India's Fighter Jet Dilemma: Can the TEDBF Survive Without the IAF?

The Cabinet Committee on Security's (CCS) recent greenlight for the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) signals India's continued determination to achieve self-sufficiency in fighter aircraft production.

However, the AMCA's substantial costs, combined with the TEDBF program's uncertain future, highlight potential issues in India's overall fighter jet development approach.

The AMCA: A Promising but Costly Venture​

Backed by a budget of Rs 15,000 crore, the AMCA seeks to produce a fifth-generation fighter for the Indian Air Force (IAF). The IAF's planned acquisition of 120 AMCA aircraft in MkI and MkII versions shows strong confidence in the domestically developed fighter.

TEDBF: Facing Challenges and Uncertainties​

The Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) program, designed to create a 4.5-generation fighter for the Indian Navy, faces a more precarious path.

Despite a similar development cost (Rs. 14,000 crore), the Navy's current requirement stands at only 45 aircraft. This restricted order could jeopardize the project's financial viability, particularly if the Navy doesn't expand its carrier fleet with vessels like the proposed 65,000-ton IAC-III.

The ORCA Opportunity and IAF's Disinterest​

The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) proposed the ORCA, a lighter TEDBF variant tailored for the IAF.

The ORCA could potentially have met the IAF's procurement needs under the MRFA (Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft) tender, which seeks over 100 jets. The IAF's apparent lack of enthusiasm for the ORCA leaves the MRFA tender open to international manufacturers.

Security Concerns and a Need for Realignment​

The substantial expenses associated with the TEDBF program, alongside the IAF's disinterest in the ORCA variant, raise concerns about the program's long-term security consequences.

A financially strained TEDBF project might severely restrict the Navy's choices for fighter aircraft, jeopardizing its combat capabilities.

India's fighter jet development plans appear to be at a crossroads. The AMCA shows potential, but the TEDBF's uncertain future warrants careful assessment. A more integrated approach, considering the Navy's and Air Force's needs in tandem, could offer a more cost-effective and strategically sound path forward.

 

[RG]

TEDBF must be developed, it is about owning the platform, IP to upgrade it as you wish, and developing talent pool within the country. besides the Aircraft carriers, they should be station in the nearby Island and shore based facilities, increasing the number requirement. ORCA is a good idea that IAF should commit too. The goal should be use to rely in domestic capability. what if there is disturbance in France and supply chain is disturbed.

 

[War is good for business]

The order book will very easily exceed 45. Look at it this way:

Assuming the Navy decides to maintain one naval squadron of the Rafale M rather than deploying them to shore bases, you still need atleast 26+24-ish = 50 or so TEDBF for two carriers. Add in attrition replacements and trainers, and the number crosses 60 easily.

Now, Vikramaditya will be replaced by IAC-III in the 2040s, and if you assume a 65,000 ton carrier there, you would need about 35 TEDBF for that. You already have 26 of those, so add another 9-10. Overall numbers are now at 70.

Now, the Navy has wanted to have dedicated shore squadrons, so if you assume 3 dedicated shore squadrons, that is another 55 to 60 aircraft, taking the order book to between 125 and 130.

Now, if you assume the Navy decides to transfer the Rafale Ms to the IAF (unlikely but possible), that is another 20-ish aircraft needed.

All in all, the TEDBF can easily have an order book of over 100 aircraft, and can even approach 150. It is a viable project, no questions asked.

Navy has ordered 45 initially and has commited to 100 airframes over its production.

 

[War is good for business]

Add few more rafale m and Stop this b*******... If indian navy really thinking about future then amca naval version make a sense..

If you go back to the days of announcement of TEDBF, you will learn that ADA was not confident in making a capable naval AMCA, given the issues that arose in naval LCA. On the other hand a dedicated fifth gen Naval fighter was promised no earlier than 2040. A 4++ gen TEDBF was promised nearly a decade early.

 

[Frank]

Add few more rafale m and Stop this b*******... If indian navy really thinking about future then amca naval version make a sense..

No IAF should go for ORCA and throw out phoren maal mRFA

 

[Frank]

Refer my reply to your main comment for my reply, please. I don't want to type the same thing twice. Thanks in advance.

Again throw out phoren maal MRFA and go for ORCA

150 Tedbf and 200 ORCA is quite viable economically

 

[Frank]

ORCA, if a spin off from TEDBF, would have been a double engined aircraft. But who knows, shaayad IAF waalon ko marnaa hai, in a single engine aircraft, hence Tejas Mk2. Or maybe they are copying PLA-AF's structure of J-10s and J-20s.

Why IAF not interested in ORCA but obsessed with phoren maal MRFA???

If discards MRFA. Go full on ORCA... Full on indigenous

150 Tedbf and 200 ORCA (total 350) quite viable economically. Otherwise CCS will never approve 15k crore for 100 Tedbf development

Why IAF duffers rejected ORCA is insane

 

[Frank]

Because the proposed production schedule ORCA is not practical. Most of the suppliers for ORCA and the Tejas Mk 2 and and AMCA programs would be common, and you can't have someone scale up capacity several times over in a year or two.

If the IAF went for ORCA, it is quite likely a lot of parts and the like would be the major bottleneck, and that would impact production of ORCA, Tejas Mk 2, AMCA, and TEDBF.

Even if we sign MRFA today, delivery will start from 2029 at best. And assuming 10 jet per year it would take 13 years to complete order around 2042. Rafale has already full order book.

If IAF was on board for ORCA in 2016 then first flight was possible in 2032 and production start from 2035. Tejas mk1 delivery complete by then Tejas mk2 delivery half complete And assuming 15 jet per year delivery of ORCA, compete in 10 years around 2045.

2042 vs 2045...not much difference in timeline...

Why IAF duffers rejected orca in 2016...it's insane...

 

[Frank]

TEDBF must be developed, it is about owning the platform, IP to upgrade it as you wish, and developing talent pool within the country. besides the Aircraft carriers, they should be station in the nearby Island and shore based facilities, increasing the number requirement. ORCA is a good idea that IAF should commit too. The goal should be use to rely in domestic capability. what if there is disturbance in France and supply chain is disturbed.

Agree..

Why IAF duffers rejected orca in 2016 is absurd...

The same IAF have no problem using Rafale Ms.. Absolute shameless and easily fool out politicians..

 

[charminar_waale_ismail_bhai]

Agree..

Why IAF duffers rejected orca in 2016 is absurd...

The same IAF have no problem using Rafale Ms.. Absolute shameless and easily fool out politicians..

It could be because ORCA is a Virtual entity whereas Rafale is a physical entity.

 

[Frank]

It could be because ORCA is a Virtual entity whereas Rafale is a physical entity.

Tejas mk2 is virtual
Amca is virtual
TEDBF is virtual

 

[Ut]

For any country, airforce is the first party they developed fighter jet for. India should follow same. We should not put money to every other dream. We already have mk1a, mk2, amca mk1 amca mk2 total 4 programs running. Navy should go for more Rafael with airforce. Once we r confident of building fighter jet for airforce we will then have ground to stand on and aim for naval fighters as well.

 

[charminar_waale_ismail_bhai]

Tejas mk2 is virtual
Amca is virtual
TEDBF is virtual

Yeah man, HAL has a Midas' touch. Anything that HAL eyes, turns into virtual entity.
HAL is preparing for the war of future, where battles will be fought more in the virtual space than in the physical space.

 

[vinod nair]

If it's 100 percent indigenous why worry. We have to modify amca to tedbf minus stealth and deck landing and short takeof

For prospective F35 alpha, brava and Charlie weight is 9980 kg, 10660 and 10880 respectively. And as my reading stealth eats into aerodynamic aspect of AC so even with higher weight it will be better in mtow then amca

 

[Akshat]

AMCA is the must program here......
Question here is LCA mk2 or ORCA .......

because again TEDBF is the must program here unless ADA can optimise AMCA and reduce the already low weight of this stealthy MRFA.......

Some idiots think of 'Navalising' AMCA ...... only if they had some practical knowledge about this;

#U CAN EASILY MODIFY A NAVAL AIRCRAFT TO AN AIRFORCE AIRCRAFT BUT ITS TIMES HARDER TO GO WITH THE 'VICE VERSA'...... BECAUSE NAVALISING' ADDS THE WEIGHT STRAIGHT TO ABOUT 4-5 TONS.....

This fiasco again shows our so- called foresighted forces immaturity........LCA mk2 should have been dropped in the favour for ORCA. A joint development should have started with sole concentration on this instead of 2 different projects. This could have saved time, money and could have been times more efficient.

Now do we have the room to rectify the mistakes!?

Absolutely not.
LCA mk2 is times ahead of TEDBF only..... modifying TEDBF to ORCA would take around 5-7 years.....
By then LCA mk2 atleast would have 4 Squadrons operational.

Again this mistake won't hurt much..... afterall a single engine ORCA is necessary for an Airforce....F16 ,J10, Gripen, Vigen are prime examples

Again blaming the forces for the faults of ADA/HAL.

First, Navy. Navy was content with the specs which ADA had promised for LCA. It failed to meet the specs that Navy needed and ADA promised. That’s why Tedbf was born in the first place, in 2019.

Coming to IAF. Again, IAF never asked for this fancy shancy mk2. They were pretty clear. Elongate the fuselage and install a new engine (and of course, make any changes needed to make the plane work with these changes). This was back in 2005. But the idiots at HAL took 14 years just to make the older LCA mk1 work. Forget mk2, which is on the drawing board already for some 19 years with HAL wasting 1000s of crores.

So no. It’s not the short sightedness of the forces. It’s the laziness of the DPSUs and DRDO (and the lies and failures).

 

[Akshat]

For any country, airforce is the first party they developed fighter jet for. India should follow same. We should not put money to every other dream. We already have mk1a, mk2, amca mk1 amca mk2 total 4 programs running. Navy should go for more Rafael with airforce. Once we r confident of building fighter jet for airforce we will then have ground to stand on and aim for naval fighters as well.

There are only 3 countries which develop planes for airforce as well as navy (excluding Russia). IS makes different planes for both (except F35). China developed separate planes as well. France developed first for navy.

 

[Akshat]

We are gling for complete indigenisation of our fighter fleet. Like what china started 15 years ago.

And the aircraft that you mentioned will be developed over 15 year timeframe. Tejas mk1a enter production now. Tejas mk2 enter production in 6-7 years, amca enter production in 10-12 years and TEDBF enter production in 13-15, years.

Wrong timelines. Tejas mk2 in 2035+, AMCA in 2040+ and same for tedbf. That’s the most optimistic scenario.

 

[Akshat]

If you go back to the days of announcement of TEDBF, you will learn that ADA was not confident in making a capable naval AMCA, given the issues that arose in naval LCA. On the other hand a dedicated fifth gen Naval fighter was promised no earlier than 2040. A 4++ gen TEDBF was promised nearly a decade early.

It’s not that ADA wasn’t confident. Navy actually commissioned a feasibility report with ADA. While the findings of the report ain’t public, the fact that N-AMCA wasn’t pursued and Tedbf was makes it clear that N-AMCA wasn’t found feasible.

 

[Akshat]

Indian-Govt needs to encourage (pressure) a JV b/w IAF & IN to invest in:-

1. TEDBF (ORCA)
2. AMCA

If both IAF keeps it's obsession with MRCA then in the longterm, India as a Nation will pay it's price.

Continous investment in Tejas-Mk1 is the reason why India now has the ability to develop Combat Jets.

I truly understand that IAF leadership wants to boost their combat squadron strength with the goal to avoid any major loss in any foreseeable Indo-Pak or Indo-China conflict.

Now, the decision lies with the Indian political leadership.

No please. Make everyone buy what they asked for. This will ensure dedicated equipment, economies of scale and much higher synergy. If navy needs more planes, make them buy tedbf. If IAF asks for more, they can order mk2 or AMCA. No mix and match.

 

[Baiju Bhaskaran]

Spending money on developing Naval aircraft is viable only if we are planning to go for four or five aircraft carriers. Even if we decide for five aircraft carriers,we cannot reach that quantity atleast for the next twenty five years. Till that time TEDBF will become obsolute.Since IAF is in no mood to cancel MRFA and they need MK2,AMCA and everything, the best option is to go with Rafale for MRFA and order additional 70 no's Rafale M for the Navy. Both to be assembled, built or screw drivered here whatever it is and cancel the TEDBF program altogether. Going by the present geopolitical situation in the world, we will need huge numbers of aircrafts in the next five years.

 

[Sentoki]

Seems like no one in MOD & Defence.in can do math. 14000 crore INR is about $170M US for development cost. Which is about the fly away cost of two fighter planes. For context, we paid $8B for 36 Rafales and are likely to pay $5B for 26 Rafale-M.

The cost of development of TEDBF even for just 45 planes will pay off many times over. Plus not relying on foreign OEMs for future weapon Integrations/Upgrades etc over the life cycle of the fighters.

All the LRU's developed for MK2, AMCA can be used and iteratively improved between the three platforms.

Last but not least there will come a time when the SU-30 MKIS will need to be replaced and IAF will likely come to their senses by then for an ORCA version.

In summary the only folks for whom this development does not make financial sense is the import lobby.