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

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.
 
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
Would be great...
But countries like US, Russia, China order 200-400+ fighters of a single design. Indian aircraft development will never mature with limited orders from IAF (120 for Tejas Mk 2, AMCA).
HAL here says they have the capacity of 26 aircrafts per year, and are yet to show stable production rate like that.

Navy needs 90 TEDBF. IAF has a shortage of min. 11 squadrons already (31 instead of 42). By 2040, 12 more squadrons will be retired (MiG 29, Mirage, Jaguar). This means at least (23×20=)460 fighter jets will be needed by 2040.

With this performance, HAL will be unable to provide 550 jets in 15 years (35+ jets per year). There is a dire need of more infra, and better plannings. For this again there should be proper order numbers from Armed Forces. (Then private sector will also gain interest)
 
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).
Pls elaborate some specs that Naval LCA promised but couldn't achieved......the question is simple here - Was Navy not smart enough to realise that a twin engine fighter is necessary for carrier operations......no point in blaming ADA here , they are even ready to modify LCA into everything.. point is that the modification won't be efficient.

Ok, u always come to this point now I am just gonna end it here.
let's compare the realised new LCA mk2 vs the proposed model of IAF
  • 9 BVRAAM vs 5 BVRAAM { 9 BVRAAM would be the highest of available single engine fighters in world - the most near is Gripen E with 7 BVRAAMS}
  • 13 HP vs 9 HP{ Effective for weapon load- 11 vs 7}
  • 2 specific wingtip for wvraam vs 0 wingtip
  • Higher payload
  • Much higher endurance with effective payload - ability of carrying 6 BVRAAMS, 2 WVRAAMS and 3 DTs simultaneously.{ Just to highlight - F16 in total with no drop tanks at its highest can carry 6 BVRAAMS only, while LCA mk2 simultaneously carries 3 DT + 6 BVR= A little idea of its capabilities}
  • higher manevourability
I can say a lot more but I would stop now and rather give a more important point:

Of the ' proposed ' LCA mk2 of IAF the only significant improvement over baseline Tejas was A LITTLE MORE fuel carrying capacity........ And Maybe a little payload.

In short, LCA mk1a is necessarily the ' proposed LCA mk2 ' of IAF..... afterall when compared with baseline Tejas - it too has better endurance, turn rate , dead weight, tech ...,......

I hope you get it- the proposed model u keep talking about is necessarily the LCA mk1a.....and LCA mk2 is totally a new class compared to any models of LCA either proposed by IAF or ADA.

IAF would be able to deploy new LCA mk2 against China - can't the say the same about the 'proposed ' modelh
 
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.
Error in your math. 14,000 crores works out to around 1.7 billion USD, not 170 million USD. That said, it is still a reasonable sum for a naval fighter.
 
Ditch TEDBF and concentrate manpower as well as resources on AMCA. TEDBF is nothing but Rafale M with wingfolding. Just TOT Rafale for MRFA and build the 45 Rafale M after that or in parallel. ADA has made a mockery of aerospace R&D in the country. They have made it a jobs programme for entitled scientists. Tejas m2 is not even doing taxi trials and ADA head said yesterday that they will do first flight by 2025 which everybody knows is impossible especially for DRDO lot. Tejas mk2 intakes have serious design problems and that is the reason they are in france's onera for testing. Tejas mk2 is a dud and will not fly. I hope HLFT-42 can be made into a fighter in place of Tejas mk2. I curse this man Dr Girish Dheore. He gave a clean power point stating that he is going to run three aircraft programme at the same time with every significant event happening an year apart for the respective aircraft. But just retires the next year which was not mentioned in the PowerPoint. They talk as if they are gods among men and their words will manifest into reality automatically. It was a playbook pulled out from Genesis chapter 1 where God created the world in 6 days verbally and went to rest the last day.
 
India needs to develop the TEDBF as it's a crucial necessity to increase our fire power at sea and we can't use this jet for the Air Force as it doesn't meet their technology requirements. India will order more carriers and bigger sized carriers so we will need more than just 45 jets and we need to develop it indigenously to cut down on the foreign expensive imports and become more self reliant in developing our own weapons, equipment and technology.
 
AMCA Naval would be a heavy ( now I request don't go to wiki and compare weights - Naval fighters are specifically modified and are rather heavy than air force variants), high maintenance, budget eater with low availability.......

TEDBF makes sense.......IN has the futuristic approach here not IAF who could have asked for a joint development of TEDBF/ORCA instead of LCA mk2.
Do you think it's sensible to stop working on a plateform that you created after decades in pursuit of projects that are well in advance ? This is ridiculous. If nothing else Tejas mk2 makes sure that our nation has a stable programme to keep achieving level ups from time to time.
India can afford (for sometime) to derail tedbf/orca or amca but not Tejas development bcoz we are on the edge of achieving something truly remarkable for our nation's learning about self made fighter jet. You can't jump from ground to 10 stories high if you stop the ladder in between.
 
Tejas MK1A not delivered,Tejas MK2 nowhere in sight,AMCA still on drawing board,MRFA if completed would also rely on HAL as main Assembly,Su30MKI and MIG29 upgrade still showing no progress, Now this TEDBF/ORCA. Don't you think HAL/ADA is biting more than it can chew. Yes call me import lobby or enemy of India. But let IAF choose what's it's need rather than us sitting in our house deciding what IAF should buy and fight with.
 
Add few more rafale m and Stop this b*******... If indian navy really thinking about future then amca naval version make a sense..
Kakakakak 😹😹😹😹
AMCA naval version would be miracle if it can sustain flying if no proper customization applied in it especially AMCA is not designfor navy from the start
 
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.
LMAO I'll correct some of your comment...
Tejas mk1a enter slow production but still have some delays time to time.
Mk2 might enter pre slow production in 2030 but realistic figure is 2035

AMCA would not be produce until a working prototype is being shown flying and ready same goes to TEDBF no working prototype... By the time of 2035 is the era of 6gen aircraft and our AMCA might be obsolete before it can be produce
 
AMCA MK1 itself is 5.5th Gen & AMCA MK2 is 6th Gen Upgraded Features.where did ORCA stand when world would have started Inducting 6th gen . AMCA MK2 will b comparable with 6th Gen Fighter jets.
Nope AMCA mk1 is same as others as 4.5gen... only f22 and f35 is the real 5gen aircraft full fledge when it's first version is in production
 
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.
Kakakakak I highly doubtful on this.... Government branch doesn't have unity that's why we have so many projects scattered around
 
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.
Orca and TEDBF is same only orca is lighter
 
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
Bruh how can they optimize AMCA when there's no any working prototype that are being tested..... Or are you saying they testing AMCA in virtual concept computer that needs super computer????
 
Pls elaborate some specs that Naval LCA promised but couldn't achieved......the question is simple here - Was Navy not smart enough to realise that a twin engine fighter is necessary for carrier operations......no point in blaming ADA here , they are even ready to modify LCA into everything.. point is that the modification won't be efficient.

Ok, u always come to this point now I am just gonna end it here.
let's compare the realised new LCA mk2 vs the proposed model of IAF
  • 9 BVRAAM vs 5 BVRAAM { 9 BVRAAM would be the highest of available single engine fighters in world - the most near is Gripen E with 7 BVRAAMS}
  • 13 HP vs 9 HP{ Effective for weapon load- 11 vs 7}
  • 2 specific wingtip for wvraam vs 0 wingtip
  • Higher payload
  • Much higher endurance with effective payload - ability of carrying 6 BVRAAMS, 2 WVRAAMS and 3 DTs simultaneously.{ Just to highlight - F16 in total with no drop tanks at its highest can carry 6 BVRAAMS only, while LCA mk2 simultaneously carries 3 DT + 6 BVR= A little idea of its capabilities}
  • higher manevourability
I can say a lot more but I would stop now and rather give a more important point:

Of the ' proposed ' LCA mk2 of IAF the only significant improvement over baseline Tejas was A LITTLE MORE fuel carrying capacity........ And Maybe a little payload.

In short, LCA mk1a is necessarily the ' proposed LCA mk2 ' of IAF..... afterall when compared with baseline Tejas - it too has better endurance, turn rate , dead weight, tech ...,......

I hope you get it- the proposed model u keep talking about is necessarily the LCA mk1a.....and LCA mk2 is totally a new class compared to any models of LCA either proposed by IAF or ADA.

IAF would be able to deploy new LCA mk2 against China - can't the say the same about the 'proposed ' modelh
I am s!ck and tired of asking you to read the DAP at this point. If you gas read it, you would know how procurement works in case of DRDO. Navy would have provided its list of requirements to ADA (either on its own or on the basis of a proposal). Then ADA would have done a feasibility study and agree to those specs (specs may have been modified in discussions but some final specs would have been agreed upon). The fact that the project got a go ahead and Navy gave its carriers and officers for testing shows that ADA agreed to the specs and Navy tested them and it failed.

Now unofficially (I don’t have an official source but this is accumulated knowledge from talking and reading various ex navy officers), IN had said that it needs 2 hours of endurance and 6 A2A missiles. Tejas couldn’t manage even 50 minutes properly and 4 missiles only.

Does LCA mk2 have a new engine or an extended fuselage? That is what IAF asked for. The payload capacity and all are same as FOC Tejas. Nothing improved. And the engine most importantly. Where is the new engine? That’s what IAF asked for.

So hope you got the point. HAL and ADA wasted decades and didn’t give the simple stuff IAF asked for. They just started a new program to hide their own failure. IAF would have deployed the proposed model against China today if it was available. Can’t say the same about the proposed ADA model.
 
I am s!ck and tired of asking you to read the DAP at this point. If you gas read it, you would know how procurement works in case of DRDO. Navy would have provided its list of requirements to ADA (either on its own or on the basis of a proposal). Then ADA would have done a feasibility study and agree to those specs (specs may have been modified in discussions but some final specs would have been agreed upon). The fact that the project got a go ahead and Navy gave its carriers and officers for testing shows that ADA agreed to the specs and Navy tested them and it failed.

Now unofficially (I don’t have an official source but this is accumulated knowledge from talking and reading various ex navy officers), IN had said that it needs 2 hours of endurance and 6 A2A missiles. Tejas couldn’t manage even 50 minutes properly and 4 missiles only.

Does LCA mk2 have a new engine or an extended fuselage? That is what IAF asked for. The payload capacity and all are same as FOC Tejas. Nothing improved. And the engine most importantly. Where is the new engine? That’s what IAF asked for.

So hope you got the point. HAL and ADA wasted decades and didn’t give the simple stuff IAF asked for. They just started a new program to hide their own failure. IAF would have deployed the proposed model against China today if it was available. Can’t say the same about the proposed ADA model.
Bro, what you don't get us why in the first place Navy have an affirmative to N- LCA.....
The TEDBF thing sole reason to come existence is just to satisfy Navy needs of a 'TWIN ENGINE 'fighter.....or else LCA mk2 can rather carry 3 DT which can extend its range to almost 4000kms while carrying 6 BVRAAMS..... perfectly answering what Navy asked from LCA but Navy declined it and rather asked for a sole ' Twin Engine Carrier optimised aircraft ' - This is what they are asking now.......where were these requirements 2 decades ago !? Why the he|| did they go with N-LCA when nowhere in the world u would see a single engine combat aircraft being operated from carriers......are they dis dumb!?

U wrote LCA mk2 there - maybe u meant LCA mk1a........
So just simply answer what is better from LCA mk1a then the proposed model by IAF of LCA mk2.......what significant advantages did the proposed model had over LCA mk1a!?

When it comes to LCA mk2 it rather is totally different class - A Gripen E class fighter - MWF in global market........while the proposed model was still LCA only.......is IAF dis dumb that they were asking for literally meaningless upgrade there!!?

The extension of fuselage and better engine - all it could have done was - a better internal fuel capacity+ payload capacity - with no increase in HP .......so what's the point when LCA mk1a is addressing the same.......I simply asked u one question and instead of answering that u got into a different $hit.....
So let me ask u again!?

What were the significant advantages of proposed LCA mk2 over LCA mk1a!?

And the last thing u said- c'mon bro the proposed model didn't even have IRST ......its not even worthy stand infront of J10 only - let alone J16 or J20
 
Bruh how can they optimize AMCA when there's no any working prototype that are being tested..... Or are you saying they testing AMCA in virtual concept computer that needs super computer????
That was rather a meaning less point- what it meant was:

First get AMCA operational with AF
Let Navy evaluate it and ask for its optimisation.
 
Bro, what you don't get us why in the first place Navy have an affirmative to N- LCA.....
The TEDBF thing sole reason to come existence is just to satisfy Navy needs of a 'TWIN ENGINE 'fighter.....or else LCA mk2 can rather carry 3 DT which can extend its range to almost 4000kms while carrying 6 BVRAAMS..... perfectly answering what Navy asked from LCA but Navy declined it and rather asked for a sole ' Twin Engine Carrier optimised aircraft ' - This is what they are asking now.......where were these requirements 2 decades ago !? Why the he|| did they go with N-LCA when nowhere in the world u would see a single engine combat aircraft being operated from carriers......are they dis dumb!?

U wrote LCA mk2 there - maybe u meant LCA mk1a........
So just simply answer what is better from LCA mk1a then the proposed model by IAF of LCA mk2.......what significant advantages did the proposed model had over LCA mk1a!?

When it comes to LCA mk2 it rather is totally different class - A Gripen E class fighter - MWF in global market........while the proposed model was still LCA only.......is IAF dis dumb that they were asking for literally meaningless upgrade there!!?

The extension of fuselage and better engine - all it could have done was - a better internal fuel capacity+ payload capacity - with no increase in HP .......so what's the point when LCA mk1a is addressing the same.......I simply asked u one question and instead of answering that u got into a different $hit.....
So let me ask u again!?

What were the significant advantages of proposed LCA mk2 over LCA mk1a!?

And the last thing u said- c'mon bro the proposed model didn't even have IRST ......its not even worthy stand infront of J10 only - let alone J16 or J20
Bro…Navy gave the go ahead for NLCA. It provided the specs and the carrier and officers. It knew from the start that NLCAis a single engine plane. So single engine or twin engine is not the issue. Issue is that ADA lied and told them that NLCA will meet the requirements. That is the sole issue here. NLCA never carried 3 DT and 6 missiles from the carrier. Why did ADA lie that it can? Where was its inability 2 decades back? That’s the sole reason Navy is now asking for twin engine.

As for single engines, how many engines F35 has? Are you this dumb in the first place?

The significant advantages were a new engine and enlarged body. That means more thrust, more payload, more fuel, better radars etc. That all is not possible with Mk1a.

Mk2 might be a star ship. But is it available? If you can make something better on time, by all means go ahead. But delivery is the key. Where is the d@mend plane? Nowhere. That is the issue. If you can’t deliver the moon, stick to the basics.

I asked you a simple question and instead of answering that you got into all this $hit. So I ask again.

When IAF didn’t want all these bells and whistles and the anted a simple plane on time, why the he|| did ADA waste thousands of crores and decades?

Also, how much difference is there in payload of FOC Tejas and mk1a? Answer this please.
 
Bro…Navy gave the go ahead for NLCA. It provided the specs and the carrier and officers. It knew from the start that NLCAis a single engine plane. So single engine or twin engine is not the issue. Issue is that ADA lied and told them that NLCA will meet the requirements. That is the sole issue here. NLCA never carried 3 DT and 6 missiles from the carrier. Why did ADA lie that it can? Where was its inability 2 decades back? That’s the sole reason Navy is now asking for twin engine.

As for single engines, how many engines F35 has? Are you this dumb in the first place?

The significant advantages were a new engine and enlarged body. That means more thrust, more payload, more fuel, better radars etc. That all is not possible with Mk1a.

Mk2 might be a star ship. But is it available? If you can make something better on time, by all means go ahead. But delivery is the key. Where is the d@mend plane? Nowhere. That is the issue. If you can’t deliver the moon, stick to the basics.

I asked you a simple question and instead of answering that you got into all this $hit. So I ask again.

When IAF didn’t want all these bells and whistles and the anted a simple plane on time, why the he|| did ADA waste thousands of crores and decades?

Also, how much difference is there in payload of FOC Tejas and mk1a? Answer this please.
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!?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
2,464
Messages
18,236
Members
938
Latest member
jild
Back
Top