India's TEDBF Naval Fighter Program on Track for Mid-2025 Design Review, To Cost ₹15,000 Crore for R&D Phase

India's ambitious Twin Engine Deck-Based Fighter (TEDBF) program, a cornerstone of the nation's future naval airpower, is progressing steadily towards a Critical Design Review (CDR) by mid-2025. This crucial milestone will assess the program's viability and pave the way for the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) to grant funding approval.

While classified as a 5 Minus Generation fighter, the TEDBF will be a highly advanced platform, leveraging technological advancements from India's AMCA (Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft) program while incorporating specific modifications to meet the unique demands of naval operations.

The TEDBF's research and development (R&D) phase is estimated to cost approximately ₹15,000 crores. This substantial investment reflects the complexity of developing a fighter jet that meets the Navy's stringent requirements for carrier-based operations.

Several factors contribute to the high development cost:

• Naval-specific undercarriage and landing gear: The TEDBF requires specialized landing gear designed to withstand the harsh conditions of carrier landings, including the immense stress of high-speed, short-distance landings on moving decks.
• Carrier compatibility: The TEDBF must meet strict compatibility requirements for carrier operations, including features like tailhook systems and arrestor wires, optimized for safe and efficient deck landings.
• Naval avionics and systems integration: While sharing some avionics with the AMCA, the TEDBF needs custom naval-specific systems, such as maritime radar, sensors, and communication systems, integrated for optimal performance in the maritime environment.

To ensure the program's financial viability, the Indian Navy has committed to procuring 145 TEDBF aircraft. Production is expected to commence by 2034, with the fighters supporting operations across India's three aircraft carriers. This large order will help offset the high R&D costs and make the program commercially viable.

Furthermore, the LCA-Navy (Light Combat Aircraft for the Navy) program, which served as a technological demonstrator for the TEDBF, will provide valuable insights and reduce development risks.

Despite being classified as 5 Minus Generation, the TEDBF will incorporate several advanced features:

• Advanced avionics: The TEDBF will feature highly advanced avionics, long-range radar systems, and cutting-edge sensor fusion technologies for superior performance in maritime environments.
• Semi-stealth capabilities: The TEDBF will possess semi-stealth capabilities, making it more difficult to detect and track.
• AI-assisted operations: The TEDBF will incorporate AI-assisted operations for enhanced situational awareness and combat effectiveness.

These features will make the TEDBF a formidable asset for India's naval defence, significantly enhancing its ability to project power and protect its maritime interests in the Indo-Pacific region.

 

HAL Seeks to Extend HS 748 Avro's Lifespan with Upgrade Proposal, But IAF Opts for Airbus C295 as Replacement Russia Plans to Propose G2G Sale of 60-70 Su-57E 5th-Gen Fighter Jets to India During Putin Visit

[sanket]

Very Good News about TEDBF, Bharat will only select Nation to design devlop & Induct Naval version of Fighter jets

 

[Jagroshan singh]

I never understand, why Indian Navy is not going with naval varient of a true 5th generation platform AMCA, and instead opted for a seperate 5 minus generation program?

 

[zxcvbnm]

I never understand, why Indian Navy is not going with naval varient of a true 5th generation platform AMCA, and instead opted for a seperate 5 minus generation program?

The navy asked, but DRDO said that they needed to change too much to make AMCA naval compatible (they also said something about the stealth coating having problems in the sea, like corrosion or something), so they built an entirely new aircraft for them. 🫤

 

[Prodyut]

If what is above is what we are discussing then it is kindergarten stuff. The Tejas is delayed not because we lacked money or time but because people who had no business to be there led the programs. So TEBDF is a only a face saver as it delays the reckoning. Ask your self why the TEJAS Mk2 projects started 15 yrs ago will perhaps be ready only in 2032. After all it is an extension supposedly of a brilliant Mk1. And they got it wrong. The need is to get DRDO out of the design of equipment. They simply don't know the business.

 

[punit shukla]

TEDBF has higher thrust engine but lower payload than Rafale M, why?

 

[Sandeep]

This is a critical stage where hopefully it will be passed onto the CCS as soon as possible. Now we need to make sure that we manufacture the prototypes as soon as possible to help certify the technology. Once that is done we can start manufacturing them as there is a large requirement for these jets.

It’s also possible that the air force can buy a few squadrons as well to increase our medium weight fighter numbers. This jet will be much better than the Tejas MK2 which is good for defence but to carry out strikes we will need a double engine, well powered, well armed and better capabilities.

 

[Anant]

TEDBF has higher thrust engine but lower payload than Rafale M, why?

Probably because of STOBAR operations, which necessitates a lower payload. Another reason could be the relative size of the aircraft.

 

[Anant]

I never understand, why Indian Navy is not going with naval varient of a true 5th generation platform AMCA, and instead opted for a seperate 5 minus generation program?

1. Stealth coatings don't last well at sea, so availability would be a concern.

2. AMCA is very heavy as it is. Navalising it would add more weight, and given that we operate STOBAR carriers, the payload would be ridiculously low.

 

[Akash Vashisth]

Instead of spending around 20 billion dollars on MRFA. It's better to develop the Omni Role Fighter Aircraft for IAF based on TEDBF. Maybe an extra 500 million dollars will be required to develop the fighter for IAF.

 

[desigandu]

Probably because of STOBAR operations, which necessitates a lower payload. Another reason could be the relative size of the aircraft.

How much difference are the maximum payloads, weights, size, but given GE414s will both produce about 200KN as compared to 150kn for the RafaleMs - of courses stobar vs catobar will have an impact!
Thoughts!
How will TEDBF compare to a F5 RafaleM when both hit around 2035! Are the French upgrading the M88 for F5?