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.
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 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
this guy got most of the numbers wrong. For 2020 now;
These are typical fanboy posts by people who think that India is growing money and has unlimited supply.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
Navy is not allowed 3rd AC FOR NOW. It will happen, if not today then tomorrow. It is a matter of finances not policy.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.
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.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
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.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/ .
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 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.
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.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.
Can you please provide the source of the claim that concept study of by ADA of navalizing AMCA as unfeasible.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.
It was on BRF, let me look it up.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.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.
Yes and no.The timelines are too tight.
They are basically asking for a new Aircraft from scratch for carrier ops.
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.
Any claims by ADA that AMCA cannot be navalized is very possible.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.
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.
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.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).
F-414 EPE maybe (maybe not), but no better than that.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.
Who told you that,AMCA payload will be of carrying upto 3 tons internal and 5 tons on external hardpoints(6)
- 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.
I try not to pull things out of my Allah.Who told you that,AMCA payload will be of carrying upto 3 tons internal and 5 tons on external hardpoints(6)
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.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.
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?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)
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.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.
We're saying the same thing, more or less.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.