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

[hemant_sai]

Mk2/AMCA/TEDBF everywhere we are hearing only lies in terms of projected timelines.
IAF/ADA/HAL are clearly not in sync and neither of them are telling truth to Raksha Mantri.

We are perpetually waiting for golden version. At one side we claim modular design, open arch. and still delaying in the name of future proof techs.
AMCA/TEDBF proto developments should have been started this year. At least that 1st and 1 prototype in hand means a lot.

So I repeat again, we need better Raksha Mantri who can read between the lines drawn by IAF/ADA/HAL and of course big fellow MoD babu.

Put efforts to find that person and keep bombarding NaMo for new selection. He/She can be additonal aid to RM just to look after crisis of fighter planes, who will happily involve in solutioning than forming committee after committee.

[Rakesh]

India clears biggest-ever fighter jet deal: 26 Rafale Marine jets for Navy approved
https://aninews.in/news/national/genera ... 409130046/
09 April 2025

The upcoming twin-engine deck-based fighter aircraft is likely to be the naval counterpart of the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) being developed for the Indian Air Force by the Aeronautical Development Agency.

[Rakesh]

X-Post from the "Tejas Mk2 Medium Weight Fighter: News & Discussion" thread....

Wish the viral trend was #TEDBFwithKaveri. Would have been great a service.

The last I heard is that TEDBF is on the back burner.

Navy wants a stealth 5th gen, deck based fighter. They got their Rafale M and no longer want the TEDBF.

Something like this ----> TEDBF-S (Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter - Stealth)

After following Indian military programs for 3+ decades, among the things India has mastered is the use of wonderful acronyms.

[basant]

Wish the viral trend was #TEDBFwithKaveri. Would have been great a service.

The last I heard is that TEDBF is on the back burner.

Navy wants a stealth 5th gen, deck based fighter. They got their Rafale M and no longer want the TEDBF.

Something like this ----> TEDBF-S (Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter - Stealth)

After following Indian military programs for 3+ decades, among the things India has mastered is the use of wonderful acronyms.

Is it only me or IN is like IAF for everything that they do not design? Resistance, rather rebellion, regarding NUH is case in the point. Scrapping NLCA as soon as it was ready to land on a carrier, pretending to fly TEDBF and the silently scrapping it altogether..., there seems to be a pattern. Notwithstanding opposition to LCA, no IAF officer displayed hatred as purely as ex-IN officers against Dhruv.

[Rakesh]

Is it only me or IN is like IAF for everything that they do not design? Resistance, rather rebellion, regarding NUH is case in the point. Scrapping NLCA as soon as it was ready to land on a carrier, pretending to fly TEDBF and the silently scrapping it altogether..., there seems to be a pattern. Notwithstanding opposition to LCA, no IAF officer displayed hatred as purely as ex-IN officers against Dhruv.

Take a look at the TEDBF timelines. Induction was supposed to happen only in the 2030s and that was the estimate by the stakeholders. Add another decade to that timeline, minimum. By then, 5th gen Chinese stealth fighters - en masse - will be operating from their carriers. I assume the Navy's rational is that if an "Atmanirbhar" deck-based fighter is to be inducted, you might as well go VLO. Especially considering, all the investment that has to be made with acquiring a new platform.

Secondly, IAC-2 is nowhere near the horizon. Forget keel laying, the Navy and the Govt are yet to agree on design and tonnage. What will you do with all those TEDBF, when INS Vikrant cannot even hold the entire complement of 22 Rafale Ms that are coming? The less said about INS Vikramaditya, the better.

The only saving grace for TEDBF is the Naval LCA Mk1, which needs to be inducted as an trainer aircraft for carrier take-offs and landings. Lessons learnt with data from Naval LCA Mk1, will be valuable for TEDBF-S. Please see this post ---> viewtopic.php?p=2643087#p2643087

[Khalsa]

Lets get real
there is no TEDBF there is no ORCA.

Its just Mk2 tejas (stalled) and AMCA (proposed).
Rest all is gaming yaar.

[basant]

Gaming is what IN is doing with the fighters. Cancelling programs. Even after scrapping NLCA, it could directly have asked for stealthier version. It didn't, saying they are pragmatic. Funny as the same would have meant that it should have gone for NLCA Mk2, even as per the then ADA Director Cmde CD Balaji. The Services are working in unaccountable fashion, first that needs to be fixed.

[ernest]

Based on the above posts, and timelines by Rakesh-If I was in the IN team working on requirements for aircraft, I would also consider the following along with TEDBF:

1. A single or twin Kaveri engine RPSA/Ghatak variant with suitable naval modifications. Go with afterburners if required. It won't have the endurance of MQ-25 with its higher bypass engine, but will be a potent strike / maritime strike aircraft. A tanker version like MQ-25 can also be considered
2. A Ka-31 replacement aircraft. It can be be based on DBMRH, or a jet powered UAV with radars. Chinese have a concept aircraft, 'Divine Eagle'. Given that Ka-31 data is anyway sent to another platform with required team for processing/controlling, it might be feasible. I am no expert
3. Loyal Wingmen like a CATS Warrior powered by HTFE or Kaveri variants. Can also be used for strike roles. HAL concept video did have good amount of naval backdrop. IN has already started studies for Abhimanyu, which is much smaller. Integration with rafale-M might not be easy or cheap. But we will have Tejas naval trainers also, which can fill in the role if needed, and keep testing the tech for wider deployment. Like said before, they can be used for RPSA like role instead of fighter controlled wingman role.
4. Runway launched kamikaze drones like SWIFT-K variants, and other jet powered munitions from the pvt sector.
5. Long endurance UAVs for peacetime surveillance with turboprop engines.
6. Naval RUAVs of all classes.

These aircraft can reduce mission burden on Rafales, and will also fill up the deck/hangar space based on the mission
With a combination of the above, and even if another carrier arrives in 10 years, we might not have the requirement for additional non-stealth naval fighters for more than a decade. We can directly focus on a Naval AMCA instead, given that TEDBF is not yet sanctioned, and will come after AMCA if at all. There will be significant reduction in effort for a naval AMCA version (I know adapting airforce version to naval role is not that simple), compared to clean-sheet TEDBF.

Given the limited number of personnel and budget in our design agencies that has been mentioned on these forums earlier, we might be better off focusing on Naval AMCA and UCAV/UAVs. TEDBF would have been nice, but it has been delayed too much, even before sanction, and will make little sense if we are not planning >100 along with airforce version. better focus the same energy on UCAVs/AMCA

[Jay]

IN should just use this disaster of a non available kaveri based TEDBF and leap frog a generation to fully accept, and operationalize a carrier based force that's mostly based on non pilot based craft. AEW&C, refueling, advanced scouting, and targeting should be delegated to these UAV/UCAV's with the a human element providing oversight, real time decision making, and last resort interventional tasks.

If we are a generation behind in our jet engines, and our rated engines are not capable to put a plane the size of a rafale into the sky from our ship, apart from working on improving the performance, the other logical and proven thing to do is to adapt what we have and apply it to what/where we are good at. We seem to have found our bearings with missiles/munitions, radars, software, and integrations. What is stopping us from creating products with these skills as a dominant feature and use them to our advantage?

Focus on creating a family of UCAV's with Kaveri as the engine, and use them for all the above purposes. A typical profile will launch a tanker like an MQ25 stingray, followed by another version similar to MQ Triton to act as an AEW, followed by a few carrier launched Ghatak's, and finally a pair of Rafales to choreograph the entire dance. If we developed akashteer in the last decade I'm confident we can replicate an advanced version of this to include all these element to comprise a strike team. We have all the building blocks to make this happen and transition into a next gen strike force.

TEDBF or ORCA will end up like naval LCA as long as we do not have out engines. We seem to be focusing on skills sets where we have a tough hand at the expense of our strengths.

[ernest]

We seem to have found our bearings with missiles/munitions, radars, software, and integrations. What is stopping us from creating products with these skills as a dominant feature and use them to our advantage?

Focus on creating a family of UCAV's with Kaveri as the engine, and use them for all the above purposes. A typical profile will launch a tanker like an MQ25 stingray, followed by another version similar to MQ Triton to act as an AEW, followed by a few carrier launched Ghatak's, and finally a pair of Rafales to choreograph the entire dance. If we developed akashteer in the last decade I'm confident we can replicate an advanced version of this to include all these element to comprise a strike team. We have all the building blocks to make this happen and transition into a next gen strike force.

True. We cannot be emulating other power's strategies, which reflect their own strengths. We have to evolve our programs to leverage our strengths and existing base + near future RnD. Russians, Turks, Iranians all have punched well beyond what their economy would allow if they were to emulate western models. We should be leveraging our islands, long coastline and missile power to offset our gaps in fighter and other aircraft strength. SMART is a laudable effort that does this exactly for our gaps in sub surface fleet.

Related point, HVT has mentioned that development cycle, costs and effort (including certification) is significantly lower for unmanned platforms. We might be able to get naval versions for both CATS Warrior and RPSA (Ghatak) before TEDBF if we fund them. Like you said, we would be better off moving more budget away from manned carrier based fighters to a variety of UAVs/UCAVs/LMs/CMs that can give similar mission capability, probably with better bang for the buck.