TEDBF or ORCA Updates

[Tshering22]

That's why F-35 has a beast mode which utilizes outer weapon stations (like other 5G birds)
It doesn't have to solely rely on internal bays

There are tonnes of reports around by former military commanders and defence commentators that the range is not enough. Remember we do not use CATOBAR carriers. Neither Vikrant nor the future Vishal will be CATOBAR.

Therefore, we need to see whether it truly makes sense in the Indian context. Our military does not have the budget to go for a CATOBAR 70K tonne carrier nor does it have the politicians who would be willing to dole out extra funds as an exception from the Ministry of Finance (you expect Nirmala Sitaraman to understand this shit?).

 

[Gessler]

Payload. 5th generation jets can't carry sufficient payloads that would be required for strike operations due to internal weaponization. Navy is also confident that true stealth jets would remain out of our region (even when considering J-21 and J-35) for a few more decades as the mainstay.

While I am all for a domestic program, it would be more sensible to ask the Navy to get 50 Rafale-Ms with more internal sourcing at this point OR force them to opt for an AMCA-Navy.

Operating from STOBAR, its very unlikely that TEDBF payload capacities will be appreciably superior to Rafale M operating from same deck.

I'm sure a small difference will be there due to F414s as opposed to M88s but the question is how much - and does such a marginal difference validate the need to take on the risk of developing an entirely different aircraft?

As of IWBs, like already said by others, external stores are always possible.

 

[flanker99]

Operating from STOBAR, its very unlikely that TEDBF payload capacities will be appreciably superior to Rafale M operating from same deck.

I'm sure a small difference will be there due to F414s as opposed to M88s but the question is how much - and does such a marginal difference validate the need to take on the risk of developing an entirely different aircraft?

As of IWBs, like already said by others, external stores are always possible.

In one of the interviews from AI21 the project manager said that adding IWB's will add weight to the design and it won't be medium weight anymore and also make the design more complex which will push the timelines even further .
They want to keep the design as simple as possible to put it in service asap.which is a good approach but im just afraid that it will also make the design obsolete very fast.The Korean approach is better i think built for but not with stealth but can be upgraded later.
Tedbf will most likely also get the 110kn engine so lets see w

 

[Super Flanker]

Does this program even exist? Or only on paper? What evidence is there that it is actually being worked on?

If you are referring to the TEDBF (Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter) Programme,than yes ,it is being Actively worked upon a lot of Progress has been made in it. The Wind Tunnel model of TEDBF was also tested some Time back:

ADA tests TEDBF fighter model in a wind tunnel – Indian Defence Research Wing

idrw.org

India begins wind tunnel testing of Twin Engine Deck Based New Fighter Jet - IFE News Network

The Indian Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) has started testing one of the Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) concepts for the Indian Navy’s next-generation deck-based fighter jet requirement, a scale model of the concept jet for the wind tunnel studies is created, so that the design...

ifenewsnetwork.com

I believe the Wind Tunnel Testing had happened in around the Month of April of 2021.
Also there are many more updates which are coming from time to time with regards with this Project. So it's a project which is a very much "Alive" and being Worked on by our Scientists. All the Evidence is there that it is being Worked upon for your information. So no doubt it's a program which Indeed does exist.

HAL TEDBF - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Now coming to ORCA, frankly speaking, I don't much about this project or what is the Status of ORCA at all to Say the Least from my side. That's all I have to say here. I have literally heard no update on ORCA for a long time so I am inclined to believe that this ORCA program is infact cancelled by the Indian Airforce or Indian airforce is not interested in it at all.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

ORCA project can only move ahead after the first flight of TEDBF which is scheduled in 2026.

In IAF service ORCA can be optimised as a dedicated fighter bomber like Su-34; or a dedicated EW aircraft like Growler. In either case, it wont clash directly AMCA.

 

[MonaLazy]

Operating from STOBAR, its very unlikely that TEDBF payload capacities will be appreciably superior to Rafale M operating from same deck.

I'm sure a small difference will be there due to F414s as opposed to M88s but the question is how much - and does such a marginal difference validate the need to take on the risk of developing an entirely different aircraft?

As of IWBs, like already said by others, external stores are always possible.

Choose Rafale M and pay France billions of euros to integrate Indian weapons & Israeli systems on the plane.

M-88-2 50/75 kN
F414 60/98 kN

20% increase in dry & 30% increase in wet thrust- offset to some extent by F414 being heavier but still it is the same leap from 404 to 414. Since TEDBF will have folding wings which will add weight and reduce payload - we need a higher thrust engine to compensate somewhat.

 

[IndianHawk]

Operating from STOBAR, its very unlikely that TEDBF payload capacities will be appreciably superior to Rafale M operating from same deck.

I'm sure a small difference will be there due to F414s as opposed to M88s but the question is how much - and does such a marginal difference validate the need to take on the risk of developing an entirely different aircraft?

As of IWBs, like already said by others, external stores are always possible.

57 Rafale M would cost us 15-20 billion usd including everything.
That money should be spent on indian aerospace industry.

Next carrier will most probably be Catobar if not emals equipped.

Even if we spend 2 billion on development and each tedbf costs up 100 million per jet we will still build entire 57 under 10billion usd including everything.

 

[Super Flanker]

 

[Gessler]

Choose Rafale M and pay France billions of euros to integrate Indian weapons & Israeli systems on the plane.

As opposed to spending even more money on developing a new plane which may or may not even be delivered on time?

Speaking of timelines, I still don't get how HAL/ADA think they can develop 3 entirely different fighter programs simultaneously, two 4.5 gen and a next gen (MWF, TEDBF & AMCA). This is something Lockheed wouldn't dream of doing.

M-88-2 50/75 kN
F414 60/98 kN

20% increase in dry & 30% increase in wet thrust- offset to some extent by F414 being heavier but still it is the same leap from 404 to 414. Since TEDBF will have folding wings which will add weight and reduce payload - we need a higher thrust engine to compensate somewhat.

Once you factor in that TEDBF at MTOW is almost 2 tons heavier than Rafale, how much payload gain are you actually looking at? 10%? Or even less?

Does it matter when you're operating from STOBAR so cannot fully take advantage of payload anyway?

As of the lifts, it would appear that Rafale-M would fit just fine:


Especially if taken up at an angle. IN used to do this routinely on our older carriers with earlier aircraft.

Even if wouldn't fit, remodeling the lifts & surrounding structure during a periodic refit is a far more feasible & cheaper option than developing a new aircraft, that's for sure. As a general rule, aircraft carriers are built keeping aircraft in mind...to do it the other way round is frankly an a$$-backwards way of doing things.

For the IAC-1 this is definitely possible, as of Vikky, forget it...the ship will be a write-off before 2030 even.

57 Rafale M would cost us 15-20 billion usd including everything.
That money should be spent on indian aerospace industry.

No it wouldn't.

Any purchase of Rafale-M would be just as cheap as a 2nd batch of Rafale for IAF...especially if we go for common logistics & training like in Joint Force Lightning. Even the aircraft in case of Rafale is very similar between AF & Navy variants, with only appreciable difference being different landing gear & tail hook. The airframe is the same.

Even if we spend 2 billion on development and each tedbf costs up 100 million per jet we will still build entire 57 under 10billion usd including everything.

If we are willing to spend only 2 billion on development, then we can kiss goodbye to any hope of TEDBF delivering capability before 2040.

Next carrier will most probably be Catobar if not emals equipped.

Far as I understand, the intent for 57 MRCBF (now reduced to 36 actually) was to provide aircraft for IAC-1 & Vikky - and that seems to be the intent for TEBDF program as well, now that IN is not very confident in the MiG-29K fleet:

For a CATOBAR fighter meant to serve in the 2040s+, the TEDBF design simply wouldn't make any sense. A naval AMCA would, but unfortunately that's not being pursued.

 

[IndianHawk]

As opposed to spending even more money on developing a new plane which may or may not even be delivered on time?

Speaking of timelines, I still don't get how HAL/ADA think they can develop 3 entirely different fighter programs simultaneously, two 4.5 gen and a next gen (MWF, TEDBF & AMCA). This is something Lockheed wouldn't dream of doing.



Once you factor in that TEDBF at MTOW is almost 2 tons heavier than Rafale, how much payload gain are you actually looking at? 10%? Or even less?

Does it matter when you're operating from STOBAR so cannot fully take advantage of payload anyway?

As of the lifts, it would appear that Rafale-M would fit just fine:


Especially if taken up at an angle. IN used to do this routinely on our older carriers with earlier aircraft.

Even if wouldn't fit, remodeling the lifts & surrounding structure during a periodic refit is a far more feasible & cheaper option than developing a new aircraft, that's for sure. As a general rule, aircraft carriers are built keeping aircraft in mind...to do it the other way round is frankly an a$$-backwards way of doing things.

For the IAC-1 this is definitely possible, as of Vikky, forget it...the ship will be a write-off before 2030 even.



No it wouldn't.

Any purchase of Rafale-M would be just as cheap as a 2nd batch of Rafale for IAF...especially if we go for common logistics & training like in Joint Force Lightning. Even the aircraft in case of Rafale is very similar between AF & Navy variants, with only appreciable difference being different landing gear & tail hook. The airframe is the same.



If we are willing to spend only 2 billion on development, then we can kiss goodbye to any hope of TEDBF delivering capability before 2040.



Far as I understand, the intent for 57 MRCBF (now reduced to 36 actually) was to provide aircraft for IAC-1 & Vikky - and that seems to be the intent for TEBDF program as well, now that IN is not very confident in the MiG-29K fleet:

View attachment 125043

For a CATOBAR fighter meant to serve in the 2040s+, the TEDBF design simply wouldn't make any sense. A naval AMCA would, but unfortunately that's not being pursued.

More mtow of tedbf will either increase payload or fuel . In both cases performance will improve upon Rafale.

Naval Rafale is much more costly than airforce one so costs can't be same but will rise significantly. Previous agreement doesn't provide any base facilities near coast , doesn't take into account marine environment related maintenance work . All these will improve costs substantially.

Regarding development budget 2 billion are not standalone as most of the systems for tedbf are already being developed in parallel for MWF , AMCA , su30 upgrade program.

You don't have to budget for aesa development anymore once you have aesa for MWF and su30 upgrade for example . Similarly ew suite , maws,rwr , obogs etc will all be developed already and need to be tweaked a bit for tedbf which will reduce development budget considerably.

Mig29k is going no where . Speculative media rumours are just that. Infact recent report suggests that mig29k will be upgraded with aesa radars to make them more lethal. They will serve till 2040 atleast. After that additional tedbf will replace them on vikramaditya as well.

Naval amca isn't going to happen anytime soon. Using an anti ship missile ( heavy and big) makes stealth useless on naval fighter jet. Similarly use of drop tanks for more range puts stealth at disadvantage.

So tedbf is

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

As opposed to spending even more money on developing a new plane which may or may not even be delivered on time?

Speaking of timelines, I still don't get how HAL/ADA think they can develop 3 entirely different fighter programs simultaneously, two 4.5 gen and a next gen (MWF, TEDBF & AMCA). This is something Lockheed wouldn't dream of doing.



Once you factor in that TEDBF at MTOW is almost 2 tons heavier than Rafale, how much payload gain are you actually looking at? 10%? Or even less?

Does it matter when you're operating from STOBAR so cannot fully take advantage of payload anyway?

As of the lifts, it would appear that Rafale-M would fit just fine:


Especially if taken up at an angle. IN used to do this routinely on our older carriers with earlier aircraft.

Even if wouldn't fit, remodeling the lifts & surrounding structure during a periodic refit is a far more feasible & cheaper option than developing a new aircraft, that's for sure. As a general rule, aircraft carriers are built keeping aircraft in mind...to do it the other way round is frankly an a$$-backwards way of doing things.

For the IAC-1 this is definitely possible, as of Vikky, forget it...the ship will be a write-off before 2030 even.



No it wouldn't.

Any purchase of Rafale-M would be just as cheap as a 2nd batch of Rafale for IAF...especially if we go for common logistics & training like in Joint Force Lightning. Even the aircraft in case of Rafale is very similar between AF & Navy variants, with only appreciable difference being different landing gear & tail hook. The airframe is the same.



If we are willing to spend only 2 billion on development, then we can kiss goodbye to any hope of TEDBF delivering capability before 2040.



Far as I understand, the intent for 57 MRCBF (now reduced to 36 actually) was to provide aircraft for IAC-1 & Vikky - and that seems to be the intent for TEBDF program as well, now that IN is not very confident in the MiG-29K fleet:

View attachment 125043

For a CATOBAR fighter meant to serve in the 2040s+, the TEDBF design simply wouldn't make any sense. A naval AMCA would, but unfortunately that's not being pursued.

Has there been any recent delay in tedbf program? I havent heard of any, only 3-4 months delays across platforms due to covid. HAL actually does decent stuff, dont treat all govt agencies like erstwhile OFB......

 

[Haldilal]

Ya'll Nibbiars

 

[MonaLazy]

As opposed to spending even more money on developing a new plane which may or may not even be delivered on time?

Rafale M is best suited to French Navy requirements. Ask them why they did not go for folding wings or even why they bothered with a whole aircraft at all- when the hornet/super hornet was readily available to them. The French did not stop at just creating the aircraft- the fools went the whole hog and swapped out the F404s with M88!!

What they got for the risk they took is an aircraft tailor-made for their requirement- with parts sourced nationally, an ultra-modern EW suite in Spectra- but we should just throw all such "benefits" away.

Furthermore, looking at its specific suitability Rafale M is designed for CATOBAR ops- as far as IAC-1 & Vikky are concerned why should we suffer the penalties of that design (re-inforced fuselage to handle much larger stresses on the frame and extremely heavy NLG for slingshotting, besides heavy MLG for arresting) for STOBAR ops (only MLG has to be strengthened, not NLG and the fuselage also does not suffer as much stress)- any thing re-inforced as part of the basic airframe & launch mechanism will eat into payload all the time especially when we won't be catapulting them from our own ACCs. Simply put, Rafale M payload under catapult launch vs STOBAR launch under own engine power should see an unacceptable drop- esp as M88s are down on power.

For carrier operations, the M model has a strengthened airframe, longer nose gear leg to provide a more nose-up attitude, larger tailhook between the engines, and a built-in boarding ladder. Consequently, the Rafale M weighs about 500 kg (1,100 lb) more than the Rafale C

Rafale M is the penny-wise, pound-foolish approach.

Speaking of timelines, I still don't get how HAL/ADA think they can develop 3 entirely different fighter programs simultaneously, two 4.5 gen and a next gen (MWF, TEDBF & AMCA). This is something Lockheed wouldn't dream of doing.

Rafale A TD first flight 4 July 1986
Rafale C01 single seat prototype first flight 19 May 1991
M01, the naval prototype, first flew on 12 December 1991

We are not starting from 0. Naval Tejas has put us on a firm footing- that good work needs to come to fruition in the shape of TEDBF. Rafale M purchase will be the death knell for that program.

Once you factor in that TEDBF at MTOW is almost 2 tons heavier than Rafale, how much payload gain are you actually looking at? 10%? Or even less?

Since TEDBF is folding wing- you can accommodate many more of them on the ACC- the whole flight group becomes more effective if you are carrying say 15-25% more fighters. Integrate your weapons with ease. Also as highlighted above- STOBAR TEDBF will carry much more payload than STOBAR Rafale M because of 20-30% more engine power of 2x M88-2s vs 2x F414s and not paying the 500 kg price for CATOBAR design.

More MTOW also means more payload- don't assume it is dead weight.

Also maintaining Rafale M will be a gigantic pain in the rear with supply chain snaking all the way back to France.

 

[Gessler]

Rafale M is best suited to French Navy requirements. Ask them why they did not go for folding wings or even why they bothered with a whole aircraft at all- when the hornet/super hornet was readily available to them. The French did not stop at just creating the aircraft- the fools went the whole hog and swapped out the F404s with M88!!

What they got for the risk they took is an aircraft tailor-made for their requirement- with parts sourced nationally, an ultra-modern EW suite in Spectra- but we should just throw all such "benefits" away.

You're missing the point.

The French didn't develop Rafale just for carrier role. It was a joint AF-Navy program for nearly 300 aircraft total. If we were pursuing a joint program where MRCBF & MRFA requirements were to be met by a common aircraft, TEDBF would have made perfect sense.

But like I said, its not the case.

The ONLY country in today's world that is capable of producing carrier-specific fighter programs is the US....nobody else can or does. Not UK, not Europe, not Russia not even China.

And US can only do it because they have a 10-carrier fleet and the naval requirement alone can justify economically viable development & production...and even they are moving toward a common platform for bulk of future requirements (F-35A, B & C).

Furthermore, looking at its specific suitability Rafale M is designed for CATOBAR ops- as far as IAC-1 & Vikky are concerned why should we suffer the penalties of that design (re-inforced fuselage to handle much larger stresses on the frame and extremely heavy NLG for slingshotting, besides heavy MLG for arresting) for STOBAR ops (only MLG has to be strengthened, not NLG and the fuselage also does not suffer as much stress)- any thing re-inforced as part of the basic airframe & launch mechanism will eat into payload all the time especially when we won't be catapulting them from our own ACCs. Simply put, Rafale M payload under catapult launch vs STOBAR launch under own engine power should see an unacceptable drop- esp as M88s are down on power.

Either way you look at it you're winning some & losing some.

An "overbuilt" Rafale-M designed for CATOBAR ops would be less efficienct from STOBAR carriers sure, but the TEDBF would also become less efficient when operating from IAC-2 due to same reasons.

Way I see it, better to put our best foot forward & deploy that aircraft which gives maximum ability from CATOBAR platform which would be more definitive & capable...as opposed to a STOBAR carrier in short/medium term which besides checking the box of "having a carrier" is not a very efficient model for deploying airpower at all. Every plane you operate will be doing so sub-optimally.

Rafale M is the penny-wise, pound-foolish approach.

I would say its actually other way round. TEDBF is pound-foolish.

When a P5 country with global commitments & tendency to get into expeditionary wars like UK is fine with going without a carrier for several years (before QEC came), I don't see what's with the IN obsession for carriers...or the logic behind developing a new aircraft tailored specifically for STOBAR operations for medium-term - bcuz Navy themselves say that long-term carrier plans are CATOBAR.

So I don't see the wisdom of a new STOBAR-tailored program for mere 50-odd airframes.

Rafale A TD first flight 4 July 1986
Rafale C01 single seat prototype first flight 19 May 1991
M01, the naval prototype, first flew on 12 December 1991

We are not starting from 0. Naval Tejas has put us on a firm footing- that good work needs to come to fruition in the shape of TEDBF. Rafale M purchase will be the death knell for that program.

Since TEDBF is folding wing- you can accommodate many more of them on the ACC- the whole flight group becomes more effective if you are carrying say 15-25% more fighters. Integrate your weapons with ease. Also as highlighted above- STOBAR TEDBF will carry much more payload than STOBAR Rafale M because of 20-30% more engine power of 2x M88-2s vs 2x F414s and not paying the 500 kg price for CATOBAR design.

Nobody disputes that it would be more efficient. Just like nobody disputes Mi-26 can carry way more payload than CH-47F.

The question is - is it worth it?

More MTOW also means more payload- don't assume it is dead weight.

Never seen TEDBF payload figures. Globalsecurity says 9 tons but I can't see a source.

Rafale is already 9.5 tons.

MTOW need not necessarily translate directly into more payload. It has a lot to do with efficiency of design. For example, Gripen C MTOW is only 500kg more than Tejas Mk-1 MTOW, but the payload capacity is 1,400kg more - despite both having same basic engine (F404/RM12). It's because Gripen is simply a more efficient aerodynamic design.

Also applies to what you said @IndianHawk

Also maintaining Rafale M will be a gigantic pain in the rear with supply chain snaking all the way back to France.

With PBL contracts this is no longer a problem.

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

The ONLY country in today's world that is capable of producing carrier-specific fighter programs is the US....nobody else can or does. Not UK, not Europe, not Russia not even China.

HAL Tejas, got 83 orders and was considered a major success. Why do you think HAL wouldnt design an aircraft for 50-60 assured orders if it fulfilled conditions? You seem to be quite underestimating Govt PSUs, not all of them are bad.

 

[Aditya Ballal]

What made you believe initially that it was a refuelling probe bro?
Where is the space for the Drogue and a small safety gap.
Anyways any fighter aircraft design Made in India after Tejas Mk2 TD-1 or 2 will have retractable refuelling probe (allegedly similar to the Jaguars refuelling probe).

 

[Super Flanker]

What made you believe initially that it was a refuelling probe bro?
Where is the space for the Drogue and a small safety gap, any design made in india after Tejas Mk2 TD-1 or 2 will have retractable refuelling probe (allegedly similar to the one on Jaguars refuelling probe).

I am really sorry bro. I am new to all this stuff. So that's Why I didn't know about it lol. So kindly excuse me

 

[Gessler]

HAL Tejas, got 83 orders and was considered a major success.

123 actually. 40 Mk1 + 83 Mk1A.

Why do you think HAL wouldnt design an aircraft for 50-60 assured orders if it fulfilled conditions? You seem to be quite underestimating Govt PSUs, not all of them are bad.

Never said they wouldn't. They would and they will - my issue is that it appears to make little sense economically or timeline wise.

The financial & skilled manpower burden of 3 simultaneous programs is immense. We seriously run the risk of slowing down all 3 programs by dividing up resources from the same limited pool.

 

[IndianHawk]

You're missing the point.

The French didn't develop Rafale just for carrier role. It was a joint AF-Navy program for nearly 300 aircraft total. If we were pursuing a joint program where MRCBF & MRFA requirements were to be met by a common aircraft, TEDBF would have made perfect sense.

But like I said, its not the case.

The ONLY country in today's world that is capable of producing carrier-specific fighter programs is the US....nobody else can or does. Not UK, not Europe, not Russia not even China.

And US can only do it because they have a 10-carrier fleet and the naval requirement alone can justify economically viable development & production...and even they are moving toward a common platform for bulk of future requirements (F-35A, B & C).



Either way you look at it you're winning some & losing some.

An "overbuilt" Rafale-M designed for CATOBAR ops would be less efficienct from STOBAR carriers sure, but the TEDBF would also become less efficient when operating from IAC-2 due to same reasons.

Way I see it, better to put our best foot forward & deploy that aircraft which gives maximum ability from CATOBAR platform which would be more definitive & capable...as opposed to a STOBAR carrier in short/medium term which besides checking the box of "having a carrier" is not a very efficient model for deploying airpower at all. Every plane you operate will be doing so sub-optimally.



I would say its actually other way round. TEDBF is pound-foolish.

When a P5 country with global commitments & tendency to get into expeditionary wars like UK is fine with going without a carrier for several years (before QEC came), I don't see what's with the IN obsession for carriers...or the logic behind developing a new aircraft tailored specifically for STOBAR operations for medium-term - bcuz Navy themselves say that long-term carrier plans are CATOBAR.

So I don't see the wisdom of a new STOBAR-tailored program for mere 50-odd airframes.



Nobody disputes that it would be more efficient. Just like nobody disputes Mi-26 can carry way more payload than CH-47F.

The question is - is it worth it?



Never seen TEDBF payload figures. Globalsecurity says 9 tons but I can't see a source.

Rafale is already 9.5 tons.

MTOW need not necessarily translate directly into more payload. It has a lot to do with efficiency of design. For example, Gripen C MTOW is only 500kg more than Tejas Mk-1 MTOW, but the payload capacity is 1,400kg more - despite both having same basic engine (F404/RM12). It's because Gripen is simply a more efficient aerodynamic design.

Also applies to what you said @IndianHawk



With PBL contracts this is no longer a problem.

Gripen C doesn't have more payload than lca mk1. Swedish just published the max theoretical figure while Ada was conservative with lca payload. There payload capacity is in same ballpark.

 

[Gessler]

Gripen C doesn't have more payload than lca mk1. Swedish just published the max theoretical figure while Ada was conservative with lca payload. There payload capacity is in same ballpark.

Please do expand.