TEDBF or ORCA Updates

[Bajirao]

Instead of wasting money and time on tedbf, navy should start namca from now,this will take hardly five years more but for just five year designing a new jet in my sense not feasible

 

[Bleh]

Tejas Mk2 and AMCA will suffice, yey itna raita kyo phelaney ka.

If navy is not allowed for a third Aircraft carrier there is no use for the TEDBF/ORCA. Just procurement of Rafale/F18 or even additional Mig 29K will suffice. Rather put money into AMCA with a very good indigenous engine and avionics for AMCA. The Navy and Air force can develop it in partnership.

Instead of wasting money and time on tedbf, navy should start namca from now, this will take hardly five years more but for just five year designing a new jet in my sense not feasible

Navy is aware of all issues you are raising. As mentioned in previous posts, HVT confirmed that navy aint looking for a steath jet.

• Instead of putting money on stealth to avoid detection alone while sacrificing firepower/range, they put money on EW to avoid being located & shot-down, as a carrier group itself is very easily detected.
• Heavier naval version stealth jet that already sacrifice internal fuel for weapons payload wont carry enough of either (even if catapulted). AMCA got same max payload as single-F414 MWF, NAMCA will have atleast 1ton lower than that.
• Especially now that 3rd carrier if not cancelled completely, may be STOBAR. So they would prefer a canarded delta with large wing that can takeoff with more load from Sky-Jump.
• And it's impossible to start developing Naval AMCA even before flight testing the AMCA. Starting to modify MWF from 2024-25 to TEDBF is much more feasible.

Be glad they atleast are not trying to sneakily get imported maal.

View attachment 46742
View attachment 46743

this guy got most of the numbers wrong. For 2020 now;

Su30: 262-4 (crashes)
Mig29: 62 ( upgraded to UPG no crash since)
Mirage2000: 47 (after that last crash with 2 test pilots)

MMRCA and ORCA are both 50:50 clusterfucks now. Anything may happen. HVT indicated India might even G2G import some Rafale or Su57 till 2030 if that one goes belly up again... Also 12 more Su30 and 21 mothballed Mig29 are almost guaranteed.

 

[rohit b3]

Scenarios : Will IAF have room for Tejas Mk2, ORCA, and AMCA at the same time?

SOURCE: SATYAJEET KUMAR/ FOR MY TAKE / IDRW.ORG

By 2035, Indian Air Force (IAF) plans to retire nearly 300 front line fighter jets which include 100+ Upgraded Mig-21Bis, 90+ Jaguar Ground Strike aircraft and 110 mix fleet of Mirage-2000 and Mig-29, according to some media reports, IAF also has plans to retire the first batch of 50 Su-30MKIs from 2035 onwards which brings the total tally to 350 jets by 2035, even though we are not factoring in close to 120+ Mig-27s which have been retired from 2010 onwards and are yet to be replaced with the newer planes.

IAF’s current procurement plans involve the purchase of an additional 8 Su-30MKI, 21 Mig-29, 36 Dassault Rafale, 40 Tejas Mk1, and 83 Mk1A along with procurement of 114 jets of International origin. which by 2030 will see the induction of nearly 300 jets plus there will be room for nearly 100 MWF-Mk2 which is already under development and it is expected to enter production by 2026 and could have produced at least 50 jets by 2030.

50 more MWF-Mk2 might come in period from 2030-35 for IAF which will mean that IAF will have around 350 newer generation jets from a period of 2020-2035 when it will be retiring nearly 300 jets in this period and the replacement rate will be one to one for the next 15 years assuming that all the procurements take place in time and deliveries are on schedule.

IAF which has sanctioned strength of a fighter fleet of forty-two squadrons usually requires nearly 800 jets at its disposal for a two-front war with China and Pakistan but even in the 2030-35 period, it will have only 300 jets replacing 300 older jets thus negating any major bump in aerial firepower fleet.

IAF fighter fleet strength in 2030 will rise briefly but by 2035 Jaguar and Mirage/Mig-29 fleet will be flagged for the replacement which will again flatten the growth curve for the IAF in the period unless it decides to prolong this jets in service. By 2035 350+280 Su-30MKI fleet will still make its fleet strength of 630 jets if we assume all Jaguar and Mirage/Mig-29 fleet is retired by then, still IAF will be short of nearly 200 jets even in 2035. IAF will induct AMCA with older F414 engines from 2030 onwards and it is expected that the first 40 jets will be delivered by 2035 when the production for Mk2 will commence but IAF will still be short by over 100 jets even in 2035 assuming all jets are inducted in time and older ones also retired in time. IAF is likely to agree to field at least 50 more MWF-Mk2 from 2035 onwards.


View attachment 46742


View attachment 46743

These are typical fanboy posts by people who think that India is growing money and has unlimited supply.
They havnt even factored in the existing fleets of Trainer variants of fighters like Jaguars, Mirage2000, etc.
Further people who actually even consider 114 fighter jet MMRCA even now should be labelled the leaders of the the fanboy club.
Additional Mig-29 is another joke. Even if IAF ever purchases 21 Mig-29, its parts will be cannibalized to be used on the existing fleet .

 

[sthf]

If navy is not allowed for a third Aircraft carrier there is no use for the TEDBF/ORCA. Just procurement of Rafale/F18 or even additional Mig 29K will suffice. Rather put money into AMCA with a very good indigenous engine and avionics for AMCA. The Navy and Air force can develop it in partnership.

Navy is not allowed 3rd AC FOR NOW. It will happen, if not today then tomorrow. It is a matter of finances not policy.

1) The current requirement was 45 Mig-29K + 40-50 NLCA (Mk1). NLCA (both Mk1 & Mk2) are dropped.

2) Third AC will supposedly have a larger air compliment of some 36 onboard + anywhere between 50%-100% for training and reserves.

3) NAMCA is not happening as per the feasibility report by ADA at the behest of IN.

So, 40-50 (INS Vikrant) + 54-72 (INS Vishal) + 45 (eventual Mig-29K replacement) means that IN's requirment will range anywhere between 94 - 167 fighters in the next 20 years.

Aussies bought Super Hornets for $100 million, flyaway, back in 2007. Rafales are most definitely costlier than that. Mig-29K is a dead end since nobody wants it, not even Russia.

We are talking 20 billion USD at the very least. India doesn't have that kind of money. Even if it did, what is the point of making someone else richer? AMCA development budget is anywhere between $2-$4 billion. Goes to show the REAL price of imported stuff.

 

[Neeraj Mathur]

Instead of wasting money and time on tedbf, navy should start namca from now,this will take hardly five years more but for just five year designing a new jet in my sense not feasible

if you go back some pages on this thread or navy thread there was discussion and articles about navy not wanting stealth aircraft rather it wants twin engine aircraft.

 

[aditya10r]

Possible Scenario if ORCA and AMCA is cleared by IAF for induction for 2035 and also if ORCA never happens

View attachment 46745


Possible Scenario if ORCA and AMCA Mk1 and Mk2 is cleared by IAF for induction in 2040 and also if ORCA never happens

idrw.org .Read more at India No 1 Defence News Website http://idrw.org/scenarios-will-iaf-have-room-for-tejas-mk2-orca-and-amca-at-the-same-time/ .

Why would we replace 120+ Su-30s by 2040?They can easily serve into 2040s and with proper upgrades into 2050s.It does not factor the 12 squadrons(216 jets) of MK2 MWF,rather it only counts 150 of them.

And what makes the author think that we will import jets at 24 per year.LOL.We are doing only 9 jets per year with rafale,its impossible to cross 12 per annum mark with present allocation of budgets.

Also given the size and scope of AMCA program its bound to run into problems.I dont think Mk1 will enter into LSP before 2035 and MK2 by 2040.

The best case scenario for IAF by 2035 is

270 Su-30mki(some 90 upgraded,Assuming we start discussing upgrades around 2024/25 and finalise on what to upgrade by 2027 and actually start working on it around 2030 so 1 squadron per year(18 jets) seems logical).
72-90 Dassault rafale(With present economic situation we can kiss any big ticket purchase a goodbye)
123 Tejas mk1A.
100 Tejas mk2 MWF(assuming it enters production around 2029/30 at rate of 1 squadron 18 jets per year)
100 of combined mig-29 and mirage 2000s(will be too old but we are still flying 30-40 years old mig-21s so this shouldnt be a problem)
50-60 Jaguar(Some of them we produced in earlier 2000s).

That brings the total tally to 715 to 743 jets.Some 40 squadrons.

 

[aditya10r]

Navy is not allowed 3rd AC FOR NOW. It will happen, if not today then tomorrow. It is a matter of finances not policy.

1) The current requirement was 45 Mig-29K + 40-50 NLCA (Mk1). NLCA (both Mk1 & Mk2) are dropped.

2) Third AC will supposedly have a larger air compliment of some 36 onboard + anywhere between 50%-100% for training and reserves.

3) NAMCA is not happening as per the feasibility report by ADA at the behest of IN.

So, 40-50 (INS Vikrant) + 54-72 (INS Vishal) + 45 (eventual Mig-29K) means that IN's requirment will range anywhere between 94 - 167 fighters in the next 20 years.

Aussies bought Super Hornets for $100 million, flyaway, back in 2007. Rafales are most definitely costlier than that. Mig-29K is a dead end since nobody wants it, not even Russia.

We are talking 20 billion USD at the very least. India doesn't have that kind of money. Even if it did, what is the point of making someone else richer? AMCA development budget is anywhere between $2-$4 billion. Goes to show the REAL price of imported stuff.

Now with Communist cough causing a economic downturn and zlich tax revenues we can forget 6 nuclear SSN 3 SSBN 4 LHD and 3rd carrier for a good 5-10 years.

______________________________________

Navy should now focus on present platforms and conventional submarines.

______________________________________

I think AMCA will be navalised once it is accepted into IAF service(around 2040-45).Until then Navy needs to make do with 40 odd Mig-29k for both of its carriers,infact it can do.Both carriers are STOBAR and at once both the carriers wont be at sea.With proper rotations of Squadrons it can make do with 40 jets.

 

[sthf]

Now with Communist cough causing a economic downturn and zlich tax revenues we can forget 6 nuclear SSN 3 SSBN 4 LHD and 3rd carrier for a good 5-10 years.

______________________________________

Navy should now focus on present platforms and conventional submarines.

______________________________________

I think AMCA will be navalised once it is accepted into IAF service(around 2040-45).Until then Navy needs to make do with 40 odd Mig-29k for both of its carriers,infact it can do.Both carriers are STOBAR and at once both the carriers wont be at sea.With proper rotations of Squadrons it can make do with 40 jets.

I believe development money for SSns and SSBNs is either already allocated or it will be. Neither programs are a part of MOD budget. They are run separately under PMO.

Neither LHD nor 3rd AC are an urgent requirement,

AFAIK study conducted by ADA clearly states that AMCA cannot be navalised. Plus I don't think IN wants a repeat of NLCA. Situation is vastly different from when NLCA was conceived to today. IN no longer needs to piggy back on IAF's orders.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

I believe development money for SSns and SSBNs is either already allocated or it will be. Neither programs are a part of MOD budget. They are run separately under PMO.

Neither LHD nor 3rd AC are an urgent requirement,

AFAIK study conducted by ADA clearly states that AMCA cannot be navalised. Plus I don't think IN wants a repeat of NLCA. Situation is vastly different from when NLCA was conceived to today. IN no longer needs to piggy back on IAF's orders.

Can you please provide the source of the claim that concept study of by ADA of navalizing AMCA as unfeasible.
As far as information in public domain is concerned Navy wants TEDBF project to take off now, so that first slight is by 2026 and inducted by 2030. Navy has accepted that NAMCA will get delayed, and will have compromises as a naval jet in terms of payload and range.

 

[sthf]

Can you please provide the source of the clalim that concept study of by ADA of navalizing AMCA as unfeasible.
As far as information in public domain is concerned Navy wants TEDBF project to take off now, so that first slight is by 2026 and inducted by 2030. Navy has accepted that NAMCA will get delayed, and will have compromises as a naval jet in terms of payload and range.

It was on BRF, let me look it up.

Edit: Yeah, couldn't find one. Must have misread or something. My apologies.

 

[aditya10r]

Can you please provide the source of the clalim that concept study of by ADA of navalizing AMCA as unfeasible.
As far as information in public domain is concerned Navy wants TEDBF project to take off now, so that first slight is by 2026 and inducted by 2030. Navy has accepted that NAMCA will get delayed, and will have compromises as a naval jet in terms of payload and range.

The timelines are too tight.

They are basically asking for a new Aircraft from scratch for carrier ops.

 

[Bleh]

The timelines are too tight.

They are basically asking for a new Aircraft from scratch for carrier ops.

Yes and no.
TEDBF idea is as much a new aircraft as MWF was from LCA. In all likelihood ADA will merge AMCA's rear-fuselage with Tejas Mark2, then do some required optimisations based on the overall concept.

A continuous progression.

On the other hand in NAMCA design has to start only after AMCA is flight tested, like NLCA was from LCA Trainer... Otherwise that will be the simultaneous development of a completely new aircraft!

Neither LHD nor 3rd AC are an urgent requirement,

AFAIK study conducted by ADA clearly states that AMCA cannot be navalised. Plus I don't think IN wants a repeat of NLCA. Situation is vastly different from when NLCA was conceived to today. IN no longer needs to piggy back on IAF's orders.

Can you please provide the source of the claim that concept study of by ADA of navalizing AMCA as unfeasible.
As far as information in public domain is concerned Navy wants TEDBF project to take off now, so that first slight is by 2026 and inducted by 2030. Navy has accepted that NAMCA will get delayed, and will have compromises as a naval jet in terms of payload and range.

Any claims by ADA that AMCA cannot be navalized is very possible.

The twin F414 engined AMCA has same payload of 6.5t as single F414 powered MWF (because AMCA is built for stealthy BVR sniping, not maneuverability and small winds help that greatly. LINK)
That is how much difference canards and large wing-area can make!

Thus a much heavier in Naval AMCA will have even lesser effective payload. Tiny NLCA is 1ton heavier, so for larger jet structural reinforcements will be even more.

On top of that, fund crunch will make any 3rd aircraft carrier STOBAR like our present two. N-AMCA might have been able to take off with meaningful combat load by catapults, but from sky-jump it wont be able to take off with neither full internal fuel nor any external load. It'll become basically another A2A only like NLCA.
Here too TEDBF's huge delta-wings will make a massive difference.

An last but not at all the least, a naval strike the jet is supposed to takeoff from a fucking Aircraft-Carrier with limited range carrying that cannot be hidden in internal weapons bays.
THAT IS WHY NAVY DOESNT CARE ABOUT STEALTH!!!

if you go back some pages on this thread or navy thread there was discussion and articles about navy not wanting stealth aircraft rather it wants twin engine aircraft.

 

[scatterStorm]

Yes and no.
TEDBF idea is as much a new aircraft as MWF was from LCA. In all likelihood ADA will merge AMCA's rear-fuselage with Tejas Mark2, then do some required optimisations based on the overall concept.

A continuous progression.
View attachment 46765
The twin F414 engined AMCA has same payload of 6.5t as single F414 powered MWF, because AMCA is built for stealthy BVR sniping, not maneuverability and small wings help there greatly(link).

Can't we have the F414E variant with better T/W and fuel savings? How about the F35C engines. That single big ass PW100 is also a possibility, I read somewhere that it was being offering by PW if we go with F35s.

That being said, I was expecting some more molestation there as well.

 

[Bleh]

Can't we have the F414E variant with better T/W and fuel savings? How about the F35C engines. That single big ass PW100 is also a possibility, I read somewhere that it was being offering by PW if we go with F35s.

F-414 EPE maybe (maybe not), but no better than that.

Loaded F-35 too faces similar issues, has to take off STOBAR with vertical lift-fan, or else needs CATOBAR. With ASM it is as unstealthy as Mig-29K so any attempt to stealth in Naval jets remains a waste of money!

And a design with twin PW1000 (not that we have access to that) would need a whole new jet sized like Su-33, which itself is a failure even though Chink STOBAR carriers have much longer runway.

Nope, TEDBF is the only good option!
I have thought of every other practical possibility, only other scenario is if RafaleM demonstrates sky-jump worthiness with combat load and Navy buys those instead. That too quite unlikely, as RafaleM have almost 40kN less wet thrust than ORCA will.

(And while only valid criticism would be a navy tailor-made concept with limited export potential, maynot be necessary for 2-3 carriers of India, it still may see near 150 units ordered by India alone).

 

[Steven Rogers]

• Heavier naval version stealth jet that already sacrifice internal fuel for weapons payload wont carry enough of either (even if catapulted). AMCA got same max payload as single-F414 MWF, NAMCA will have atleast 1ton lower than that.

Who told you that,AMCA payload will be of carrying upto 3 tons internal and 5 tons on external hardpoints(6)

 

[Bleh]

Who told you that,AMCA payload will be of carrying upto 3 tons internal and 5 tons on external hardpoints(6)

I try not to pull things out of my Allah.

Multiple reliable sources say internal payload is upto 1.5ton, maximum 2×1000lb bombs plus 2×BVRs. Even F22 dont have internal payload of 2ton in total 3 weapons bays... Space is limited.

Also, fund crunch means no CATOBAR. Whether a 1/1.5ton heavier NAMCA will be able to take of sky-jump with meaningful combat load is still doubtful. Let's wait too see if Boeing actually tries to prove it like they boasted with same engined F-18, very similar in size or weight.
ORCA with RafaleM's wing area and 40kN more thrust might just be able to.

External stations dont matter either. Large ordnance like AShM, SoM that can't fit in external pod, means no stealth. So no point waiting for AMCA design completion while you can start earlier, right after MWF.
And the moment a jet is carrying weapons internally, that eating into its internal fuel as well. If it can't retain tell then better carry outside.

 

[Steven Rogers]

I try not to pull things out of my Allah. View attachment 46776
Multiple reliable sources say internal payload is upto 1.5ton, maximum 2×1000lb bombs plus 2×BVRs. Even F22 dont have internal payload of 2ton in total 3 weapons bays... Space is limited.

Also, fund crunch means no CATOBAR. Whether a 1/1.5ton heavier NAMCA will be able to take of sky-jump with meaningful combat load is still doubtful. Let's wait too see if Boeing actually tries to prove it like they boasted with same engined F-18, very similar in size or weight.
ORCA with RafaleM's wing area and 40kN more thrust might just be able to.

External stations dont matter either. Large ordnance like AShM, SoM that can't fit in external pod, means no stealth. So no point waiting for AMCA design completion while you can start earlier, right after MWF.
And the moment a jet is carrying weapons internally, that eating into its internal fuel as well. If it can't retain tell then better carry outside.

Saurav Jha on Twitter said some 2 years ago on AMCA internal payload capacity to be around 3 tons,and ADA director said that AMCA will carry internal DT(may be smaller 725lt)for extended mission...don't know about the F22,but F35 has 2.6 tons of internal payload "capacity". AMCA(NGTD)is atleast on paper is longer and wider than the F35. No their won't be any GEF414 EPE. The AMCA requirement is 110kN class and any new engine which DRDO gonna develop for mid30s requirement will be either under 110kN or just over 110kN thrust but won't be a 120kN thrust class like the proposed F414EPE(WHICH is on paper).Their won't be any NAMCA,the navy will induct TEDBF which again will be a STOBAR aircraft replacing mig29s on INS Vikrant and INS VIKRAMADITYA.
In a tweet,just after the aero India 2019,Sjha said,don't be surprised is AMCA is shown with a EOTS like sensor(till last year it was shown with an IRST),Would be great if they actually make it in the AMCA but anyways only certain bombing missions will be stealthy,something like 2*1000 pounds bombs and 2 bvraam(like the f35 bombed Chinese radar in Syria),heavy bombing will always gonna be unstealthy and only after the air superiority is achieved over enemy sky(that includes shooting down enemy plan and stealth bombing of its front line assets).

 

[Bleh]

Saurav Jha on Twitter said some 2 years ago on AMCA internal payload capacity to be around 3 tons, and ADA director said that AMCA will carry internal DT(may be smaller 725lt)

With all respect to Jha, I think that a 2-year-old tweet on future possibility has good chance to be inaccurate speculation, I prefer conservative claims. Because what would be the point of that?

Even if we be greatly lenient and assume that AMCA will carry a whopping 4×1000lB bombs in internal bay unlike no other (internal tank gotta be lighter than that) and AAMs in external pods...

...still its no more than 1.8 ton internally. If they somehow fit 2×2000lb Spice with 2×BVRs then also maximum possible 2tons.
With 5tons external that makes total 7tons instead, which is likely given the probable wing-size difference. Still barely crossing 6.5tons of MWF which has half its thrust.

No AMCA can never match the sky-jump takeoff payload of TEDBF. Its AF version would easily haul a max payload of 10tons even if powered by regular F414, Rafale does 9.5tons with twin M88.

 

[Steven Rogers]

With all respect to Jha, I think that a 2-year-old tweet on future possibility has good chance to be inaccurate speculation, I prefer conservative claims. Because what would be the point of that?

Even if we be greatly lenient and assume that AMCA will carry a whopping 4×1000lB bombs in internal bay unlike no other (internal tank gotta be lighter than that) and AAMs in external pods...
View attachment 46777
...still its no more than 1.8 ton internally. If they somehow fit 2×2000lb Spice with 2×BVRs then also maximum possible 2tons.
With 5tons external that makes total 7tons instead, which is likely given the probable wing-size difference. Still barely crossing 6.5tons of MWF which has half its thrust.

Naval AMCA can never match the sky-jump takeoff payload of TEDBF.
ORCA would easily haul max payload of 10 ton, even if powered by regular F414. Rafale does 9 ton with twin M88.

Their is a difference bw what a possibility and what can be,MWF won't be carrying 6.5tons of payload on any mission possible(even in the most demanding mission,it would carry based on requirements and weapons than the publicised payload)the actual load will be lesser than what being publicised So as the case with AMCA,on paper,internal bay can carry upto 3 tons of payload,in reality it all comes to the weapons. 2*1000lb spice and 2 Meteor like bvraam would make around 1.5 tons of weapons payload which is what you might be talking earlier while mentioning the maximum payload possible on MWF....Naval AMCA doesn't exist anywhere,TEDBF will be future for next 20 years if the induction starts in the 2030. Payload depends upon the requirements laid by the user. Despite having better thrust to weight than Rafale,Eurofighter carries lesser payload than Rafale.

 

[Bleh]

Their is a difference bw what a possibility and what can be,MWF won't be carrying 6.5tons of payload on any mission possible(even in the most demanding mission,it would carry based on requirements and weapons than the publicised payload)the actual load will be lesser than what being publicised So as the case with AMCA,on paper,internal bay can carry upto 3 tons of payload,in reality it all comes to the weapons. 2*1000lb spice and 2 Meteor like bvraam would make around 1.5 tons of weapons payload which is what you might be talking earlier while mentioning the maximum payload possible on MWF....Naval AMCA doesn't exist anywhere,TEDBF will be future for next 20 years if the induction starts in the 2030. Payload depends upon the requirements laid by the user. Despite having better thrust to weight than Rafale,Eurofighter carries lesser payload than Rafale.

We're saying the same thing, more or less.

But I brought that up because some other people here are remarking how ORCA is pointless, or how its a waste of money... And what not. For them:

• Because AMCA design wont allowed it to carry no/barely more payload than MWF with half its engine power! ORCA will be its bigger iteration with double power, astronomically more likely to emulate Rafale than ET (I trust you agree).
• Because stealth has its uses and situations, so does MTOW of bomb trucks and you can't have both. And proper EW offers just as much protection as stealth.
• Because if we don't fuck it up ORCA would be our Sukhoi-30 replacement but much more reliable, maintainable, available, compatible!