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.

 

[Anant]

Untill there are 2 more aircrafts carrier planned in future it is not a viable product . 26 rafales are already planned. Each ac carries 26-30 aircrafrts.Total need for 2 acs is = 52-60. So, basically tedbf is for 26 more. Even if 3rd ac of same vikrant class is made after 10 yrs then the need will be= another 26.total 52 new tedbf, thats economically an unviable product. Even if a supercarrier of 65k ton with 40 more needed, thats still around 110-120 which is not a great no for a product of that value. Other ac operators have their own jets or will buy f35, so it has no export value. Untill airforce joins its not looking good.

Not quite. Between Vikramaditya and IAC-II, you need about 60 fighters (assuming Vikrant operates Rafale Ms). Add in the additional capacity you would need for a 65,000 ton IAC-III, and you can add another 12-15 TEDBF there (you would be freeing up the ones on Vikramaditya, mind you), taking numbers up to 72-75.

Now, the Navy has also long wanted to have shore squadrons. As we continue to build more bases in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and in the Lakshadweep Islands, you will need fighters capable of naval strike roles. Assuming 3 squadrons (minimum) for these adds another 55 to 60 aircraft, taking numbers up to 130 to 135 aircraft. Having a more reasonable 5 shore squadrons would add another 40-ish aircraft, taking numbers up to 175 or so (including attrition replacements).

Oh, and that is just with 3 carriers.

 

[Akshat]

The audacity to bring F35 in the first place - just go and see the way it operates on the carriers.... Forget that which plane around the globe comes even close to F35....u really were SHAMELESS enough to bring F35 in the discussion
Alright how many single engine planes are capable of
' vertical landing' !?
Or let's say how many single engine planes provides the tech F35 has!?
The f*ck , why the he|| I m even mentioning single engine; just tell me any plane leaving F22 which comes even close to this!? Got any answers.....bl00dy idi0t...

' That's the sole reason why Navy is asking twin engine '
🤡

• My question still remains why the he|| did Navy gave an affirmative for a single engine!?
• Why the he|| did they rejected Tejas mk2 when it could easily carry 9 BVRAAM with endurance of 2 Hours on internal fuel!?
• Why they didn't asked for a twin engine jet before.... and are only coming now to the realisation that 2 engine are necessary for carrier operations!?
• What the he|| was Navy smoking while design review of NLCA was happening!? Afterall this is where ADA's all dreamy promises get a reality check!?

Significant advantages u mentioned - more payload, better performance with better engine.... Right!?

A simple question u still haven't answered - how significant is this upgrade!?

U r talking about better radars ....🤡
The radar which is currently operational with LCA mk1a or would be operational with LCA mk1a is as good as proposed F21's radar......

I simply asked.......tech wise what significant things could have changed.....

• Does the proposed model had IRST!? No. Just like mk1a
• Does it have integrated EW suite!? No. Just like Mk1a( pod based)
• Does it had the capability to carry more BVRAAMS when compared to LCA mk1a!? No. Still 5 BVRAAMS atmost.

So what is the significance of the upgrade!? Afterall u r not improving anywhere if I specifically talk about Air combat capabilities......yeah sure the proposed variant could have more ground attack capabilities with as it could have more heavier missiles integrated to it but in air combat.....I literally see no difference...... So what's the use of this useless upgrade!?

Just as I have always said before that design literally sucks.....so much that the Engine would cry ..... because the capability u r asking doesn't actually need this good engine....who cares about ground attack when u have literally air tank of 272 in numbers which can do that with perfection......U r asked for a good food fighter which can defend the skies......and that's what Tejas mk1a is....so what was the d@mn point of that f*cking useless upgrade!? Just to waste money just like how u did with Mig 29 's engines ordered Mirage's upgrade!?

How many planes of any class provide what F35 does huh? Point is that single engine planes can work on carriers. So why the f*ck did you mention single engine planes? Blo0dy idi0t.

All the questions you asked have already been answered. ADA lied to them that these features can be provided in a single engine plane.

Again, what upgrades it provides is pointless. I can give you tens of reasons but that is pointless less. Point is that IAF asked for it and ADA didn’t deliver. Again the point is the same. If you can deliver more than what’s asked in the given time frame, do it. Else give what has been asked for. Time is important, additional features are not. If you can’t deliver the d@mn plane after 2 decades and with thousands of crores wasted, what’s the d@mn point? Answer this.

 

[Ashutosh]

How many planes of any class provide what F35 does huh? Point is that single engine planes can work on carriers. So why the f*ck did you mention single engine planes? Blo0dy idi0t.

All the questions you asked have already been answered. ADA lied to them that these features can be provided in a single engine plane.

Again, what upgrades it provides is pointless. I can give you tens of reasons but that is pointless less. Point is that IAF asked for it and ADA didn’t deliver. Again the point is the same. If you can deliver more than what’s asked in the given time frame, do it. Else give what has been asked for. Time is important, additional features are not. If you can’t deliver the d@mn plane after 2 decades and with thousands of crores wasted, what’s the d@mn point? Answer this.

go and see the way F35 operates from carriers.......no single engine planes can operate from the carrier...ever heard about 'exceptions'. If u r ready to invest the amount when ch was given for F35 development then only u have a right to say ' single engine can operate from carriers '.

ADA lied and Navy is so naive that they even didn't bothered themselves to do a review right!? This is how mature our forces are👏👏👏. ADA is now even claiming that they can operate LCA mk2 from carriers..... forget that bro which development agency around the world don't give false stats.....IAI or TAI..... everyone does that - it's for the forces ....they are the one responsible for checking their statements.

So u have still not answered what the he|| was Navy doing when ADA said they can!?....Why didn't they review anything!? Even small companies review projects before the go and here we have our Armed Forces.....wow just wow.

IAF asked and ADA delivered in the same airframe.....this is what u can't get ...that f*cking design didn't give anything significant over LCA mk1a especially if we take air combat in mind..........and this is the f*cking d@mn reason IAF would be operating 170 LCA mk1a.

That's the exact point I made first....LCA mk1a is necessarily the proposed IAF model......dead weight reduced to about 400kg, this increasing payload...... Radar as good as F21........4BVRAAM just exactly what IAF asked from their proposed model....

Get this d@mn thing in ur head......the proposed model resulted in LCA mk1a only and is necessarily equivalent of that proposed aircraft.