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

[Aditya_V]

If TEDBF has 2 GE 414 engines which are much more powerful than Rafale engines, given LCA size and performance- use of composites and knowledge ADA has built, I don't see why TEDBF cannot match and exceed this.

P.S I am in no way a Aviation expert just a common man.

[Cybaru]

If TEDBF has 2 GE 414 engines which are much more powerful than Rafale engines, given LCA size and performance- use of composites and knowledge ADA has built, I don't see why TEDBF cannot match and exceed this.

P.S I am in no way a Aviation expert just a common man.

Here is the specs of FA18E/F

Length: 60 ft 1.25 in (18.31 m)
Wingspan: 44 ft 8.5 in (13.62 m)
Height: 16 ft 0 in (4.88 m)
Wing area: 500 sq ft (46.5 m2)
Empty weight: 32,081 lb (14,552 kg)
Gross weight: 47,000 lb (21,320 kg) (equipped as fighter)
Max takeoff weight: 66,000 lb (29,937 kg)
Internal fuel capacity: F/A-18E: 14,700 lb (6,667 kg), F/A-18F: 13,760 lb (6,241 kg)

Some weight might have to be reduced as there is no catapult for naval launch so 25-27 tons for naval TEDBF. But for land-based IAF fighter, 30 tons MTOW is possible. IMO if they manage 6-7 tons of fuel and if extra 2-3 tons of external fuel carriage is possible, it may allow us to replace the older MKIs by the time this is ready.

[Aditya_V]

The F18 E/F shares some of its design Philosophy with the original F18 and is probably a programme which started in the early 90's and probably uses a lot more Metal.

Plus GE would have made improvements to the GE 414.

So given all this I think TEDBF and especially if there is an Airforce version should definitely be able to Supercruise with some AAM and drop tanks.

[sankum]

Conversation
Harsh Vardhan Thakur
@hvtiaf
TEDBF

Navy doesn't want imports. Committed to Atmanirbhar. Old RFI study closed a long time back.

Lot of information in the thread . please read.

TEDBF is likely to be delta with tail.

Twin engine evolution of NLCA mk2 not MWF.

[tsarkar]

Saw air marshal nambiar sirs interview he says the Rafale can super cruise at 1.4 ma h with 4 missiles and drop tank curious if the TEDBF can accomplish the same

Too early to answer that question. I doubt if even the design specifications have been drawn up.

[tsarkar]

If TEDBF has 2 GE 414 engines which are much more powerful than Rafale engines, given LCA size and performance- use of composites and knowledge ADA has built, I don't see why TEDBF cannot match and exceed this.

P.S I am in no way a Aviation expert just a common man.

One of the two decades old myths on BR is that use of composites compensates for the lack of a refined and well optimised design. It doesn’t.

The other myth on BR is that the design is perfect and well optimised right from day 1. It isn’t.

Aircraft undergo evolution and even in the F-16 after production was started, due to stall concerns, the area of the horizontal stabilizer were increased by 25% on the Block 15 aircraft in 1981 and later retrofitted to earlier aircraft.

Same goes for horsepower. Additional horsepower doesn’t compensate for deficient design.

To summarise, one needs a refined and well optimised design that requires multiple iterations. Thereafter use of composites and more horsepower helps.

But without a refined and well optimised design, no amount of composites or horsepower will help

[Kartik]

Conversation
Harsh Vardhan Thakur
@hvtiaf
TEDBF

Navy doesn't want imports. Committed to Atmanirbhar. Old RFI study closed a long time back.

Lot of information in the thread . please read.

TEDBF is likely to be delta with tail.

Twin engine evolution of NLCA mk2 not MWF.

Some more of his tweets on this topic

-There are enough MiG-29s for both carriers. New inductions are not in the cards in this decade.

-TEDBF is in our hands to develop. It'll obviously take time and effort, but we have enough expertise now.

-Can't see any import possibilities in the foreseeable future.

-TEDBF is well before AMCA, including the state of its approvals.

-Stealth is not a design driving factor. But TEDBF is expected to incorporate low observability features.

-MiG-29s are available and will be used on both carriers. TEDBF will replace them. There is no other plan.

-INS Vikrant trials are starting with MiG-29s very soon. TEDBF will get developed as a replacement. Adequate lead time.

-Timelines are based on GoI go-ahead and year of funding. Technical challenges are also there. 2025 is optimistic.(This was regarding AMCA first flight by 2025)

And this is the image of the N-LCA Mk1 that was finalized before the IN torpedoed it due to being single engine. So TEDBF is likely to be a twin engine development of this design instead of a twin engine development of MWF with close coupled canards.

[sankum]

Jay S had posted a diagram of twin engine version of NLCA mk2.

[Cain Marko]

So, why exactly aren't they combining the TEDBF and the AMCA into one design?

[hemant_sai]

http://www.ltas-cm3.ulg.ac.be/AERO0023- ... ighter.pdf

This says with delta wing - horizontal tail must be placed further away to be effective. Exact words from PDF,
"The centre of lift lies aft on a Delta wing. This means that the horizontal tail can only be effective if it lies even further aft."

If TEDBF is really going to be progressed before AMCA in terms of proto development, it makes sense to try V shaped fins as well on TEDBF.
And if proto of TEDBF is going to come after AMCA, then there has to be the case of V shaped fins on TEDBF.

In fact if we browse old designs of AMCA, there is one with Ogive-Delta and V shaped fins.

Personally, I would have loved to see faster development of TEDBF with enlarged version of MWF.

[Prasad]

So, why exactly aren't they combining the TEDBF and the AMCA into one design?

Building a brand new fighter (bigger leap from navy mk1 to tedbf than mk1 to mk1a to mwf). They (Navy& ada) feel that it's a more realistic target than building a naval amca.

[tsarkar]

And this is the image of the N-LCA Mk1 that was finalized before the IN torpedoed it due to being single engine.

IN didnt torpedo anything. The single engine did not meet the requirements, hence an evolution to twin engines was proposed by ADA.

And it was a joint decision by ADA, HAL, IN & Defence Minister.

Also the image posted by you was one of the concepts under discussion and never finalized.

From HAL Chairman Madhavan's mouth
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2020/06 ... chief.html

Madhavan said, “The single engine LCA is not the aircraft for the navy, it cannot meet the requirements. The prototypes were actually technology demonstrators for carrier landings. What the navy needs is a twin-engine aircraft, because then only it can carry armaments, because the landing gear itself is quite heavy. So a Twin Engined Deck Based Fighter is what we’re looking at for the navy. ADA has started the project, and this month they have got the clearance, and they are expecting it to be in service 6-7 years from now. There won’t be time and cost overruns, because the first steps in aircraft design is always the longest period. That’s why the LCA took a long time, nearly 30 years. Second iteration, you’ve learnt all the nitty-gritties of the design process. For instance the first ALH also took a long time to put together, we were new to it. After that, all iterations like LCH, LUH have come out in very short periods of time.“

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/if-deve ... ts-2159016

Future twin engine variant of Tejas aircraft will feature folding wings for aircraft carrier deployment.

In twelve years from now, a twin engine variant of India's Tejas fighter could start replacing Russian built MiG-29K jets deployed on board the Indian Navy's aircraft carriers INS Vikramaditya and Vikrant which is yet to be inducted.

Detailed concept drawings of the fighter, dubbed the Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF), accessed by NDTV, are being studied by the Aeronautical Design Agency (ADA) and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) which would eventually build the fighters if their development is funded by the government. What's more, the design of an Air Force variant of the jet, the Omni Role Combat Aircraft (ORCA), with significant design differences, is also being studied. This variant would weigh a ton less than the Naval variant since it would not need heavy reinforced landing gear required for operations from the deck of an aircraft carrier.

Sources close to the project have told NDTV that the total design and development costs for prototypes of the aircraft ''would cost less than the Rs.12,780 crore India Specific Enhancement package'' signed between India and France towards customising 36 Rafale fighters being inducted into the Indian Air Force.

''The total design and development costs for twin engine variants of the Tejas fighter would cost less than Rs.13,000 crores with each fighter for the Navy costing in the range of ₹ 538 crores.'' The Indian Air Force variant of the fighter would cost between ₹ 35 crore and Rs.71 crores less than the Navy variant. The development time-scale for the project has been pegged at six years from the time initial funding has been provided.

Prototype of Twin Engine Tejas variant could be completed in six years of project funding.

Project designers say they could ''very comfortably develop'' the new twin engine Tejas variant based on the experience they have gained in testing the Naval prototype of the Tejas fighter. This prototype is expected to land on the deck of India's aircraft carrier, INS Vikramaditya, for the first time within the next few weeks. The prototype is powered by a single US-built General Electric F404-GE-IN20 turbofan engine which is not seen to be powerful enough to justify serial manufacture of a Naval Tejas in its present avatar other than in very limited numbers. The significantly larger twin engine Tejas now being proposed would be fitted with two more powerful General Electric F414 engines and would have a significantly higher weapons payload and range. The additional thrust provided by two engines would also guarantee a larger safety margin for pilots while taking off and landing in hot and humid tropical weather conditions out at sea in the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal.

Weighing 23 tonnes, the Navy Twin Engine Deck Based fighter would be significantly larger than the 13.5 ton Tejas Mk-1 fighter which has entered squadron service with the Indian Air Force and the 17.5 ton Tejas Mk-2 which is meant to be inducted into the Indian Air Force from 2030. The fighter would be in the size of the MiG-29K currently being operated by the Indian Navy on its aircraft carrier, the INS Vikramaditya and would have the ability of carrying a weapons payload of nine tonnes. It would feature folding wings to save space on the deck of aircraft carriers. The jet would likely have a top speed in the range of Mach 1.6 or just under 2,000 kilometres per hour.

The twin engine Tejas variant would have a top speed of Mach 1.6 and carry a nine tonne weapons payload.
tsarkar note: Same as Rafale

Both the Navy Twin Engine Deck Based fighter and the Air Force Omni Role Fighter would host several indigenous sensors and avionics which are now at an advanced stage of development. This includes an Active Electronically Scanned Radar (AESA) which can simultaneously track targets in the air and out at sea or over land with great precision. All the fighters would be built with made in India data links and communication systems which would enable the jets in a formation to securely exchange critical sensor information during a mission. A host of made-in-India weapons including long range variant of the Astra air to air missile which has recently completed tests would arm the jets.

The futuristic Tejas variants would be armed with weapons including the indigenous Astra air-to-air missile.

Project designers point out that none of the future variants of the Tejas now being studied are a part of the Navy or Air Force's present procurement plans. ''More than 750 aircraft will need replacement between 2030 and 2050.'' By 2040, several older aircraft in service with the Indian Air Force, including the Sukhoi 30MKI, presently the cutting edge, would need to retire. Development of a larger, twin engine variant of the Tejas, designers feel, is an incremental step forward as they simultaneously proceed with the design and development of a made-in-India stealth fighter called the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), both larger, more capable and more expensive than variants of the Tejas. The AMCA is expected to start entering squadron service with the IAF from 2040 if funding is secured.

''A twin engine variant of the Tejas would be in the class of the Rafale, extremely nimble with excellent sensor fusion,'' say designers working on the plans for the futuristic fighter. ''The jet would be extremely nimble with excellent sensor fusion. The fact that this would be entirely designed and developed in India would be a huge boost for our ambitions in being an aerospace power.''

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/new-mad ... rs-2240666

Buoyed by the success of trial landings of the Tejas-N fighter on board the Navy aircraft carrier, INS Vikramaditya, the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) has given the go ahead for the development of a twin engine made-in-India fighter jet. The development phase is expected to cost between ₹ 7,000 and ₹ 8,000 crore.

NDTV has learnt that the development of this aircraft was discussed on May 22 at ADA's Annual General Body meet, its highest governing body. The meeting was chaired by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and was attended by the Navy and Air Force Chiefs. Subsequent to this meeting, the Operational Requirements (ORs) for the new fighter were issued by the Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of Defence (Navy).

Development of the new fighter jet comes at a time when the government announced a series of structural reforms in the Defence sector under the "Atmanirbhar" or self-reliance goal which is meant to result in India dramatically cutting down on its defence imports.

Based on the Tejas fighter, the new Navy fighter is meant to supplement MiG-29s.

The prototype of the new fighter-jet, designed to operate from the deck of India's two aircraft carriers, INS Vikramaditya and the soon to be inducted INS Vikrant, is meant to fly within six years with induction of the fighter within a decade.

The fighter, plans for which were first reported on NDTV in January, is a twin-engine evolution of Tejas-N prototype which has been indigenously developed and extensively test-flown.

The Tejas-N programme culminated with a series of "arrested landings" and take-offs from INS Vikramaditya off the Goa coast where two prototypes of the jet were able to successfully land on the carrier in January by using its arrestor hook to snare steel wires spread across the deck of the ship. This allowed the fighters to decelerate from approximately 244 kmph (the landing speed) to a standstill in approximately two seconds in a distance under 90 metres, within the length of the deck of INS Vikramaditya.

The Aeronautical Development Agency has given the go-ahead for the development of the fighter jet.

Those involved in the design and development of the new Indian fighter, an advanced variant of the single-engine Tejas-N, say that they have benchmarked the performance characteristics of the jet to Boeing's F/A-18 E/F "Super Hornet", in service with the US Navy and the Marine Rafale, deployed on the French Navy aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. They say the new jet may imbibe technologies being developed for the IAF's Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) but will not be a stealth fighter in the same class.

Extensive tests on Tejas-N prototype gave designers confidence to proceed to develop larger aircraft.

At least three variations of the design of the new fighter are being studied presently and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) tests and wind tunnel modelling will ensure the optimum shape of the fighter to match its projected operational capabilities. It's still unclear whether the new fighter will be a tail-less delta platform, similar to the IAF's LCA Tejas fighter or, for that matter, feature canards, a small forewing placed ahead of the main wing of the aircraft to aid manoeuvrability.

The new fighter, once inducted, is meant to supplement and ultimately replace the Indian Navy's fleet of MiG-29K fighters presently in service on board the INS Vikramaditya. A high-performance jet, the MiG-29K has been plagued with serviceability issues in Indian Navy service. The new indigenous fighter is designed to be more reliable. Those close to the project have told NDTV that they expect the new fighter to be able to be armed with at least six air to air missiles with an operational endurance of approximately two hours.

The project to develop a twin engine deck-based fighter (TEDBF) reflects a maturity and confidence in the development of the Tejas fighter jet upon which the new fighter will be based. On May 27, the Indian Air Force operationalised its second Tejas fighter jet squadron after first inducting the jet in 2016. Multiple variants of the Tejas based on additional capabilities are being progressively inducted. The most advanced variant of the fighter for the IAF, the Tejas Mk-2 is expected to be inducted by 2025. The new fighter being developed for the Navy is being classified as an altogether different fighter and is expected to be superior to the IAF's Tejas Mk-2 in several respects, once developed.

[Rakesh]

I can see that this was indeed discussed earlier on this very page (posts above)...but this jingo is elated!

I am super happy if this is TRUE. Read all the tweets below. Like REALLY, REALLY, REALLY happy. This is from Group Captain HV Thakur (Retd), HAL Test Pilot. Some of the tweets are responses to queries that folks have asked him, but I have only posted his tweets. You can click on the link of each tweet, if you want to read the questions posed to him. Read *EVERY* tweet carefully, then starch your lungis and beat your dhol.

It looks the phoren carrier borne fighter program for the Indian Navy has gone kaput. From 57 fighters, it was reduced to 36. It looks like even the 36 has now gone out the window. If true, bye-bye F-18 Super Hornet and Rafale M. This does not mean that the IAF acquisition program of 114 MRFA is cancelled. Air HQ is examining whether to induct more Rafales or continue with 114 MRFA program. But with this news...I am overjoyed, truly overjoyed. Keeping my fingers crossed though. Waiting for more official confirmation from the Indian Navy.

Vivek Saar, please be happy

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/13105 ... 65857?s=20 ---> TEDBF. Navy doesn't want imports. Committed to Atmanirbhar. Old RFI study closed a long time back.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/13106 ... 05122?s=20 ---> Imports are line slavery.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/13106 ... 24096?s=20 ---> TEDBF is well before AMCA, including the state of its approvals.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/13106 ... 24353?s=20 ---> TEDBF is required in the next decade. Lead time is adequate.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/13106 ... 04384?s=20 ---> TEDBF. There is no other plan.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/13106 ... 98240?s=20 ---> There are enough MiG-29s for both carriers. New inductions are not in the cards in this decade.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/13106 ... 74976?s=20 ---> Enough MiG-29s available for both carriers.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/13106 ... 89952?s=20 ---> INS Vikrant trials are starting with MiG-29s very soon. TEDBF will get developed as a replacement. Adequate lead time.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/13108 ... 27874?s=20 ---> Apparently, the initial problems faced on MiGs are being overcome by Navy. The MiG-29s will get augmented and then replaced by TEDBF. There is no other aircraft in the equation formally.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/13106 ... 57701?s=20 ---> MiG-29s are available and will be used on both carriers. TEDBF will replace them. There is no other plan.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/13106 ... 74411?s=20 ---> 22 per aircraft carrier. TEDBF will enter service after MiG-29K retires. Enough lead time.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/13106 ... 49024?s=20 ---> It does not depend on the MWF. There is no such thing as usual delays. Delayed projects are only those, where Liquidated Damages (LD) are levied.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/13106 ... 52800?s=20 ---> The only thing that matters is AoN (DAC approval or Acceptance of Necessity). Only TEDBF & Tejas Mk-2. Nothing else.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/13106 ... 07936?s=20 ---> When induction of aircraft is needed, it will happen. Lead time is quite large. These are typically very complex & expensive projects. Adequate anticipation, funds and resources are used. 10+years. Those involved know it well.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/13106 ... 65696?s=20 ---> Tejas LIFT (earlier SPORT) is being pursued as a full project. ORCA is subject to success of TEDBF.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/13106 ... 93024?s=20 ---> Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter. TEDBF not Tejas.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/13106 ... 35552?s=20 ---> TEDBF not F-18.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/13106 ... 98416?s=20 ---> It's Navy specific. There's no clash with IAF's AMCA.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/13106 ... 95744?s=20 ---> Inspired by Tejas Navy Mark-2. Different from LCA Air Force.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/13106 ... 35587?s=20 ---> Naval Tejas Mk-2 requirement is upgraded to TEDBF. IAF Tejas Mk-2 requirement is upgraded to MWF. I'm keeping with times.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/13106 ... 71168?s=20 ---> It may come up. It's a technological challenge that is yet to be surmounted. At the moment, we're right in top of fighter aircraft design. There's no further need for imports. However, Partners are welcome to join our effort for future developments.

[Cain Marko]

So, why exactly aren't they combining the TEDBF and the AMCA into one design?

Building a brand new fighter (bigger leap from navy mk1 to tedbf than mk1 to mk1a to mwf). They (Navy& ada) feel that it's a more realistic target than building a naval amca.

OK - so why not combine MWF into TEDBF? Frankly any idiot could have seen that the MWF or Mk2 Tejas would never work on Indian carriers (and I had long arguments about this throughout the years on this forum). Instead of opting for a twin engined design (which could easily also serve as MRCA), the decision makers have been puttering around for the last 10-12 years with ridiculous demands on a single engine frame.

[Philip]

The 4 LPDs have been canned after 4 years of wasted time.One reason that reqs. keep changing.V true,but the best platform that can absorb constant changes in aviation is the flat top! These 4 amphibs were to be around 30,000t,largerthan INS Viraat/ Hermes. The Japanese and SoKo with far smaller flat tops are converting them into light CVs by operating F-35 Bs from them.
The F-35B at $170+ M a pop ( fig. given out with causes after the last crash at Elgin) is hugely expensive. Since these 4 amphibs will be redesigned,my suggestion that they have a flight deck/ ski-jump to accomodate our existing types of naval fighters ( 29Ks, NLCA) with bigger lifts too, be implemented.These 4 amphibs/ light CVs could be v.useful additions to the fleet,giving it more reach in the IOR in particular at all compass points simultaneousy::.We must keep in mind that the PN
is going to remain our principal enemy in the IOR ,assisted by the PLAN. Having 2+ 4 flat tops with which to sanitise the IOR.[

[Kartik]

And this is the image of the N-LCA Mk1 that was finalized before the IN torpedoed it due to being single engine.

IN didnt torpedo anything. The single engine did not meet the requirements, hence an evolution to twin engines was proposed by ADA.

And it was a joint decision by ADA, HAL, IN & Defence Minister.

Also the image posted by you was one of the concepts under discussion and never finalized.

The one mistake I made in that post was that I labelled that particular configuration with the delta wings and stabilators as the LCA Navy Mk1, whereas it was the configuration of the LCA Navy Mk2 that was in the Detailed Design Stage. It was much more than just a concept - ADA was going forward with that design as the LCA Navy Mk2.



This LCA Navy Mk2 is the baseline for the TEDBF, as confirmed by HVT.

The single engine LCA Navy Mk2 was torpedoed by the IN. It was on the Navy's insistence that the LCA Navy Mk1 became a TD and F-414 was sought for higher thrust and rightly so. However, after work had begun on re-engined LCA Navy Mk2, Navy insisted that only a twin engined fighter would meet its needs.

ADA tried it's best to avoid having to go for the TEDBF, but there was no other way out as the Navy wouldn't budge on that one requirement of it being twin engine.

link

A new twin-engine naval fighter design proposal is taking shape at India’s principal combat aircraft design house in Bengaluru to supply the Indian Navy with a future fighter for its aircraft carriers. The proposed fighter, with officially stated plans for a first flight by 2026, isn’t a choice but a compulsion. And it effectively puts on hold the Mk.2 version of the single-engine naval Light Combat Aircraft (N-LCA).

The proposal is a dramatic shift in plans by the DRDO-administered Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which until as recently as February, had been fine-tuning design changes on the LCA Navy Mk.2. Plans on the new jet design were first revealed earlier this week on Delhi Defence Review here. But here’s the rub: the DRDO isn’t switching tracks willingly, but has rather been forced into pursuing a twin-engine design by the Indian Navy. After years of studies on the LCA Navy and the proposed LCA Navy Mk.2, the navy has made it clear it doesn’t want a single engine fighter.
..

The original article that revealed the existence of the TEDBF also revealed the Navy was not enthused by the single engine LCA Navy Mk2 and originally wanted a AMCA Navy, but after discussions with ADA, settled on a 4.5 gen TEDBF that was more achievable.

[Kartik]

This article by former ADA Head, Cmde Balaji is also a must read. He revealed some very sad tidbits such as how the Navy's RFI for 57 MRCBF gave easier specs for imported fighters than it did for the LCA Navy. Such as Wind on Deck.

In addition he gives great insights into the effort that went into LCA Navy Mk1 and how the IN's CNS was backing the LCA Navy Mk2. That was the single engine LCA Navy Mk2. Till they decided to go with TEDBF.

Published April 15, 2017
SOURCE: Cmde CD Balaji / Indian Defence Review.

Former Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Arun Prakash recently published an article severely critical of the Naval Light Combat Aircraft program (“Navy’s rejection is a lesson, failure of DRDO”, Economic Times, 8 February 2017). He attributed Navy’s exercising the foreclosure option to, what he calls, the programme’s “lethargic and inept performance” and indicated that the need for 57 deck based aircraft is to meet the requirements of the second Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC-2).

He also alleged that the IAF has accepted the Mk-1 and Mark 1A variants of this aircraft into service with reservations, and concluded by saying that “A little introspection by those at the helm of this organisation would reveal to them three reasons for its abysmal performance despite a wealth of talent and a network of sophisticated laboratories — an exaggerated opinion of their capabilities; a lack of intellectual honesty in denying obvious failures and an unwillingness to seek external help when required “

Admiral Prakash may, perhaps, change his mind were he to be familiarized with the successes the Naval LCA Programme has notched up in the face of scepticism, institutional resistance, and reluctance to give the programme the benefit of doubt.

The LCA Navy team from the beginning was aware that it would be a challenging task to develop a deck based aircraft that very few countries have successfully negotiated, and which was being attempted for the first time in the country. At initiation, it was anticipated that the conversion of an Air Force version to a Naval version with specific attributes would entail about 15% change. However, as the detail design and development process unfolded, the teams involved realized that the changes were almost to the extent of 40% to 45%.

Notwithstanding this, the maiden flight of the first Naval Prototype (NP1) took place within nine years of government approval, which meets worldwide standards. What this effort has also done is generate a considerable knowledge base in the country in understanding the nuances of carrier borne aircraft design.

The areas of emphasis, as correctly brought out in Admiral Prakash’s article, are strong landing gear and the associated structural changes, such as increased nose droop to provide better over-the-nose vision, arrester hook integration, and a dedicated control law for ski jump take-off. However, the extent of thrust shortfall became evident only 4 to 5 years into the Programme, i.e., by 2007-08.

Naval specific features as envisaged in 2003 were taken into account and, not ignored, as charged in the article. The entire front fuselage was a new design, including a 4-degree additional nose droop, a new landing gear system that is longer and much stronger, and an arrester hook system.

In addition, a new leading edge control surface, viz., LEVCON was introduced to facilitate reduction in approach speeds for deck recovery. Due to this being a first-time effort to design and develop a carrier borne fighter aircraft, there was conservatism in the plan-form leading to a mass increase by about 400 to 500 kg. This is why the thrust available for deck take-off fell short of mission objectives. It was thus decided that the LCA Navy Mk1 would be only a ‘Technology Demonstrator’ and utilized to conduct carrier suitability tests and demonstration.

The statement made by the CNS Admiral Sunil Lanba on 03 December 2016 of the aircraft being overweight pertains to the LCA Navy Mk1, and not the redesigned and optimised LCA Navy Mk2.

It is apparent from Admiral Prakash’s article that the Navy has raised its Request For Information (RFI) for the procurement of 57 aircraft for the second Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC-2), that the IAC-2 is intended to be a CATOBAR carrier (Catapult Take-off But Arrested Recovery) and is to be available in a decade’s time. However, a reading of the Navy’s RFI indicates that these aircraft are intended for the present STOBAR (Ski-jump Take-off But Arrested Recovery) carrier(s), viz., Vikramaditya and Vikrant and possibly for the IAC-2 (CATOBAR) as well. This does not mesh with Admiral Prakash’s statement about the 57 aircraft being specifically selected for IAC-2.

Noteworthy point- WoD and take-off run parameters were more favorable for the imported fighters in the RFI than those afforded to the LCA Navy. Such a shame..

It is noteworthy that the conditions of operations in the Navy RFI in terms of Wind on Deck (WoD) and take-off run parameters are more favourable than those afforded the naval LCA programme.

It is also stated that IAF accepted Tejas into service in July 2016 with much reluctance because it fell short of many IAF qualitative requirements and had not secured Full Operational Clearance. This is an unfair and incorrect characterization given the public acceptance by the air force and current performance of the aircraft that meets the operational requirements of the IAF. Indeed, IAF is in the process of ordering 83 aircraft in addition to the 40 Tejas already ordered.

The LCA teams, the article claims, had an exaggerated opinion of their own abilities. Actually, the programme and people in it put in their best effort in realising a carrier borne aircraft with the available in-house knowledge base and also with inputs taken from external sources when required. All design solutions for the naval LCA were obtained after a great deal of brain storming. However, solutions were difficult to find within the existing boundaries of an already existing Air Force aircraft configuration. Even so, challenges were overcome and the LCA Navy Mk1 is currently in flight test.

More serious and personal was the charge that the ADA teams lack intellectual honesty. This is strange take on reality considering the teams have been absolutely transparent, especially about the project shortfalls. There were major setbacks due to failures during tests of nose wheel steering, of arrester hook jack damper, etc., which were well reported, recorded and new design solutions secured. Due to the introduction of a new structure, LEVCON, a dedicated test rig was built and tested to assess failure. There was a failure at 135% loading, and the aircraft structure was duly strengthened.

Further, when the thrust shortfall was encountered, ADA went back to the Cabinet Committee on Security in Dec 2009, with Navy in the loop, to seek a configuration with a higher thrust engine. This was the genesis of the LCA Navy Mk2.

Nor was there any hesitation in seeking external help when required. For instance, ADA has signed a Foreign Military Sale (FMS) case with the US Navy for Carrier Suitability test inputs. It resulted in valuable inputs and extensive auditing of the test plans. This contract made available Pilot and LSO training in the US to the ADA flight test crew. In 2005, there was an engagement with RAC MiG to audit the landing gear and arrester hook design. Notwithstanding such consultancies, there were design failures as earlier mentioned, which needed rectification. The LCA Navy Mk2 is evolving with the participation of Airbus Defence & Space as consultants.

Whilst the operational requirements of the Navy and their immediate need to get suitable deck based aircraft are understandable, the rejection of the Navy LCA Programme, while Navy’s prerogative, may not be in the national interest as it undermines the underway indigenisation effort in the country. The failures of LCA Navy Mk-1 should not, however, be projected on to the LCA Navy Mk2, which is progressing well at ADA – a development effort supported by CNS.

Briefly, let me outline the current progress of the LCA Navy Programme. The primary focus of the LCA Navy Mk1 Technology Demonstrator has been towards Carrier Compatibility Tests (CCT), inclusive of ski jump take-off and arrested recovery. Significant progress has been made in the ski jump launch, and lead-up activities for arrested recovery.

Dedicated Control Laws have been established for the Naval version of Tejas to meet the challenging objectives. Thirteen Ski-jump launches have so far been done at Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF) in Goa. The Simulation Model has been validated and there is sufficient confidence in it for predicting performance of the aircraft when getting airborne from the carrier. The capability to carry out a hands-free take-off has been one of the highlights of the Programme.

Further, Hot Refueling has been demonstrated, which is a significant capability enhancer and has facilitated coverage of higher number of test points in a sortie. Towards arrested recovery, over 100 Field Carried Landing Practice (FCLP) sorties have been carried out, including High Sink Rate Landings. The other achievements are that both LCA Navy Mk1 prototypes have, among other things, flown supersonic, gone to high angles of attack of as much as 23 degrees, and carried out in-fight fuel jettisoning.

As part of overall design and development, a dedicated Structural Test Specimen of LCA Navy (STS-N) has been developed and integrated with the Main Airframe Static Test (MAST) Rig. This in fact is a full aircraft structure which is extensively instrumented. The structure is loaded in the MAST with the loads that the aircraft is likely to face in actual service usage (limit load) and the integrity is monitored. The structure is then loaded to 1.5 times (ultimate load) the load to check the reserve margin available. For example, for clearing 8 ‘g’ envelope, the structure is loaded to 12’g’ in the MAST. This provides ample confidence as regards the structural integrity of the aircraft to operate in a Carrier Borne scenario.

A carrier borne Naval aircraft needs extensive testing at the SBTF prior to its actual test and deployment on an aircraft carrier. After a worldwide search, it was found that the US Navy has shore facilities for catapult take-off and arrested recovery, but lacks a ski-jump facility. The other facility is in Crimea and features ski-jump for launch and arrested recovery, except it is in a state of disrepair and has no Restraining Gear System (RGS) as on the aircraft carrier to hold back the aircraft during take-off.

Considering these factors, it was decided to build our own test facility, as a part of the LCA Navy Programme, to replicate an aircraft carrier, to the extent feasible, with a ski-jump for take-off and arrested landing facility. Accordingly, the SBTF was constructed. Further, in the national interest, it was decided that its specifications cater for heavy aircraft (MiG-29K) and lighter planes (LCA Navy). If Return on Investment is a criterion, Navy’s financial contribution to the Naval LCA Programme is being more than paid back by the SBTF, which is being used extensively for its MiG 29K requirement,

As is evident, no effort has been spared by the teams in progressing various activities of design and development of the Naval version of LCA. In addition to the development of the aircraft itself, significant test facilities and activities have been advanced in parallel with regard to the LCA Navy Programme. Despite the rejection by the Navy the LCA Navy team is committed to developing a viable deck based fighter aircraft in the country.

[tsarkar]

Dear Kartik, can you give links to the second article where Cmde Balaji has made the statements?

Regarding single engined NLCA (Mk1/2), the range/payload characteristics, while better than Sea Harrier, were not sufficient for evolved nature of warfare since development started.

And it was a consensus decision.

What IN recommended, and what HAL CTP HVT also implied in his posts is that the TEDBF will use lessons learnt from NLCA Mk1/2 airframe design but with twin engines for having sufficient power reserves. The LEVCON's will be replaced possibly by designs like vortex flaps.

Rather than trying to modify a land based aircraft, a clean sheet naval design is the best way forward.

Everyone jointly evaluated LCA N Mk1, Mk2, AMCA before deciding on TEDBF. IN actually paid ADA to evaluate the AMCA for naval needs.

[suryag]

Sarkar sir would have helped if you took a look at the source of the article, it is written by the man himself, please dont see ghosts everywhere. it took me all of 10 seconds to get this article from uncle

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news ... -is-wrong/

BTW, the writer is an ex-serviceman so hopefully no one calls him a HAL salesman or intellectually dishonest

[tsarkar]

Sarkar sir would have helped if you took a look at the source of the article, it is written by the man himself, please dont see ghosts everywhere. it took me all of 10 seconds to get this article from uncle

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news ... -is-wrong/

BTW, the writer is an ex-serviceman so hopefully no one calls him a HAL salesman or intellectually dishonest

Suryag,

Firstly, it’s the onus of the poster to share links to his references. It’s a common practice in writing. For example, member Virendra has written a book where he’s given the references he used. The onus is not on the reader to search for references used by the author.

Secondly, Kartik made an insinuation that IN torpedoed Mk2.

In all my posts since 6 October, all I have said is that it’s a joint decision to evolve from Mk1, 2 to TEDBF.

The Mk1 and Mk2 were modifications of a land based fighter. The decision to go with twin engines increases the power reserves and betters the chances of success of the program.

By what stretch of imagination, does countering Kartik’s PoV “IN torpedoed Mk2” translate into calling anyone a HAL salesman or intellectually dishonest?

Mk1 was designed as a Sea Harrier replacement flying from “Air Defence Ship”. ADS has become close to 2x heavier IAC. China will shortly have two aircraft carriers. Hence the requirements have significantly evolved. Even Cmde Balaji refers to Mk1 not able to have a useful range + payload due to structural enhancements required for the naval role.

Mk2 just was a design that needed testing and now it has evolved to a twin engined design with sufficient reserve power that further betters its chances of success.

More Power = better Carrier Operations performance & ability to carry fuel & payload.

And it was a joint decision chaired by the Raksha Mantri himself.

[sankum]

JayS, your diagram of twin engine version of NLCA mk2 is going to be TEDBF not twin engine version of MWF.
Your take on it.

[suryag]

Tsarkar sir, it is not about who should provide references, my general comment is when it comes to indigenous products and reception/acceptance by services you have been very pro-service even being more than what is necessary. Again, this is my perception and I could have a comprehension problem. I am of the view that our services still do not know how to foster an MIC and behave like customers. DRDO/HAL in all honesty have in fact changed/improved with times(their process improvements etc) BTW, this is no fault of theirs or MoD or DRDO/HAL it is a natural progression that should happen across the board as we grow towards becoming a power with global influence. This has been my first hand experience as chhotu engineer working on today's missiles predecessor(20 years ago) and further down in life interacting with the top brass of the services.

The ban list is good to start with, but all three wings(services, R&D/producers, MoD) should be brought together and someone should lay down a common objective forward something like 2030 vision for MIC in India and then have these three arms come up with their side of proposals to accomplish this objective. Right now a lot of it is brownian motion when it comes to equipment acquisition. May be, we can write a paper on how it could be done but in this particular case no external prodding/gyan delivery will help, it has to come from RM and all the three have to shoulder the responsibility of creating a 2030 MIC vision for India

[Cain Marko]

There are a couple of issues I have with all sides here. From Cmde Balajis article posted by Kartik:

At initiation, it was anticipated that the conversion of an Air Force version to a Naval version with specific attributes would entail about 15% change. However, as the detail design and development process unfolded, the teams involved realized that the changes were almost to the extent of 40% to 45%.

This seems to support CNS prakashs point that the ADA tries to oversell it's abilities. 15% to 45% is a long way. Exactly opposite of sales 101... "Under promise, over deliver"

On the issue about Navy requiring more stringent standards of Tejas vs. Imports, that's bloody unbelievable and shameful

What is equally pathetic is that they took so long to figure out the need for a twin engined bird. Any arm chair jarnail could've told them that the mk1 won't cut it for optimal stobar ops. It simply doesn't have the power. Even the 29k and su33, despite already powerful engines, need an emergency reheat mode to take off with meaningful loads.. And the decision makers didn't realize this even after the power issues with mk1? Really? How the hell was a skinny mk2 with a similar twr supposed to resolve power issues?

Unbelievable. At that time if a sincere effort was started for the tedbf, we could've had IAF MRCA version and a naval fighter ready by now. With much better capability, engine options future upgrade path, and savings to the tax payer. Not to mention the advantages of commonality.

[nachiket]

My issue with the scathing criticism of the LCA Navy Mk1/2 by Adm. Arun Prakash and others has always been the same. I have no problems with them criticizing the program (errors in the criticism itself being a separate issue). But what is the need to use language like "intellectual dishonesty" etc.?

Would it be then ok to use similar language while asking why the good Admiral and other retired Naval officers never wrote any articles about the problems that the Mig-29K faced in IN service because of insufficient ruggedization of the airframe and frankly sloppy, incompetent and incomplete work by the Russians in testing and certifying the aircraft for carrier operations? Or for that matter any criticism of the Navy itself in evaluating the fighter before accepting it into service? Shouldn't such an evaluation have found out these problems before the aircraft was inducted, seeing as how the LCA was made to comply with stringent requirements in this regard (which led to the inexperienced team overdesigning the landing gear). Also, no consideration is given to the fact that the LCA Navy was the first ever naval fighter program in India. We were literally starting from scratch here. How can you be intellectually dishonest about things you can't even learn till you have actually tried it out yourself. Nobody provides you with data like that for any amount of money.

No questions have been asked as to why the IN needs to look at the Rafale and F-18 (two aircraft which have never been used on a STOBAR carrier and currently don't even fit on the lifts on our carriers) in their 57 fighter tender instead of buying more Mig-29K's, if there were no significant issues with the 29K's themselves? Why was the the 57 fighter requirement entirely blamed on the failure of the LCA Navy? Would it be right to say that the LCA Navy program was used as a scapegoat in order to paper over the real reasons why a new fighter had to be looked at in the first place?

[Prasad]

The original article that revealed the existence of the TEDBF also revealed the Navy was not enthused by the single engine LCA Navy Mk2 and originally wanted a AMCA Navy, but after discussions with ADA, settled on a 4.5 gen TEDBF that was more achievable.

My understanding was that this was a mutually agreed decision and not forced on one by the other. The IN wanted it quicker than ADA could develop it and both settled for a 2032 induction of the TEDBF which was seemingly difficult for a N-AMCA.

[Kartik]

Dear Kartik, can you give links to the second article where Cmde Balaji has made the statements?

Here you go

Why Navy's rejection of Naval LCA is wrong - Cmde Balaji

Regarding single engined NLCA (Mk1/2), the range/payload characteristics, while better than Sea Harrier, were not sufficient for evolved nature of warfare since development started.

And it was a consensus decision.

Not entirely accurate. the LCA Navy Mk2 was significantly improved in terms of optimized landing gear, on board fuel and payload. The LCA Navy Mk1 was not good enough to be a fighter, that everyone agrees on thanks to the 400-500 kg additional weight as well as the landing gear that restricted inboard fuel tanks from being carried. The fact that the Indian Navy's CNS had supported the decision to go for the F-414 on the LCA Navy Mk2 and that the program was funded for design and development for several years before it was made clear by the Navy that nothing but a twin engine fighter would do, is why I said that the Navy torpedoed the LCA Navy Mk2.

I'm not suggesting that the TEDBF isn't going to meet the IN's needs better than the single engined LCA Navy Mk2. It's quite obvious that there are several benefits from having 2 engines, and that too 2 F-414s would take it into Super Hornet thrust class. But, as Cmde. Balaji mentioned, the Navy was on board with the decision to go to the CCS in 2009 to request change in engine from F-404 to 414. Why couldn't the Navy have demanded 2 F-404s instead back then? By now the TEDBF would've been flying in prototype form or at least the prototype would've been in fabrication probably if that had been the case. The Navy let LCA Navy Mk2 development go on for years before insisting on twin engines.

What IN recommended, and what HAL CTP HVT also implied in his posts is that the TEDBF will use lessons learnt from NLCA Mk1/2 airframe design but with twin engines for having sufficient power reserves. The LEVCON's will be replaced possibly by designs like vortex flaps.

Rather than trying to modify a land based aircraft, a clean sheet naval design is the best way forward.

Everyone jointly evaluated LCA N Mk1, Mk2, AMCA before deciding on TEDBF. IN actually paid ADA to evaluate the AMCA for naval needs.

Obviously the TEDBF will use the lessons incorporated in the LCA Navy Mk2 from the LCA Navy Mk1. A lot of design, CFD, wind tunnel and development effort had already been expended on developing a Navy centric LCA Navy Mk2 design that didn't carry the handicap of being an Air Force fighter forced to become a Naval fighter. That is why the LCA Navy Mk2 is so different from the Tejas Mk2 MWF, because it was designed to address naval issues as a clean sheet design.

So the ORCA concept that HAL was floating around is very likely going to change drastically after the TEDBF design is unveiled at Aero India 2021. It will not be a close coupled canard fighter but rather a fighter with delta wings and stabilators (possibly larger than on LCA Navy Mk2) and vortex flaps.

And it is now clear that this is a clean sheet design with the LCA Navy Mk2 as the baseline from which it will spring. Not the Tejas Mk2 aka MWF.

[tsarkar]

But, as Cmde. Balaji mentioned, the Navy was on board with the decision to go to the CCS in 2009[/b] to request change in engine from F-404 to 414. Why couldn't the Navy have demanded 2 F-404s instead back then?

Further, when the thrust shortfall was encountered, ADA went back to the Cabinet Committee on Security in Dec 2009, with Navy in the loop, to seek a configuration with a higher thrust engine. This was the genesis of the LCA Navy Mk2.

Kartik, I was doing research to reply to your post. I vaguely remembered someone from Bharat Rakshak had visited Aero India 2013 and met both Mao and the NCLA team. Since I knew in my mind that what I was saying was similar to what the IN folks had said to the person, I started searching for that post. Since that person had heard from the horse's mouth

I discovered the person was you!

To quote what you heard from Mao,

viewtopic.php?t=6475&start=400

I brought up the point he made at AI-2011 about how the Tejas should’ve started as a carrier variant and then gone on to the IAF variant. He seemed genuinely happy that someone had remembered that point of his and described the main issue with the NLCA NP1. The issue as he described it was that the LCA didn’t have a central keel to pass the structural loads to, something he said that the AMCA won’t face since it’s a twin engine fighter. This meant that they had to put new attachment points which aren’t the ideal solution and result in the bulky appearance of the current landing gear.

So 2011 and 2013 itself, the suitability of a twin engined aircraft was always on the Navy's mind. You heard it yourself from Mao.

The twin engined airframe avoids the additional strengthening structural deadweight that a single engined aircraft has to fly with. And it adds power reserve for more fuel/weapons/payload/structural enhancements

Before anyone gives the example of F-35C, please note its single F-135 engine delivers 128 kN/191 kN equivalent to two & half F-404 48.9 kN/78.7 kN engines and almost two F-414 57.8 kN/97.9 kN engines. (numbers from wiki that anyone can access, not posting links to keep it brief)

So a F-35C has ample power reserves that a single F-404 or F-414 engine doesnt provide. That sheer amount of power compensates for additional structural loads, or future payload growth, if any.

To answer your present question, neither ADA nor IN could have foreseen that in 2009. No one can see the future or outcome of development beyond a certain point. As aptly brought out by the below statement.

At initiation, it was anticipated that the conversion of an Air Force version to a Naval version with specific attributes would entail about 15% change. However, as the detail design and development process unfolded, the teams involved realized that the changes were almost to the extent of 40% to 45%.

And Mao told you in 2013 the suitability of a twin engined aircraft but the overall focus at that point of time was to modify the Air Force LCA program. No one knew the extent of modification would be so high as to be a new aircraft & program itself

Quoting what you heard from Cdr Sukesh Nagraj

Primary role envisaged for the N-LCA is that of CAP and Fleet Defence, replacing the Sea Harrier.

Aerial warfare has come a long way from Combat Air Patrol and Fleet Defence of fleet while shipbourne missiles like Klub and BrahMos performed strike duties.

CAP and Fleet Defence worked in Falklands war. During NLCA initial design, China didnt have any aircraft carriers.

Even for Air Defence roles, fighters will need to fly longer distances to take out Chinese carrier borne aircraft. More fuel/weapons/payload required leading to more power requirements.

Now, NLCA Mk2 was itself undergoing a lot of changes with addition of stabilator, deletion of levcons and replacement with vortex flaps. These changes were based on NLCA Mk1 testing. And the changes in NLCA Mk2 needed to be built, flown, tested.

So if a major redesign was being carried out, and NLCA Mk2 was practically becoming a new aircraft, what's wrong in making it a TEBDF?

BTW IN and ADA also studied the AMCA project in detail as well from 2013 till 2018 and found it diverging from Naval purposes. The IN didnt impose its requirements on AMCA that would have added complexity and delayed that project

No work or effort is lost. The NLCA Mk1 and Mk2 effort will be baked in TEDBF development and actually shorten the process.

Please do re-read my posts with what you yourself heard from Mao & Sukesh Nagaraj in Aero India 2011 and Aero India 2013

Am I saying anything different than what these gentlemen told you?

Does what you yourself heard from both these gentlemen in 2011 and 2013 justify your "IN torpedoed NLCA Mk2" comments?

[Rakesh]

My issue with the scathing criticism of the LCA Navy Mk1/2 by Adm. Arun Prakash and others

Great post. Never thought of any of the issues - in that manner - you have raised. +100 to you Saar!

[yensoy]

I brought up the point he made at AI-2011 about how the Tejas should’ve started as a carrier variant and then gone on to the IAF variant. He seemed genuinely happy that someone had remembered that point of his and described the main issue with the NLCA NP1. The issue as he described it was that the LCA didn’t have a central keel to pass the structural loads to, something he said that the AMCA won’t face since it’s a twin engine fighter. This meant that they had to put new attachment points which aren’t the ideal solution and result in the bulky appearance of the current landing gear.

At initiation, it was anticipated that the conversion of an Air Force version to a Naval version with specific attributes would entail about 15% change. However, as the detail design and development process unfolded, the teams involved realized that the changes were almost to the extent of 40% to 45%.

So if a major redesign was being carried out, and NLCA Mk2 was practically becoming a new aircraft, what's wrong in making it a TEBDF?
...

Would that mean the AMCA could be a (stealthy) derivative of TEDBF?

[nachiket]

Would that mean the AMCA could be a (stealthy) derivative of TEDBF?

No. AMCA and TEDBF are completely separate programs. Stealth has to be part of the design from the start. It is not an add-on that can be incorporated later.

[rajsunder]

(c) @Zephyr164 on Twitter

https://twitter.com/zephyr164/status/12 ... 6172536833

[Rakesh]

Can you please edit your post to provide twitter link of this picture?

[V_Raman]

I don’t understand why going from 404 to 414 and a naval derivative off that would be such a huge redesign for the LCA and it is the same complexity of tedbf.

[V_Raman]

This whole tedbf by 2032 sounds unreal to me regardless and an lca with 414 is more achievable by then

[ks_sachin]

This whole tedbf by 2032 sounds unreal to me regardless and an lca with 414 is more achievable by then

And pray tell how an LCA with 414 will help in addressing Whitcomb's rule?

Correct me if I am wrong in the assumption that Mk2 of the LCA seeks to address that issue (IR / JayS since you wrote on this).

[ks_sachin]

I don’t understand why going from 404 to 414 and a naval derivative off that would be such a huge redesign for the LCA and it is the same complexity of tedbf.

This is like reading Ramayana and then asking who is Rama!!!!

The Ramayana is BRF and we have wise men on these pages who have talked at length about this aspect.

Please read!!

[Philip]

Naval TEDBF ambitions must be synchronised with the fortunes of the 3rd.CV,which has fallen frm favour in recent times.If by 2030+ we wish a replacement for the 29Ks,which could easily be upgraded like M2Ks and 29,-UPGs, costing far less, the fighter must be compatible with the existing lifts on the VilA and Vikrant-2. Newer missiles both AAMs and ASMs like BMos-NG will appear at least by 2005 giving our exg. Naval Fleet Air Arm's assets a quantum leap,along with similar missiles and ordnance for the IAF. Even if you plan for CV 3 gwith approx. 40 fighters,the entire total of naval carrier fighters will be not more than 100. Look at the cost of developing a new TEDBF and its limited production. There are already 3 naval 4th-gen. fighters available.29Ks,F-18SHs and Rafale- Ms. Add the F-35B and you get a 5th-genfighter too! We have no idea of the performance parameters of the
TEDBF are, but it is highly unlikely that it will surpass them ,the vanilla 29K being the easiest to equal.These exg. options with their huge global numbers will be easier and cheaper to support.

Therefore,with the CV No.3 nowhere up for approval,and the expectation of a 2030 date of arrival v.unlikely, the TEDBF should be shelved in favour of a naval AMCA which would be a more relevant programme to follow,since it is on the anvil for the IAF reducing dev. costs substantially.The timeframe too would be better for commissioning a little before CV-3 arrives.

[Prasad]

Let's be honest here. The reason the TEDBF is even seeing such firm commitment and timelines from the Navy is because they need a replacement for the 29k.

[Philip]

When? The TEDBF hasn't flown.It's a brand new bird and the usual time for developing ,testing and commissioning AND
producing desi aircraft in India is currently 3+ decades and a prod. rate of betweenn 6 to 12/yr! To only replace just under 50 29K aircraft will be enormously costly too,a v.small supply chain unless it's a naval version of an IAF bird.

Given the growing Indo- US ties,esp. in the maritime sphere,the JSF will at some time this decade be offered to us,after the keen edge of production for the US and its allies is well under way. Enough time to also correct the irritating glitches still plaguing the bird.The ODIN logistic diagnostic system is replacing ALIS,the chief culprit. The JSF would ber superior to the current generation of 4th- gen naval fighters and the non-stealth TEDBF.

This is why I advocate the simplest solution for our carrier fighter, for our first 2 carriers for this decade.
Upgrade the 29Ks to 35+ std.,with AESA radars, TVC engines,extra composites,better avionics ,EW systems, and newer missiles under development.It will carry Astra-ER,BMos-NG, and the new KH missiles developed by Ru. For CV-3 and beyond post 2030, a sister ship to CV-3 must be planned for, along with a naval version of the AMCA, a better option.As I said,the IN was trying to get the 3rd. CV passed getting a decision on the aircraft first! If however the TEDBF is the naval variant of the LCA MK-2, it makes better sense,but if that bird arriving in 2030+, is only equal in capability to an MK-2, to me pointless.The AMCA is a better option worth waiting for, saves money,our focus will be on just one programme instead of spraying our financial and humann resources all around when our pockets are depleted.For the current decade,more upgraded 29Ks will suffice and since it's already been tested once aboard the VikA, one sqd. of the NLCA ( commonality with Tejas MK-1/1A) should be quite affordable to give us extra numbers as well as providing us with much gainful experiencf of how it performs at sea. If it does well,another sqd. acquired.

[Karan M]

Jeez, there would no reason to get a new fighter if the 29K had not been a disaster and here you are pushing more MiG35s, comedy gold.