Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
arvin
BRFite
Posts: 359
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby arvin » 21 Jun 2020 14:00

brar_w wrote:
What do "lesser" requirements mean?

If Boeing was determined to win this (even if that means running the risk of never ever turning profit on the initial program) what could HAL have done even if one assumed it wanted to compete? Would they have been in a position to go $ for $ with Boeing?


As per this link, Group Captain HV Thakur, deputy chief test pilot, HAL says
"Work started last year when we wanted to participate in the US' T-X programme for new-generation trainers. Our platform was a bit expensive as it was built on the Tejas platform and capable of combat. The United States wanted a pure trainer


I am not aware of T-X program fine print, but available open source info suggests if LCA trainer had couple of features less it may have been affordable to be evaluated in the program. The M346 MASTER and Hawk are transonic so they dont completely qualify the primary criteria for which T-X program was launched. HAL could have thrown $ on this dedicated trainer version to create a T-50 competitor early on say post 2010 instead of focussing on HAwk-i which I believe is purely internally funded . Boeing was determined to win this, the T-50 lost out, even HAL may have lost out but that happens in a trial.
USN trainer (T-45) requirement is up next with usual suspects above in the fray. None of them are carrier capable. HAL will miss this bus too despite having LCA NP-1.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 21 Jun 2020 20:18

arvin wrote:As per this link, Group Captain HV Thakur, deputy chief test pilot, HAL says


I've replied in the Int. thread - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7625&p=2441239#p2441239

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9062
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 29 Jun 2020 21:38


basant
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby basant » 29 Jun 2020 22:07

^^^
The radome looks circular. Not like AMCA's and definitely not of Mk.2. :?:

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9062
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 29 Jun 2020 22:10

Someone in that tweet link said it was TEDBF, that is why I posted it in here.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby basant » 29 Jun 2020 22:54

^^^
Sorry, missed that. He further tweeted:
We'll campaign so hard in Twitter hashtags and make a nationwide consensus about TEDBF and it's top-class features we want. We will manipulate their plan of "no retractable IFR in TEDBF" (if any) by doing so and we'll succeed.
9:22 AM · Jun 28, 2020

Just going by first TEDBF model shared as the one of the several being considered that 'looked okay', I doubt if this is how the radome would be. It was also said that TEDBF "may imbibe technologies being developed for the IAF's Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) but will not be a stealth fighter in the same class." So it is a possibility, but I wonder if the saw-tooth circular radome shown above would serve much purpose.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2838
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby abhik » 29 Jun 2020 23:30

Its just fan art, lets just enjoy the visuals and not try to over analyse it.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1956
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby srin » 03 Jul 2020 09:04

This is a good time to have an engine bake off and get F414, EJ200, M88 in a contest, like we did for Tejas Mk2 (between EJ200 and F414).

Just too nervous about all engines being in Khan basket.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20720
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 03 Jul 2020 12:30

There is a USN War study on the carrier in IN doctrine. A lengthy study.In short it questions the efficacy of our " light" carriers as the VikA and new Vikrant, in carrying out full spectrum carrier warfare as practised by the USN.Reasons are the foll:

STOBAR launch,lesser payload carried,range too.
Too few aircraft ( around 30 to 40 max) to undertake comprehensive attacks from the sea against inland land targets.50% of those serviceable will be on air defence duty.
The dedicated anti-ship aircraft of the enemy in prosecuting attacks against the CBG/ CTF. Equipped with LR ASMs, and supported by AWACS . This pushes the enemy's defensive boundary outwards significantly. The cost factor of a CV,carrier air group,plus escorts,et al., One could get 10 AIP subs for the cost of just one carrier,etc.

In brief, the best use of IN CVs are to escort and protect convoys of our merchant fleet,tankers,etc. and strike at enemy surface groups .Sea control. Limited strikes at land targets could be carried out with exg. aircraft using stand-off PGMs. The prosecution of enemy subs too and using the extra advantage of land based aircraft for air cover,AEW, etc.Interdicting enemy long- endurance UUVs on the surface and underwater.
The vulnerability of carriers from new supersonic missiles is another factor. Blockading Paki coastlines will be more difficult from now on,a task better suited to sub warfare and mining approaches.

Any new TEDBF will have to fit within the footprint of the 29K and lifts of our two CVs.There is v.little likelihood of the 3rd. CV getting the nod before 2025,given the Chin gambit in Ladakh and elsewhere.The IA and IAF will get first pick and understandly so.Whatever funds the IN gets will first go to the sub service, hundreds of ASW and LUH helos reqd. and hopefully LR supersonic maritime strike bombers.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7672
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 07 Jul 2020 04:27

srin wrote:This is a good time to have an engine bake off and get F414, EJ200, M88 in a contest, like we did for Tejas Mk2 (between EJ200 and F414).

Just too nervous about all engines being in Khan basket.

M88 is not in the same thrust class as the other two. TEDBF needs quick decisions and a relatively short development timeline. We don;t have time for an engine bake-off.

schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1652
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby schinnas » 07 Jul 2020 17:41

Just order more of F414, in exchange for healthy offsets in India, availability of spares and quick servicing. Standardising on few components simplifies the supply chain, cross cannibalization when needed (let's say future sanctions) and most importantly maintenance and skilled manpower logistics.

Barath
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Barath » 07 Jul 2020 23:18

Philip wrote:There is a USN War study on the carrier in IN doctrine. A lengthy study.In short it questions the efficacy of our " light" carriers as the VikA and new Vikrant, in carrying out full spectrum carrier warfare as practised by the USN.Reasons are the foll:

STOBAR launch,lesser payload carried,range too.
Too few aircraft ( around 30 to 40 max) to undertake comprehensive attacks from the sea against inland land targets.50% of those serviceable will be on air defence duty.
The dedicated anti-ship aircraft of the enemy in prosecuting attacks against the CBG/ CTF. Equipped with LR ASMs, and supported by AWACS . This pushes the enemy's defensive boundary outwards significantly. The cost factor of a CV,carrier air group,plus escorts,et al., One could get 10 AIP subs for the cost of just one carrier,etc.

In brief, the best use of IN CVs are to escort and protect convoys of our merchant fleet,tankers,etc. and strike at enemy surface groups .Sea control. Limited strikes at land targets could be carried out with exg. aircraft using stand-off PGMs. The prosecution of enemy subs too and using the extra advantage of land based aircraft for air cover,AEW, etc.Interdicting enemy long- endurance UUVs on the surface and underwater.
The vulnerability of carriers from new supersonic missiles is another factor. Blockading Paki coastlines will be more difficult from now on,a task better suited to sub warfare and mining approaches.

Any new TEDBF will have to fit within the footprint of the 29K and lifts of our two CVs.There is v.little likelihood of the 3rd. CV getting the nod before 2025,given the Chin gambit in Ladakh and elsewhere.The IA and IAF will get first pick and understandly so.Whatever funds the IN gets will first go to the sub service, hundreds of ASW and LUH helos reqd. and hopefully LR supersonic maritime strike bombers.


Not aware of US study on carrier in Indian doctrine (!); there have been enough on carrier in US doctrine; from which the observations can be carried over.

The US and thus the USN has vastly different needs and context than India. Simply put, the USN uses supercarriers for power projection and was willing to pay high capital expenses for those large nuclear supercarriers. However at the same time, it was also de-facto creating presence capability with Ambhibious assault based wings (also part of discussion of navy's 355+ ship revisit) and has rehearse surge. Also US carrier kill chain disruption strategy does not copy paste over to India.

At the same time, India has little need of carriers for deep land strikes or as floating airstrips globally. And some of those sortie/power projection ratios can be tilted by smart force multipliers (eg stealth tanking, drones for the recon/intelligence portion of CAP etc, emals etc, longer range missiles or planes, naval awacs/networks) in general.

Baby steps

Barath
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF): News & Discussion

Postby Barath » 07 Jul 2020 23:21

schinnas wrote:Just order more of F414, in exchange for healthy offsets in India, availability of spares and quick servicing. Standardising on few components simplifies the supply chain, cross cannibalization when needed (let's say future sanctions) and most importantly maintenance and skilled manpower logistics.


To add to that, IN TEDBF numbers may not favor high leverage. even with 2x engines per plane.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AshishAcharya, brar_w, Google [Bot], morem and 38 guests