IAF Not Interested in Land-Based Variant of TEDBF, Focusing on AMCA and Tejas MkII

The Indian Navy's vision for a new carrier-borne fighter jet, the Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF), seems to be encountering rough seas from the Indian Air Force (IAF). The IAF has reportedly shown little interest in the Navy's proposal for a land-based variant of the TEDBF, named the Omni-Role Combat Aircraft (ORCA).

Why the IAF Isn't on Board with ORCA​

According to a senior IAF official, developing the ORCA would be redundant. The IAF is already heavily invested in the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), a domestically manufactured 5th-generation fighter jet in the same weight class (around 25 tons) as the ORCA. The AMCA boasts features like stealth technology and advanced avionics, putting it at the forefront of modern fighter jet design.

The IAF has a clear roadmap for its fighter jet fleet. This includes inducting the lighter Tejas MkII fighters (around 17.5 tons) – 200 units are planned – followed by the more advanced AMCA with an estimated procurement of 200 units post-2033. Additionally, they're looking to acquire 97 Tejas Mk1A fighters, bringing their total Tejas fleet to a substantial 220.

When questioned about the possibility of ORCA replacing the Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) program (likely to result in the selection of the Rafale jets), IAF officials highlighted their existing investment in infrastructure and pilot training for the 36 Rafales already in service. They see the ORCA as offering no significant technological leap over the Tejas MkII or AMCA, making it an unnecessary expense.

Navy Sails On with TEDBF​

Despite the IAF's disinterest, the TEDBF program remains a priority for the Navy. The 26-ton TEDBF is specifically designed for operation from India's aircraft carriers, and it's intended to replace their ageing MiG-29K fleet.

Looking Ahead: Collaboration or Separate Paths?​

The IAF's focus on the AMCA and Tejas MkII programs signifies a strategic shift towards self-reliance in 5th-generation fighter jet technology. The Navy's TEDBF program, however, remains crucial for maintaining their carrier-based airpower. Whether the future holds collaboration between the IAF and Navy on a joint carrier-borne fighter jet project remains to be seen.

 

[Anant]

This program was always going to be issue as the total fighters required by the IN is way too small to justify a independent stand alone project,as I had argued way back.
Tejas is only relevant today inspite of so many delays,because of the sheer number of old Soviet jets that IAF needs to replace in a rather short amount of time.
LCA as a project would not have been justifiable if the requirement was only for 40 or so odd jets.
Lastly for those arguing for need for ORCA as a separate program due to the number of fighters needed by IN increasing steadily post induction of IAC-2 and beyond need to take into the timeline of late 2030s where induction of only 5th Gen birds would make any sense.

There is a requirement for 150-ish TEDBF between three carriers and shore squadrons. Moreover, the IAF could even push for getting the Rafale Ms transferred if the TEDBF becomes available in large numbers in the 2030s.

Considering that the Tejas Mk 2 and AMCA were started out with a 120 aircraft potential order book, 150 for TEDBF is more than sufficient to proceed. Moreover, if we could then develop it further into a STOL variant, it could even potentially be deployed in small numbers on the planned MRSV LHDs.

 

[RedHunt]

AMCA is expected only in 2034 with Indian 110kN engines. Its timelines are conservative enough and unlikely to be delayed. Tejas MK2 is a good substitute for MRFA as it has all the tech and features. Also, India has Su30s.

Reason why IAF does not want TEDBF is because it has 2 engines but a small body making it unnecessarily maintenance intensive but unable to carry major load. At best it can be Rafale substitute but Indian plan is for Tejas Mk2 in large numbers as single engine lowers cost of production & operation significantly

Ideally TEDBF should be enlarged to the size of Su30 and pitched to the IAF. AMCA wont be substituting su30.

IAF needs large fighters

 

[Vijigishu ( विजिग्शु )]

IAF isn't expected to be engaged in 3 programs simultaneously. And why worry about numbers for tedbf? Joint utilization of resources under single command is being followed. Remember how Mig29ks from navy were moved to be used in Himalayas during stand off with china. Converting naval jet for air force operation is not difficult.

 

[Anant]

Ideally TEDBF should be enlarged to the size of Su30 and pitched to the IAF. AMCA wont be substituting su30.

IAF needs large fighters

You do realise that just enlarging a jet isn't a thing, right? For you to do anything similar to what you are suggesting, you would have to redesign most of the aircraft, at which point a clean-sheet design may just be better.

 

[Anant]

AMCA is expected only in 2034 with Indian 110kN engines. Its timelines are conservative enough and unlikely to be delayed. Tejas MK2 is a good substitute for MRFA as it has all the tech and features. Also, India has Su30s.

Reason why IAF does not want TEDBF is because it has 2 engines but a small body making it unnecessarily maintenance intensive but unable to carry major load. At best it can be Rafale substitute but Indian plan is for Tejas Mk2 in large numbers as single engine lowers cost of production & operation significantly

The problem with substituting MRFA with indigenous jets is that you would run into supply chain issues with production pretty quickly, which means deliveries would be delayed. That might put the IAF in a tight spot, which isn't ideal.

Oh, and my response to your comment about building 100+ submarines a year since the US and Germany dud that in World War 2: (Reference the article yesterday): You are out of your mind if you are thinking about comparing the complexities of submarines of that period and those of today. Sure, if we wanted to build something like P-51 Mustangs today, even HAL could manage 200-300 of them in a year if they got to it. You have to realise that military equipment has got significantly more complex and significantly more expensive than it was 80 years ago. So, stop comparing submarine construction rates of the 1940s to that of the 2020s.

 

[Anant]

Yes. Naval AMCA will be a good option. But what indian Naval leadership thinking is stealth coating and other stealth features will be affected due sea erosion and rough sea conditions.

That, and the simple fact that a navalised AMCA would be an absolutely terrible STOBAR fighter.

AMCA itself is fairly heavy, and if you add 3-5 tons of weight in navalising it, you will end up with a fighter that is good for CATOBAR operations, but for STOBAR operations, that would entail massive compromises on fuel and/or payload, which would make the jet's utility go down a lot.

 

[AK S]

Which is never gonna happen.

Let MKII fly. Timeline and quality of MK II will decide if and how many more Rafales are needed and bought.

Time will tell. MRFA didn’t happen in two decades!

MRFA is simply way too costly. In that money ($25B-30B), both AMCA, MKII along with the 110KN class of engine can be developed (costing about $10B) and about 200-250 (costing about $15B-20B) of these indigenous fighters can be procured too. Cost is the single biggest reason MRFA may not happen. But for that MKII and AMCA need to fly.

 

[Anant]

US too have Naval version of F-35 Stealth Fighter.

A navalised AMCA is a good fit for CATOBAR operations (other concerns aside). It is also an absolutely terrible STOBAR fighter due to the forced compromises in fuel and/or payload.

 

[AK S]

Because there is no sign of ORCA for another 20 years.

That’s true. But AMCA and MK2 are there and will fly before MRFA RFP.

 

[RedHunt]

This program was always going to be issue as the total fighters required by the IN is way too small to justify a independent stand alone project,as I had argued way back.
Tejas is only relevant today inspite of so many delays,because of the sheer number of old Soviet jets that IAF needs to replace in a rather short amount of time.
LCA as a project would not have been justifiable if the requirement was only for 40 or so odd jets.
Lastly for those arguing for need for ORCA as a separate program due to the number of fighters needed by IN increasing steadily post induction of IAC-2 and beyond need to take into the timeline of late 2030s where induction of only 5th Gen birds would make any sense.

5th generation is highly overrated and only gives desirable performance in limited envelope. A fifth gen fighter only works if its subsystems like radar and BVRs are equally good.

There is hardly any merit in having a 5th gen if you are still flying a weak AESA and firing r77 missiles.

Part of what makes the f22 deadly is the Amraam 120D and APG 77 radar. not just the body.

ORCA in the form of a bigger TEDBF like how Japs made a bigger F16 to replace su30s

 

[Anant]

Rightfully so because IAF needs a bigger and 5th Generation AMCA with all the bells and whistles.
Whereas TEDBF is a smaller version and will not fit in IAF requirements.

Too many fighter development programs at the same time - Tejas Mk IA, Tejas Mk2, TEDBF, and AMCA.
Very difficult for a country like India and failures will be high.

On the top of that IN will be paying dearly through their noses for 26 Rafale-Ms - not less than $8+ billions for them and $2+ billions for their armaments.
Perhaps, IN should use this $10+ billions to develop its own TEDBF and armaments and save money for India and other services procurements needs.

We can't blame IAF.

And what exactly do you expect the Navy to fly off from 2-3 carriers in the 2030s while the TEDBF slowly comes online? The Rafale M procurement is to maintain numbers with two (and later even possibly three) proper carrier air wings.

 

[RedHunt]

Instead of mk2 we should focus on orca. Don't know why IAF is pushing for mk2 so hard.. today or tomorrow anyway we have to replace su-30 and orca will be the best replacement

Both are necessary. Mk2 will replace all medium weight fighters. having 2 engines make them costly to operate.

Enlarged TEDBF is needed to replace Su30

 

[RedHunt]

Funny thing is, both IAF and IN are betting on the wrong horse in the race to produce them their AMCA or TEDBF.

Our beloved HAL.

BTW, what is the latest from Mr. Anantakrishnan?

Not a single Indian Pvt sector has offered themselves to become partner for either AMCA or Mk 2.

HAL is the only saviour

 

[Akshat]

That’s true. But AMCA and MK2 are there and will fly before MRFA RFP.

Unlikely. IAF chief said ApN is likely this year and then RFP will come. AMCA on the other hand is not gonna come for 3 years and won’t fly for 4. Mk2 also is gonna take at least 2 years from this point.

And even when they fly, it will take 15-20 years to induct them.

 

[Akshat]

Let MKII fly. Timeline and quality of MK II will decide if and how many more Rafales are needed and bought.

Time will tell. MRFA didn’t happen in two decades!

MRFA is simply way too costly. In that money ($25B-30B), both AMCA, MKII along with the 110KN class of engine can be developed (costing about $10B) and about 200-250 (costing about $15B-20B) of these indigenous fighters can be procured too. Cost is the single biggest reason MRFA may not happen. But for that MKII and AMCA need to fly.

They don’t need to fly. They need to be inducted. And seeing how Tejas was delayed and how mk2 is outdoing even Tejas in the development cycle, Mk2 and AMCA won’t come till at least 2040. So MRFA becomes existential necessity for us.

 

[AK S]

Funny thing is, both IAF and IN are betting on the wrong horse in the race to produce them their AMCA or TEDBF.

Our beloved HAL.

BTW, what is the latest from Mr. Anantakrishnan?

We are free economy. Your beloved private sector didn’t participate in AMCA even with good amount of Govt cajoling and in the process, few years were wasted. In those few years Mr. Anantakrishnan delivered first flight of MK1A. If you have Dassault and Rafale in your mind, well they have to wait. After all, Dassault took 5 years to deliver first Rafale with all the Indian Enhancements.

 

[RedHunt]

You do realise that just enlarging a jet isn't a thing, right? For you to do anything similar to what you are suggesting, you would have to redesign most of the aircraft, at which point a clean-sheet design may just be better.

the Japanese have made an enlarged F16 called the F2. Even replacing 150 su30s will bring incremental costs down significantly

 

[Ashutosh]

Don’t even know what that means 😂😂

Yep- it's completely packed....no room for further orders

 

[Akshat]

Yep- it's completely packed....no room for further orders

There is far more than enough room. That’s why they are competing in tenders and countries are lining up to place orders. So far no one has faced any delays. French airforce itself gives its own planes if there is any shortfall. So no. It’s not packed and there is far more than that bough room to place as many jets as needed.

 

[kumar]

We are free economy. Your beloved private sector didn’t participate in AMCA even with good amount of Govt cajoling and in the process, few years were wasted. In those few years Mr. Anantakrishnan delivered first flight of MK1A. If you have Dassault and Rafale in your mind, well they have to wait. After all, Dassault took 5 years to deliver first Rafale with all the Indian Enhancements.

Well summarized. We have to be realistic.

 

[NSR]

And what exactly do you expect the Navy to fly off from 2-3 carriers in the 2030s while the TEDBF slowly comes online? The Rafale M procurement is to maintain numbers with two (and later even possibly three) proper carrier air wings.

2 Carriers

Indian Navy has enough Mig-29Ks to keep going until TEDBF comes in.
India has most of the sub-assemblies now developed for Tejas IA and being improved for all programs.

 

[Anant]

2 Carriers

Indian Navy has enough Mig-29Ks to keep going until TEDBF comes in.
India has most of the sub-assemblies now developed for Tejas IA and being improved for all programs.

We have 40 MiG-29Ks. One carrier wing is made up of 26 MiG-29Ks. That means that even if you all airframes available at a given point in time, and you send in trainers and everything to the carriers, you get 1.5 air wings.

 

[Anant]

the Japanese have made an enlarged F16 called the F2. Even replacing 150 su30s will bring incremental costs down significantly

The F-2 is a modified F-16 design, and while larger, is only just larger, and serves in the same role. To modify the TEDBF into a heavyweight fighter that can supplement/ replace the Su-30MKI, you'd need to make it much larger, at which point a simple scale-up doesn't work.

Any design can be enlarged just a bit without fundamentally changing the aircraft's design considerations. A major size increase requires a redesign, since the baseline design considerations no longer hold valid.

 

[Anant]

We are free economy. Your beloved private sector didn’t participate in AMCA even with good amount of Govt cajoling and in the process, few years were wasted. In those few years Mr. Anantakrishnan delivered first flight of MK1A. If you have Dassault and Rafale in your mind, well they have to wait. After all, Dassault took 5 years to deliver first Rafale with all the Indian Enhancements.

The private sector will participate when they see a guaranteed future. They cannot just gamble on shareholder money and hope to make a return in a similar way that PSUs can, since these private sector players will not always get a guaranteed bailout if things go wrong.

That said, HAL and Mr. Anantakrishnan made a lot of tall promises about the Tejas Mk 1A, so don't go down that route. They promised to deliver the first Tejas Mk 1A by the end of March. It only flew three days before that deadline. They are still running behind on Tejas Mk 1A deliveries, and are making nonsensical claims about delivering the first Tejas Mk 2 by the end of 2028, when it is very clear that a full regimen of flight tests takes 4-5 years at the least.

Oh, and the Rafale contract was signed in September 2016, with handovers planned from September 2019. The first Rafale was handed over in October 2019, and after training of crews in France, the first five Rafales were commissioned in July 2020. So, unlike HAL, Dassault actually managed to stick to promised delivery schedules.

 

[Amit]

There must be a synergy between the armed forces be it IAF, Army and Navy. They cannot just work in silos. I respect Navy because they go for in house products unlike IAF and Army who prefer western weapons. Government must invest on these projects handsomly.

 

[Hari Sud]

When India is already acquiring the naval version of Rafale from France, then this development has a lower priority.

 

[Pramkumar]

Is India going to produce 53 fighers per year going forward for next 10 years.

 

[Shrujanam Syama]

The problem with substituting MRFA with indigenous jets is that you would run into supply chain issues with production pretty quickly, which means deliveries would be delayed. That might put the IAF in a tight spot, which isn't ideal.

Oh, and my response to your comment about building 100+ submarines a year since the US and Germany dud that in World War 2: (Reference the article yesterday): You are out of your mind if you are thinking about comparing the complexities of submarines of that period and those of today. Sure, if we wanted to build something like P-51 Mustangs today, even HAL could manage 200-300 of them in a year if they got to it. You have to realise that military equipment has got significantly more complex and significantly more expensive than it was 80 years ago. So, stop comparing submarine construction rates of the 1940s to that of the 2020s.

How will indigenous equipments run into supply problems? The supply problems are a result of imported supply chain, not Indian made parts.

As for making large scale production, regardless of complexity, the parts are made by machines to a good extent which speedens up the manufacturing by the same scale as it has become complex. Do you know that India makes 60 lakh big vehicles like cars, trucks, tractors, buses etc every year and over 2 crore 2 wheelers a year? This is despite all of these increasing in complexity compared to even 20 years back. Do you even understand the scale of automobile production that India does today? Why is it so hard to understand that similar scale is possible in defence too?

As for P51 mustangs, USA produced nearly 5000/year of it. USA used to produce 40k-50k planes every year during WW2. This is over 100 planes per day! And you behave like you are shocked by a number not even 1% of that scale if proposed to be done today! Defence production is less than 0.1% of the peak capacity shown during WW2 because of political reasons to prevent arms race and oil/resource trade route disruption, not because of inability

 

[NSR]

We have 40 MiG-29Ks. One carrier wing is made up of 26 MiG-29Ks. That means that even if you all airframes available at a given point in time, and you send in trainers and everything to the carriers, you get 1.5 air wings.

45 Mig-29Ks and they are going to fly until 2035.
Order some more Mig-29Ks and save $10+ billions and keep going forward.
Accelerate TEDBF program using that money.
Definitely not worth throwing away $10+ billions at all.

 

[Shrujanam Syama]

Ideally TEDBF should be enlarged to the size of Su30 and pitched to the IAF. AMCA wont be substituting su30.

IAF needs large fighters

AMCA is stealth fighter. Su30 is a heavy plane which can carry 10tons of payload! Can you imagine 10 ton payload in a single plane? This is in addition to ~10tons of internal fuel! TEDBF can't be expected to be made that large as that would be like making a new plane