TEDBF or ORCA Updates

[MonaLazy]

You're missing the point.

How? I'm making my point. With sources where possible.

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).

Been there, done that. We have tried this joint approach already, haven't we? With LCA, trainer, N-LCA, N-LCA trainer. India developed a land-based single and twin-seater, carrier-based single and twin-seater. Why not show us some love?

As a result of that evolution we found the N-LCA subpar for actual carrier deployment. Learning from there only we came up with the TEDBF design.

Even the F-35

What Went Wrong with the F-35, Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter?

The F-35 was billed as a fighter jet that could do almost everything the U.S. military desired but has turned out to be one of the greatest boondoggles in recent military purchasing history

www.scientificamerican.com

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

That can be said of anything- not just a fighter aircraft. But a good solution should see you win more, lose less.

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.

Nothing is over-built. That just means there is a compromise elsewhere (hint: payload).

Let's worry about the next 50-60 years for now. It is all Vikrant and Vikramaditya. CATOBAR/EMALs is too far off in IN service to even be relevant today.

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?

All pretty subjective- and biased. Where the Rafale is weak you are presenting that also as a virtue (over-engineered?). Where the TEDBF is strong (MTOW & payload) you are making light of it. There is no CATOBAR IN ACC in next 50 years. Why should we waste time with a design optimized for that environment? Said P5 country also has population equal to Karnataka- by itself that is no barometer to whether we should pursue a marine fighter or not (we already did, I rest my case). TEDBF is very much worth it- how can a French (or any other foreign) fighter be our best foot forward I fail to understand?

What becomes of our strategic independence if our most potent assets are imported?

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

Rafale is already 9.5 tons.

Not Rafale M for sure. Please provide a source for that payload. It is already 1 hard point down and 500 kgs over AF Rafale. Let's also wait on a authoritative source for TEDBF payload.

MTOW need not necessarily translate directly into more payload.

May be, may be not- why assume the worst?

With PBL contracts this is no longer a problem.

Only problem is the cost of such a PBL in the first place. $9B for just 36 Rafale of the air force, $5B for 83 Tejas (including GST!)- never forget, & most of that $5B will be re-invested in India!!

 

[IndianHawk]

Please do expand.

Gripen C payload is aften quoted as 5300 kg in brouchers and lca was said to be under 4 tons only. This was marketing blitz by saab where they always printed the max possible take of payload in very favorable conditions.

While ADA being just a development agency never cared for brouchers comparison by fanboys and quoted only relevant payload for various missions.

But as we saw later we found lca carrying over 4 tons payload in various pics ( some of which I posted on this forum) and in latest brouchers specsheet ADA too started quoting maximum possible figure above 5tons. Thus ending all speculations of lca mk1 being inferior to gripen C .

Further more in indian terrain specifically in laddakh lca can flow with about 3 tons of payload in that rare air thanks to massive delta wings while gripen c will carry much less in those conditions.

( This is also why f16 and f18 were kicked out of mmrca they couldn't perform optimally at leh and laddakh. Payloads were severely restricted. And hence only eurocanards were shortlisted. That's also why MWF retains large wings to help with payload in those situations.)

Saab has done this again and again . There quoted empty weight for gripen E was found to be 1 ton in Finnish tenders compared to what they were openly marketed and fanboys were already calling mk2 specs as overweight just by comparing Swedish brouchers.

On lca mk1 thread you may find all these payload discussion multiple times with pics too.

 

[Gessler]

How? I'm making my point. With sources where possible.

Been there, done that. We have tried this joint approach already, haven't we? With LCA, trainer, N-LCA, N-LCA trainer. India developed a land-based single and twin-seater, carrier-based single and twin-seater. Why not show us some love?

As a result of that evolution we found the N-LCA subpar for actual carrier deployment. Learning from there only we came up with the TEDBF design.

Even the F-35

View attachment 125100

What Went Wrong with the F-35, Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter?

The F-35 was billed as a fighter jet that could do almost everything the U.S. military desired but has turned out to be one of the greatest boondoggles in recent military purchasing history

www.scientificamerican.com

It only goes to show Navy is mixing and matching to see what fits. TEDBF as a solution is no more concrete today than NLCA was in times past.

As of US, like I said the scale of their requirements for each service is so huge that even separate developments make lot of sense. That's why F/A-18 was developed specifically for USN.

But like I also said - nobody else can justify such developments, and nobody does.

UK - F35B same as RAF
France - Rafale-M, air force version is actually modified carrier plane
Russia - Su-33, navalized Su-27
China - J-15, same as Su-33, in turn same as Su-27. Even the new "J-35" is a navalized J-31

That can be said of anything- not just a fighter aircraft. But a good solution should see you win more, lose less.

Agreed - we just don't think the same option is right.

Nothing is over-built. That just means there is a compromise elsewhere (hint: payload).

Let's worry about the next 50-60 years for now. It is all Vikrant and Vikramaditya. CATOBAR/EMALs is too far off in IN service to even be relevant today.

All pretty subjective- and biased. Where the Rafale is weak (over-engineered?) you are presenting that also as a virtue. Where the TEDBF is strong (MTOW & payload) you are making light of it. There is no CATOBAR IN ACC in next 50 years. Why should we waste time with a design optimized for that environment? by itself that is no barometer to whether we should pursue a marine fighter or not (we already did, I rest my case). TEDBF is very much worth it- how can a French (or any other foreign) fighter be our best foot forward I fail to understand?

50-60 years? Are you kidding me?

You want to keep Vikramaditya till 2070-2080? LOL, good luck with that. I'll just say this that the extremely crappy steam turbine+steam boiler+firebrick insulation setup on Kuznetsov that's giving the Russian Navy so much grief & so many problems is the exact same propulsion layout that's on Vikramaditya. Just wait till it starts showing its age toward end of this decade.

We're lucky if that ship doesn't break down before 2030. And maintaining it beyond 2040 will be an absolute nightmare & a money sinkhole. Especially when you consider its actually a pretty crappy design with very poorly optimized aviation complex (compared to IAC-1).

Worst case scenario, we're looking at a IAC-2 in service around 2045, assuming construction starts by 2035. And that's a conservative estimate. Right now it appears IN is tweaking the design to make it smaller & cheaper in the hope they can squeeze it into the budget sooner.

Said P5 country also has population equal to Karnataka-

And a nominal GDP equal to whole of India - your point?

What becomes of our strategic independence if our most potent assets are imported?

Oh come on. Not this again.

A TEDBF fitted with US engines is far far more susceptible to being effected by sanctions or damaging our strategic independence than a Rafale ever can.

 

[Gessler]

But as we saw later we found lca carrying over 4 tons payload in various pics ( some of which I posted on this forum) and in latest brouchers specsheet ADA too started quoting maximum possible figure above 5tons. Thus ending all speculations of lca mk1 being inferior to gripen C .

These links (and brochure) would be helpful for future reference.

 

[IndianHawk]

It doesn't really matter if tedbf has more payload than Rafale or bit less since all these 8-9 ton payload figures are maximum and never used in actual missions.

If a Rafale or tedbf goes for anti ship mission it will probably carry two fuel tanks + 1 large anti ship missiles + 2 sraam for self defence . It will be accompanied with another jet with 4-6 bvr for protection ( air to air battle). No jet is ever fully loaded .

Even the pics with 8-10 bvr are just for showcasing versatility of hard points. In real battle you don't have time to fire so many bvr missiles you would've already merged for dog fighting if your enemy dodged even 1-2 bvr. Unless you're just wasting missiles like porkys by firing them far beyond there NEZ .

 

[IndianHawk]

These links (and brochure) would be helpful for future reference.

This is from HAL

https://hal-india.co.in/Product_Details.aspx?Mkey=54&lKey=&CKey=20

Payload is 5300 ton . No more no less than gripen C.

 

[Aditya Ballal]

You want to keep Vikramaditya till 2070-2080? LOL, good luck with that. I'll just say this that the extremely crappy steam turbine+steam boiler+firebrick insulation setup on Kuznetsov that's giving the Russian Navy so much grief & so many problems is the exact same propulsion layout that's on Vikramaditya. Just wait till it starts showing its age toward end of this decade.

We're lucky if that ship doesn't break down before 2030. And maintaining it beyond 2040 will be an absolute nightmare & a money sinkhole. Especially when you consider its actually a pretty crappy design with very poorly optimized aviation complex (compared to IAC 1).

We should just be happy INS Vikramaditya does not use Mazut like Admiral Kuznetsov as fuel for the boilers and use diesel instead, otherwise we’d have to deal with the same problems as the Russians and the ship which looks like it’s on fire half the time.
IAC-1 is light years ahead of Russian carriers in terms of propulsion and space optimisation for deck ops and aviation facilities.

Edit: For those of y’all who don’t know what Mazut is,
“Mazut is a heavy, low quality fuel oil, used in power plants and similar applications. In the United States and Western Europe, by using FCC or RFCC processes, mazut is blended or broken down, with the end product being diesel. Mazut may be used for heating houses in the former USSR and in countries of the Far East that do not have the facilities to blend or break it down into more conventional petro-chemicals. In the West, furnaces that burn mazut are commonly called waste oil heaters or waste oil furnaces”.
Due to its lower quality it leaves a trail of thick black smoke usually seen with some Russian vessels.

The Strange Reason Why Russia's Aircraft Carrier Leaves Smoke Trails

It's the fuel.

nationalinterest.org

 

[Super Flanker]

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

Yes, correct ,I agree with That point of Yours from my personal Perspective, go for the Indigenous Option(in this case-TEDBF over Rafale-M). It will be better in the Long run to say the least because anyways, TEDBF could potentially have very good export Potential to it also.
And there are many more reasons which make me Support the Indigenous Design.

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

Yeah right. Like the Upcoming INS Vishal Which will Supposively be a 60000 tons+ CATOBAR Aircraft Carrier.

 

[MonaLazy]

It only goes to show Navy is mixing and matching to see what fits. TEDBF as a solution is no more concrete today than NLCA was in times past.

000's of hours of testing on SBTF + landing/takeoffs on Vikky. Can't call that mix and match.

IN is on a steady path to getting the most capable carrier-based fighter. They homed on to TEDBF only after cycling through N-LCA. Why should we doubt the Navy if they feel they are better served by a twin-engined TEDBF?

As of US, like I said the scale of their requirements for each service is so huge that even separate developments make lot of sense. That's why F/A-18 was developed specifically for USN.

But like I also said - nobody else can justify such developments, and nobody does.

UK - F35B same as RAF
France - Rafale-M, air force version is actually modified carrier plane
Russia - Su-33, navalized Su-27
China - J-15, same as Su-33, in turn same as Su-27. Even the new "J-35" is a navalized J-31

US has scale with military toys- there's no denying that! But that is irrelevant to whether India should pursue TEDBF. If we thought it was not worth our while- then such a program would not have existed in the first place. Also remember hvtiaf saying the IN plan is to go from Mig-29K to TEDBF with nothing in between.

50-60 years? Are you kidding me?

You want to keep Vikramaditya till 2070-2080? LOL, good luck with that. I'll just say this that the extremely crappy steam turbine+steam boiler+firebrick insulation setup on Kuznetsov that's giving the Russian Navy so much grief & so many problems is the exact same propulsion layout that's on Vikramaditya. Just wait till it starts showing its age toward end of this decade.

We're lucky if that ship doesn't break down before 2030. And maintaining it beyond 2040 will be an absolute nightmare & a money sinkhole. Especially when you consider its actually a pretty crappy design with very poorly optimized aviation complex (compared to IAC-1).

Worst case scenario, we're looking at a IAC-2 in service around 2045, assuming construction starts by 2035. And that's a conservative estimate. Right now it appears IN is tweaking the design to make it smaller & cheaper in the hope they can squeeze it into the budget sooner.

Why are we applying Vikramaditya's problems (if they exist) to TEDBF? You don't throw out the baby with the bath water. If IAC-2 is still being tweaked on paper that means it is a long long way from seeing service.

And a nominal GDP equal to whole of India - your point?


Oh come on. Not this again.

Point being what UK does is irrelevant to India. Again, why did the Frenchies not say "Oh come on. Not this again." when pursuing the Rafale over hornet/super hornet- even breaking away from EF? Why are the Brits pursuing Tempest when they have access to F-35 variants and the American NGAD when that materializes.

A TEDBF fitted with US engines is far far more susceptible to being effected by sanctions or damaging our strategic independence than a Rafale ever can.

That's a problem and a cure for it is in the offing.

 

[Spitfire9]

Could the same engine (derated where required) be used for AMCA, TEDBF, possible ORCA, later Mk2 production? If so, when would it need to be ready for the production TEDBF? It seems a bit dumb to stick American engines in TEDBF (and a possible ORCA) if it is possible to use the same engine as in AMCA.

 

[Haldilal]

Could the same engine (derated where required) be used for AMCA, TEDBF, possible ORCA, later Mk2 production? If so, when would it need to be ready for the production TEDBF? It seems a bit dumb to stick American engines in TEDBF (and a possible ORCA) if it is possible to use the same engine as in AMCA.

Ya'll Nibbiars The AMCA would require atleats around 200 KN of total Thrust to preforme optimally.

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

Ya'll Nibbiars The AMCA would require atleats around 200 KN of total Thrust to preforme optimally.

Rolls royce one should give 220k total, looks good imo

 

[flanker99]

Ya'll Nibbiars The AMCA would require atleats around 200 KN of total Thrust to preforme optimally.

Dry or wet?..also lets not forget about electrical power future weapons & sensors will be power hungry

 

[IndianHawk]

Could the same engine (derated where required) be used for AMCA, TEDBF, possible ORCA, later Mk2 production? If so, when would it need to be ready for the production TEDBF? It seems a bit dumb to stick American engines in TEDBF (and a possible ORCA) if it is possible to use the same engine as in AMCA.

Can't stop development waiting for a new engine. All development work will be done with engine available now . F414. If an indian engine is ready by the time of production that will be used in serial production if not is engine will continue to be used for initial batches.

 

[Super Flanker]

Its time someone should make a Wiki page on the same.

It's already there Actually for your information. There is already a Wikipedia page on TEDBF. Here you go. The link to the Page.

HAL TEDBF - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

But there is no dedicated page to ORCA Actually Though, I already checked it, there is no Wikipedia page on ORCA.

 

[Super Flanker]

TEDBF: Navy and Air Force might have agreed to commit 150 jets

Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) has been given go head by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to start work on New Twin Engined Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) jet as per latest media reports and as per information provided to idrw.org, Senior officials from both Indian Air Force (IAF) and Indian Navy (IN) were present at the meeting and both have agreed to commit 150 jets jointly before the MOD agreed to give Go head clearance for the New ADA project. While actual numbers of a jet produced might vary since the jet in question is at least 10 years away from entering production. MOD needed a number before another fighter jet program could have got a clearance and as per information provided to idrw.org, the Navy has agreed to procure a minimum of 100 jets for its Carrier-based operations and IAF is willing to commit to procuring 50 jets if the jet meets its Operational requirements. Navy and ADA will head the TEDBF program and most of the orders will come from the Navy, while IAF will be back seat driver in the program. Navy has decided that it now abandon its plans to acquire 57 new carrier-based fighter jets from foreign vendors and instead will buy TEDBF when it’s ready for production from 2030 onwards. IN also plans to replace its current Mig-29k fleet with TEDBF from 2035-40 onwards. IAF version of TEDBF called Omni Role Combat Aircraft (ORCA), will be the same aircraft minus TEDBF’s landing gears, Tailhook, foldable wings some Navy instruments, and electronics. ORCA will also be lighter by 1.5tonnes due to lighter mid and rear fuselage section but there won’t be any major design changes in IAF’s version but it will be identical in terms of design, features, and performance if the project gets a go-head by IAF. The development of ORCA might not be done parallelly but only once TEDBF Prototype is available for testing and evaluation purposes for IAF. IAF has given fully backing Tejas Mk2 and AMCA program and already has committed to procure 100 aircraft types each. Initially, IAF had agreed to procure 200 Tejas Mk2 jet but later curtailed it to 100 jets, which many see was possibly done to make room for ORCA in near future But people close to idrw.org believe that ultimately it will come down to Operational capabilities and cost at the end since both Tejas Mk2 and ORCA will have same avionics, Radar, electronics and engines, it will depend on which of the two will emerge as better aircraft at the end because Tejas Mk2 won’t enter production till 2028 and TEDBF will be ready in 2026, IAF will be a good position to decide on procurement of ORCA by then or continue procurement of Tejas Mk2 beyond 100 jets which already has been committed.

TEDBF: Navy and Air Force might have agreed to commit 150 jets – Indian Defence Research Wing

idrw.org

Seriously? Now Indian Airforce is interested in TEDBF now? Along with the Indian Navy?
I thought they were happy enough with the On-going Tejas Mk2 program only but well I guess I was wrong here.

Can't stop development waiting for a new engine. All development work will be done with engine available now . F414. If an indian engine is ready by the time of production that will be used in serial production if not is engine will continue to be used for initial batches

Yes exactly mate, there is no other choice other than to use imported engine when the Indian one is not developed. We can't just simply delau because of Supply of Indigenous Engine, for the time being, we will have to Import from other countries.

 

[Super Flanker]

Ya'll Nibbiars The AMCA would require atleats around 200 KN of total Thrust to preforme optimally.

Hopefully we will be able to Produce such an Engine Indigenously with maybe a Foreign Partner like Safron or Rolls Royce.
These are the only 2 companies which I am supporting and with one of them we will have to do a joint venture to and design and produce such an Engine which would be used to Power our Future Aircrafts.

 

[Super Flanker]

Rolls royce one should give 220k total, looks good imo

200-215k will be enough for AMCA to perform optimally in my opinion. It will be able to Also Supercruise comfortably Also.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

View attachment 54580View attachment 54581View attachment 54582View attachment 54583

Kuntal Biswas Sir's ji aap ka kauti kauti dhanya waad's .

@Kuntal

This design looks much more realistic than LCA airframe based design. I also think that TEDBF, ORCA, Tejas MK2 should be same jet using common basic airframe to save cost, just like Navy/AF versions of F-18, Rafale have done. So either this design or the TEDBF design should be used.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

I think 1 of these 2 designs should be finalized for TEDBF/ORCA/Tejas-MK2 rather than inflated LCA based design. If common airframe is used for Navy & Air Force then it will save cost like in case of F-18, Rafale, etc. The new jet can simply be called Tejas MK2-A & MK2-N (AF & Naval) or Tejas-2 & Naval Tejas-2.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is 1 more option of Naval AMCA perhaps which can be explored which would be best. Navy also should have a stealth jet, like F-35 variants.