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

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Nov 2020 16:18

I'm not pushing MIG-35s,merely upgraded 29Ks with some 35 eqpt.AESA radar,avionics,etc. and better engines with TVC.Newer weaponry in the decade will enhance the capability. Since the 29K is in production, put the onus on yhe OEM to iron out any defects if still there,apply penalties,etc. in a properly drafted contract.Improperly drafted contracts by yhe MOD where the services have no say- a policy which must be changed, have been the bane of many contracts with firang OEMs,Scorpene subs for example.

These extras are only for the 2 CVs in hand and if the amphib design can be modified into a CV-L design. Any future CV will have to have larger lifts,better heat- resistant decks to withstand F-35 TVC engines,etc.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 05 Nov 2020 17:38

Philip wrote:I'm not pushing MIG-35s,merely upgraded 29Ks with some 35 eqpt.AESA radar,avionics,etc. and better engines with TVC.Newer weaponry in the decade will enhance the capability. Since hhe 29K is in production, put the onus on yhe OEM to iron out any deffcts iv still there,apply penalties,etc. in a properly drafted contract.Improperly drafted contracts by yhe MOD where the services have no say- a policy which must be changed, have been the bane of many contracts with firang OEMs,Scorpene subs for example.

These extras are only for the 2 CVs in hand and if the amphib design can be modified into a CV-L design. Any future CV will have to have larger lifts,better heat- resistang dfcks to withstand F-35 TVC engines,etc.

... I know this thinking and can only laugh at it. Why to get high BP

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Nov 2020 10:18

As has happened with almost all IAF combat aircraft,where upgrades are taking place from the 21Bisons to 29s and M2Ks,with MKIs planned,so too will the existing 29Ks be upgraded especially when the cost of upgrading the IAF 29s was just around $12/13M. As said before,new missiles for air combat and strike,anti-ship like BMos-NG ,will appear within a few years giving a quantum increase in capability. Given the size of the 2 exg. CVs,we can only operate 29Ks or a 35 naval variant if ever one is developed and the NLCA. I've said earlier that even if it does not fully meet IN standards,we could gain much experience by a batch of NLCAs also operating from the two CVs,giving us much data which could be unputs into a naval AMCA for any future larger CVs which will happen a decade+ from now.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 06 Nov 2020 11:37

The Navy's issues with the Mig-29k is not with their avionics or engines. What is the upgrade supposed to fix?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Nov 2020 10:42

No fix,just incremental mid-life upgrades as is happening to all aurcraft.

KSingh · Post by **KSingh** » 27 Nov 2020 17:14

I knew the 29K fleet was in trouble but never thought they would be as troubled as they are, 4 losses in 4 years, the second this year

TEDBF is the only saviour the navy has, I hope they appreciate it

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 18 Jan 2021 00:37

https://twitter.com/VamsiVamy/status/13 ... 1645149187

I think it's TEDBF official design. This slide is from the presentation given by Dr. Satish Reddy ,today in Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre official YouTube channel

https://twitter.com/VamsiVamy/status/13 ... 5534697474

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 18 Jan 2021 00:53

^^^^
TEDBF MTOW 26 tons

Will hazard a guess on likely parameters.
Empty weight 12t
Internal fuel 5t
Clean take of weight 18 t
External Payload 8t.

AkshaySG · Post by **AkshaySG** » 18 Jan 2021 01:43

The timeline makes Navy's decision a little awkward... If we're anticipating a first flight by 2026 and induction by 2030's there seems little chance that the Mig-29k can last that long without attrition replacements

Similarly if the Navy goes in for SH or Rafale-M in the meantime then that sorta kills off the demand in significant quantities at least until IAC 3/Vishal comes along.

Not saying that we shouldn't go for it because we definitely should, It's a brilliant learning opportunity and hopefully will be the mainstay of our Naval Aviation in the future but the demand for it is a little less clear as opposed to MWF/AMCA who would likely be inducted right away in huge quantities

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 18 Jan 2021 07:59

Kakarat wrote: https://twitter.com/VamsiVamy/status/13 ... 5534697474

If one looks carefully at the preliminary design of TEDBF in the above slide #2, you would notice that the frontal part is shaped more like a stealthy design than LCA.
I am happy as this is what I wanted, the RCS of TEDBF should be between Rafale and AMCA and only catering to stealth through shaping of the front fuselage would have achieved it.
Thank GOD that Indian Navy is more resourceful than other services to better use the $ provided to it through budget.
I bet that if we do the same to our MK2 also, we can sell it as a budget single engine 5th gen aircraft with a pod or two to carry missiles/bomb.
Now i would like to listen to all those people who wanted us to throw TED-BF project in to dustbin and focus all our energies on AMCA.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Jan 2021 13:42

anyone has the link for Dr Satish Reddy's talk? This TEDBF design looks fabulous!!

LakshmanPST · Post by **LakshmanPST** » 18 Jan 2021 13:47

Kartik wrote:anyone has the link for Dr Satish Reddy's talk? This TEDBF design looks fabulous!!

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7835&start=160#p2479604

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Jan 2021 14:15

LakshmanPST wrote:
Kartik wrote:anyone has the link for Dr Satish Reddy's talk? This TEDBF design looks fabulous!!
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7835&start=160#p2479604

Thank you!

Ankit Desai · Post by **Ankit Desai** » 19 Jan 2021 04:56

Stealthy TEDBF Sneak Peek into the design

-Ankit

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jan 2021 12:26

KSingh wrote:I knew the 29K fleet was in trouble but never thought they would be as troubled as they are, 4 losses in 4 years, the second this year

TEDBF is the only saviour the navy has, I hope they appreciate it

How about Naval LCA as interim while gaining operational experience to feed the TEDBF?

sajaym · Post by **sajaym** » 19 Jan 2021 15:07

Ankit Desai wrote:Stealthy TEDBF Sneak Peek into the design

[youtube]fsBVsU9A-TY[youtube]

-Ankit

Minor nitpick, in the video they have used the 3d image of the mirage 4000 fighter.

ramana wrote:How about Naval LCA as interim while gaining operational experience to feed the TEDBF?

There are two parts in your question which can be answered separately:

1. The IN has categorically indicated that they consider the NLCA as an SUPW project. Their 'interim' is the Rafale, FA-18 or (worse case scenario) more Mig-29Ks to replace attrition losses.

2. That said, they might now extensively allow NLCA testing from both their carriers so as to speed up the TEDBF development cycle.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jan 2021 09:09

How many Naval LCA planes are there? Two?
Sorry what's SUPW?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 20 Jan 2021 09:32

ramana wrote:How many Naval LCA planes are there? Two?
Sorry what's SUPW?

If it is Kendryia Vidyalaya reference then it is Socially Useful Productive Work

bharathp · Post by **bharathp** » 20 Jan 2021 10:04

ramana wrote:How many Naval LCA planes are there? Two?
Sorry what's SUPW?

more like a craft project that keeps kids busy but the end product usually ends up in the trash.
as @pratyush said - Socially Useful Productive work. other famous expansions were "some useful period wasted"

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jan 2021 10:25

Thanks. If so they are sadly mistaken.

yensoy · Post by **yensoy** » 20 Jan 2021 10:45

I think HAL is wasting its time on TEDBF unless it has full buy-in from IN.

A fighter aircraft has a sliver of an export potential even if IAF doesn't accept it. Fortunately, Tejas has been inducted, there are orders and a clear roadmap for the future. An air force fighter has the benefit of being required and produced in large numbers.

A carrier fighter doesn't have the numbers to support its production - we would need like 60 or 80 at the most? A carrier fighter has zero export potential given the rarity of militaries with aircraft carriers (and those who have them are head and shoulders ahead of us in MIC). And most importantly if there is no willingness or enthusiasm from the customer, all the effort is for naught.

If HAL/ADA's resources are spread too thin, TEDBF should be the first one to be cut. OTOH if IN is willing to give it the support the program needs potentially leading to firm orders without prejudice, and the aircraft is a logical derivative of the Mk1/a-Mk2-AMCA line, then the program may be able to stand on its legs.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 20 Jan 2021 10:59

we will have a 3rd/4th carrier in some time (we are a 3 Trillion economy, in 5/6 years -6 trillion - We can afford it). TEDBF is good for the next 30-40 years and one may need 160-180 of these when all said and done. Not a bad number. Now full buy-in from IN, that could be altogether a different story.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 20 Jan 2021 11:08

The 60 to 80 number not being enough is a false argument I am afraid. If you look at the line item wise cost of components of aircrafts. Then you will find that the Airframe is amongst the lease expensive items for any aircraft.

Most of the other items can be shared with the ORCA or MWF if indeed they are 3 separate aircraft programs at this juncture. EG engines, mission computer EW systems, the Radar, the weapons.

So its not really a major issue.

However, I am not 100% sure that ORCA and TEDBF will be different programs in the long run. They should be a common program with 2 separate customers from the project sanction stage itself. Or AMCA can have a Naval counterpart from day one.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 20 Jan 2021 12:19

yensoy wrote:I think HAL is wasting its time on TEDBF unless it has full buy-in from IN.

A fighter aircraft has a sliver of an export potential even if IAF doesn't accept it. Fortunately, Tejas has been inducted, there are orders and a clear roadmap for the future. An air force fighter has the benefit of being required and produced in large numbers.

A carrier fighter doesn't have the numbers to support its production - we would need like 60 or 80 at the most? A carrier fighter has zero export potential given the rarity of militaries with aircraft carriers (and those who have them are head and shoulders ahead of us in MIC). And most importantly if there is no willingness or enthusiasm from the customer, all the effort is for naught.

If HAL/ADA's resources are spread too thin, TEDBF should be the first one to be cut. OTOH if IN is willing to give it the support the program needs potentially leading to firm orders without prejudice, and the aircraft is a logical derivative of the Mk1/a-Mk2-AMCA line, then the program may be able to stand on its legs.

The IN is on board with the TEDBF program. And why wouldn't they be? They get to define the exact set of requirements they want from a brand new design. Few services have that luxury, most have to make do with what's available and adapt to them.

But yes, best case scenario would be where the IAF comes onboard the program at some stage for an IAF variant with changes to airframe and landing gear for reducing empty weight and removing the wing folding mechanism. That will give them an indigenous Rafale class fighter that they can buy in the numbers they want.

kit · Post by **kit** » 20 Jan 2021 13:49

Kartik wrote:[quote="yensoy"
The IN is on board with the TEDBF program. And why wouldn't they be? They get to define the exact set of requirements they want from a brand new design. Few services have that luxury, most have to make do with what's available and adapt to them.
But yes, best case scenario would be where the IAF comes onboard the program at some stage for an IAF variant with changes to airframe and landing gear for reducing empty weight and removing the wing folding mechanism. That will give them an indigenous Rafale class fighter that they can buy in the numbers they want.

Yes absolutely., they can design in growth potential for a fully stealth variant for the future requirements just like what the Koreans have been doing !., its a good thing that they started early., the numbers do not really matter since as rightly pointed many of the systems are already in development for Tejas Mk2 and AMCA !!

LakshmanPST · Post by **LakshmanPST** » 20 Jan 2021 14:21

Regarding TEDBF:-
> It will 'probably' have both Canards and DSI...
> Configuration will be frozen mostly by mid-2021...
> Roll-out 'may be' by 2025 and first flight by 2026...
> Most technologies already developed... Only major new technology is wing-folding... So, don't expect to skip deadlines...
> NP1 and NP2 are 'active' and are doing off-nominal trails at SBTF Goa to get inputs for TEDBF...
> NP5, Production standard Naval LCA, will also join the trails from April 2021...
> Most trails at SBTF and few will be done on Carrier...
> These trails will reduce the testing time of TEDBF...

nam · Post by **nam** » 20 Jan 2021 15:43

I find it nice that the naval version was proved with only 2 prototype. The 3rd one is the Production type. This gives me confidence that MK2, TEDBF prototypes will come with maximum production details in place.

We will not see TD, PV, LSP then SP...

Regarding IAF's participation, it needs something to replace Su30 with. GoI is not going to allow it to import 260 replacements or more Rafale. Nor can it replace all with AMCA, due to cost and loadout requirements.

It still needs a mud mover. So it will be ORCA or an unmanned version of ORCA. IAF saying no at the moment is purely to prevent any issues trying to get Rafale. It knows GoI is waiting for an excuse to kill MRCA 2 or more Rafale imports.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 20 Jan 2021 17:22

Some more details on TEDBF from Dr Girish Deodhare's interview with Anantha Krishna..

TEDBF and LCA Navy Mk1 updates and salient points:

Navy has now got the confidence that we can build a carrier based aircraft in the country. Thanks to the Carrier compatibility trials that were successful with LCA Navy Mk1, the Navy now has the belief in the capability to build a carrier fighter. ADA is working with the Indian Navy on the TEDBF.
- The configuration of TEDBF is in preliminary stage and has not yet been finalized.
- There are iterations of design with the Indian Navy to finalize the design.
- Mid-2021 is expected time by when TEDBF configuration will be frozen and then the design activities will move further.
- This will be a replacement for the MiG-29K.
- Much bigger fighter than LCA Navy Mk1, with twin engines and wing fold.
- Rollout of TEDBF MAY be by 2025 and first flight by 2026.
- Naval Project Office is responsible for the Navy's liaison activities with ADA for TEDBF. the NPO is now being augmented to make it much more effective.
- Deadlines will not be skipped for the Tejas Mk2, AMCA and TEDBF programs. LCA deadlines were skipped primarily because we were developing technologies along the way.
- NP1 and NP2 were supposed to go for another detachment but could not due to Covid.
- NP5 which is a production standard prototype of LCA Navy Mk1 will be joining NP1 and NP2 by April.
- All 3 will be going to Goa for more tests to generate data that will be used for TEDBF.
- Currently only abnormal trials or test cases are being taken up, such as missed approach, approaching with a bank angle, etc. to see what needs to be designed to cater to these test cases.
- By doing a lot more testing on NP1, NP2 and NP5, TEDBF tests can be much lower as TEDBF would have been designed after taking into account all the experience from NP1, 2 and 5.
- The tests will be mostly at SBTF at INS Hansa, Goa and some on the carrier. Carrier time is very precious and has to be utilized fully. Last time, within 5 days, 18 take-off and landing cycles were completed.
- Most important aspect is not to over-design naval aircraft, since naval aircraft are heavier than land based aircraft and to make sure that you don't make it excessively heavy to take care of the loads, that is where the optimal line needs to be drawn and that's what's being done at SBTF.

LakshmanPST · Post by **LakshmanPST** » 20 Jan 2021 17:23

nam wrote: Regarding IAF's participation, it needs something to replace Su30 with. GoI is not going to allow it to import 260 replacements or more Rafale. Nor can it replace all with AMCA, due to cost and loadout requirements.

It still needs a mud mover. So it will be ORCA or an unmanned version of ORCA.

Su30s would be needing replacement only starting from 2045...

Once Tejas Mk2 is ready for production in 2026, ADA should start working on a proper 6th generation platform and related concepts...
ADA got full 20 years to design and develop this combat system...

There will be major developments in these 20 years and entire battle space will change...
Su30s should be replaced as a whole by 6th generation combat systems like 6th Gen Fighters, UCAVs, Unmanned wingmen etc. etc. rather than 4.5 Gen mud-movers...

With Tejas Mk2 and MMRCA coming in numbers, IAF will have enough mud-movers...
IMO, 4 sqdn ORCA + 2 sqdn Rafale would be ideal replacement for MMRCA... But replacement for Su30s should be next generation weapons...

nam · Post by **nam** » 20 Jan 2021 17:38

MMRCA 2 is kyali pulav. It is not coming.

If IAF gets a cheaper platform like TEDBF, which will provide similar capability, IAF will replace older/Non-upgraded Su30 with them.

IAF has been crying how Su30 is expensive to maintain. It is possible they might replace some with MWF. IAF is twin engine heavy force. They cannot continue like this. Su30, Rafale, Mig29, Jag, AMCA etc.. They need more MWF or cheaper twin engine like TEDBF.

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 21 Jan 2021 01:29

nam wrote:MMRCA 2 is kyali pulav. It is not coming.

If IAF gets a cheaper platform like TEDBF, which will provide similar capability, IAF will replace older/Non-upgraded Su30 with them.

IAF has been crying how Su30 is expensive to maintain. It is possible they might replace some with MWF. IAF is twin engine heavy force. They cannot continue like this. Su30, Rafale, Mig29, Jag, AMCA etc.. They need more MWF or cheaper twin engine like TEDBF.

ORCA if built will cost no more than $60-$65 million USD. It will be way cheaper than Rafale in every way possible.

Also it can share some of the Ground handling equipment and spares of LCA/ AMCA. In whatever way one looks ORCA is a win win for IAF.

nam · Post by **nam** » 21 Jan 2021 03:30

Not just ground handling, majority of the parts and engine will be similar to mwf and amca.

Cheaper parts due to numbers, ground crew able to easily switch b/w jets and lower pilot training cost.

A pilot flying mwf will easily go in to ORCA. The cockpit will be for all practical purpose be similar. Same software as well.

50% pilot needs over Su-30.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 21 Jan 2021 04:56

Kartik wrote: - Deadlines will not be skipped for the Tejas Mk2, AMCA and TEDBF programs. LCA deadlines were skipped primarily because we were developing technologies along the way.
- NP1 and NP2 were supposed to go for another detachment but could not due to Covid.
- NP5 which is a production standard prototype of LCA Navy Mk1 will be joining NP1 and NP2 by April.
- All 3 will be going to Goa for more tests to generate data that will be used for TEDBF.
- Currently only abnormal trials or test cases are being taken up, such as missed approach, approaching with a bank angle, etc. to see what needs to be designed to cater to these test cases.
- By doing a lot more testing on NP1, NP2 and NP5, TEDBF tests can be much lower as TEDBF would have been designed after taking into account all the experience from NP1, 2 and 5.
- The tests will be mostly at SBTF at INS Hansa, Goa and some on the carrier. Carrier time is very precious and has to be utilized fully. Last time, within 5 days, 18 take-off and landing cycles were completed.
- Most important aspect is not to over-design naval aircraft, since naval aircraft are heavier than land based aircraft and to make sure that you don't make it excessively heavy to take care of the loads, that is where the optimal line needs to be drawn and that's what's being done at SBTF.

Big kudos to Navy for supporting ADA with NLCA trials...amazing foresight being shown by IN.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 21 Jan 2021 11:27

26 tons for shipborne without cat takeoff is probably the limit.

For IAF the MTOW can go up by 4-8 tons. It can carry more fuel and have far greater legs. If the fuel reaches 8-9 tons for land-based ORCA, it can easily replace MKI. It may not carry 8 tons of ordinance, but if it manages 5 tons to the same distance in a far refined package, it will be worth it. MTOW of FA18 is 33 tons with dual f414s.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 21 Jan 2021 13:33

Cybaru wrote:26 tons for shipborne without cat takeoff is probably the limit.

For IAF the MTOW can go up by 4-8 tons. It can carry more fuel and have far greater legs. If the fuel reaches 8-9 tons for land-based ORCA, it can easily replace MKI. It may not carry 8 tons of ordinance, but if it manages 5 tons to the same distance in a far refined package, it will be worth it. MTOW of FA18 is 33 tons with dual f414s.

I think that the land based ORCA will have adequate internal fuel as is. The Naval requirement is far more stringent to have adequate fuel reserves for the pilot to be able to make multiple approaches and missed traps on the carrier. A naval pilot won't have a diversionary airfield to go to in case of bad weather. That was one of the big reasons why the IN was not keen on a small light single engine fighter.

The IAF may ask for changes, but in most cases, those should just relate to an optimized lighter airframe for land-based operations. ORCA would have air to air refueling and OBOGS in any case, so as long as tanker support is available, should be able to fly/loiter for several hours.

ORCA would be more of a Typhoon like fighter with EJ200s replaced by F-414s, rather than the Super Hornet class, which is not optimized for land based operations.

D.Mahesh · Post by **D.Mahesh** » 21 Jan 2021 18:07

bharathp wrote:
ramana wrote:How many Naval LCA planes are there? Two?
Sorry what's SUPW?
more like a craft project that keeps kids busy but the end product usually ends up in the trash..."

Yeah that's the IN is getting ASTE to depute the world's best test pilot to put the NLCA thru its paces.

D.Mahesh · Post by **D.Mahesh** » 21 Jan 2021 18:08

BRF is badly missing the ruler and discipline of Dr.Shiv

bharathp · Post by **bharathp** » 21 Jan 2021 20:20

D.Mahesh wrote:
bharathp wrote: more like a craft project that keeps kids busy but the end product usually ends up in the trash..."
Yeah that's the IN is getting ASTE to depute the world's best test pilot to put the NLCA thru its paces.

I was only replying to ramana garu asking "what is SUPW".
I did not mean that NLCA testing is an SUPW project. - thats not my view. you are snapping back at the wrong person.

if you ask me, even if it is just a testing phase, the learning is invaluable for us.

D.Mahesh · Post by **D.Mahesh** » 22 Jan 2021 08:31

Some Useful Periods Wasted
We have not eaten Raw Marbles

Although SUPW entered CBSE after I finished +2 thanks to that Raw Marble business, I know a thing or two!
I am moving on!

nam · Post by **nam** » 24 Jan 2021 17:08

Plan to create TEDBF has caused quite a bit of discomfort within Rafale fans on teeter. Opinion vary from India cannot do it to wasting money, just need to buy more Rafale, to why not integrate Indian weapons on Rafale

How can TEDBF/ORCA be cheaper than Rafale one asked? while ignoring that even F414 is cheaper than M88.