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.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5251
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 05 Jun 2020 01:04

chola wrote:I could not have imagined that we would embark on so many different types just a year ago and now I am seeing CGIs of a twin-engine CARRIER fighter!!!

Are those graphics official? TEDBF is my favorite now. There is so much to look forward to!


It is quite crude as of now, the renderings. They are official as in they did come out of HAL, I believe. They are definitely not Harshal Pal or Kuntal's fan art. HVT had tweeted them months ago, earlier this year.

But the sizing is off for sure. The nozzle size seems inconsistent with F-414 and more M-88 size.

To me, these were basically initial ORCA renderings based on ONE of the possible TEDBF configs - delta wing with canards. They were then being used for initial sizing requirements.

We'll probably get to see a more definitive design around Aero India 2021, if there is such an event next year.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4384
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 05 Jun 2020 08:05

Kartik wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Frankly, do we need anyMRCA when this beauty is on the way?

I was screaming and arguing about this fighter for the past many years. NLCA should've been a twin engined design from the beginning.

Esp. After the IAF complained of lower thrust for the LCA in the mid-late 2000s. The entire LCA2, NLCA and MRCA should have been combined into one fighter. ORCA. by now we'd be inducting it in numbers. An easy rafale equivalent mass produced at Desi prices.


I really really hope that the IAF leadership sees the writing on the wall. With a stated goal of 6 years for first flight, an IAF ORCA variant of the TEDBF could achieve a nearly similar first flight target. One can bet that there won't be even the first of the 114 MRCAs coming in by then.

Why spend $20 billion on an import when an ORCA is well within the reach of the local industry? Private sector industries could be roped in from the beginning to work on specific work packages to lighten the increased load on ADA and HAL engineering resources.

the IAF could compromise and agree that an additional 36-48 Rafales would be what they could get - 72 to 84 Rafales is 3/4th of their original MRCA requirement anyway.

And the remaining 114 could be ORCA.

In case it is delayed, and frankly I can't imagine why (considering the amount of experience gained in producing the tiny LCA), they can easily order more LCA.

I would even go so far as to say that they should straight away replace the mwf numbers with additional mk1a. That bird will be more than enough at the lower end of the inventory. Although I'm not sure how far they are more into mwf design as of now. This will allow Hal to increase production capacity and really ramp up numbers driving down costs.

Let orca and amca be the main Ada projects for the next 15-20 years. That can be followed by a stealth LCA based ucav.

This lost opportunity truly pains me.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4384
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 05 Jun 2020 08:15

Kartik wrote:[

TEDBF is very achievable, with all the elements being either worked on or proven. Tejas Mk2 and Naval LCA Mk1 programs directly contribute to it.
- F-414 integration and new avionics and systems will be already being done for the re-sized and larger Tejas Mk2 and
- Naval LCA Mk1 design elements that led to successful carrier landing and take off

Just don't keep adding scope that is unnecessary or driven by an urge to have the best at the first shot. It is essential that we get it flying and in service quickly. Upgrades can always be done as and when needed.

TEDBF will cost a lot less than either of the imported naval fighter, Rafale M or Super Hornet, that much is for sure. That 57 MRCBF wasn't going to go anywhere anyway. I guess the Navy leadership understood that, and has now made the wise decision.

.

Even without the 414s, the orca will be an easy leap. 2 engines at 90k on a much larger frame will allow them to stuff it with whatever they want. This will be a transition like the m2k -> m4k but far more sophisticated at every level from airframe design, engines to sensors and avionics. More like a rafale with higher thrust. The goal should be to simply make a larger lcamk1a. That's it. 12 hps, aesa, more thrust, 10-11 tons empty and 5 tons internal fuel. 7-8 tons external payload.

Another serious advantage will be the possibilty of procuring a non sanctionable engine - there is a much wider variety available in that 8-9 ton class than the 10 ton class.
Last edited by Cain Marko on 05 Jun 2020 10:19, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby Philip » 05 Jun 2020 08:42

The ADA is behind the programme,not the IN? The ADA's timeframe for the LCA must be factored in.6 years to first appear,and then at least 4 for testing,trials,etc. and we're talking 2030+ for a non-stealth fighter in an era of stealth and where UCAVs will increasingly operate from carriers. If I am still alive in the next decade I will eat my hat if this venture succeeds in the given timeframe.The key missing links are the engine, whose absence has plagued all our indigenous fighters thus far- the HF and LCA, and the second most important factor,"Vitamin M". When countries far richer than us have but a single aircraft programme,we have several.LCA MK1,MK1A,MK-2,AMCA and now the ORCA. There is also little information whether the ORCA is based upon the LCA MK-2 and what if any, commonality there is.

Add to that the still delayed signing of Sukhoi upgrades and hopeful extra Rafales,mothballled MIG-29s,limited Jag upgrades and yet to be completed M2K upgrades each costing over $50+M a pop, all due to the lack of Vitamin M ,the ambitions of the ADA,MOD,whoever appear to be highly unrealistic.
The right way to achieve a relevant TE carrier fighter contemporary for its time would be in developing a naval variant of the AMCA,a stealth aircraft in an era of stealth, instead of a desi equiv. of the venerable F-18 SHs which are already being replaced by JSFs in this decade itself! The wiser cost-effective route would be developing as said the AMCA-N and upgrading the 29Ks to their max potential in the current decade .

Finally,all this effort to produce how many naval fighters? Will it be a cost-effective exercise? Replacements for our existing carriers would be around 50+ .The 3rd. large EMALS carrier is not a top priority for the CDS or GOI and wisely so.It is simply unaffordable. Even themightiest navy in the world,the US plans to cut its carrier fleet down to 9 from 11/12.
It also plans smaller,cheaper surface combatants than building huge expensive DDGs and FFGs for littoral warfare.The 29Ks still have at least two decades of service in them.What would the unit cost be for such a low ORCA production number? The LCA MK-1 underpowered and overweight fighter costs upwards of 50 crores.The MK-2 will be costlier. An ORCA a decade from now would cost at least double that of a MK-1.
Last edited by Philip on 05 Jun 2020 10:33, edited 1 time in total.

prasan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 75
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 19:36

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

Postby prasan » 05 Jun 2020 08:52


chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4618
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 05 Jun 2020 09:10

Philip wrote:The ADA is behind the programme,not the IN? The ADA's timeframe for the LCA must be factored in.6 years to first appear,alghen at least 4 for testing,trials,etc. and we're talking 2030+ for a non-stealth fighter in an era of stealth and where UCAVs will increasingly operate from carriers. If I am still alive in the next decade I will eat my hat if this venture succeeds in the given timeframe.


Filipov, I am saving this for posterity. You will be eating hat before the turn of the decade.

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

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

Postby basant » 05 Jun 2020 09:54

Cain Marko wrote:
Kartik wrote:[
...
Even without the 414s, the orca will be a easy leap. 2 engines at 90k on a much larger frame will allow them to stuff it with whatever they want. This will be a transition like the m2k -> m4k but far more sophisticated at everything level. More like a rafale with higher thrust. The goal should be to simply make a larger lcamk1a. That's it. 12 hps, aesa, more thrust, 10-11 tons empty and 5 tons internal fuel. 7-8 tons external calamity

+1

It will save a lot of effort, money and man power if its s/w also supports requirements of ORCA as well. A bit of compromise (heavier landing gear, for eg), may be, but something that will free up resources for more critical and demanding projects such as AMCA/navalized Ghatak (!), etc.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4384
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 05 Jun 2020 10:16

basant wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:

+1

It will save a lot of effort, money and man power if its s/w also supports requirements of ORCA as well. A bit of compromise (heavier landing gear, for eg), may be, but something that will free up resources for more critical and demanding projects such as AMCA/navalized Ghatak (!), etc.

The landing gear doesn't have to be a penalty on AF versions. The AF versions of both the Rafale and the MiG-29 are lighter by a good margin than their Naval counterparts.

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

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

Postby Philip » 05 Jun 2020 10:47

Chola,if it succeeds,I will eat my hat with max. pleasure! One dearly wants our desi programmes to succeed,but we lack concentrated focus ,plus regular funding.We are also in key depts. like fngine tech. decades behind aerospace majors. In my listing of aircraft programmes ,I feel we are simply spraying our resources away in diverse directions. Remember how for lack of scientific skilled personnel,the IJT team was also tasked with the FGFA project! I forgot about the IJT on my list.At least the HTT-40 has arrived and should be the option instead of extra Pilatus BTs.

Back to priorities and the budgetary problems.The carrier lobby in the IN is squandering valuable time,money and human resources in peddling carrier aviation at this time.The media said today that in the last 6 years,China built 80,yes 80 new warships,subs,etc!
The IN desperately requires at least 16 new subs as of now.Our venerable Kilos,now in their 3rd. decade,approaching their 4th. are undergoing second lifetime refits to keep them afloat and relevant.China has around 70 to 80 subs,building 8 + 8 extra planned for Pak. It has 8 warships and subs on permanent patrol in the IOR.I sincerely hope that the CDS and DM crack the whip and at this time of multiple crises, concentrate on subs ,mine- countermeasure vessels and tech, and beefing up the surface fleet .

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

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

Postby basant » 05 Jun 2020 11:46

Cain Marko wrote:
basant wrote:+1

It will save a lot of effort, money and man power if its s/w also supports requirements of ORCA as well. A bit of compromise (heavier landing gear, for eg), may be, but something that will free up resources for more critical and demanding projects such as AMCA/navalized Ghatak (!), etc.

The landing gear doesn't have to be a penalty on AF versions. The AF versions of both the Rafale and the MiG-29 are lighter by a good margin than their Naval counterparts.

500kg to 750kg as I could find with an expected difference of about 30% work. That said, even France did not work on so many variants at once! Except perhaps USA and Russia/USSR. Which country is working on so many variants at once? Look at the funding we have with the most nationalist government! Considering moving from single engine to unchartered twin engine fighter, is 4 year estimate for testing a conservative or pessimistic? M4K was worked on simultaneously though, but even there it was not naval version.

IN may be looking for Mig-29K replacement, so that time frame is okay in such a case.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3579
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 06 Jun 2020 03:22

ADA must be having a twin engine design of LCA, when it decided to start work on AMCA.

I don't think ADA would have gone directly to AMCA, without creating a twin engine version of LCA first for internal studies.

With AMCA, it has an idea of where the LRU for a twin engine version should go. It would be interesting to see if ADA is going to start with AMCA or MK2.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3579
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 06 Jun 2020 03:25

The question on resources: We need up to 500 such fighters. MMRCA 2, Su30 & Mig29K replacement. Not to mention the need to bump up sqd numbers to 42.

Even 30M saved on each fighter is 15B in savings! ADA is now asking only 1B for development!

Now consider the savings due to commonality of parts ACROSS IAF & IN!

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3948
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 06 Jun 2020 04:08

nam wrote:The question on resources: We need up to 500 such fighters. MMRCA 2, Su30 & Mig29K replacement. Not to mention the need to bump up sqd numbers to 42.

Even 30M saved on each fighter is 15B in savings! ADA is now asking only 1B for development!

Now consider the savings due to commonality of parts ACROSS IAF & IN!



billions of dollars, also a huge leap in indi capability , strategic autonomy

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

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

Postby Philip » 06 Jun 2020 04:49

The LCA first flew in Jan 2001.19 years have passed and producion thus far has been around only 30+ fighters of which around 50% are prototypes. Only two sqds. with limited numbers have been commissioned and as of now ,the production rate is only 8/yr.,of the basic MK-1. Attempts to drive it up to 16 are on-going,but we will have to wait for Dec. to know how successful they've been. The improved MK-1A has yet to see the light of day and the order for 83+ yet to be sealed still despite around a year of talk about the same being "just around the corner".

Now let's talk about the NLCA. Just one landing and take-off exercise from the carrier. It has yet to be certified for carrier combat ops. Is it going to become another " technology demonstrator"? The ORCA is a completely new aircraft ,twin-engined and originally was supposed to be the naval variant of the MK-2.Unlike the case of the M2K and M4K,the twin-engined version the French answer to the US F-15 (had no takers and was dropped), both variants were developed simultaneously! It saved huge development time. Both appeared almost at the same time within a year of each other.
After failing to sell it to the Saudis,it was dropped.

Given this track record, I leave it to others to decide for themselves when a production FOC ORCA will enter service with the IN, especially given our constrained financial resources.
The DM/ MOD/ CDS and the chiefs of the IN and IAF should give serious thought to the situ, review what is possible- remember the mantra," better is the enemy of good enough",and compress our fighter ambitions for both the IAF and IN and launch the AMCA programme this year. We withdrew from the FGFA/ SU-57 stealth fighter as it had proceeded to fast for any worthwhile input from us in its development, and for some reason an insistence for it to be twin-seated. That rings a bit hollow when the AMCA is single-seated and no large stealth fighter is contemplated,unless a small buy,like Rafales in contemplated in the future. Even a partially successful AMCA would be better than reinventing a 4th- gen fighter in the era of 5th-gen,with 6th- gen aircraft under design.

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

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

Postby brar_w » 06 Jun 2020 05:19

Philip wrote:We withdrew from the FGFA/ SU-57 stealth fighter as it had proceeded to fast for any worthwhile input from us in its development, and for some reason an insistence for it to be twin-seated.


Or probably also because it was no where near a mature product to have a couple of billion $ sit on while other critical purchases lacked funding?. Till this date there exist ZERO serial production SU-57's even two years after the MOD withdrew. The first one was built but crashed soon after it rolled out. To refresh memories, Sukhoi design bureau was selected to lead the development of the T-50 back in April of 2002. More than 18 years ago. The production rate for 2020 (serial produced aircraft) is going to be under 5 IIRC. Maybe even 2, 3 or less. With diminishing prospects of a lot of local content going into the development (at the early stage) what incentive did the MOD and IAF to continue to keep the funding pipeline open as compared to just waiting it out and having the Russian Air Force fund it, put out a few dozen operational aircraft and then evaluate it once it has a say 100K cumulative flight hours under its belt?

Come late 2020's, once the Russian Air Force fields its 70 odd aircraft the IAF can re-evaluate. They'd have deeper insight into AMCA maturity by then and can adjust the mix of heavy and medium (there's no such thing as a light weight stealth fighter).

The lesson here is that you shouldn't continue to delay induction, run into development or production, or funding hurdles, have no success in roping in other partners, and then expect the only one partner to continue to keep the checks rolling. Especially when you don't even rope in your only partner into the flight test program and constantly cut your internal orders to a silver bullet fleet, at least for the first decade of production.
Last edited by brar_w on 06 Jun 2020 08:09, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby Philip » 06 Jun 2020 08:00

Why we said no to the SU-57 .We also had precious little stealth tech to offer other than software development and empty pockets too. But empty pockets still remain and spraying our paisa on a buffet of programmes instead of focussing on the chief priorities is a sure route to failure.
Our priorities today should be one,the accelerated LCA production to replace retiring MIGs and developing a twin-engined multi-role fighter for the IAF and IN with as much stealth in it as possible.
Just two programmes. Incremental LCA upgrades as we go along, with the MK1A production in 3 or even 4 lines to plug the numbers gap as quickly as possible. The upgrades to M2Ks,MIG-29s,MKIs some extras of the same types, and arrival of Rafales would suffice for the medium requirement upto the end of this decade,by which time the AMCA ,priority two,would've had a decade of development,prototypes flying and tested,to enter serial production by 2030.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4384
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 06 Jun 2020 08:34

Frankly Philip. You are really underestimating how challenging the lca was and what it had provided. A freakin turnip has more blood. They've squeezed everything out of that little frame in the mk1a. If the Ada got this far, I feel extremely confident that they could create a best in class twin engine fighter. Barring none. And quickly.

If fighterss are needed at a quicker pace, 2sqd rafale or some mki, mig29 combo should be purchased. And that's that. Just 2-3sqds until mk1a. The only import afterr that might be a couple of pakfa or jsf sqds as silver bullet in the next decade to hedge against amca delays.

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

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

Postby basant » 06 Jun 2020 10:27

Cain Marko wrote:Frankly Philip. You are really underestimating how challenging the lca was and what it had provided. A freakin turnip has more blood. They've squeezed everything out of that little frame in the mk1a. If the Ada got this far, I feel extremely confident that they could create a best in class twin engine fighter. Barring none. And quickly.
...

Sir, as much as we love and own LCA, we should be circumspect with unknowns. For decades DDM criticized LCAs delays and the supporters, especially on this BRF forum, gave lots of explanations as to why the delays were not abnormal. These included slipping of time lines of Typhoon, Rafales, F35, etc, which were clean sheet designs built by nations with tremendous experience. Not once ADA timelines were adhered to, which is to be expected and not just in India. Forget about development, even production timelines keep slipping. Check the delivery status of 4 FOC a/c to be delivered by April (as was expected as late as in Jan 2020). There is COVID-19, but that wouldn't necessarily stop wars.

TEDBF is a new fighter with a lot of commonality. Much less than between IAF and NCLA whose commonality decreased over the years causing delays. NCLA did its first flight in 2012, first flight from the SBTF in 2014, arrested landing in 2019 and carrier trials in 2020! And even at this stage NCLA is yet to demonstrate complete operational capability. TEDBF on the other hand is a dual-engine carrier based fighter. 4 years of development after 1st flight is extremely optimistic!

And now, assuming (6yr first flight + 4yr testing =) 10 years for development, there will be issue of production (that we know starts after 2-3 years of placing order). Realistically speaking, TEDBF will take 12-15yrs to begin operations. Also it will require separate production line itself, which will have only a limited production rate for economic reasons. Unlike Tejas, we won't be expecting it to be sold to other nations in that time frame, considering very new nations having carriers.

IN may be okay with this for the simple reason that they are looking for TEDBF as a replacement for Mig-29K. To quote:

Source: Livefist
The top leadership of ADA told Livefist on Tuesday, “The Indian Navy is looking for a twin-engine deck based fighter in lieu of the LCA Navy Mk.2. With confidence generated from AMCA design, we have developed twin engine competence. Hence configuration is currently being worked out. This is being targeted as a replacement for the MiG-29K with a first flight by 2026.”
...
The decision to curtail plans on the LCA Navy Mk.2 and instead pursue a twin-engine design isn’t surprising. The Indian Navy, while consistently supportive of the LCA Navy program, has made it clear it needs twin-engine fighters for its carrier decks.

“We are not ditching the LCA Navy Mk.2. The navy is adamant they do not want a single engine fighter. Hence we have to reconfigure. This decision has been forced on is. It involves a significant design effort which could be avoided if we continue with the single engine LCA Navy Mk.2,” a top ADA officer told Livefist.
...
“We have all the elements required from both projects (LCA Navy and AMCA) to assemble the new design,” says the ADA leadership. “We are also equipped with knowledge of the pitfalls in the design and prototyping phase from past projects, so we have an adequate level of confidence. The bigger picture is that the next deck-based fighter of the Indian Navy should be an Indian design.”
Last edited by basant on 06 Jun 2020 13:08, edited 1 time in total.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 1752
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

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

Postby yensoy » 06 Jun 2020 10:38

Philip wrote:Now let's talk about the NLCA. Just one landing and take-off exercise from the carrier. It has yet to be certified for carrier combat ops. Is it going to become another " technology demonstrator"?

After some thinking, I believe the NLCA is basically ADA/HAL's way of showing their commitment to the development of a carrier capable aircraft, and a demonstration that they "get it" and are willing & able to deliver to whatever specs the Navy requires. Otherwise the NLCA looks still-born. TEDBF is the real goal of the Navy, and if the NLCA experiment is out of the way it will probably help ADA/HAL get the twin engine fighter (naval and AF versions both) done in a timely manner.

Therefore, NLCA is only a test platform to validate the understanding. I won't be surprised if there is a one-off NLCA++ prototype built on the LCA platform with canards (single engine + canards) just to get the flight controls right. This prototype won't need to have range or weapons carrying capabilities which will follow as per formulae in the twin engine a/c.

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

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

Postby Philip » 06 Jun 2020 10:39

CM,don't you think that AMCA will thus suffer delays? It will arrive at least 15 years from now and will not be truly contemporary at the time of induction. The Chins have already trotted out their 2 birds and it is inevitable that at some point during this decade they will pass on some to the PAF.
I don't see why LCA MK-2 which is an entirely new programme can't be merged into the AMCA programme. If we need a firang partner for AMCA,and we certainly do for the engines,they could be identified right now. There are two European/UK programmes to take place and Rus would've further progressed on SU-57 tech and delivery. The IAF cannot fight future conflicts with aircraft a generation behind that of the enemy.

Coming back to the IN's requirement for a TE fighter, non-stealth
4th- gen in a 5th-gen era? That too for a paltry prod. line of around 50 to 60 max,as the 3rd. EMALS 65K t carrier isn't arriving even in 15 years time! The price too per bird will be excessive,not less than $80 to $ 100 M a pop,that's F-35 range. And if by some miracle the GOI finds the money, Chinese carrier fighters will be superior even by today's Flanker clones. Upgrading the 29Ks we have,ordering a few more for attrition,etc., upto MIG-35 specs, will suffice for the coming decade. BMos- NG,plus a range of ALCMs from the KH series to Nirbhay should enter service,along with new BVR and WVR AAMs.There is a limiting factor too. The lifts on our existing two carriers can accommodate only aicraft as large as the 29K. Therefore why " reinvent the wheel"?

Let the IAF and IN jointly focus their attention,time and scarce money on the future AMCA platform,variants for both services,which will increase numbers and lower costs and arrive in a faster timeframe.

PS: If the NLCA,etc. are declared Tech.Dem.experimental programmes,no problem.We need greater R&D across the board. For example,the LCA flying with alternative engines,TVC,etc. There are no official research sub programmes,mini-subs,UUVs of real note. The 3 services should be the ones to instigate ,develop and manage such programmes,with a decent R&D fund for each. Things will move faster with lesser or no babu control.
Last edited by Philip on 06 Jun 2020 11:03, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby basant » 06 Jun 2020 11:03

yensoy wrote:After some thinking, I believe the NLCA is basically ADA/HAL's way of showing their commitment to the development of a carrier capable aircraft, and a demonstration that they "get it" and are willing & able to deliver to whatever specs the Navy requires. Otherwise the NLCA looks still-born. TEDBF is the real goal of the Navy, and if the NLCA experiment is out of the way it will probably help ADA/HAL get the twin engine fighter (naval and AF versions both) done in a timely manner.

Not really and this issue was discussed with a lot of heartburn in 2017. You may check Bharat Karnad's article to get a feel for some unfortunate/unwarranted arguments.

pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 323
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

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

Postby pushkar.bhat » 06 Jun 2020 11:08

yensoy wrote:Is this really good news? Does it mean that (i) NLCA is no longer going to happen and (ii) TEDBF will take away resources from AMCA project?
Would it be optimistic to expect that TEDBF will share a lot with AMCA - engines, avionics, canards and the basic wing aerofoil - with possibly some stealth characteristics for the latter that aren't needed for the Naval variant?


The fact that the government has sanctioned this project is a reflection of the capacity build that we have achieved between the Industry and Government agencies. This project would not have seen the light of the day without we having adequate resources to man these multiple projects.

pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 323
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

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

Postby pushkar.bhat » 06 Jun 2020 11:18

With 2 engines at 90k on a much larger frame will allow them to create a reasonable and yet formidable fighter that can operate from the carriers. Don't expect any super-duper shiny brochure specs. IN will go for achievable specs that deliver utility and numbers instead of bleeding-edge technology planned for AMCA. TEDBF will benefit from the work underway on the Kaveri Core at some future date and not on day one.

My guess it will be an enlarged Tejas like design with 2 engines and adequate capacity to carry the required weapons loads.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 1752
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

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

Postby yensoy » 06 Jun 2020 11:35

basant wrote:
yensoy wrote:After some thinking, I believe the NLCA is basically ADA/HAL's way of showing their commitment to the development of a carrier capable aircraft, and a demonstration that they "get it" and are willing & able to deliver to whatever specs the Navy requires. Otherwise the NLCA looks still-born. TEDBF is the real goal of the Navy, and if the NLCA experiment is out of the way it will probably help ADA/HAL get the twin engine fighter (naval and AF versions both) done in a timely manner.

Not really and this issue was discussed with a lot of heartburn in 2017. You may check Bharat Karnad's article to get a feel for some unfortunate/unwarranted arguments.

I read the linked article but didn't find any relevance with our current discussion which has nothing to do with personalities.

Are you then saying that there is room for both NLCA and TEDBF on the 2 (or possibly 3) carriers in IN's fleet? I doubt it. If the TEDBF indeed fructifies in 6 years or so, why would IN want yet another type for the carrier fleet? They will make do with the 29s. I do see some scope for NLCA based carrier trainer - with tailhook and the works purely for training purposes - this could be a variant of SPORT.

pushkar.bhat wrote:My guess it will be an enlarged Tejas like design with 2 engines and adequate capacity to carry the required weapons loads.

Very much, it should be Mk2 based with canards, 2 engines and lengthening of frame.

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

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

Postby basant » 06 Jun 2020 11:44

yensoy wrote:
basant wrote:I read the linked article but didn't find any relevance with our current discussion which has nothing to do with personalities.

The point of the article was to show as late as in 2017 IN was looking for a single-engine LCA. It changed only recently despite best efforts, including those of Cmde C D Balaji. So the idea that IN was *always* looking for twin-engined fighter from LCA program is wrong.

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 624
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

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

Postby rajsunder » 07 Jun 2020 01:11

I think TEDBF program would be the best one to push private players in to designing of Fighter Jets. ADA/HAL should hand hold private players in Design, Development and Testing phase.
Work done in this program would help us become self sufficient in fighter jets for the future.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1281
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

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

Postby ks_sachin » 07 Jun 2020 03:28

rajsunder wrote:I think TEDBF program would be the best one to push private players in to designing of Fighter Jets. ADA/HAL should hand hold private players in Design, Development and Testing phase.
Work done in this program would help us become self sufficient in fighter jets for the future.

Design and develop for whom?
Why should they get into it?
Will it be economically viable for them?

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 624
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

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

Postby rajsunder » 07 Jun 2020 06:09

ks_sachin wrote:
rajsunder wrote:I think TEDBF program would be the best one to push private players in to designing of Fighter Jets. ADA/HAL should hand hold private players in Design, Development and Testing phase.
Work done in this program would help us become self sufficient in fighter jets for the future.

Design and develop for whom?
Why should they get into it?
Will it be economically viable for them?

DPSU's are a waste of tax money. Its time we get private players in to design, development and testing of Fighter Jets.
Even in 90's when govt was not sure about continuing funding LCA, TATA was ready to take over the whole project. Now with the successful delivery of LCA govt should not have any problems with finding two or three companies that are willing to work on the TEDBF.
The only thing is that the govt should declare what parts of AMCA or any future planes will they be willing to get from private players.

Vidur
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 20 Aug 2017 18:57

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

Postby Vidur » 07 Jun 2020 12:43

I came across an interesting report recently that one DPSU in electronics had been sanctioned a lot of money and 500 acres of land for setting up a new plant but spent a lot of it in creating an officers colony with very high end facilities including top class swimming pools etc. Another sanction had to be given for setting up of the factory. A market check showed that this factory cost was 10 times what it should cost. Land usage was 200 times. Many such things are seen regularly across DPSUs. Capital and land outlays are very high compared to what they should be and operating productivity measured by out per worker and other measures is very low.

It will not be possible to substantially change this. The problem is structural and there is little incentive for South Block or DPSUs to change this. Resistance would be too high in any case. As I was telling a colleague the other day only half in jest 'CAA and 370 were much easier than reforming DPSUs'.

I would suggest this forum do one thing: Find accurate information about productivity and costs of DPSUs and bring those to public domain. This requires effort and commitment but will be quite useful. No one really does this in India.

Vidur
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 20 Aug 2017 18:57

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

Postby Vidur » 07 Jun 2020 12:46

May I request moderators to cross post my above post in relavent threads. It would really help to develop an accurate database of productivity of DPSUs.

amar_p
BRFite
Posts: 330
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

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

Postby amar_p » 07 Jun 2020 14:28

Any new indigenous fighter be it ORCA or TEDBF must incorporate stealth elements, some level of TVC, sensor fusion, network centric capabilities AND associated A2A & A2G missile development to make it a potent package.

In hindsight, IAF's tall requirements for LCA 30+ years ago have made it a relevant 4th Gen fighter today, not just a Mig21 like to like replacement.

Given the experience we have gained with LCA & NLCA and the ecosystem we have developed so far, we should be confident in attempting a twin engine fighter "package" that is much more than just a "twin engined LCA to replace Mig29K".

It won't be easy, but that's what will make us grow.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2607
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 08 Jun 2020 09:40

Oh my gawd y'all are worse than IAF when formulating requirements.. this that and the kitchen sink!

It needs nothing other than two engines and the stuff that we would have integrated in LCA Mk2

Freeze, work and deploy! Can add everything later after first 60 are being produced. Those mig29Ks are screaming for some happy retirement days!! They need to be put to the pasture first! Everything else can wait.

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

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

Postby abhik » 08 Jun 2020 18:16

Honestly I'm not so upbeat about TEDBF - its great that it's development has been "approved", but how much money has actually been allocated? Proof of the pudding in the eating only etc.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1281
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

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

Postby ks_sachin » 08 Jun 2020 18:46

amar_p wrote:Any new indigenous fighter be it ORCA or TEDBF must incorporate stealth elements, some level of TVC, sensor fusion, network centric capabilities AND associated A2A & A2G missile development to make it a potent package.

In hindsight, IAF's tall requirements for LCA 30+ years ago have made it a relevant 4th Gen fighter today, not just a Mig21 like to like replacement.

Given the experience we have gained with LCA & NLCA and the ecosystem we have developed so far, we should be confident in attempting a twin engine fighter "package" that is much more than just a "twin engined LCA to replace Mig29K".

It won't be easy, but that's what will make us grow.


Then it won't come in 6 years but in 16!!!

What stealth elements and what is some level of TVC (when we don't have an engine) - please quantify what can be achieved in the next 5-6 years and an aircraft close to FOC.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1281
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

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

Postby ks_sachin » 08 Jun 2020 18:56

rajsunder wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:Design and develop for whom?
Why should they get into it?
Will it be economically viable for them?

DPSU's are a waste of tax money. Its time we get private players in to design, development and testing of Fighter Jets.
Even in the 90's when govt was not sure about continuing funding LCA, TATA was ready to take over the whole project. Now with the successful delivery of LCA govt should not have any problems with finding two or three companies that are willing to work on the TEDBF.
The only thing is that the govt should declare what parts of AMCA or any future planes will they be willing to get from private players.


All this will happen in the next 5-6 years when the TEDBF should be close to FOC?

Who has the competence to work on the TEDBF right now to take over some of the more critical tasks than manufacturing structures?

You start with TEDBF and go to AMCA.

Indranil's / JayS et al's have posted enough on this subject and I would kindly request you to dig up their posts.

TATA was ready to take over the whole project. I have heard this many times but where is the proof other than some newspaper articles that this was actually the case and moreover what competence did they have at that time to take over the LCA project!!

The above does not mean that I am a supporter of DPSU's. Just that I like to see some though behind an argument.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 1752
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

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

Postby yensoy » 08 Jun 2020 19:35

DPSUs have to be the project leader/coordinator/integrator/quality evaluator; they should parcel out the components and get them spec'd, designed and manufactured by private sector companies. That's the only way for them to scale up and to develop a local ecosystem.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8161
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 08 Jun 2020 21:38

rajsunder wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:Design and develop for whom?
Why should they get into it?
Will it be economically viable for them?

DPSU's are a waste of tax money. Its time we get private players in to design, development and testing of Fighter Jets.
Even in 90's when govt was not sure about continuing funding LCA, TATA was ready to take over the whole project. Now with the successful delivery of LCA govt should not have any problems with finding two or three companies that are willing to work on the TEDBF.
The only thing is that the govt should declare what parts of AMCA or any future planes will they be willing to get from private players.

Sirjee,
1. Who is building the parts of LCA?
2. Why should the govt. declare who will make what? Is that its job? What is the govt's competence in doing so?

arvin
BRFite
Posts: 359
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

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

Postby arvin » 08 Jun 2020 22:00

HAL and DPSU have their own strengths and among them is supply chain and vendors cultivated over a period of time. A private eco system can exist along side them something late parrikarji tried to bring up via SP model.
HAL definitely needs a private competitor. Its hard to believe that a fighter (Tejas) that is perfectly slotted in the sweet spot between Mig 21 and F16, both of them operated in thousands does not have a single export order yet. I blame HAL's poor marketing skills for this.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1281
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

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

Postby ks_sachin » 09 Jun 2020 04:12

arvin wrote:HAL and DPSU have their own strengths and among them is supply chain and vendors cultivated over a period of time. A private eco system can exist along side them something late parrikarji tried to bring up via SP model.
HAL definitely needs a private competitor. Its hard to believe that a fighter (Tejas) that is perfectly slotted in the sweet spot between Mig 21 and F16, both of them operated in thousands does not have a single export order yet. I blame HAL's poor marketing skills for this.


So if you were the dictator of a country with lots of money at hand but were intelligent in your spending would you have placed an order for the LCA by now knowing the following facts?

- Country of design and manufacture itself has not placed the order (83 has the contract been inked)
- FOC has just been achieved in the last few months
- No long term experience of the platform in operational service to understand the issues that crops up in service
- Even before the basic product is in operation an upgrade has been planned...

How will a private competitor address the above issues?

A private eco system can exist by gradually building up the skills base which HAL is doing yes....it takes decades...don't peg that to the LCA and TEDBF...which need HAL's full concentration for the next decade or so...

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

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

Postby Philip » 09 Jun 2020 04:27

⁶The whole TEDBF requirement was an IN back door gambit to get the 3rd.CV approved! There is no pressing requirement for replacing the 29Ks,which have at least 2 decades of life in them.
The 29Ks have plenty of scope for further upgrades drawing on the MIG-35 development. None of the current western naval fighters can operate from the two CVs due to lift size.One can understand those on the VIK-A limited in dimension due to the constraints in converting a hybrid carrier into a ski-jump one. But IAC-1 should've had larger- sized lifts keeping in mind future aircraft.

Now that it is clear that the 3rd. CV isn't going to appear any time until 2030++,priority must go the subs and ASW/ LUH helos.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: srin, suryag, Vivasvat and 29 guests