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.

 

[Pad UwU]

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

 

[Pad UwU]

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

 

[Pad UwU]

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

 

[Pad UwU]

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

 

[Pad UwU]

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????

 

[Akshat]

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.

 

[Ashutosh]

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

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

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.

 

[Akshat]

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.

 

[Ashutosh]

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!?

 

[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.