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.
Post Reply
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Post by Pratyush »

If you look at the major milestones of Tejas development program. The CDR of the aircraft was completed sometime in 1992. The plane was rolled out in late 1995.

The first flight was 2000.

The TD program was over in 2005-6.

If you remove the delay due to Pokharan tests. The actual time taken from CDR to end of the TD phase was under 12 years.

The time line was quite competitive. For a country like India.

9 years to the in service date form CDR is doable after the experience gained from Tejas.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

Prem Kumar wrote:First flight in 6-7 years & induction in 9 years! Those are seriously aggressive timelines for a brand new aircraft. With the ADA/HAL busy with Tejas Mk1a, Mk2 & AMCA, hope they will be able to meet this.

These milestones are can't slip ones for strategic autonomy

Program is also being funded aggressively.
TEDBF will spiral development from Mk2 and AMCA.
Those are pacing items.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

Can someone post ORCA concept details?

How is it common to TEDBF.
What is different?

Above all how it compares to MRFA?
Capability, cost and schedule?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Post by Pratyush »

From what I was understand of the two programs.

TEDBF, has the potential to become ORCA.

In terms of commonality, they both have 2 engine's. That can be either the 414 or the new engine India will develop as a joint venture. The mission computer and flight control system can be common. The weapons will be shared.

If the Mk2 is considered to be a lighter counterpart of Rafael by the IAF. As stated recently by someone in authority. Then the ORCA will be in the same catagory as Rafael.

If the IAF can wait till 2030, then the MRFA program can be subsumed by both the Mk2 and the TEDBF/ORCA

In terms of costing for the program, i can't answer the question. As i have not seen any budgetary information.

I think that TEDBF has the potential to meet both the ORCA and MRFA requirements.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

So when are MRFA inductions supposed to start per IAF?
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/alpha_defense/statu ... MzFp7w9GLQ ---> TEDBF enters into next stage of development.

* Work package estimated to be 24 to 36 months.
* SoW (Statement/Scope of Work) includes;

1. CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) and Design Refinement
2. WTT (Wind Tunnel Testing) of new design
3. WTT (Wind Tunnel Testing) on DSI (Diverterless Supersonic Inlet) and Canards

https://twitter.com/alpha_defense/statu ... MzFp7w9GLQ ---> More details here:

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Post by nachiket »

ramana wrote:Can someone post ORCA concept details?

How is it common to TEDBF.
What is different?

Above all how it compares to MRFA?
Capability, cost and schedule?
Ramana guru, is the ORCA really necessary and what role is it supposed to fill in the IAF? The TEDBF is necessary because it is impossible to develop a navalized AMCA in the required timeframe. But as far as the IAF is concerned wouldn't it be prudent for ADA and HAL to spend all R&D resources on 2 critical projects - Tejas Mk2 and the AMCA? I have no doubt that the ORCA, if developed would be superior to anything we can get from the MRFA program, but the MRFA itself is something that is not really necessary or practical as a lot of people have argued here and elsewhere. MRFA can be subsumed by additional orders (2 sq) of Rafales and by increased orders for the Tejas Mk2 which will be ready far earlier than the ORCA. With Mk2 production starting in 2030 and AMCA production in latter half of 2030's where is the space available for another program that would not arrive more than a few years before the AMCA at best? If the TEDBF first flight is supposed to be in 6-7 years, the ORCA first flight would happen even later considering it is a derivative of the TEDBF. It might happen after the first flight of the AMCA itself.

IMHO it is better to concentrate on making large production runs of fewer projects than the other way around. R&D resources are also in short supply and will be utilized better by cutting down on the number of projects where possible.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Post by Pratyush »

Nachiket,

What you have said is something that cannot be logically refuted.

However, if MRFA is subsumed by additional Rafael plus LCA Mk2. Even then, their might be some space for a cheaper and more numerous counterpart to AMCA. If the IAF can be satisfied with a non folding wing version of the TEDBF only. Without any other major changes to the system. Then it should be possible to have it in production quite quickly.
A Deshmukh
BRFite
Posts: 515
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:24

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

Post by A Deshmukh »

Would it be better if IAF also orders couple of squadrons of TEDBF (as is)?
will allow for force augmentation of Navy if needed, based on where the action is.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Post by Pratyush »

Purely from the POV of break even for the project. We need to know what is the minimum order quantity.

The Indian Navy if it's going to grow in size then it will require 3 to 4 aircraft carriers. That fleet alone will need 200 to 250 aircrafts.

I think that this number will be more than enough to cross the economic order quantity for the project.

Anything ordered by the IAF will be a bonus.
Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 878
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

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

Post by Haridas »

^^^^
Air Staff will have a heart attack if IN gets 200 twin engine combat aircrafts.

IAF staff will commit suicide soon, fulfilling its own vision of being the "Strategic" force only; after GOI makes "Indian Marines" custodian of TEDBF, ORCA, AMCA, MCA for air defense and conventional weapons delivery.

Theater warfare ki jai.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

The existence of IAC-2 is in itself in doubt, forget 3 or 4 aircraft carriers :)

Aircraft carriers are capital vessels with significant multi-billion dollar up-front costs, not to mention billions more in fleet availability for the next 50 years. For a country like India, that has yet to formalize (on paper) what its regional or global aspirations are....talk of 3 or 4 aircraft carriers is not realistic. Dreams are nice to have (114 MRFA, 57 MRCBF, 65K ton IAC-2 with nuclear power + EMALS), but they have to translate into budget reality.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

nachiket wrote:
ramana wrote:Can someone post ORCA concept details?

How is it common to TEDBF.
What is different?

Above all how it compares to MRFA?
Capability, cost and schedule?
Ramana guru, 1) is the ORCA really necessary and what role is it supposed to fill in the IAF? The TEDBF is necessary because it is impossible to develop a navalized AMCA in the required timeframe. 2) But as far as the IAF is concerned wouldn't it be prudent for ADA and HAL to spend all R&D resources on 2 critical projects - Tejas Mk2 and the AMCA? I have no doubt that the ORCA, if developed would be superior to anything we can get from the MRFA program, but the MRFA itself is something that is not really necessary or practical as a lot of people have argued here and elsewhere. 3) MRFA can be subsumed by additional orders (2 sq) of Rafales and by increased orders for the Tejas Mk2 which will be ready far earlier than the ORCA. With Mk2 production starting in 2030 and AMCA production in latter half of 2030's where is the space available for another program that would not arrive more than a few years before the AMCA at best? 4) If the TEDBF first flight is supposed to be in 6-7 years, the ORCA first flight would happen even later considering it is a derivative of the TEDBF. It might happen after the first flight of the AMCA itself.

5)IMHO it is better to concentrate on making large production runs of fewer projects than the other way around. R&D resources are also in short supply and will be utilized better by cutting down on the number of projects where possible.
Very good questions. Shows you thought about it before posting.
1) ORCA is a necessary twin-engine program. If you look at strike fighters they all are twin-engine due to the extra payload and reduced vulnerability of twin-engines. Eg Rafale, Eurofighter, AMCA.
2) Yes Mk2(Single engine Fighter) and AMCA will take priority but due to the stealth nature of AMCA, it will be expensive. If you see the US is having issues with F-22 and even F-35. So India with the first stealth plane to put all bets on AMCA is not prudent. After the AMCA knocks down the doors still need heavy lifters to deliver bombs. ORCA will be a marginal cost after TEDBF is developed.
3)MRAF was a joke to create a way for F-21 to be bought. GOI realized and said twin-engines need to be there.
ORCA is not just about MRFA but ensuring adequate squadron numbers. Current plans all are for replacement units and no hope of ever reaching the 45 squadron objective. Developing ORCA ensures the objective is not a goal.
4)Yes. Even if the MRFA plan was put into place the first production would be coincidental with AMCA. This way ORCA comes after the AMCA development. It is about having options and not getting locked into single-point solutions of "import or die".
5) Its logical progression of SEF to Twin engine planes. So I don't see any contradiction. Besides Lucknow Defence Corridor will be made and can be dedicated to ORCA. Everything doesn't have to be in TN Defense Corridor.
Hope it answers the questions.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Post by Indranil »

ORCA may be cheaper to operate than AMCA and could provide longer reach and weapons flexibility.
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Post by fanne »

My take on OCRA -

From Navy point of view we need TEDBF. It is moreover a sanctioned project so it is going ahead.
What is the risk - For us do we have enough manpower (and industrial output) to make all these programs happen, from r&d, to prototyping, testing, production, and after-prod support. We have these programs in flight - LCAMK1A, LCA MK2, LCA Navy, AMCA, and TEDBF, Two trainers - Basic trainer and AJT. I am not even talking about LIFT etc. , non-sanctioned projects. Are we spread too thin?

So what does ORCA brings - It brings Rafale-like capability say by 2030. Even if we buy some 100 Rafale or MRFA, buying another 100-200 ORCA will be helpful, as Ramana ji mentioned, it will complement AMCA (non-stealth twin brother that every other AF is going for, e.g. F-15E for USAF and new 4.5 gen fighter, in spite of F-35s and F-22S). From TEDBF to ORCA will not be a big jump, but a considerable one - the folding wings have to go away, perhaps the tail trimmed and undercarriage lightened up, tail hook removed. We have to increase manpower and manufacturing partners anyways to cater for this. By that time we would start retiring earlier model of SU30MKI or maybe just add more squadrons to AF.

It will be our true attack/defense aircraft and mud mover, not an economical alternative (like LCA MK1A and Mk2, - though they are needed for economical reasons). With some LO, 2030is tech, more powerful engine than snemca, it will be much more advanced than Rafale
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Post by Cain Marko »

fanne wrote:My take on OCRA -

From Navy point of view we need TEDBF. It is moreover a sanctioned project so it is going ahead.
What is the risk - For us do we have enough manpower (and industrial output) to make all these programs happen, from r&d, to prototyping, testing, production, and after-prod support. We have these programs in flight - LCAMK1A, LCA MK2, LCA Navy, AMCA, and TEDBF, Two trainers - Basic trainer and AJT. I am not even talking about LIFT etc. , non-sanctioned projects. Are we spread too thin?

So what does ORCA brings - It brings Rafale-like capability say by 2030. Even if we buy some 100 Rafale or MRFA, buying another 100-200 ORCA will be helpful, as Ramana ji mentioned, it will complement AMCA (non-stealth twin brother that every other AF is going for, e.g. F-15E for USAF and new 4.5 gen fighter, in spite of F-35s and F-22S). From TEDBF to ORCA will not be a big jump, but a considerable one - the folding wings have to go away, perhaps the tail trimmed and undercarriage lightened up, tail hook removed. We have to increase manpower and manufacturing partners anyways to cater for this. By that time we would start retiring earlier model of SU30MKI or maybe just add more squadrons to AF.

It will be our true attack/defense aircraft and mud mover, not an economical alternative (like LCA MK1A and Mk2, - though they are needed for economical reasons). With some LO, 2030is tech, more powerful engine than snemca, it will be much more advanced than Rafale
If we can get the bird by 2030, it might be a good idea to just give additional 126+ Mk1A order and move on to ORCA instead of Mk2.
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Post by fanne »

2030 is best case scenario. However, we need low cost fighters, at least half of our airforce -400 planes (for 42 sq). MK1a is only 126. MK2 will fulfill another 200 of these with expanded capability (more in line of m2ki ++). Also path to AMCA and TEDBF and ORCA goes through MK2. Abandoning Mk2 is what dalals like Sh**** is pimping for, but any delay/cancellation of MK2 opens the door for imports (to maintain operational capability). That outflow of capital dooms everything - AMCA, TEDBF, ORCA.
Yes, the sad fact is we are running at least 5-10 years behind schedule on this whole train of LCA, LCAMK1a, Mk2, AMCA, TEDBF and ORCA. Any increase in pace for Mk2 (by doubling down on resources for example) - is actually saving at least 10-20 billion dollars in this and the next decade.
Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 878
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

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

Post by Haridas »

fanne wrote: From TEDBF to ORCA will not be a big jump, but a considerable one - the folding wings have to go away, perhaps the tail trimmed and undercarriage lightened up, tail hook removed.
ORCA maintaining identical outer shape (wing + fuselage) & size (and CG) as TEDBF is essential to expedite the bottleneck to realize compressed timeline.

In addition the TEDBF fuselage additional structural weight to provide the very high longitudinal stress for arrested landing will yield weight (& volume) dividend for ORCA. New non folding wing will similarly give volume & weight devident too.

The reduced weight and additional volume gained will make it excellent combat aircraft.

The new Indian engine family commonality across the 4 aircraft is super in so many different dimensions.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

I recall ADA or some one saying IRCA will be 25 tonnes vs 29 tonnes for TEDBF.
That gives tremendous performance.

Cain Marko Mk2 is >> Mk1A.

Increasing Mk1A won't replace Mk2.
Sadly thats the technical answer.
konaseema
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 16 Nov 2020 09:54

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

Post by konaseema »

I think IAF's desire for 114 is something that is non-negotiable and our veterans are also convinced with the need.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpD8D_3AzE0

So the need for ORCA can be ruled out until at least we are at a point of retiring the early Su-30 MKI's. That gives ADA enough time to wrap up the other 3 projects (Tejas Mk2, AMCA & TEDBF) and then focus on ORCA which may have semi-stealth features.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

ORCA will be after AMCA and TEDBF anyway for it has dependencies on the three programs.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5720
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Post by Kartik »

ramana wrote:ORCA will be after AMCA and TEDBF anyway for it has dependencies on the three programs.
Actually if ORCA were to be sanctioned, it would be possible to have it ready pretty fast. The only changes are structural related to the spars in the wings (they would be made continuous without any hinges to allow for 9g maneuvering since there would be no wing fold), removal of arrestor hook and lightening of the airframe structure due to much lower sink rates at the time of landing.

There wouldn't be any avionics changes needed from the TEDBF (which itself will inherit most of it's avionics from the Tejas Mk2 and AMCA programs). FCS changes would be minor, primarily tweaking to remove some modes that the IN would have had in place for the short take-off from the carrier and climb away phase. Anyone who has seen the programs on the FCS changes that were required for the LCA Navy would be able to appreciate that it took a lot of effort to build those modes into the LCA Navy FCS, but simplifying them would be an easier task.

The problem with the ORCA is that the IAF brass knows very well that ORCA would kill the MRFA being in very similar weight and payload class as the Rafale/Typhoon and being twin engined. They would consider that as being too high risk versus a mature fighter like the Rafale or F-15EX. The way they perceive it, If DRDO, HAL and ADA somehow don't deliver on time or deliver the promised capability, the IAF will be left without any fall back options. Of course, the fact that a program for 114 MRFA is too complex to be successfully done the way the GoI and MoD want, is seemingly lost on IAF top brass.

The only way an ORCA could come about is if the 114 MRFA isn't going anywhere even in 2025-26 and the TEDBF is rolled out. By then the Tejas Mk2 too should've flown and given the IAF a very good look at what indigenous 4.5 gen fighters capabilities will be like. If the GoI goes in for 2-3 more squadrons of Rafales OTS and kills MRFA indirectly, then only will the IAF take a good long look at the ORCA.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Post by kit »

Kartik wrote:
ramana wrote:ORCA will be after AMCA and TEDBF anyway for it has dependencies on the three programs.
Actually if ORCA were to be sanctioned, it would be possible to have it ready pretty fast. The only changes are structural related to the spars in the wings (they would be made continuous without any hinges to allow for 9g maneuvering since there would be no wing fold), removal of arrestor hook and lightening of the airframe structure due to much lower sink rates at the time of landing.

There wouldn't be any avionics changes needed from the TEDBF (which itself will inherit most of it's avionics from the Tejas Mk2 and AMCA programs). FCS changes would be minor, primarily tweaking to remove some modes that the IN would have had in place for the short take-off from the carrier and climb away phase. Anyone who has seen the programs on the FCS changes that were required for the LCA Navy would be able to appreciate that it took a lot of effort to build those modes into the LCA Navy FCS, but simplifying them would be an easier task.

The problem with the ORCA is that the IAF brass knows very well that ORCA would kill the MRFA being in very similar weight and payload class as the Rafale/Typhoon and being twin engined. They would consider that as being too high risk versus a mature fighter like the Rafale or F-15EX. The way they perceive it, If DRDO, HAL and ADA somehow don't deliver on time or deliver the promised capability, the IAF will be left without any fall back options. Of course, the fact that a program for 114 MRFA is too complex to be successfully done the way the GoI and MoD want, is seemingly lost on IAF top brass.

The only way an ORCA could come about is if the 114 MRFA isn't going anywhere even in 2025-26 and the TEDBF is rolled out. By then the Tejas Mk2 too should've flown and given the IAF a very good look at what indigenous 4.5 gen fighters capabilities will be like. If the GoI goes in for 2-3 more squadrons of Rafales OTS and kills MRFA indirectly, then only will the IAF take a good long look at the ORCA.
ORCA would replace the Rafales and even the Su 30s., and hypothetical F18s., it would be newer generation, better avionics, and capabilities. The best way is for IN to agree for TEDBF that would become its non-stealthy main stay fighter.

AMCA is a separate program bringing in a different level of capabilities., though even khan is replacing its F22s with new build F15s !! ( they do have hundreds of F35s to make up for stealth)

maybe at a future point , the IAF would be Tejas Mk2, ORCA and AMCA with lower end being mk1a/b. A fully Indian Indian Air Force !!
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Post by Prasad »

People get carried away with new USAF F-15 orders. A lot of that decision has to do with internal politics rather than hard nosed decision making based on force structure and economics.

Be that as it may, IAF will have to contend with PLAAF flankers for a long while and for those a twin engined Rafale-esqe ORCA could well work wonders. And drive down TEDBF prices too if ordered together.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5720
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Post by Kartik »

kit wrote:
Kartik wrote:
Actually if ORCA were to be sanctioned, it would be possible to have it ready pretty fast. The only changes are structural related to the spars in the wings (they would be made continuous without any hinges to allow for 9g maneuvering since there would be no wing fold), removal of arrestor hook and lightening of the airframe structure due to much lower sink rates at the time of landing.

There wouldn't be any avionics changes needed from the TEDBF (which itself will inherit most of it's avionics from the Tejas Mk2 and AMCA programs). FCS changes would be minor, primarily tweaking to remove some modes that the IN would have had in place for the short take-off from the carrier and climb away phase. Anyone who has seen the programs on the FCS changes that were required for the LCA Navy would be able to appreciate that it took a lot of effort to build those modes into the LCA Navy FCS, but simplifying them would be an easier task.

The problem with the ORCA is that the IAF brass knows very well that ORCA would kill the MRFA being in very similar weight and payload class as the Rafale/Typhoon and being twin engined. They would consider that as being too high risk versus a mature fighter like the Rafale or F-15EX. The way they perceive it, If DRDO, HAL and ADA somehow don't deliver on time or deliver the promised capability, the IAF will be left without any fall back options. Of course, the fact that a program for 114 MRFA is too complex to be successfully done the way the GoI and MoD want, is seemingly lost on IAF top brass.

The only way an ORCA could come about is if the 114 MRFA isn't going anywhere even in 2025-26 and the TEDBF is rolled out. By then the Tejas Mk2 too should've flown and given the IAF a very good look at what indigenous 4.5 gen fighters capabilities will be like. If the GoI goes in for 2-3 more squadrons of Rafales OTS and kills MRFA indirectly, then only will the IAF take a good long look at the ORCA.
ORCA would replace the Rafales and even the Su 30s., and hypothetical F18s., it would be newer generation, better avionics, and capabilities. The best way is for IN to agree for TEDBF that would become its non-stealthy main stay fighter.

AMCA is a separate program bringing in a different level of capabilities., though even khan is replacing its F22s with new build F15s !! ( they do have hundreds of F35s to make up for stealth)

maybe at a future point , the IAF would be Tejas Mk2, ORCA and AMCA with lower end being mk1a/b. A fully Indian Indian Air Force !!
Replace?? The Rafales are brand new with 6,000 hours service life on their airframes! They'll last well into the 2050s if the IAF's record with other types that have far fewer TTL on their airframes is any reference to go by.

New generation by itself doesn't mean much. The Rafale's airframe is top notch and so perfectly optimized that if TEDBF gets there then it'll be an amazing achievement. That airframe has been perfected by Dassault, the makers of the Mirage-2000 which is almost unanimously considered one of the best fighters to fly by all pilots who flew it (not just Indian pilots!).

But yes, TEDBF avionics may be newer which isn't going to be a big deal as such, given the Rafale F3R of the IAF with ISE is the most up to date Rafale so far.

If MRFA was possible, without breaking the bank, then I would be all in for 114 Rafales in addition to the 36 we have. But we know it's a pipe-dream. The GoI will not release so much funds and the industrial bit, with the offsets, ToT and all DPP models seem just too complex to be executed.

Our whole system is broken. We have 2 separate competitions running, in which there is 1 common contender (the Rafale), of which we have 36 units in service already! Common sense would state that bunch those 26 for the IN with 54 more for the IAF and you have 80 Rafale units that the GoI should ask Dassault to assemble in India, with an options clause for 20-30 more. But the mess that is our procurement system means that no such aggregation of requirements can be done without sinking even the IN's requirements for 26 MRCBF.
Avinandan
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 12 Jun 2005 12:29
Location: Pune

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

Post by Avinandan »

TEDBF/ proposed ORCA with weight savings and fixed wings would still have regular (non-serpentine) air intake ducts.
I wonder if Indian Air force would if happy to pick the ORCA as we are proposing here.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5720
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Post by Kartik »

Avinandan wrote:TEDBF/ proposed ORCA with weight savings and fixed wings would still have regular (non-serpentine) air intake ducts.
I wonder if Indian Air force would if happy to pick the ORCA as we are proposing here.
What makes you think that the TEDBF's ducts are not serpentine ducts? They aren't going to use blockers like on the Super Hornet for sure, and serpentine ducts have been developed for the AMCA, so it is only logical that they'll be used on TEDBF as well.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Post by Aditya_V »

Even Tejas has Y shaped air intakes and I have not seen the Radar blades, so why would aircraft designed in 2020's keep its Radar reflecting Jet baldes exposed?
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Post by Prasad »

Kartik wrote:
Avinandan wrote:TEDBF/ proposed ORCA with weight savings and fixed wings would still have regular (non-serpentine) air intake ducts.
I wonder if Indian Air force would if happy to pick the ORCA as we are proposing here.
What makes you think that the TEDBF's ducts are not serpentine ducts? They aren't going to use blockers like on the Super Hornet for sure, and serpentine ducts have been developed for the AMCA, so it is only logical that they'll be used on TEDBF as well.
Requirements are different.
AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 407
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

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

Post by AkshaySG »

ORCA relies on TEDBF getting sanctioned and TEDBF relies on more Aircraft Carriers for IN.

If we are to just do 1:1 replacement of Viky sometime in the 30's then I feel a follow up order of MRCBF (F-18 or Raffy) will be done and delay with.

Unless the IAF really pushes hard for ORCA which I don't see happening in the current climate it's difficult to see how it moves forward tbh

The Mk2 is in a much more advanced stage and will essentially replace Mig29, Jags and Mirages if seen through properly.
Similarly AMCA is the next big priority and will consume the best of the best from HAL/ADA etc starting in a few years.

I don't see the manpower or capacity in our current/near future Mil Aerospace ( ADA +HAL + DRDO) ecosystem to run this many programs concurrently tbh
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

So Akshay how many AMCA do you think will need to be inducted?
Avinandan
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 12 Jun 2005 12:29
Location: Pune

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

Post by Avinandan »

Prasad wrote:
Kartik wrote: Requirements are different.
@Kartik Saar, refer the last 2 minutes of the video above. For optimum pressure recovery and retaining maximum thrust was the goal for TEDBF
AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 407
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

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

Post by AkshaySG »

ramana wrote:So Akshay how many AMCA do you think will need to be inducted?
At least 6-8 squadrons i'd say for the per unit costs to be spread out and based on the threat from China

That would leave us with 8 AMCA, 6 Mk1A squadrons, ~14 Su-30 , 12 Mk2/MWF and around 2 Rafale squadrons

That takes us to the supposed magic number of 42.. Although it's likely that we end up with 4-6 Rafale squadrons in which case the Mk2 numbers could readjust accordingly.

If we happen to implement good MLU/Upgrade program for the Su30s all these fighters could see us into the 2040s and beyond

The only way I see ORCA really coming into this equation is if any further Rafale orders really are dead in the water and the IAF doesn't go beyond 6 squadrons of Mk2 and falls in love which the TEDBF/ORCA design proposal
konaseema
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 16 Nov 2020 09:54

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

Post by konaseema »

By 2040, the first squadron of Su30 MKI's will be up for retirement, if not earlier. So there needs to be a program that will start in the early 2030's that will serve as the replacement for Su30 MKI's. Let us hope we either have a Mk3 of AMCA or a medium - heavy twin engine fighter jet in the form of ORCA.
ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4053
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

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

Post by ArjunPandit »

AkshaySG wrote:
ramana wrote:So Akshay how many AMCA do you think will need to be inducted?
At least 6-8 squadrons i'd say for the per unit costs to be spread out and based on the threat from China

That would leave us with 8 AMCA, 6 Mk1A squadrons, ~14 Su-30 , 12 Mk2/MWF and around 2 Rafale squadrons

That takes us to the supposed magic number of 42.. Although it's likely that we end up with 4-6 Rafale squadrons in which case the Mk2 numbers could readjust accordingly.

If we happen to implement good MLU/Upgrade program for the Su30s all these fighters could see us into the 2040s and beyond

The only way I see ORCA really coming into this equation is if any further Rafale orders really are dead in the water and the IAF doesn't go beyond 6 squadrons of Mk2 and falls in love which the TEDBF/ORCA design proposal
AMCA will be for door buster role esp with bakis..in that case expect more no.s. We need to remember 42 is minimum and that too for defence on one front and full throttle attack on another and then switch later to the first front..in my opinion both tedbef and orca have a place in IAF..however, with economy sagging in western countries and potential for re appreciation there is high chance we would be under more pressure
JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3113
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

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

Post by JTull »

I am sorry, but by the time IAF gets first AMCA, there will be 2-3000 fifth Gen fighters in the world. Plenty of them with China, not to mention Australia, Singapore, Japan, S Korea. Even PAF will likely get hold of some from China or Turkey.

So AMCA won't be busting any doors. World will be moving on to stealthy UCAVs.

Even Iran is better equipped for asymmetric disruptive aerial warfare.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Post by NRao »

JTull wrote:I am sorry, but by the time IAF gets first AMCA, there will be 2-3000 fifth Gen fighters in the world. Plenty of them with China, not to mention Australia, Singapore, Japan, S Korea. Even PAF will likely get hold of some from China or Turkey.

So AMCA won't be busting any doors. World will be moving on to stealthy UCAVs.

Even Iran is better equipped for asymmetric disruptive aerial warfare.
Pin this post.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

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

Post by ks_sachin »

JTull wrote:
Even Iran is better equipped for asymmetric disruptive aerial warfare.
You are late to the party sir. AHQ is putting up a proposal to acquire stealthy UCAVs from Iran. They were just waiting for the Russians to complete the combat testing!!
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Post by Pratyush »

The last series of post's are just too real considering Indian defence procurement policies.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Post by kit »

ks_sachin wrote:
JTull wrote:
Even Iran is better equipped for asymmetric disruptive aerial warfare.
You are late to the party sir. AHQ is putting up a proposal to acquire stealthy UCAVs from Iran. They were just waiting for the Russians to complete the combat testing!!
:((

at least the wingman is going up in the air this year
Post Reply