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.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4880
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 22 Feb 2021 05:51

disha wrote:
hemant_sai wrote:Though I would love to see more such interviews from DDR, I didn't like the manners. At times it appears insulting for the person being interviewed.


Hemant Sai'ji, please please grant the interviewer some leeway. Actually lot of leeway. The interviewer (who is our own BRFite) was obviously preparing for the contents of the questions.

This 10 mins of interview are so so so far better than the hours of DDM'itis we are used to.

Agree. Quality content!

One simple suggestion would be to focus the video frame on whoever is speaking. That way the viewer doesn’t get distracted by the non-speaker’s actions.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4880
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 22 Feb 2021 05:55

...

Navy must go with at the very least 12 NLCA-mk1s/Trainers. Apart from excellent LIFT aircraft, it will generate immense operational data for ADA/HAL. This was mentioned by the PD, TEDBF as well in the interview.

...


Is the IN listening?


Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10976
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 26 Feb 2021 01:19

Pictures added on page 1. Thank you.

sooraj
BRFite
Posts: 1528
Joined: 06 May 2011 15:45

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

Postby sooraj » 26 Feb 2021 12:18

Satwik
@i_m_satwikk

Image

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 835
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

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

Postby neerajb » 26 Feb 2021 16:45

On page one, the unfolded and folded wingspan got swapped, Please correct it.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10976
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 26 Feb 2021 20:27

I have made the correction. thank you for pointing that out.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10976
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 26 Feb 2021 22:37

I have moved a whole bunch of posts to other threads.

Please focus on title of thread, before you post.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4751
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Postby Manish_Sharma » 27 Feb 2021 03:24

https://alphadefense.in/orca-omni-role- ... craft-iaf/

ORCA – Why it makes sense?

By Alpha Defense
FEB 26, 2021

The Omni Role Combat Aircraft or ORCA is a proposed land-based variant of Twin Engine Deck based fighter jet that is under development for the requirement of Indian Navy. The design of twin engine deck-based fighter jet unveiled during aero India 2021 suggests that fighter will have frontal shape optimization for reduced radar cross-section. Canards for better agility in air, along with diverter-less supersonic inlet (DSI). 

Why ORCA?

The current fleet of the Indian Airforce (IAF) has a good mix of the fighter jet for multiple roles. In future IAF plans to reduce the number of types to optimize the logistics and training. Tejas Mk1 and Tejas Mk1A will replace the Mig21 Bison of the current fleet. Tejas Mk2 will replace the Jaguars, Mirage 2000 and Mig29. Rafale and MRFA will complement it. The current fleet of Su30 after upgrade will serve the service for another 15-20 years.

IAF also plans to induct Advance Medium Combat Aircraft (An Indigenous Fifth Generation fighter jet program) in its fleet. A fifth-generation fighter jet has inherited challenge of maintenance and cost of operation. Considering the futuristic requirement of Indian Airforce ORCA can bridge the gap between AMCA and Tejas Mk2.

4.5 Generation Fighter Jets are here to stay

Today 4.5 Generation fighters are on the pinnacle of technology inheritance. The jets draw lot of technology from the “Fifth Generation Fighter jets”. The systems are perfect balance of technology and kinematics. In addition to this, the systems are easier and cheaper to maintain and mass produce. The sheer ease in maintaining these fighter jets make them a perfect candidate for “workhorse” operation.

The futuristic technology like AESA radar (GaN in Future), Sensor Fusion, combat air teaming and smart weapons increases the utility of these fighters. This is why experts say, “the 4.5 Generation fighters are here to stay”.

Combat Air Teaming is the future

The futuristic warfare will be based on the teams of man and machines driven by Artificial Intelligence. The wingman drones, UCAVs, Drone Swarms and Smart Weapons will form a team along with a manned mothership. Recently during aero India 2021 HAL presented a 1:1 model of its CATS (Combat Air Teaming Systems) Warrior, CATS Hunter, CATS Alpha and CATS Infinity. These systems will enhance the utility of the current 4.5 generation fighters significantly. The warfare will be taken into the enemy territory without manned systems crossing the enemy lines. The jets with larger payload can make a larger team in air resulting comparatively better performance

Curious case of F35

Recently US Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Brown Jr. talking to media stated that they are looking at a “clean-sheet design” to replace 100s of ageing F16. The Joint strike fighter was supposed to replace the F16, though without a serious competitor F35 is over-kill in most of the missions that USAF flies today. The cost of the baseline F35 is brought down significantly but to maintain this fighter jet the money required is comparably higher (for obvious reasons).

The Indian Airforce requires 42 squadrons to protect its airspace in today’s context. Though this requirement will change in coming years. Considering the aspiration of India to be a major regional power in future, this number is slated to go up. IAF cannot have a fleet of just 5th Generation fighter jets, even USAF with such huge budget is feeling the pressure. As acknowledged by Gen. Charles Brown Jr, the current 4.5 generation jets like F16 cannot be upgraded with the latest software sensors and other components. A clean slate design looking into future is needed to compliment the fleet of fifth generation fighter jet. The statement is not just applicable to the USAF, but this is applicable to any aspiring military power in today’s context.

Getting the right balance

The right approach is to find the correct balance between the cutting edge 5.5 generation fighter jets and 4.5 generation workhorses. If one applies 80-20 rule, 80% of the missions can be executed by a 4.5 generation fighter jet with its aerial team in just 20% of the total expenses. Every penny saved in the operation is extra penny for better technology and capacity enhancement.

In todays time when the budget is not unlimited like “cold war”, a balanced approach will yield results that can shift the strategic balance in the long term.

Rafale / MRFA

The Indian airforce has been vocal about its requirement of medium category fighter. The 36 Rafale acquired from France under government to government deal are not enough to meet the requirement of the service. IAF plans to acquire another 110, “Rafale like fighter” (in words of COAS RKS Bhadoria). This is to meet the operational requirements of the Indian airforce.

The MRFA is getting complicated with every passing day. Jets like F15-EX and Su35 are air dominance multirole systems. F/A-18, Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon are medium category multirole fighters. Gripen E and F-16 are lower medium category single engine fighter like upcoming Tejas Mk2. To get a level playing field for all these contenders, IAF will have to undergo an extensive exercise. As IAF will be operating 36 Rafale already from the current deal, the Rafale will bring the logistical commonality.

However other than a follow-on order on current 36, there is only one assured way to acquire more of these fighters. The TEDBF will take its first flight in the year 2026. If MRFA gets signed by 2023 then the first jet from this venture will be available from 2028 onwards. However, the only difference is MRFA will enter the service in 2028 (RFI requests first jet in 5 years, though off the shelf units in 36 months) but TEDBF/ORCA will not be available till 2031.

Timeline – Too late?

The twin engine deck-based fighter will take its first flight only in 2026 and induction by 2031. Converting a deck-based fighter into land-based system is much similar and faster than other way around. However, this conversion will only begin after initial testing of the Naval prototype. Though the aircraft will take its first flight in 2026, the fight profile verification may require a year or two. So, the verified design for the conversion will be available by 2028.

Using the design and making the prototype will require another year and then the testing cycle will start. The typical testing cycle of a modern-day fighter jet is around 5 years. So, the aircraft will be available in 2033. IAF cannot wait till 2033 for the MRFA requirement and they will have to acquire another fighter for that requirement.

Su30 Replacement / Complement

Currently IAF operates ~272 units of Su30 MKI (pre-including the 12 units that will made to sustain the Nasik production line). IAF will upgrade this fleet to the Super Sukhoi standards and keep it operational for another 15-20 years. The Initial units may start retiring somewhere in 2035-36. Though around same time AMCA will entering the service of IAF, though these jets aren’t the replacement of Su30 MKI but AMCA with a twin engine 4.5 generation fighter can fill in the shoe easily. This 4.5 generation fighter jet can be omni role combat aircraft. By this time, HAL will deliver the TEDBF for the Navy and same production line might be used to roll out ORCA. So ORCA “Makes Sense”.

If you find TEDBF interesting, you can gain deep insights at https://alphadefense.in/twin-engine-deck-based-fighter-tedbf-aero-india-2021/

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10976
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 11 Mar 2021 07:14


rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 698
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

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

Postby rajsunder » 11 Mar 2021 11:34

was seeing some videos on youtube which hinted that IAF is totally against ORCA and wants to go ahead with MWF-MK2 instead of ORCA.

My question is why go for a single engine MWF for replacing twin engine Jaguar and Mig-29. can a single engine MWF really work as well as a dual engine counterparts?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8333
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 11 Mar 2021 21:37

rajsunder wrote:My question is why go for a single engine MWF for replacing twin engine Jaguar and Mig-29. can a single engine MWF really work as well as a dual engine counterparts?

It is better to look at the performance and specs of an aircraft rather than just the number of engines. A single GE-F404 engine of the Tejas Mk1 produces more thrust than both engines of a Jaguar combined. The F414 on the MWF will exceed even that.

As for the Mig-29, its payload carrying ability is less than the Mirage-2000, which is single engined. The MWF is designed to match/exceed the Mirage-2000's performance in all aspects. The Mig-29's strength was never its payload but its superlative kinematic performance in WVR combat primarily due to a lot of excess thrust available. That ofcourse resulted in compromises in range and endurance. The MWF can easily replace all three fighters in IAF inventory if the currently planned specs are achieved.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10976
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 11 Mar 2021 21:44

In addition to what nachiket said above (and he is spot on!), the single engined Tejas Mk1 is better than the twin engine Jaguar. Read the tweets below from Group Captain HV Thakur (retd). Coming from him, there is no ambiguity.

Now imagine how much more powerful the Mk1A variant will be and how the Mk2 will exceed the Mk1A. The single engined Mk1 is better than the Mirage 2000H. And that is coming from IAF pilots. The single engined Mk1A will be better than the Mirage 2000I. The RDY radar on the M2KI is no match for the Elta AESA or the Uttam AESA. The AAMs (i.e. Astra Mk1, Mk2, etc) will also be superior to the Mica carried by the Mirage 2000I. The single engined Mk2 will easily exceed the twin engine MiG-29. I believe it is Air Marshal Nambiar Sir (retd) who stated that Mk2 will be on par (or even better) with Rafale. I will have to find that tweet.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/11760 ... 87329?s=20 ---> As it's already a widely acknowledged fact, Jaguar has a significant Radius of Action (RoA). It's noteworthy that Tejas is even better.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/11745 ... 03744?s=20 ---> For weapon trials, Tejas goes from Bangalore to Jaisalmer direct. Even Jaguars can't do that. So whatever the combat radius, it's pretty good.

https://twitter.com/drukkk/status/12202 ... 48640?s=20 ---> Can you throw some light on Tejas low flying ability? Can it take up DPSA role of Jaguar? Is its delta wing versatile enough for Jaguar type, long range, low level flying (with external fuel tanks of course)?
***Answer for above tweet is below***
https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12203 ... 58113?s=20 ---> Yes, I think no problem in that. Tejas can exceed Jaguars.

https://twitter.com/JaidevJamwal/status ... 71488?s=20 ---> Everything else remaining same, do you think that Tejas can have same effect on target as Jaguar, better or worse?
***Answer for above tweet is below***
https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/12205 ... 10560?s=20 ---> Yes. Same or Better.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8333
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 11 Mar 2021 21:59

The extreme low level flying ability of the Jaguars may not be so important in the future anyway since CAS/interdiction sorties will increasingly be carried out using PGM's and standoff attacks. That is assuming we are able to proliferate the SAAW and other indigenous PGM's within the IAF and build up large stockpiles. There isn't much a Jaguar can do that a Mirage-2000 (and hence the MWF) or in many cases even a Tejas Mk1 can't do better.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 406
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 11 Mar 2021 23:41

Rakesh wrote:...
I believe it is Air Marshal Nambiar Sir (retd) who stated that Mk2 will be on par (or even better) with Rafale. I will have to find that tweet.
...

Here it is, Admiral :)
Raghu Nambiar @Nambitiger1

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8333
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 11 Mar 2021 23:46

^^I assume he is talking about the Avionics and weapons capability, not in terms of payload/range.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10976
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 12 Mar 2021 00:16

basant wrote:Here it is, Admiral :)
Raghu Nambiar @Nambitiger1

Thank you Sirjee :)

nachiket wrote:^^I assume he is talking about the Avionics and weapons capability, not in terms of payload/range.

Correct. In terms of payload/range....Katrina and Rambha are in a league of their own.

https://twitter.com/Nambitiger1/status/ ... 94176?s=20 ---> What is flying today is over three years old technology, what will fly 6 years from now will incorporate technologies which are on the design board right now....


LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 392
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

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

Postby LakshmanPST » 02 Apr 2021 00:15


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55354
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 02 Apr 2021 05:51

Manish_Sharma wrote:https://alphadefense.in/orca-omni-role-combat-aircraft-iaf/

ORCA – Why it makes sense?

By Alpha Defense
FEB 26, 2021

The Omni Role Combat Aircraft or ORCA is a proposed land-based variant of Twin Engine Deck based fighter jet that is under development for the requirement of Indian Navy. The design of twin engine deck-based fighter jet unveiled during aero India 2021 suggests that fighter will have frontal shape optimization for reduced radar cross-section. Canards for better agility in air, along with diverter-less supersonic inlet (DSI). 

Why ORCA?

The current fleet of the Indian Airforce (IAF) has a good mix of the fighter jet for multiple roles. In future IAF plans to reduce the number of types to optimize the logistics and training. Tejas Mk1 and Tejas Mk1A will replace the Mig21 Bison of the current fleet. Tejas Mk2 will replace the Jaguars, Mirage 2000 and Mig29. Rafale and MRFA will complement it. The current fleet of Su30 after upgrade will serve the service for another 15-20 years.

IAF also plans to induct Advance Medium Combat Aircraft (An Indigenous Fifth Generation fighter jet program) in its fleet. A fifth-generation fighter jet has inherited challenge of maintenance and cost of operation. Considering the futuristic requirement of Indian Airforce ORCA can bridge the gap between AMCA and Tejas Mk2.

4.5 Generation Fighter Jets are here to stay

Today 4.5 Generation fighters are on the pinnacle of technology inheritance. The jets draw lot of technology from the “Fifth Generation Fighter jets”. The systems are perfect balance of technology and kinematics. In addition to this, the systems are easier and cheaper to maintain and mass produce. The sheer ease in maintaining these fighter jets make them a perfect candidate for “workhorse” operation.

The futuristic technology like AESA radar (GaN in Future), Sensor Fusion, combat air teaming and smart weapons increases the utility of these fighters. This is why experts say, “the 4.5 Generation fighters are here to stay”.

Combat Air Teaming is the future

The futuristic warfare will be based on the teams of man and machines driven by Artificial Intelligence. The wingman drones, UCAVs, Drone Swarms and Smart Weapons will form a team along with a manned mothership. Recently during aero India 2021 HAL presented a 1:1 model of its CATS (Combat Air Teaming Systems) Warrior, CATS Hunter, CATS Alpha and CATS Infinity. These systems will enhance the utility of the current 4.5 generation fighters significantly. The warfare will be taken into the enemy territory without manned systems crossing the enemy lines. The jets with larger payload can make a larger team in air resulting comparatively better performance

Curious case of F35

Recently US Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Brown Jr. talking to media stated that they are looking at a “clean-sheet design” to replace 100s of ageing F16. The Joint strike fighter was supposed to replace the F16, though without a serious competitor F35 is over-kill in most of the missions that USAF flies today. The cost of the baseline F35 is brought down significantly but to maintain this fighter jet the money required is comparably higher (for obvious reasons).

The Indian Airforce requires 42 squadrons to protect its airspace in today’s context. Though this requirement will change in coming years. Considering the aspiration of India to be a major regional power in future, this number is slated to go up. IAF cannot have a fleet of just 5th Generation fighter jets, even USAF with such huge budget is feeling the pressure. As acknowledged by Gen. Charles Brown Jr, the current 4.5 generation jets like F16 cannot be upgraded with the latest software sensors and other components. A clean slate design looking into future is needed to compliment the fleet of fifth generation fighter jet. The statement is not just applicable to the USAF, but this is applicable to any aspiring military power in today’s context.

Getting the right balance

The right approach is to find the correct balance between the cutting edge 5.5 generation fighter jets and 4.5 generation workhorses. If one applies 80-20 rule, 80% of the missions can be executed by a 4.5 generation fighter jet with its aerial team in just 20% of the total expenses. Every penny saved in the operation is extra penny for better technology and capacity enhancement.

In todays time when the budget is not unlimited like “cold war”, a balanced approach will yield results that can shift the strategic balance in the long term.

Rafale / MRFA

The Indian airforce has been vocal about its requirement of medium category fighter. The 36 Rafale acquired from France under government to government deal are not enough to meet the requirement of the service. IAF plans to acquire another 110, “Rafale like fighter” (in words of COAS RKS Bhadoria). This is to meet the operational requirements of the Indian airforce.

The MRFA is getting complicated with every passing day. Jets like F15-EX and Su35 are air dominance multirole systems. F/A-18, Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon are medium category multirole fighters. Gripen E and F-16 are lower medium category single engine fighter like upcoming Tejas Mk2. To get a level playing field for all these contenders, IAF will have to undergo an extensive exercise. As IAF will be operating 36 Rafale already from the current deal, the Rafale will bring the logistical commonality.

However other than a follow-on order on current 36, there is only one assured way to acquire more of these fighters. The TEDBF will take its first flight in the year 2026. If MRFA gets signed by 2023 then the first jet from this venture will be available from 2028 onwards. However, the only difference is MRFA will enter the service in 2028 (RFI requests first jet in 5 years, though off the shelf units in 36 months) but TEDBF/ORCA will not be available till 2031.

Timeline – Too late?

The twin engine deck-based fighter will take its first flight only in 2026 and induction by 2031. Converting a deck-based fighter into land-based system is much similar and faster than other way around. However, this conversion will only begin after initial testing of the Naval prototype. Though the aircraft will take its first flight in 2026, the fight profile verification may require a year or two. So, the verified design for the conversion will be available by 2028.

Using the design and making the prototype will require another year and then the testing cycle will start. The typical testing cycle of a modern-day fighter jet is around 5 years. So, the aircraft will be available in 2033. IAF cannot wait till 2033 for the MRFA requirement and they will have to acquire another fighter for that requirement.

Su30 Replacement / Complement

Currently IAF operates ~272 units of Su30 MKI (pre-including the 12 units that will made to sustain the Nasik production line). IAF will upgrade this fleet to the Super Sukhoi standards and keep it operational for another 15-20 years. The Initial units may start retiring somewhere in 2035-36. Though around same time AMCA will entering the service of IAF, though these jets aren’t the replacement of Su30 MKI but AMCA with a twin engine 4.5 generation fighter can fill in the shoe easily. This 4.5 generation fighter jet can be omni role combat aircraft. By this time, HAL will deliver the TEDBF for the Navy and same production line might be used to roll out ORCA. So ORCA “Makes Sense”.

If you find TEDBF interesting, you can gain deep insights at https://alphadefense.in/twin-engine-deck-based-fighter-tedbf-aero-india-2021/


It's often a mismatch to use an aircraft developed for naval or air force use to the other service. We have many examples of why it won't work.
F-4 Phantom etc.
Besides IAF future is AMCA so ORCA cant make it. The country can't afford so many new planes.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4738
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 02 Apr 2021 09:42

rajsunder wrote:was seeing some videos on youtube which hinted that IAF is totally against ORCA and wants to go ahead with MWF-MK2 instead of ORCA.

My question is why go for a single engine MWF for replacing twin engine Jaguar and Mig-29. can a single engine MWF really work as well as a dual engine counterparts?

How will they make a case for an MRCA then? heh.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 02 Apr 2021 11:55

The IAF truly have their knickers in a twist with so many a/ c programmes simultaneously,bordering on the impossible. ORCA,MMRCA 2.0, LCA Mk-2, AMCA not to mention the IN's TEDBF and LCA Mk-1A yet to fly,80+ ordered.

With the plethora today of highly accurate PGMs of increasing range, as former USN CNO famously said ,"who needs a sports car when a bomb truck will do?" Those words are still reverberating in the corridors of the Pentagon where JSF acquisition nos. appear to be lower for the future,with a search for a new 4++ /5-- gen. fighter ,not further F-18 SHs. Why the US wants to dump that veteran into the IN!
What was a simple straightforward MIG-21 replacement ended in the situ we are today with Tejas.A decade late,first lot shoved down the IAF's throat.

Now comes the req. for the TEDBF building upon rhe LCA developed tech.,but the quantity is so small and CV #3 now on the shelf, it would be far better like the Bsion prog., to upgrade the existing 29Ks adding another small batch to last out this decade.
Ideally a naval AMCA ,that prog. shortly to start full throttle, should be pursued for the future and the TEDBF dumped. Our resources both in cash and human resources are limited,we must cut out what will be deadwood for the future. The Rafale-M is always there as an expensive option,but it's there too.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

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

Postby Manish_P » 02 Apr 2021 16:33

Philip wrote:..
as former USN CNO famously said ,"who needs a sports car when a bomb truck will do?"..


One probable reason for that USN CNO was clear about his role and that he also knew his brother officer heading the USAF had got more than enough sports cars & bomb trucks to cover both their backs, when required.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9725
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 02 Apr 2021 18:37

Yes their was a clear separation of roles (explicit and implicit) at the end of the cold war that allowed the US Navy to walk away from certain missions that it would normally have emphasized had the SU still existed. It started first with deep penetrating strike, then the higher end Offensive Counter Air, and fixed wing ASW (Carrier) as well. A few of these will eventually come back to the carrier air wing in the coming years/decades but through the late 90's and into the 2010's this was not the main focus of NAVAIR given threats had reduced or completely disappeared or because the USAF was heavily invested in those missions allowing it to invest elsewhere. The US Navy (deployed) is currently a 100% Super Hornet fleet. This will change in a month and a half but this would have never been allowed to happen (a medium ranged multi-role strike fighter being the sole fighter on the carrier deck) had the cold war not ended. Background and context is important when trying to find the meaning of what and why someone is saying what they are saying. And to that end, why would it matter to the IN what an ex CNO once may have said? Does the IN and the USN share a same carrier mission set? Operational doctrine? Missions and roles/responsibilities?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 03 Apr 2021 02:59

Cost.V contextual for the IN which has budgetary limitations. Developing a TEDBF of barely 3 sqds. with almost zilch export options too, instead of leveraging like the NLCA a naval AMCA,a more sophisticated aircraft with development costs shared with the IAF. Adm.Greenert's words have much commonsense in them in the age of PGMs and UCAVs,applicable not only to the US.Pray why do military men of varying uniforms still study and quote Mahan ,Clausewitz, Gorshkov,Pannikar,etc.?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9725
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 03 Apr 2021 03:23

Most folks who quote these folks should at the very least be able to read and understand the content of what they are quoting and place it in correct context. The US Navy CNO, at the time, was simply talking about the weapons delivery mission. That is what his Air Wing does well now. However, being able to haul a ton of PGM's doesn't automatically translate to being able to go a set distance to execute a mission. It doesn't add speed to be able to go down range and chase down strike aircraft before they launch their payload. It doesn't add signature enhancements so that you can perform OCA and destroy enemy aircraft without being targeted at range yourself. It's merely pointing to a very specific mission where you can chose to launch a 100 km glide bomb instead of having to overfly a target and drop something shorter range thus making up some capability gaps without needing completely bespoke platforms. The "Truck" being a reference to a system capable of carrying a myriad of different weapons and pivoting to different missions by having a wide inventory of weapons and sensors. The "Truck" doesn't automatically add new missions or make your platform better at different missions. So as I tried to point out to you in the last post, the "Truck" concept works because the USN offloaded some of its cold-war missions for which it maintained a diverse air-wing. Things like long range strike, and the higher end counter air operations.

The "Truck" also doesn't solve the problem with launching a decent payload at range. Or being constrained by the lifts on the existing carriers. Or STOBAR ops. These are the specific challenges the IN will be designing the TEDBF around.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 03 Apr 2021 03:53

The DRDO has been busy in recent times developing a variety of PGMs,anti-radar missiles, glide bombs,etc. of decent range which can be carried by the 29K, in addition to the range of existing Ru missiles aboard,esp. those of the KH series.BMos- NG is also on the anvil in a few years time. 2 to be carried by a 29K.
These desi systems are meant to be carried by the smaller LCA too.They present no problem for the 29Ks in service.

Given the lift constraints of the 2 CVs we have, with no larger CV on the horizon for another decade,unless we leverage our amphib. req.as I've said before which would require another 50 or so aircraft, the huge cost of developing the TEDBF ,another 4+- gen fighter equivalent to a 29K for the same carriers and lifts for barely 50 to 60 aircraft is highly questionable,makes v.poor cost-effective sense unless it is a naval variant of an IAF fighter req. like the AMCA. Here with a req. for around 200 for the IAF alone,a naval variant would add to the number bringing down unit cost too. Since the AMCA programme is expected to get the green light soon, the future manned naval strike fighter could ride piggyback on that programme.Naval UCAVs are also expected to arrive post 2030 in increasing number. Until then our multi-role 4+ 29K bomb truck obtained for $28M a pop ,now about $40M ,can soldier on for the decade,less than half the price of a French sports car!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9725
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 03 Apr 2021 04:12

TEDBF is being designed to fully replace the MiG-29K. If the Naval Tejas could do it, the Navy would have probably done it already. I don't think modernization and the need to replace the MiG-29K's on IN's carriers can be solved by simply adding an Anti Radiation missile or a bunch of bombs on the MiG-29K. The IN hasn't operated the MiG-29K's for very long and is already agreeing to fund its replacement. IN wants to do it. The development agencies and HAL want to do it. So far the MOD has not objected. Looks like it will be done over the next decade to decade and a half. As others have suggested, it may well be done ahead of the MiG-29K's using up their airframe lives and if so they can be transferred over to the IAF and serve as land based aircraft. Or the navy can keep them for shore based duties and use TEDBF as the carrier aircraft.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 03 Apr 2021 04:30

10 to 15 years reinventing the 4th-gen. wheel.A waste of money developing and building a mere 50 to 60 fighters which when they arrive will cost a bomb.

The 3rd.CV will not arrive for another decade+ at the earliest.The IN wisely putting its priority in N-subs given the latest info. That too only 3+3 given budgetary restraints. On another note one will post the ASW conundrum and huge no. of surface and air assets reqd. from WW2 onwards in prosecuting subs. The PLAN now has 70+ modern subs with most of its conv. subs with AIP. The IN has taken note of the state of the sub fleet,mostly geriatric ,on upgrade steroids,and the rapidly increasing threat and numbers of subs of the PLAN and PN.

The TEDBF
programme will therefore I predict not get a high priority with more urgent reqs. esp. now since CV-3 has been shelved. There are several urgent reqs. like MCM vessels, extra P-8Is, more surface combatants apart from the sub programmes. Classes like the Rajput/ Kashins,Khukri/Kora corvettes, missile craft,etc. will need replacement from this decade on.The Rajput has already been decommissioned. Local warship programmes are long delayed. With the AMCA prog. to get the nod shortly ,expected to be in series production by the decade end, a naval variant would be far more sensible for reasons expressed earlier.

m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 485
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

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

Postby m_saini » 03 Apr 2021 05:03

Philip wrote:10 to 15 years reinventing the 4th-gen. wheel.A waste of money developing and building a mere 50 to 60 fighters which when they arrive will cost a bomb.


You can't really call something "reinventing" if it takes you 10-15 years to do it, can you? We're not going to jump generations and pull a 5th or 6th gen catapult fighter out of our bum whenever the CV-3 comes along.

What's next, why are we "reinventing" previous-gen aircraft engines like Kaveri when adaptive cycle engines exist?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8333
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 03 Apr 2021 09:01

It is not possible to build a navalized 5th gen aircraft within the timeframe that the IN requires. ADA is not LockMart and they need to get their hands dirty with building and operationalizing the AMCA before they can even attempt a naval 5th gen fighter. The very existence of the TEDBF suggests that the ADA did not want to commit to something they were themselves not confident of delivering in the required timeframe. That is the responsible thing to do.

On the one hand people blame them for attempting something too ambitious and overpromising and under-delivering and then the same people will turn around and also blame them for not attempting a 5th gen Naval fighter that can operate off our STOBAR carriers with poorly designed deck lifts and be able to attain all the exacting performance parameters which are required. This when we don't even have a clear path for a 5th gen engine for the air-force AMCA. A heavier naval AMCA with the additional burden of unassisted take-off from a carrier with a usable payload will need even more powerful engines. Do the people pooh-poohing the TEDBF project and calling for a naval AMCA know where this magical engine will come from?

LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 392
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

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

Postby LakshmanPST » 03 Apr 2021 09:27

LakshmanPST wrote:


Watch this short interview of ADA scientist Amitabh Saraf...
He mentions that lot of 5th Gen technologies in AMCA need to be fully developed and tested before they can be carried on into NAMCA...
The timeframe in which Navy need TEDBF won't be enough for a 5th gen fighter...

ADA is not reinventing the wheel, instead upgrading and using 4th Gen technologies developed in Tejas program and possible technologies from AMCA program like stealth shaping, DSI etc...

AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

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

Postby AkshaySG » 03 Apr 2021 09:29

nachiket wrote:Do the people pooh-poohing the TEDBF project and calling for a naval AMCA know where this magical engine will come from?


I'm sure we'll hear of some futuristic engine tech that some Russian design bureau came up with , Or at least got as far as posting 3D models on twitter

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2644
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 03 Apr 2021 09:58

By not inducting the NLCA, the IN has made sure it will have problems finding fighters - killing a bird in hand while flying dangerous machines and looking for the perfect solution. Inducting the NLCA for training and testing different techs is a good option that can make the TEDBF a reality.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7586
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Postby Prasad » 03 Apr 2021 13:27

Philip saar
Please watch this video. There is enough information there as to why a naval amca wanted feasible.

Prasad wrote:A short chat with PD, TEDBF at AI 21.


hemant_sai
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

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

Postby hemant_sai » 03 Apr 2021 13:32

Being optimistic of realizing CATS and AURA/GHATAK by 2030, Can Gurus here compare possibility of using MWF/ORCA instead of AMCA to accomplish same mission objectives planned for AMCA.

Up front it seems even more capable to do same missions and there are already talks of quantum radars to counter stealthy jets.

In this context, then what should be the priorities? Can India afford to wait on AMCA? If yes, then ORCA makes complete sense for IAF and MMRCA must be replaced with order of 36 Rafale and 40 Mig 29UPG ~ both deals combined must be restricted to 8bn.
These orders 2021 will make sure steady inflow of jets till 2027.

From 2027 - it should be MWF, ORCA, CATS and GHATAK.

HAL should make offer to IAF that if commitment of 120 numbers of ORCA is given then HAL will not seek any separate funding for ORCA development which can be done parallel to TEDBF after detailed design of TEDBF is finished.
MWF numbers can also be reduced to 120 to accommodate ORCA.

Instead IAF has weird plans,
114 MMRCA (god knows why they are confident of it),
AMCA that too with indigenous engine which is not guaranteed even after 10 years,
Not sure about MWF yet after initially quoting numbers around 170,
And no space for ORCA.

Is it wrong if I find all this fishy?

LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 392
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

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

Postby LakshmanPST » 03 Apr 2021 14:12

hemant_sai wrote:Being optimistic of realizing CATS and AURA/GHATAK by 2030, Can Gurus here compare possibility of using MWF/ORCA instead of AMCA to accomplish same mission objectives planned for AMCA.

Up front it seems even more capable to do same missions and there are already talks of quantum radars to counter stealthy jets.

In this context, then what should be the priorities? Can India afford to wait on AMCA? If yes, then ORCA makes complete sense for IAF and MMRCA must be replaced with order of 36 Rafale and 40 Mig 29UPG ~ both deals combined must be restricted to 8bn.
These orders 2021 will make sure steady inflow of jets till 2027.

From 2027 - it should be MWF, ORCA, CATS and GHATAK.

HAL should make offer to IAF that if commitment of 120 numbers of ORCA is given then HAL will not seek any separate funding for ORCA development which can be done parallel to TEDBF after detailed design of TEDBF is finished.
MWF numbers can also be reduced to 120 to accommodate ORCA.

Instead IAF has weird plans,
114 MMRCA (god knows why they are confident of it),
AMCA that too with indigenous engine which is not guaranteed even after 10 years,
Not sure about MWF yet after initially quoting numbers around 170,
And no space for ORCA.

Is it wrong if I find all this fishy?


The point to note here is that we plan the fighter jet composition based on the capabilities of adversaries...
No one knows what is the progress of Anti-stealth radar and the time it will take to be productionized... Even if it is productionized, no one knows how many numbers Pakistan and China will deploy against India...
And no one knows when the radars in fighter jets will get such capabilities to track Stealth jets at considerable distance...

Above all, 5th Gen is not just about stealth... It is the integrated sensors, data fusion, networked warfare and a lot more...
It is important that we develop all these technologies in the country...
Even without an indegenous engine, it will still be a beast...

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4442
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 03 Apr 2021 14:26

When policies and priorities meet actual conflict scenarios., decisions will be made and faster.

A "Himalayan conflict" would prioritize AMCA and the T Mk2

Chinese "sub conflict" scenarios in IOR ; noises over Taiwan etc would point toward a naval TEDBF /naval AMCA

But all these are likely to some extent or the other., the best option would be to keep a low rate funding for some programs while the prioritized ones get done faster., An AC carrier might be built in 5 or 15 years !!

In scenarios like these we need access to actual Chinese plans / strategies . Also where think tanks should work on. A Defence university / ecosystem is indeed invaluable for such strategic thinking. This cannot be done over Chai Biskoot sessions.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4442
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 03 Apr 2021 14:32

LakshmanPST wrote:
hemant_sai wrote:Being optimistic of realizing CATS and AURA/GHATAK by 2030, Can Gurus here compare possibility of using MWF/ORCA instead of AMCA to accomplish same mission objectives planned for AMCA.
Above all, 5th Gen is not just about stealth... It is the integrated sensors, data fusion, networked warfare and a lot more...
It is important that we develop all these technologies in the country...
Even without an indegenous engine, it will still be a beast...


The answer to this is not comparison of capabilities but national interest and priorities and more importantly strategic thinking,

But thank God we have come to the stage where there are options !

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1613
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

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

Postby ks_sachin » 03 Apr 2021 14:40

Vivek K wrote:By not inducting the NLCA, the IN has made sure it will have problems finding fighters - killing a bird in hand while flying dangerous machines and looking for the perfect solution. Inducting the NLCA for training and testing different techs is a good option that can make the TEDBF a reality.

What tech?
Is not ADA doing that?
Has the NLCA been tested to its full combat envelope while doing carrier TOs and landing?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sum, Vips and 47 guests