launch.

Maybe, they could have factored in a larger factor of safety, but back then, you cannot fault them for not thinking beyond Mig-29K (its non-maintainability came to the fore only later)

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 14 Dec 2022 19:59

Prem Kumar wrote:Some timelines:

IAC Vikrant design started: 1999
Rafale M delivery to French Navy: 2006
IAC Keel laid down: 2009
MMRCA decision favoring Rafale: 2012
IAC launch: 2013
IAC Commission: 2022

Could the IN have incorporated the possibility of Rafale-M in the Vikrant in the 1999 - 2009 timeframe (for the lift design)? I am assuming that, once the keel is laid down, it will be harder to make these changes. Its hard to fault the IN, given the MMRCA decision itself was 1 year prior to IAC launch.

Maybe, they could have factored in a larger factor of safety, but back then, you cannot fault them for not thinking beyond Mig-29K (its non-maintainability came to the fore only later)

I don't think that anyone else would have been willing to supply just the aircraft lifts without carrier.

just like we are still struggling to get the catapult technology, fighter engine tech, vagera vagera

The delivered lifts from russia were either cost constrained or tech constrained or specific fighter type constrained.

Either way it was a strategic decision like the leasing of the russki nuke subs and all have learned to live with the current limitations.

As for future constraints and limitations and the possibility of upgrade in terms of size and weight, we just have to wait and see how the strategic situation changes

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 14 Dec 2022 20:23

Yes. As others have pointed out & the IN seems to be thinking along the same lines as well, a repeat order of a Vikrant class carrier with a re-design of the lifts, seems to be the best way forward

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 14 Dec 2022 20:32

Prem Kumar wrote:Yes. As others have pointed out & the IN seems to be thinking along the same lines as well, a repeat order of a Vikrant class carrier with a re-design of the lifts, seems to be the best way forward

Prem Kumar ji,

Currently, such a capability may not exist either in house or even in country.

This would be my best guess, though I would be very happy to be proven wrong.

So, it would be back to the strategic chessboard, hoping that someone would take it forward and make the move, either to build here with transfer of tech/JV.

The russkis, cheeni, amerikis, britshits, eyetalians, japan have the capability and may be the frenchies too, but am not sure what aircraft lift tech they are using for their carrier (ameriki or home brew) so the prospects of getting it off one of them seem a bit grim

Barath · Post by **Barath** » 15 Dec 2022 00:09

Luxtor wrote:the lifts are not big enough for the intented primary aircraft?
.

The CAG report in 2015 makes it clear that the primary aircraft is/was the Mig29K [and the secondary was the Sea Harrier ]

The delivery of the option clause aircraft scheduled between 2012 and 2016 is much ahead of the delivery schedule of the IAC, in 2023 as as projected by Cochin Shipyard Limited ....

The Ministry’s proposal (October 2002) to the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) brought out that 30 aircraft of various types (twelve MiG29K, eight Advanced Light Helicopters, two Kamov-31 and eight Sea Harrier/Light Combat Aircraft (Navy) were envisaged to operate from the IAC. The
MiG29K was cleared (February 2003) by the Defence Procurement Board (DPB) for INS Vikramaditya and by the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC)18
for ADS (i.e., IAC) in September 2008. As per the Ministry’s proposal (November 2009) for Option Clause19 aircraft, the MiG29K is a carrier borne multi role aircraft and would be the mainstay of integral fleet air defence.

Option clause - exercised by the Ministry of Defence for acquisition of 29 MiG29K/KUB aircraft in March 2010, which included 12 MiG29K and 01 MiG29KUB for the IAC

The change of primary aircraft happened relatively recently, and it is unclear at what point the GoI formally accepted it, (especially given that there is still no AoN !). The number of fixed win aircraft is also clear - 20. [Folks inevitably assume max number of ~26 in wiki]. This is also roughly in line with 18+8 single seat+trainers later discussed for MRFA

Re : Italian consulting - Fincantieri was hired in 2004, with the expectation that the bulk of the contract would be completed in 2 years. Much of the contract was for propulsion. but it was also to assess ship design.. Fincantieri influence is apparently seen in sloping superstructure and ship sides, similar to Cavour. Reference. By 2006-7, the possibility of different aircraft was low, and possible impact of lift clearly not flagged.

Fincantieri, through its Naval Vessel Business Unit, signed two contracts with the Indian shipyard of Cochin...

The first contract covered assessment of the entire ship's design and responsibility for "propulsion system integration" in addition to providing assistance to the shipyard during installation of the engines and during the successive phase of tests of integration and sea trials. During the development of the design a team of officers of the Indian Navy and engineering experts from Cochin shipyard would work in Italy together with Fincantieri technical staff at the headquarters of the Naval Vessel Business Unit.

The second contract regarded the supply of the engineering and detailed design of the ancillary propulsion systems and the ship's main plants ....The two contracts were expected to cover approximately 2 years, although assistance would continue until the trials and delivery have taken place

VKumar · Post by **VKumar** » 15 Dec 2022 04:17

Could IN transfer the Mig 29 to IAF and buy equal numbers of Rafale M instead?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Dec 2022 23:44

https://twitter.com/VivekSi85847001/sta ... YGd-SRLuRQ ---> 10 years and 35,000 hours of P-8(I). The first P-8(I) was delivered to the Indian Navy in December 2012 and since then, the IN has used it extensively in the IOR (Indian Ocean Region) and the LAC (Line of Actual Control) near China. Twelve in service and IN is looking to procure six more from Boeing.

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 24 Dec 2022 01:56

Pratyush wrote:The ship was designed with Italian consultancy.

The Russians were given the contract to design and furnish the aviation complex of the Vikrant. They promptly designed the entire complex around the 29K (one of the narrowest 2 engine fighters in the world with wings folded)

Why no one in the IN questioned their design is the issue, the same IN that never thought it sensible to have jet blast deflectors on their STOBAR carriers

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 24 Dec 2022 01:57

chetak wrote:
Kersi wrote:
That's what my wicked mind tells me

Kersi ji,

In all probability, the aircraft lifts are identical to those on the Vikramaditya

makes some sense in terms of stocking spares and many aspects of maintainability

Not at all.

The lifts in the Vikaramaditya are built into the deck, the lifts on the Vikrant are deck edge lifts and of a slightly different dimension (slightly larger) and on the Vikky. I believe the Vikrant’s lifts are actually from a British OEM

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 24 Dec 2022 02:00

chetak wrote:
Prem Kumar wrote:Yes. As others have pointed out & the IN seems to be thinking along the same lines as well, a repeat order of a Vikrant class carrier with a re-design of the lifts, seems to be the best way forward
Prem Kumar ji,

Currently, such a capability may not exist either in house or even in country.

This would be my best guess, though I would be very happy to be proven wrong.

So, it would be back to the strategic chessboard, hoping that someone would take it forward and make the move, either to build here with transfer of tech/JV.

The russkis, cheeni, amerikis, britshits, eyetalians, japan have the capability and may be the frenchies too, but am not sure what aircraft lift tech they are using for their carrier (ameriki or home brew) so the prospects of getting it off one of them seem a bit grim

It’s not rocket science. IN can design its own warships, to incorporate larger lifts would be a relatively minor exercise, we are only talking about an additional 0.2-4m either side

What JV would be needed for a ship that would be >99% identical to Vikrant?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Dec 2022 04:16

KSingh wrote:
chetak wrote:

Kersi ji,

In all probability, the aircraft lifts are identical to those on the Vikramaditya

makes some sense in terms of stocking spares and many aspects of maintainability
Not at all.

The lifts in the Vikramaditya are built into the deck, the lifts on the Vikrant are deck edge lifts and of a slightly different dimension (slightly larger) and on the Vikky. I believe the Vikrant’s lifts are actually from a British OEM

The lift business is over.
Someone in IN realized that the RafaleM can be stationed on the diagonal of the lift and lowered.
So all lift issues on Vikrant are passe.
However, the arresting cable would be an issue if it was the heavier F-18.

IN will now order the next 45K ton IAC-3 and move on.

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 24 Dec 2022 08:41

ramana wrote:
KSingh wrote: Not at all.

The lifts in the Vikramaditya are built into the deck, the lifts on the Vikrant are deck edge lifts and of a slightly different dimension (slightly larger) and on the Vikky. I believe the Vikrant’s lifts are actually from a British OEM

The lift business is over.
Someone in IN realized that the RafaleM can be stationed on the diagonal of the lift and lowered.
So all lift issues on Vikrant are passe.
However, the arresting cable would be an issue if it was the heavier F-18.

IN will now order the next 45K ton IAC-3 and move on.

Totally agree. I never thought the lifts were an issue for the Vikrant, Dassualt never raised this and they paid for all of the Rafale-M validation work in-house and in Goa, they wouldn’t have done so if the bird couldn’t even operate on the Vikrant.

The main issue that all fighters other than the MiG-29K and NLCA have in terms of compatibility with the Vikrant is the RGS, I’ve not seen a single media outlet raise this concern as of yet but it’s insurmountable. That and many other reasons are why there won’t be anything new for the IN’s fighter fleet until TEBDF is ready

Roop · Post by **Roop** » 25 Dec 2022 13:57

KSingh wrote:The main issue that all fighters other than the MiG-29K and NLCA have in terms of compatibility with the Vikrant is the RGS ...

What is RGS?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Dec 2022 23:46

Roop wrote:
KSingh wrote:The main issue that all fighters other than the MiG-29K and NLCA have in terms of compatibility with the Vikrant is the RGS ...
What is RGS?

Restraining Gear System aka Arresting Gear

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 26 Dec 2022 08:29

Isn't this system provided by the Russians?

Did they design and provide us with a different system, from what is used on the Kuznetsov?

Or it is an indigenous designed system.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 26 Dec 2022 18:14

Pratyush wrote:Isn't this system provided by the Russians?

Did they design and provide us with a different system, from what is used on the Kuznetsov?

Or it is an indigenous designed system.

It would be part of the aviation complex, I believe. So I guess it would be very close, if not exactly the same system used in Kuznetsov.

AkshaySG · Post by **AkshaySG** » 26 Dec 2022 20:45

So the arresting gear system is compatible with the much heavier Su-33s but not with Rafales and Shornets?

How does that work.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 26 Dec 2022 21:04

AkshaySG wrote:So the arresting gear system is compatible with the much heavier Su-33s but not with Rafales and Shornets?

How does that work.

AkshaySG ji,

only the arresting gear system is compatible with the much heavier Su-33s but not the lifts, so how did this come about....

the logic fits if both the arresting gear system and the lifts have been type tailored for one specific aircraft platform

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 27 Dec 2022 00:51

Lifts are not the same as arrester gear. So it's possible for those to be tailored for the Mig 29 and the Tejas.

The arrestor gears are not going to change in that case.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 27 Dec 2022 02:09

I think the arrestor cable tensioner/dampener is adjustable to the aircraft and it's loadout with certain degree of latitude.

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 30 Dec 2022 22:59

Rakesh wrote:
Roop wrote: What is RGS?
Restraining Gear System aka Arresting Gear

Correct on the definition of RGS but not it’s not the arrestor gear system that stops the fighter on landing. The RGS are the hydraulic chocks that holds back the fighter on a STOBAR platform. It allows the fighter to spool up its engines to full AB and then begin the TO roll with max power available (jet engines take some time to sppol up and they can do so asymmetrically also). Parking brakes on aircraft are generally not strong enough to keep an aircraft stationary in such conditions at least not routinely

I haven’t seen any reports on how either MRBF contender will adapt to the Russian designed (for the Mig-29K) RGS. The NLCA is the only other fighter in the world that that RGS can work for as the NLCA was designed to use the 29K’s footprint- just like the TEDBF will be

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Jan 2023 06:25

(USN) Precision Carrier Landings

Aircraft carrier landings are generally regarded as one of the most difficult—and dangerous—activities performed in an airplane. Turn out the lights and add some ocean swell and these landings are downright treacherous. But with recent technological advancements comes a system that so simplifies and improves the safety of these landings that the U.S. Navy is exploring doing away with carrier qualifications as the capstone of a student naval aviator's training for the first time in history.

On this episode, U.S. Navy Captain Dan "O.J." Catlin joins FPP cohost Matt "Flounder" Arny to discuss the precision landing mode, once known as MAGIC CARPET, that revolutionizes fixed-wing aircraft carrier landings to the point of nearly making them routine.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&p=2574182#p2574182

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 05 Jan 2023 14:38

French newspaper La Tribune is reporting that the French Rafale M is almost sure to be selected for the MRCBF

link

While waiting perhaps for Colombia , or even Serbia , New Delhi will most likely confirm the acquisition of the Rafale Marineto the French aircraft manufacturer during Emmanuel Macron's visit to India scheduled for next March, according to our information. The precise date of the presidential trip would not yet be decided. But everything would be ready on the Indian side to announce the selection of the Rafale Marine, we explain to La Tribune. A contract could be signed quite soon after this announcement. Especially since in 2023, India and France will also celebrate the 25th anniversary of their strategic partnership.

..

The Indian Navy, which eliminated Boeing's F-18 for technical reasons, has expressed an initial need for 26 aircraft to equip its "Made in India" aircraft carrier INS Vikrant. This device will allow the Indians to have a homogeneous fleet between the Rafale Air and the Rafale Marine. New Delhi, which ordered 36 Rafales in 2016 , also received the last copy in December, six years later. The two Indian Rafale squadrons have become fully operational.

...

Intense dialogue between Paris and New Delhi

As part of the fourth annual India-France defense dialogue at the end of November in Delhi, the Minister for the Armed Forces Sébastien Lecornu met his Indian counterpart Raksha Mantri Shri Rajnath Singh. The two men discussed ways to strengthen maritime cooperation and increase the complexity of bilateral exercises. They also discussed industrial cooperation in the field of defence, including “Make in India”. they discussed future cooperation and co-production possibilities. The two ministers agreed that the technical groups of the two countries should meet in early 2023 to advance key issues of cooperation. The day before this dialogue, on November 27, a high-level French delegation led by Sébastien Lecornu had visited the aircraft carrier INS Vikrant. "This visit has made it possible to consolidate bilateral strategic relations between the two countries ,” said the Indian Ministry of Defence.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 12 Jan 2023 20:34

Indian Navy carries out crucial surveillance operation along Pakistan border
https://www.firstpost.com/india/indian- ... 54962.html
09 Jan 2023

A Long Range Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA), the P-8I Poseidon aircraft is use for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions by the Indian Navy.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 13 Jan 2023 16:04

TEDBF Preliminary Design Review data and documents will be submitted to the Indian Navy and the Indian Govt. in the "second quarter of 2023". i.e. between July - Sep 2023.

Design of India's naval fighter approaching preliminary completion

The preliminary design of India's Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) programme is being prepared for submission to New Delhi in 2023 for approval.

This Preliminary Design Review (PDR) will provide the government and the Indian Navy with the first opportunity to assess the design of the aircraft.

P Thangavel, project director (Light Combat Aircraft Navy Mk 1) of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), told Janes that “all data and documents pertaining to the design review are currently being prepared. We are aiming to submit the PDR in [the beginning] of the second quarter of 2023”.

Another ADA official told Janes that the prototype can be implemented four years after India's Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) approves the project. “We are planning for a roll-out of the prototype in 2026 and a completion of flight trials by 2030−31,” the official said.

The Indian Navy had originally stated a requirement for the aircraft to replace the fleet's existing Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29Ks by 2031.

According to Thangavel, the model of the TEDBF is undergoing wind tunnel testing. “We expect the prototype to begin flight-testing in four to five years. Qualification trials will be extended. We estimate that operational trials can be completed five years later. The aircraft will require a substantial amount of testing − over 1,000 flights,” he said.

According to ADA data, the TEDBF is being designed as a Mach 1.6-capable aircraft with a service ceiling of 60,000 ft. ADA officials told Janes.

Some people must have noticed that Rahul Bedi no longer is the Jane's correspondent for India. Has resulted in a marked reduction in critical text that Rahul Bedi would always insert, that would claim this or that negative thing about indigenous developments.

Cyrano · Post by **Cyrano** » 13 Jan 2023 16:52

So no concealed weapons bay in the AMCA ? IFR? Irst/FSO ? Unique folding wing design, so far out.

Or is this just a Jane's drawing not faithful to actual spec ?