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
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

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

Post by KSingh »

ramana wrote:So when are MRFA inductions supposed to start per IAF?
They are currently at RFI stage, RFP hasn’t even been issued yet, RFPs usually have a 6-12 month window to reply by then an evaluation period so let’s say we are T0 on the day RFP is issued (again IAF has not done so nor have they indicated it’s imminent)

T0+18 months for responses to RFP to be assessed and OEMs invited to trails

T0+36 months trails are complete (at home and abroad)

T0+42 months IAF test team makes formal submission to IAF HQ with results (based on MMRCA timelines and IN’s MRCBF trails earlier this year)

T0+48 ‘down select’ of those found compliant with ASQR occurs and official bids are opened to find L1.

T0+50 L1 is declared and contract negotiations commence with relevant OEM

T0+74 terms are reached*

T0+86 CCS clears the deal (in the interim DAC has done the same)

T0+88 contract is signed

T0+124 the FIRST MRFA jet is handed over to the IAF (in France?)

T0+208 the last of the 114 MRFA is handed over to the IAF

*24 months for this process is VERY VERY optimistic considering this process took about 5 years for the C295 deal and for the original MMRCA deal after ~4 years they were still at an impasse. MRFA is a horrendously complex process that will be even harder to navigate so I’d be surprised if they can do it in less than 4 years.


So if the RFP is issued this year the entire process is wrapped up (all 114 in service) by…….. ~2040? And the above is with SEAMLESS flow from stage to stage, when have things ever been that smooth in I’d in procurement? The more you think about it the more absurd the MRFA demand is in 2022 when they haven’t even taken the pre-pre steps still. GoI is just as much to blame for being so asleep at the wheel that they can’t see the ride they are being taken on
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

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

Post by KSingh »

+ to add onto what I’ve outlined above, putting dates to the MRFA fantasy really does highlight why the IAF’s radio silence on ORCA is unjustifiable.

ORCA would be on par with Rafale with any differences being incredibly marginal and timelines even if stretched (they’d be better if IAF was onboard) would still overlap massively with the proposed timelines for MRFA induction yet IAF has never publicly even shown an interest in ORCA because that 100% kills their MRFA fantasy.
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:
Prasad wrote:
@Kartik Saar, refer the last 2 minutes of the video above. For optimum pressure recovery and retaining maximum thrust was the goal for TEDBF
Thank you! I stand corrected. So a radar blocker like the Super Hornet is what we'll see.

Perhaps the pressure recovery issue was also one of the primary issues that led ADA to suggest to the IN to not go in for an AMCA derived Naval AMCA, but rather go in for a clean sheet design. I suppose with non-serpentine intakes, the Internal Weapons Bay would've also been difficult to fit given that the space available for it would be a lot lesser with straighter ducts.

The great thing is the emphasis on area ruling. The lessons from the Tejas Mk1 program have clearly been taken up. Area ruling was one area where Tejas Mk1 fell a little short. Tejas Mk2 design addressed those issues and the later AMCA and TEDBF designs being clean sheet designs allows for the best area ruling possible.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Post by kit »

KSingh wrote:+ to add onto what I’ve outlined above, putting dates to the MRFA fantasy really does highlight why the IAF’s radio silence on ORCA is unjustifiable.

ORCA would be on par with Rafale with any differences being incredibly marginal and timelines even if stretched (they’d be better if IAF was onboard) would still overlap massively with the proposed timelines for MRFA induction yet IAF has never publicly even shown an interest in ORCA because that 100% kills their MRFA fantasy.
exactly. The foreign planes of equal capability in 4+ or 4++ would make no sense at that point. A 5th gen fighter would all be Indian.

Rafale is the last foreign fighter India should buy. Period.
AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 407
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

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

Post by AkshaySG »

ArjunPandit wrote: 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
Bit OT, So feel free to move to IAF thread

I doubt we will ever go over 42 manned fighter squadrons considering the changing nature of Air Warfare.

Unlike when the analysis for "42" squadron strength was done our strength in the near future will mostly comprise multi role fighters who are just as capable of intercepts as they are for A2A, A2G or other modes. The era of Mig21 for one defined role and Jaguars for another etc is over... Therefore there is a lot of flexibility to mission planners who can do more with less.

Simple rule of technology is that as complexity and capabilities go up.. So does the cost and as a result the unit nos decrease


Secondly with advancing UAV and UCAV tech a lot of the tasks previously only possible by fighters can be overtaken by them and as a result a significant chunk of Capex and opex will go towards the Unmanned program

Third even the above scenarios which lead us to 42 are currently "best case" scenarios I would say in which IAF/MOD/HAL all act in cohesion and things get done as per plan... The reality however as we know is quite different, So even getting to the 42 number is tall ask presently.. Talking about more than that being possible in the near future is a bit too much imo

And finally even a hundred squadrons aren't enough if the support Infra lags like it currently does ( Helos, AWACS, Tankers, Transports etc etc).. At some point or the other these will have to be prioritized and that again will take away from the Capex/Opex budget for manned fighters
AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 407
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

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

Post by AkshaySG »

KSingh wrote:+ to add onto what I’ve outlined above, putting dates to the MRFA fantasy really does highlight why the IAF’s radio silence on ORCA is unjustifiable.

ORCA would be on par with Rafale with any differences being incredibly marginal and timelines even if stretched (they’d be better if IAF was onboard) would still overlap massively with the proposed timelines for MRFA induction yet IAF has never publicly even shown an interest in ORCA because that 100% kills their MRFA fantasy.
So to play devil's advocate a bit here .. Is ORCA even at a stage where IAF leadership would publicly show interest or "back it " openly ?

Air Forces are anyway hesitant to utilize Navy based designs (even if modified a little ) due to the inherent structural changes that a carrier based design demands , Even if ORCA manages to remove all those constraints what exactly is it offering IAF that other more programs in a more advanced stage can't ?

The way I see it is AMCA ,MK2 and Rafale together can offer anything ORCA can and more while also having better timelines ... So why not focus resources on those programs rather than scattering them . If indigenous is the way to go then cap Raffy acquistions at 2 more and let Mk2-AMCA fill up the rest of the numbers .

It would be one thing if ORCA had the potential to be a Su-30 replacement as some have claimed but currently it certainly isn't a Heavy Air Superiority Fighter
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

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

Post by bala »

KSingh wrote:ORCA would be on par with Rafale with any differences being incredibly marginal
This is a very important point. Indian TEDBF and its variant ORCA would be in the class of Rafale jet. So clearly, HAL/ADA has to get them into flight quickly. The NLCA experience should help. ADA tinkering with design should be hastened and assembly should start soon. Demonstrating a flying prototype is such a crucial step (the chinese seem to be in a huge hurry to show off prototypes to the world). The IAF / Navy should wholeheartedly embrace programs and refine things based on actual test flights. Hope our politicos and MOD babus work in concert and make things happen.
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Post by fanne »

Let me propose something drastic and different - Yet very practical, particularly for India and IAF.

TEDBF is in progress with funds committed (including funds from IN and DRDO - both being funded by GOI). For ORCA, the only thing that IAF needs to provide is the Staff requirement (or could be Rafale ++) and the funds can come from GOI (through DRDO). The risk is that maybe a billion worth of dollars used in ORCA (over and above TEDBF) may get wasted if IAF does not find a need for it.
I don't think we will be off manned aircraft any time soon. If we have still 114- 200 MRFA requirement (depending on which dalal is talking about number), I doubt all will be fulfilled or none will be fulfilled if IAF insist on certain birds only. That niche will be filled by OCRA, but it has to be ready by then.

Something is rotten in the MOD/ADA/DRDO/HAL/IAF eco system. Tejas MK2 was suppose to roll out this year and fly by next year (there was fund for first PV/LSP and it is being used for its manufacture), the additional fund was allocated last month and magically the date of roll out and first flight move by 2 years (already delayed by 2 years!!). If you delay OCRA, you may as well say good bye to it and be ready to do panic buy of MRFA (which many wants anyway)
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

fanne. Delay in funding can be linear but the consequent delay in milestones is usually a power law.
The reason is work performed follows the logistic curve which has a shape like the S curve.

X axis is resources time etc.
Y axis is % work complete.
The top of S curves reaches asymptotically 100 % work complete.

So program management is based on prompt funding and periodic reviews to ensure its tracking to the S curve.
We have Tejas, Vikrant, and many programs as examples.
Delay in funding drives costs (inflation etc) and slips schedule (self-evident).
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

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

Post by KSingh »

AkshaySG wrote:
So to play devil's advocate a bit here .. Is ORCA even at a stage where IAF leadership would publicly show interest or "back it " openly ?
The same could’ve been said for AMCA 10 years ago? And if TEDBF is at a stage where the NAVY is willing to take the leap, the IAF who are meant to be India’s premier air power experts do not trust themselves to lead such an effort?

AkshaySG wrote: Air Forces are anyway hesitant to utilize Navy based designs (even if modified a little ) due to the inherent structural changes that a carrier based design demands , Even if ORCA manages to remove all those constraints what exactly is it offering IAF that other more programs in a more advanced stage can't ?
It’s easier to convert a naval fighter for the land role than the other way around. Why should this be something the IAF fear? The F18 is a perfect example of this not being an issue.

And ORCA offers the IAF to satisfy their MRFA lust without throwing 30+ billion and the next 2 decades away on a foreign design. They are apparently convinced of the need for a MRFA (Rafale basically) and neither LCA MK.2 nor AMCA fits the bill for them hence ORCA.

AkshaySG wrote: The way I see it is AMCA ,MK2 and Rafale together can offer anything ORCA can and more while also having better timelines
If this is the case then what is this MRFA demand for?
AkshaySG wrote:... If indigenous is the way to go then cap Raffy acquistions at 2 more and let Mk2-AMCA fill up the rest of the numbers .
This would be my strategy since 2016 itself but it’s the IAF that has stubbornly held its position that 114+ MRFA are needed. A former CAS openly said they were only pursuing the full 114 and not additional off the shelf interim squadrons
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

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

Post by KSingh »

fanne wrote:Let me propose something drastic and different - Yet very practical, particularly for India and IAF.

TEDBF is in progress with funds committed (including funds from IN and DRDO - both being funded by GOI). For ORCA, the only thing that IAF needs to provide is the Staff requirement (or could be Rafale ++) and the funds can come from GOI (through DRDO). The risk is that maybe a billion worth of dollars used in ORCA (over and above TEDBF) may get wasted if IAF does not find a need for it.
I don't think we will be off manned aircraft any time soon. If we have still 114- 200 MRFA requirement (depending on which dalal is talking about number), I doubt all will be fulfilled or none will be fulfilled if IAF insist on certain birds only. That niche will be filled by OCRA, but it has to be ready by then.

Something is rotten in the MOD/ADA/DRDO/HAL/IAF eco system. Tejas MK2 was suppose to roll out this year and fly by next year (there was fund for first PV/LSP and it is being used for its manufacture), the additional fund was allocated last month and magically the date of roll out and first flight move by 2 years (already delayed by 2 years!!). If you delay OCRA, you may as well say good bye to it and be ready to do panic buy of MRFA (which many wants anyway)
MK.2 dates have moved by 6-8 months since 2020 only. Intually rollout was meant for H2 2022, now it’s H1 2023. Factor in COVID and delays in sanctioning the project.


I agree something is rotten though. MK.2 is a direct threat to MRFA hence it must be crushed at all costs, they can’t openly scrap the project so they’ll inflict a death by 1000 cuts.


A few years back BRFrites were thinking about printing shirts with 201 MK.2 in them based on the then CAS’s commitments to the MK.2, now barely a few years later the current CAS says 120 is their projection for MK.2 numbers. Maybe more depending on delivery (the most other the comment I’ve seen from a service chief in a long time)
AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 407
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

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

Post by AkshaySG »

KSingh wrote:

It’s easier to convert a naval fighter for the land role than the other way around. Why should this be something the IAF fear? The F18 is a perfect example of this not being an issue.

And ORCA offers the IAF to satisfy their MRFA lust without throwing 30+ billion and the next 2 decades away on a foreign design. They are apparently convinced of the need for a MRFA (Rafale basically) and neither LCA MK.2 nor AMCA fits the bill for them hence ORCA.


If this is the case then what is this MRFA demand for?


This would be my strategy since 2016 itself but it’s the IAF that has stubbornly held its position that 114+ MRFA are needed. A former CAS openly said they were only pursuing the full 114 and not additional off the shelf interim squadrons
1. F18 isn't really a great example btw , There is a reason why IAF was never interested in it in the first MMRCA rounds and why it hasn't really been great for other conventional air forces like RAAF either who jumped to F35 at first chance .... An inherently naval design will have to make compromises for its land version especially when it comes to weight

2. The MRFA demand is illogical and going nowhere , The Air Marshals can repeat it ad nauseaum but that won't change the fact that 114-200 or whatever number they dream of is never happening .... What can happen though is direct G2G orders of Rafale and IAF will accept that .

3. So pushing ORCA as a replacement to the 114 or whatever MRCA doesn't really change anything since the MRCA isn't intended to go anywhere ..It is intended to keep pushing GOI to get additional Rafales and also to keep import lobby alive by giving them some bread crumbs

4. We're providing alternatives (ORCA) to a problem (MRCA ) that doesn't need to exist in our current scenario ... Once the problem goes away then so will the need for the alternative .

How does the problem go away ? Well the govt gets the Rafale follow up deal done , HAL follows through in its Mk2 timelines and AMCA progresses according to plan

I foresee MRCA being touted for another 2-3 years till the direct Raffy deal is complete and then slowly discarded
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

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

Post by KSingh »

AkshaySG wrote:
KSingh wrote:

It’s easier to convert a naval fighter for the land role than the other way around. Why should this be something the IAF fear? The F18 is a perfect example of this not being an issue.

And ORCA offers the IAF to satisfy their MRFA lust without throwing 30+ billion and the next 2 decades away on a foreign design. They are apparently convinced of the need for a MRFA (Rafale basically) and neither LCA MK.2 nor AMCA fits the bill for them hence ORCA.


If this is the case then what is this MRFA demand for?


This would be my strategy since 2016 itself but it’s the IAF that has stubbornly held its position that 114+ MRFA are needed. A former CAS openly said they were only pursuing the full 114 and not additional off the shelf interim squadrons
1. F18 isn't really a great example btw , There is a reason why IAF was never interested in it in the first MMRCA rounds and why it hasn't really been great for other conventional air forces like RAAF either who jumped to F35 at first chance .... An inherently naval design will have to make compromises for its land version especially when it comes to weight

2. The MRFA demand is illogical and going nowhere , The Air Marshals can repeat it ad nauseaum but that won't change the fact that 114-200 or whatever number they dream of is never happening .... What can happen though is direct G2G orders of Rafale and IAF will accept that .

3. So pushing ORCA as a replacement to the 114 or whatever MRCA doesn't really change anything since the MRCA isn't intended to go anywhere ..It is intended to keep pushing GOI to get additional Rafales and also to keep import lobby alive by giving them some bread crumbs

4. We're providing alternatives (ORCA) to a problem (MRCA ) that doesn't need to exist in our current scenario ... Once the problem goes away then so will the need for the alternative .

How does the problem go away ? Well the govt gets the Rafale follow up deal done , HAL follows through in its Mk2 timelines and AMCA progresses according to plan

I foresee MRCA being touted for another 2-3 years till the direct Raffy deal is complete and then slowly discarded
I might buy what you are saying if IAF didn’t publish their future force plans and have 6 squadrons of MRFA as the core to reaching their 35 squadron target come 2035. Take away those 6 and where will the balance come? Obviously an additional 2 AMCA and 4 LCA MK.2 make sense but IAF is the one that decides these things.

They aren’t going to get 6 squadrons of MRFA GTG or through MRFA tender but where’s the plan b? Remember that these aren’t off the shelf deals. Long lead times are associated with production and converting squadron types. They are already well behind the power curve and as we get to 2030 the IAF is going to be in a real mess- SU-30MKI is obsolete as it is (don’t expect major upgrades), LCA MK.2 won’t be ordered by IAF during its testing phase that is due to end around 2028, AMCA is post 2030, Jags/Mig29/M2K are VERY long in the tooth by then. Just 36 Rafales can’t be expected to be the entire sword arm of the 4th largest AF in the world
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Post by fanne »

ramana wrote:fanne. Delay in funding can be linear but the consequent delay in milestones is usually a power law.
The reason is work performed follows the logistic curve which has a shape like the S curve.

X axis is resources time etc.
Y axis is % work complete.
The top of S curves reaches asymptotically 100 % work complete.

So program management is based on prompt funding and periodic reviews to ensure its tracking to the S curve.
We have Tejas, Vikrant, and many programs as examples.
Delay in funding drives costs (inflation etc) and slips schedule (self-evident).
Ramana-ji, this is the point I have been harping about. The delay in funding (which is usually small and spread over many years - 1 billion for Tejas (over 30 years) vs 6 billion for 36 Rafale in 3-4 years), is like death blow to the program and usually it is not a huge ask. A week here, a month there and half a year delay is all needed to kill the program without overtly killing it.

That's why R&D funding of critical projects should be taken away from IAF, IN and even MOD. Let's run that out of PMO (like n-subs) and let the funding be prompt. I would put MK2, AMCA, TEDBF, MCRA, R&D cost in the prompt release and tightly monitor category.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

A couple of reassignment will do the same.
I think PMO understands.

They don't want rancor but you can't make an omelet without breaking the egg.

Let's see.
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

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

Post by KSingh »

ramana wrote:A couple of reassignment will do the same.
I think PMO understands.

They don't want rancor but you can't make an omelet without breaking the egg.

Let's see.
Conversely it seems like PMO’s attention has completely dropped off from the MoD for a while now. They built up to CDS and there was constant talk of xyz reforms but since the CDS’s demise it’s basically back to business as usual and the tail wagging the dog so PMO has moved onto other things, they aren’t even interested in appointing a new CDS which says it all

Joint commands, theatrisation, harmonising fleets etc etc this was constantly in the news during the time of CDS.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

Ok
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 »

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 1150
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Post by sankum »

Empty weight 13 T according to vedio.
My estimate
Internal fuel 5.7 T old poster
Clean take off 19.5T
Payload 6.5 T
MTOW 26T
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 »

VIDEO

https://twitter.com/ShivAroor/status/15 ... IZPaurdHGA ---> Probably the most exciting foreseeable combat aircraft program in India — the proposed TEDBF.
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/reviewvayu/status/1 ... EFvGbBulxA —> Press conference by the Indian Navy Chief just now.

"The LCA Navy project was extremely useful + much was learnt. This is going to help us for the next gen twin engine deck based fighter TEDBF. We're preparing a cabinet note. In 2026 will have the prototype/production by 2032"
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Post by Pratyush »

This is as close to ringing endorsement as it's possible for the chief to give to a program.
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/hvtiaf/status/15995 ... Udb9J4aV5g ---> Savage Breed! TEDBF inspiration.

Image
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

Jane's article from the Naval Aviation thread.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... completion
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

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

Post by Vips »

Navy may need 100 locally made deck-based fighters.

A proposal to design and develop an indigenous deck-based fighter for the Indian Navy is likely to be taken up by the Cabinet Committee on Security soon, with the navy’s requirement expected to around 100 aircraft, senior officials familiar with the development said at Aero India 2023 on Tuesday.

The first prototype of the twin engine deck-based fighter (TEDBF) could make its maiden flight by 2026 and be ready for production by 2031, said Girish S Deodhare, director general, Aeronautical Development Agency. The navy is looking at importing a new deck-based fighter as an interim measure to meet its requirements before the indigenous TEDBF is ready. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited will produce the new fighter at the rate of eight aircraft per year, the officials said.

The French Rafale M fighter has edged out the American F/A-18 Super Hornet in a direct competition to equip the navy with 26 new deck-based fighters for INS Vikrant, the country’s first indigenous aircraft carrier. The navy currently has two aircraft carriers – INS Vikrant and INS Vikramaditya.

The TEDBF will match the capabilities of Rafale M and F/A-18 Super Hornet, Deodhare said. The Rafale is manufactured by Dassault Aviation while the Super Hornet is a Boeing product.

“The expertise gained in developing the light combat aircraft (navy) will come in handy for the TEDBF project. It’s currently in the preliminary design stage and should move forward quickly. The wing folding design mechanism (to ensure the plane takes minimum space on an aircraft carrier) has been finalised,” Deodhare said.

To be sure, LCA (navy) is only a technology demonstrator but it showcases that India has developed niche technologies specific to deck-based fighter operations, and it will pave the way to develop and manufacture the TEDBF.

Last week, the LCA (navy) landed and took off from INS Vikrant for the first time. Two LCA (navy) prototypes are currently operating from the aircraft carrier as part of ongoing flight trials. Vikrant was commissioned into the navy last September, marking a pivotal point in the country’s quest for self-reliance in the defence sector. The flight trials on board INS Vikrant also involve the Russian-origin MiG-29K fighter jets that use the ski-jump to takeoff and are recovered by arrestor wires or what is known as STOBAR (short takeoff but arrested recovery) in navy parlance.

INS Vikramaditya also operates MiG-29K fighters. LCA (navy) landed and took off from Vikramaditya for the first time in August 2020.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by ramana »

Great news on TEDBF.
The 26 RafaleM will ease schedule pressure.
Glad the TEDBF numbers are firmed up at 100.
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 »

X-Post from the Aero India 2023 thread.
ramana wrote:TEDBF update

"This is what I was waiting for. Much refined design of TEDBF. This is looking really good.
Nose cone changed, DSI intake look much better now. Clearly RAFALE+AMCA domination in design."

https://twitter.com/Kuntal__biswas/stat ... WoEuvHe6Xw
If there ever was a reason why the Rafale M was chosen (over the F-18), it is right here.

Reposting the above tweet, with pictures, in the next post below. TEDBF is updated Rafale M with folded wings + AMCA inputs.

HVT Sir had tweeted the same thing a few months back ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7791&p=2579637#p2571651
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/Kuntal__biswas/stat ... 19746?s=20 ---> This is what I was waiting for. Much refined design of TEDBF. This is looking really good. Nose cone changed, DSI intake look much better now. Clearly RAFALE+AMCA domination in design.

Image

Image

Image

========================================================================

Posted this tweet before in this thread, but reposting again...

https://twitter.com/warplane_*****/statu ... 12204?s=20 ---> Similarities between Rafale and TEDBF (Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter) of India, expected production in 2030.

Image
hgupta
BRFite
Posts: 467
Joined: 20 Oct 2018 14:17

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

Post by hgupta »

No bubble canopy? Hopefully this can also transition into ORCA and can be the replacement for Rafales and Su-30MKIs.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

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

Post by bala »

The TEDBF and I might add AMCA projects require to be hastened up in timelines. We have to start the prototype model assembly ASAP and have them flying soon. These endless iterations of design is consuming and taking too much time. The fighter jets are critical projects for India and having super good project management, that clears all roadblocks expediously is paramount. All the Govt nods should be automatic (a no-brainer). People in the project view them as their lifetime projects but the nation has other imperatives. Right now I see things operating in a "Waterfall" model instead of "Agile" model of execution. Of course it goes without saying that things should be done properly. But shaving a few things here and there can wait. Function first and then optimization later should be the mantra. The DoD Babus must loosen purse string and have several iterations in parallel. Demonstrating the two crafts quickly will put all the other import stuff in limbo mode.
nash
BRFite
Posts: 946
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

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

Post by nash »

I believe external store data is new.

https://twitter.com/hukum2082/status/16 ... 0815825921

Image
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

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

Post by Pratyush »

External payload is ton more than listed originally.
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 »

I love info sheets. Page 1 updated.
BenG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 80
Joined: 30 Aug 2022 21:11

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

Post by BenG »

ramana wrote:Great news on TEDBF.
The 26 RafaleM will ease schedule pressure.
Glad the TEDBF numbers are firmed up at 100.
Just taking a contrarian view here.

Given HAL and ADA's penchant for stretching development timelines like a soap opera. I'm not convinced 26 Rafale-M will be enough to be fielded on 2 aircraft carriers. Basing TEDBF upon the Engineering progress of twin-Engine AMCA is a bad decision. I did watch Dr Girish S Deodhare's presentation on how DRDO will leverage AMCA technologies to bring out TEDBF quickly. However seeing how Tejas mk2 itself will enter production no earlier than 2029. I sincerely doubt AMCA's technologies will be available for TEDBF to follow suit. TEDBF iron bird facility is still not up. The project is far behind even in terms of design.

If Rafale M has indeed won the navy competition, it makes sense to order 114 Rafale M and share the assets between Navy and Air force. Our Air force MRFA RFP is never going to come out in time and in numbers. It is better to work with Navy and get some planes in the interim. UK's RAF shares F-35 B with Royal Navy. So it is not something unhead of. The planes can be assembled in India by DRAL or a new company. With current TEDBF design being Rafale M with wing-folding, it makes sense to revise the design better and work on it till Tejas mk2 and AMCA are in actual production. Then TEDBF can be developed as a stealth deck based fighter.
rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 855
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

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

Post by rajsunder »

nash wrote:I believe external store data is new.

https://twitter.com/hukum2082/status/16 ... 0815825921
what happened to the stealthy front fuselage?
basant
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Post by basant »

rajsunder wrote:what happened to the stealthy front fuselage?
Seems to be either newer/different concept and looks aweful. However, the 3-D model shows the previous nose cone.

Image
rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 855
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

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

Post by rajsunder »

basant wrote:
rajsunder wrote:what happened to the stealthy front fuselage?
Seems to be either newer/different concept and looks aweful. However, the 3-D model shows the previous nose cone.
The new design looks to be inspired more by Rafale.

BTW there have been some specification changes from last year
The old Specs
Length: 16.30 m (53 ft 6 in)
Wingspan: 11.20 m (36 ft 9 in) (unfolded), 7.6m (24 ft 11 in) (folded)
Max takeoff weight: 26,000 kg (57,320 lb) (expected)[36]
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric F414 afterburning turbofan, 58.5 kN (13,200 lbf) thrust each dry, 98 kN (22,000 lbf) with afterburner
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6
Service ceiling: 18,000 m (60,000 ft)
g limits: +8/−3

The new Specs
Length: 17 Meters
Wingspan: 11.6 m (unfolded), 8.3 m (folded)
Service Ceiling: 55,000 ft
Max Speed: 1.8 Mach.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2904
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by Cybaru »

New internal fuel - 6500 kgs. Compared to rafale which has 4700 kgs. I think last aero india there was also mention of 1.5K - 2K tons of fuel in cfts for tedbf. So all in all a land based version can replace Su30MKI quite easily.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Post by basant »

Would be interesting to know why the nose cone was changed given that the front section was inspired from the AMCA. The nose looks similar to that of LCA, and my speculation is that it may be is more aerodynamic or perhaps will help decrease the effort to use existing/available radar and avionics. Would love to know the actual reason though.
Post Reply