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

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 19 Feb 2023 15:44

Cybaru wrote:New internal fuel - 6500 kgs. Compared to rafale which has 4700 kgs. I think last aero india there was also mention of 1.5K - 2K tons of fuel in cfts for tedbf. So all in all a land based version can replace Su30MKI quite easily.

But arent Rafale engines max wet thrust 75Kn and not 98 Kn for the F414.

basant · Post by **basant** » 19 Feb 2023 15:59

Dry thrust is more relevant as afterburner is used only for a very small duration. Here, the difference is around 7 kN only.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Feb 2023 06:39

Maybe for Uttam radar?

basant · Post by **basant** » 20 Feb 2023 09:07

Unlikely, as AMCA too has Uttam.

BenG · Post by **BenG** » 20 Feb 2023 11:13

basant wrote:Dry thrust is more relevant as afterburner is used only for a very small duration. Here, the difference is around 7 kN only.

Afterburner is important for take-off in stobar configuration.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 20 Feb 2023 11:23

hgupta wrote:No bubble canopy? Hopefully this can also transition into ORCA and can be the replacement for Rafales and Su-30MKIs.

This canopy on the TEBDF is a bubble canopy. It affords a very good view till almost between the pilot's 6 O'Clock. And most importantly, it has a cockpit that is slanted forward to afford the best possible forward view.

basant · Post by **basant** » 20 Feb 2023 13:29

BenG wrote:Afterburner is important for take-off in stobar configuration.

It is, as well as to accelerate when required. However, the total weight will have to be carried all the time!

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 20 Feb 2023 14:15

TEDBF is slowly but surely becoming a more refined design. The wing body blending has definitely improved and the radome shape has also changed, probably to address any intake airflow issues that Wind Tunnel Testing brought up.

image credit - Hukum on Twitter.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 20 Feb 2023 14:49

Cybaru wrote:New internal fuel - 6500 kgs. Compared to rafale which has 4700 kgs. I think last aero india there was also mention of 1.5K - 2K tons of fuel in cfts for tedbf. So all in all a land based version can replace Su30MKI quite easily.

Sorry, the ADA board didn't mention the internal fuel. So could you pls mention what is the source for the claim that new internal fuel is 6500 kgs?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 20 Feb 2023 14:51

Aditya_V wrote:
Cybaru wrote:New internal fuel - 6500 kgs. Compared to rafale which has 4700 kgs. I think last aero india there was also mention of 1.5K - 2K tons of fuel in cfts for tedbf. So all in all a land based version can replace Su30MKI quite easily.
But arent Rafale engines max wet thrust 75Kn and not 98 Kn for the F414.

That's right. The Specific Fuel Consumption is also higher for the F-414 as compared to the M-88-2.

All in all, the TEDBF should have an even higher range than the Rafale C/M.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 20 Feb 2023 23:18

Kartik wrote:
Cybaru wrote:New internal fuel - 6500 kgs. Compared to rafale which has 4700 kgs. I think last aero india there was also mention of 1.5K - 2K tons of fuel in cfts for tedbf. So all in all a land based version can replace Su30MKI quite easily.
Sorry, the ADA board didn't mention the internal fuel. So could you pls mention what is the source for the claim that new internal fuel is 6500 kgs?

MY BAD! It is the AMCA interview that states 6500 kgs as internal fuel. I think I saw a whole bunch of interviews together and got my thingies in a happy knot! AMCA's radius of action without any refueling is 1000 km. Anyhoo, moving on after this boo boo...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Feb 2023 07:35

Link to TEDBF

https://youtu.be/UjvhZNRHVf0?t=4m57s

Rakesh please edit. Thanks

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Feb 2023 04:08

Tejas Mark 1: Stepping stone to self-reliance
https://www.ajaishukla.com/2023/02/teja ... -self.html
15 Feb 2023

Deodhare explains that the TEDBF is not a fourth-generation fighter, but is generation-five minus aircraft. Its basic design has been completed and ADA is at the preliminary design stage. The fighter’s all-up weight is going to be 25-26 tonnes and it will have twin F-414 engines. Inputs are being fed in from LCA (Navy) trials from Goa and from the INS Vikrant. The wing-folding mechanism has now been finalized. The fighter can carry weapons on its wingtips despite the wing-folding mechanism. Its armament load will be 17.5 tonnes.

“We are progressing very well. We are trying to take inputs also from other programmes. We are doing everything indigenously, not even thinking of an imported radar. Once we develop basic technologies it is easy to upscale it for larger platforms,” says the ADA chief. The TEDBF will be an optionally manned aircraft. There is already an automated take-off in the LCA Navy. Deodhare says the pilot, even when he is sitting in the cockpit, is not pressing any buttons and the aircraft takes off on its own.

“Whilst landing, we have never missed an approach – we have never missed a single wire. Our landing approach is automated almost completely, as is the take off,” he says. The navy has indicated that, with a second indigenous aircraft carrier likely, they would require 100-plus TEDBF aircraft.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 06 Mar 2023 22:53

Compared to the LCA-N /Trainer, the TEDBF doesn't seem to have the same nose down view from the cockpit. The nose seems more horizontal compared to the downward sloping one in LCA-N Mk-1. In LCA-N Mk-1, the forward canopy seems to slope downwards in straight line through the nose and seems to have steeper slope compared to TEDBF. I am sure the Naval aviation wing has signed off on TEDBF, but it was curious for me where the LCA-N seems to have better visibility when landing based only on the images of the model.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 06 Mar 2023 22:55

putnanja wrote:Compared to the LCA-N /Trainer, the TEDBF doesn't seem to have the same nose down view from the cockpit. The nose seems more horizontal compared to the downward sloping one in LCA-N Mk-1. In LCA-N Mk-1, the forward canopy seems to slope downwards in straight line through the nose. I am sure the Naval aviation wing has signed off on TEDBF, but it was curious for me where the LCA-N seems to have better visibility when landing based only on the images of the model.

Please put source of images, when posting photos. Please edit your post. Thank You.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 07 Mar 2023 06:36

putnanja wrote:Compared to the LCA-N /Trainer, the TEDBF doesn't seem to have the same nose down view from the cockpit. The nose seems more horizontal compared to the downward sloping one in LCA-N Mk-1. In LCA-N Mk-1, the forward canopy seems to slope downwards in straight line through the nose and seems to have steeper slope compared to TEDBF. I am sure the Naval aviation wing has signed off on TEDBF, but it was curious for me where the LCA-N seems to have better visibility when landing based only on the images of the model.

TEDBF design is still in flux. The one in the pic is not the final design. There were renders recently during AI with a more conventional rounded nose and redesigned cheek area in front of the canards. There could still be more changes in the future. Also, if the F-18 with its rather long nose can be safely landed on carriers, the TEDBF should have no problems.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Mar 2023 07:42

putnanja wrote:Compared to the LCA-N /Trainer, the TEDBF doesn't seem to have the same nose down view from the cockpit. The nose seems more horizontal compared to the downward sloping one in LCA-N Mk-1. In LCA-N Mk-1, the forward canopy seems to slope downwards in straight line through the nose and seems to have steeper slope compared to TEDBF. I am sure the Naval aviation wing has signed off on TEDBF, but it was curious for me where the LCA-N seems to have better visibility when landing based only on the images of the model.

India’s Naval Light Combat Aircraft Testing Automated Carrier Landings

Feb 15, 2023

BENGALURU, India—The Indian Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) continues to test automated landings of its Light Combat Aircraft Tejas (N-LCA) following the Feb. 6 first launches and arrested recoveries on the Indian Navy’s INS Vikrant carrier. ...

Aside:

The USN uses "Magic Carpet" automated systems. The F-18, I think, already has it - to land automatically on USN carriers.

The F-35B has an automated verticle landing system. All the pilot needs to do is input the speed of the ship and the B will land vertically all by itself.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 13 Mar 2023 11:52

putnanja wrote:Compared to the LCA-N /Trainer, the TEDBF doesn't seem to have the same nose down view from the cockpit. The nose seems more horizontal compared to the downward sloping one in LCA-N Mk-1. In LCA-N Mk-1, the forward canopy seems to slope downwards in straight line through the nose and seems to have steeper slope compared to TEDBF. I am sure the Naval aviation wing has signed off on TEDBF, but it was curious for me where the LCA-N seems to have better visibility when landing based only on the images of the model.

It does. The TEDBF will incorporate all the design learnings from the Naval LCA, including those for forward visibility that the IN sets.

Don't go by the model with the useless model of the pilot sunk in the seat like he's reclining on a sofa. In reality the Tejas, N-LCA have both got excellent forward visibility due to the ejection seat being set high in the cockpit, unlike in the JF-17 and MiG-21 series.

Cyrano · Post by **Cyrano** » 13 Mar 2023 14:58

Rafale has a 17° backward inclined seat IIRC, should be the same for Rafale-M, and they dont seem to have visibility problems. The other contender SH doesnt have a noticeable nose drop either.

With Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System aka meatball + autopilot optimised for carrier landings this drooping forward nose may not be that much of a deal ?

BenG · Post by **BenG** » 13 Mar 2023 16:50

IMHO, TEDBF seems to be evolving into Rafale-M design with wing-folding. It makes sense to buy 114 or 90 Rafale-M + 26 Rafale M and currently use them in Indian Air Force and Navy respectively. About 18 2-seater Rafale-B can be bought out-right as a common conversion trainer for Navy and Air-force. Overtime, as AMCA becomes available and Indian Navy starts retiring Mig-29k all the while inducting new carriers these assets can be transferred to them.

The numbers justify creating a venture which can develop the new 130 kn engine using the offsets and probably manufacture AMCA airframe as well.

HLFT-42 can be developed as a carrier-borne trainer. This ability can be its USP. Makes sense to use F-414 then. Currently HLFT-42 is an over-kill for most nation's defense forces needs as a trainer. A purpose built carrier-borne trainer will also have a lot less issues than Mig-29 K type modification. HLFT- 42 could be like our own version of JSF program where we have three variants with conventional, STOBAR and CATOBAR configurations.

nash · Post by **nash** » 06 Sep 2023 13:55

This looks lit!!

https://twitter.com/Raghunandan_3d/stat ... 4060380303

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 06 Sep 2023 21:42

Rakesh wrote: ↑23 Feb 2023 04:08 Tejas Mark 1: Stepping stone to self-reliance
https://www.ajaishukla.com/2023/02/teja ... -self.html
15 Feb 2023

The fighter can carry weapons on its wingtips despite the wing-folding mechanism. Its armament load will be 17.5 tonnes.

7.5 tons perhaps?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 06 Sep 2023 22:37

During the original concept studies, the weapons load was 6.5 tons. It has evolved to 7.5 tons today.

This aircraft minus wing folding mechanism should easily be capable of 8 plus tons.

hgupta · Post by **hgupta** » 06 Sep 2023 22:44

What is the comparable payload capacity of F-18E/F and Rafale-M?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 06 Sep 2023 22:49

hgupta wrote: ↑06 Sep 2023 22:44 What is the comparable payload capacity of F-18E/F and Rafale-M?

Rafale M (https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/de ... d-weapons/)

With its 10-tonne empty weight, the Rafale is fitted with 14 hard points (13 on the Rafale M). Five of them are capable of carrying heavy ordnance or drop tanks. Total external load capacity is more than nine tonnes (20,000 lbs.).

F-18SH (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/ ... F/A-18E/F)

11 (2× wingtips, 6× under-wing, and 3× under-fuselage) with a capacity of Max payload: 17,750 lb (8,050 kg). Carrier bringback payload: F/A-18E: 9,900 lb (4,491 kg), F/A-18F: 9,000 lb (4,082 kg)[245], with provisions to carry combinations of:

hgupta · Post by **hgupta** » 07 Sep 2023 01:00

Rakesh wrote: ↑06 Sep 2023 22:49
Rafale M (https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/de ... d-weapons/)

Total external load capacity is more than nine tonnes (20,000 lbs.).
F-18SH (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/ ... F/A-18E/F)
a capacity of Max payload: 17,750 lb (8,050 kg). Carrier bringback payload: F/A-18E: 9,900 lb (4,491 kg), F/A-18F: 9,000 lb (4,082 kg)[245], with provisions to carry combinations of:

If our bird can carry 9 tons and bring back 4.5 tons then it’s awesome and beat out any contemporary bird.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 04 Oct 2023 18:52

This is not the first time I hearing about the TEDBF having a non-GE F414 turbofan. If true, it would be interesting. Waiting for the JV roadmap between Safran and GTRE to get more clarity on this.

https://x.com/sriramthg/status/1709135334678913230?s=20 ---> IAF sources indicate that the future AMCA/TEDBF engine program will also utilise the established commercial jet engine related ecosystem setup around the CFM (GE & Safran) LEAP engine currently in Hyderabad.

https://x.com/cvkrishnan/status/1709164 ... 79222?s=20 ---> Is this related to post sales support? Focus should lie firmly in research and co-development aspect.

https://x.com/sriramthg/status/1709165251349143930?s=20 ---> Just companies & experience/expertise dealing with jet engines I would guess. Given MRO there in Hyd & TASL. If Air India moves to Hyd as second hub which they most likely will, it'll be a giant engine hub.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 30 Oct 2023 17:48

The latest (as per Defence Matrix on Twitter, Oct 2023) config of the TEDBF. What a looker!

https://x.com/Defencematrix1/status/171 ... 71064?s=20 ---> Update Regarding TEDBF Hardware Configuration

The latest visuals (Oct 2023) of the TEDBF show a change in the hardpoint configuration. The Astra pylons, which were previously located under the fuselage, have been shifted to the wing root position.

As is evident in the visuals, these pylons are more compact (but NOT semi-recessed) than the outboard pylons which are also carrying the Astra, which may indicate that the wing root pylons are specific to the Astra (similar to the under-intake Astra-specific pylons of the LCA AF MK2).

Now, the question is, what happens to the previous under fuselage hardpoint location? Has it been completely removed, or is it now free for other stores (for example, self-protection jammer pods)?

hgupta · Post by **hgupta** » 30 Oct 2023 23:10

This looks like a modified copy of Rafale-M.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 30 Oct 2023 23:17

hgupta wrote: ↑30 Oct 2023 23:10 This looks like a modified copy of Rafale-M.

Check out these posts...the first link below is from HVT Sir.

One of the many reasons why the Rafale M was chosen over the F-18SH.

viewtopic.php?p=2571651#p2571651

viewtopic.php?p=2511415#p2511415

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 30 Oct 2023 23:19

See what the TEDBF Project Director states about the Naval Tejas Mk1 at the beginning of the video.

VIDEO: https://x.com/alpha_defense/status/1719 ... 44788?s=20 ---> You have heard many things about TEDBF from various portals. Now hear it from the man himself, Dr. Amitabh Saraf (Project Director, Naval Combat Aircraft, ADA).

https://x.com/alpha_defense/status/1718 ... 45123?s=20 --->

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 31 Oct 2023 14:52

hgupta wrote: ↑30 Oct 2023 23:10 This looks like a modified copy of Rafale-M.

The TEDBF Project Director Dr Amitabh Saraf candidly stated that the TEDBF has a "similar concept" as the Rafale. But whereas the shape appears similar, everything else is designed at ADA and is indigenous.

Salient points from his talk at the CSIR Foundation Day 2023:
- Similar concept as the Rafale but completely designed here in India itself.
- TEDBF's wing sweeps are different, the canards are different, the shape is similar as the Rafale, but the design is completely our own.
- Diverterless Supersonic Intakes (DSI), 2 X GE F-414 engines, advanced sensors and avionics systems, wing fold will be added which Rafale doesn't have which will cause problems for the Rafale when it comes to carrier stowage.
- TEDBF is designed to operate from both INS Vikrant as well as INS Vikramaditya
- Now in the phase of obtaining CCS sanction
- Navy is very keen on the TEDBF
- Timelines- First Flight - 2028 and Induction into service - 2032.

Twitter link

bala · Post by **bala** » 31 Oct 2023 21:36

TEDBF fighter undergoes further refinement in its design. Indian Navy is fully onboard and lessons learnt from LCA Navy are being applied. I hope ADA / HAL speed up the process for 1st prototype and GoI/MOD provide full unstinting support for the program. Too much analysis paralysis and process follower to the T junkies in MOD and GoI. This is no-brainer project, just go for it in manic mission mode.

Indian Defense Analysis YT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPBk9Ho_skE

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 04 Nov 2023 20:23

Rakesh wrote: ↑04 Oct 2023 18:52 This is not the first time I hearing about the TEDBF having a non-GE F414 turbofan. If true, it would be interesting. Waiting for the JV roadmap between Safran and GTRE to get more clarity on this.

https://x.com/sriramthg/status/1709135334678913230?s=20 ---> IAF sources indicate that the future AMCA/TEDBF engine program will also utilise the established commercial jet engine related ecosystem setup around the CFM (GE & Safran) LEAP engine currently in Hyderabad.

https://x.com/cvkrishnan/status/1709164 ... 79222?s=20 ---> Is this related to post sales support? Focus should lie firmly in research and co-development aspect.

https://x.com/sriramthg/status/1709165251349143930?s=20 ---> Just companies & experience/expertise dealing with jet engines I would guess. Given MRO there in Hyd & TASL. If Air India moves to Hyd as second hub which they most likely will, it'll be a giant engine hub.

I wonder from where IDRW shamelessly copied the below article from, but an alternate to the GE F414 appears to be slowly becoming a reality. Just like the first pair of AMCA squadrons, the first few TEDBF prototypes will feature the GE F414 turbofan, but eventually it looks like the TEDBF will transition to the Safran-GTRE 110kN turbofan for the production ready TEDBF aircraft.

The most interesting aspect - for me - is the article below states that the Safran-GTRE 110kN turbofan will be "dimensionally similar" to the GE F414 turbofan. So perhaps future Tejas Mk2 production tranches (and even a future ORCA for the IAF) could also end up with this turbofan. The first production tranche of Tejas Mk2s will feature the GE F414 turbofan only, as the US Congress has given clearance for 99 F414 turbofans to be licensed produced in India. But an alternate to a US-origin turbofan is always welcome. Lets hope it pans out, as planned.

@Cybaru:

India's Twin Engine Deck-Based Fighter (TEDBF) to Feature DRDO-Safran 110kN Engine
https://idrw.org/indias-twin-engine-dec ... kn-engine/
04 Nov 2023

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 05 Nov 2023 05:15

Rakesh wrote: ↑04 Nov 2023 20:23
@Cybaru:

India's Twin Engine Deck-Based Fighter (TEDBF) to Feature DRDO-Safran 110kN Engine
https://idrw.org/indias-twin-engine-dec ... kn-engine/
04 Nov 2023

Wow, that is good news indeed. Absolutely, thrilling. The specs suggest that both the F414 and the indigenous IN110KN engine will deliver thrust in the 60-66KN range for dry thrust. It's a smart move to design the engine interchangeably; it really opens up flexibility for upgrades and indigenization.

I get where the IAF is coming from with their focus on Tejas Mk2 and the subsequent larger AMCA version 2. Skipping the TEDBF to ORCA conversion might just streamline their fleet. If they ramp up the AMCA's Mk2 MTOW to about 30-32 tons, you're right – would they really need a stop-gap? Plus, a more robust engine in the IN120-130KN range could significantly boost the AMCA's range, especially since it's going to be lighter than the MKI by a good 5-8 tons. I hope they bring the internal fuel load close to 8-9 tons. That would be killer specs and will allow us to replace MKI 1:1.

So we're looking at a lineup of LCA MK1-MK1A, Mk2, Rafale, and AMCA Mk1 and Mk2. If the IAF goes for an additional 100-120 Rafales, which it is pushing for, it could indeed reduce complexity and mitigate risk, allowing them to bypass ORCA completely. A 2-ton MTOW/%-payload gain in ORCA with a much higher risk of reaching service may not make sense. Navy is also derisking with 26 Rafale-Ms. With that, operating 7-9 Rafale squadrons seems like a very plausible scenario. Exciting times are ahead for the IAF's aerial might!

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 05 Nov 2023 05:48

Rakesh wrote: ↑30 Oct 2023 23:17
hgupta wrote: ↑30 Oct 2023 23:10 This looks like a modified copy of Rafale-M.
Check out these posts...the first link below is from HVT Sir.

One of the many reasons why the Rafale M was chosen over the F-18SH.

viewtopic.php?p=2571651#p2571651

viewtopic.php?p=2511415#p2511415

Well it is time France paid back for us letting them get inspired by Marut !!

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 05 Nov 2023 23:52

V_Raman wrote: ↑05 Nov 2023 05:48 Well it is time France paid back for us letting them get inspired by Marut !!

Say what now?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 16 Nov 2023 20:16

https://x.com/Raghunandan_3d/status/172 ... 08423?s=20 ---> TEDBF

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 16 Nov 2023 20:23

TEDBF spec sheet from the Dubai Air Show.

https://x.com/officialTatya_1/status/17 ... 23569?s=20 --->

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 29 Nov 2023 20:35

Posting this in this thread, because there is no ORCA thread. But please read the below from IR...

https://x.com/Indrani1_Roy/status/17205 ... 96229?s=20 ---> Too many people asking: Can HAL handle all these projects at the same time? May be distributing it to some private company (TATAs name came up a few times) is a good risk mitigation strategy? Please understand who's who in the Indian aviation sector before making such comments.

https://x.com/Indrani1_Roy/status/17205 ... 65154?s=20 ---> Let's set production aside. That's separate from Design and Development (D&D). HAL is only doing the D&D of Mk1A and soon Mk1B (my nomenclature). The D&D of Mk2 is ADA's project. HAL is the production agency for the LSPs of Mk2.

https://x.com/Indrani1_Roy/status/17205 ... 63818?s=20 ---> AMCA/TEDBF is a sad story. It is nobody's project right now because no proper funds have been released. The trickling of funding has been used for preliminary design reviews and WT testing etc. But the buzz has helped many a official from various quarters. It's frustrating.

https://x.com/Indrani1_Roy/status/17205 ... 00662?s=20 ---> Any how when funding comes in, they will be ADA's D&D projects. HAL will again be the production agency for initially LSPs and may be for SP aircraft.

TEDBF is my and some other jingos' khayali-pulao. Some call it ORCA.

https://x.com/Indrani1_Roy/status/17205 ... 45983?s=20 ---> It takes a lot of effort and money to develop any fighter, forget a deck-based fighter. India's requirement is only of 36-72 naval fighters. It makes prudent sense to amortize this cost over longer production runs, especially when the IAF is in need of medium-weight fighters.

https://x.com/Indrani1_Roy/status/17205 ... 64951?s=20 ---> Currently, the private sector is nowhere near the capability of D&D a fighter aircraft. It's a 25-30 year learning curve. Indian private industry hasn't produced a 4 seater GP aircraft! A company tried modifying a 8 seater to a 10 seater and failed at that!

https://x.com/Indrani1_Roy/status/17205 ... 08923?s=20 ---> But they are excellent production agencies. Much more agile. Much more efficient. Much more dependable. Much more quality-conscious. In fact, most of the large subassemblies even in Mk1 are coming from them. HAL is what is called a primary integrator.

https://x.com/Indrani1_Roy/status/17205 ... 18437?s=20 ---> 1000s of parts come from various parts of the country. They are integrated into one aircraft on the assembly-line. It takes months to integrate an aircraft, and then a month or two to ground-test and flight-test every system before supplying to the customer.

https://x.com/Indrani1_Roy/status/17205 ... 91344?s=20 ---> Tata is first line to give HAL some competition as an integrator. There is a world of difference between a light transport aircraft and a SoA* fighter aircraft, but still it is a great start. I am cheering for them. I hope they don't just stop at license production.
*I am assuming SoA means State of the Art.

https://x.com/Indrani1_Roy/status/17205 ... 16460?s=20 ---> Both the private sector and HAL are here to stay. Currently, HAL will spear head the integration of fighter aircrafts, delegating more and more responsibility to Tier-2 (and Tier 3) players for speed and efficiency.