numbers over 50 means for both the carriers, we can say goodbye to Teddy then
Given that there is no clear plan for IAC2, it means it is a good 10 years away
at least. I don't see TEDBF getting ready anytime before AMCA, as it is a low-observable Naval fighter, and will share a lot of components with AMCA, so the 2030-32 timeline
if we are extremely hopeful.
If we buy brand new 57 fighters,then the requirement for TEDBF will be reduced from 100 aircrafts to 40 you know. Then it won't be economical to develop a brand new fighter.
IAC1 can carry 26 jets, and IAC2 will probably carry a bit more (30-36?), I don't see 57 fighters as an unreasonable requirement.
Plus, the current maritime strike role is delegated to Air Force using Jaguar and Su-30MKI, which in the future (post-2030? after Jaguars and Su-30MKI start to retire) should be taken care of by the Navy instead.
So it makes sense for Navy to maintain 5-6 Sqns for carrier-ops, and another 3-4 Sqns for dedicated Naval warfare roles (Naval strike, EW, sea-dominance, etc.).
Rest assured, the Navy by far is the most visionary and indigenous-system-focused force, so they won't just ditch TEDBF.