India's TEDBF Naval Fighter to Feature a Revolutionary Swash Plate AESA Radar with a 100° Field of View

India's ambitious program to develop a domestically produced carrier-based fighter jet, the Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF), is set to incorporate a highly advanced radar system.

The new fighter, being developed by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) for the Indian Navy, will be equipped with an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar mounted on a swash plate, expanding its field of view to an impressive 100 degrees and placing it among the world's elite naval aircraft.

This development marks a significant technological leap for India's indigenous defence capabilities.

The current generation of homegrown AESA radar, the Uttam, offers a field of view of approximately 60 degrees. While effective, this is narrower than the systems found on leading international aircraft.

The introduction of a swash plate mechanism, which physically repositions the radar array, allows the TEDBF to achieve a scanning range comparable to modern fighters like the Saab Gripen E, Eurofighter Typhoon, and the F-35, ensuring a distinct operational advantage.

For a naval pilot, this wider detection arc provides critical battlefield superiority. The swash plate design enables the radar to track targets over a much broader area without needing the aircraft to change its flight path.

This results in superior situational awareness, allowing the pilot to detect and engage hostile threats earlier and more effectively during complex maritime combat scenarios.

This capability is vital for fleet air defence, where carrier groups must defend against multiple, fast-approaching threats from various directions.

The radar system is further enhanced by the use of cutting-edge Gallium Nitride (GaN) transmit/receive (T/R) modules. Developed by the DRDO, GaN technology offers greater power efficiency, superior thermal management, and increased reliability compared to the older Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) modules.

This allows the radar to detect smaller targets at longer ranges and provides better resistance against electronic jamming attempts by adversaries.

The integration of this advanced AESA radar is a crucial step in ensuring the TEDBF can counter sophisticated aerial threats for decades to come.

As the Indian Navy prepares to operate the TEDBF from its aircraft carriers, including INS Vikrant, this powerful sensor will be central to its role in interception, air-to-air combat, and strike missions.

This achievement not only strengthens the Indian Navy's future combat readiness but also highlights India's growing self-reliance and maturity in developing next-generation defence technologies.

 

Defence Minister to Address Commanders on Navigating Defence Transformation Amidst a Constantly Changing Global Landscape

Analysis  Should IAF Embrace Interim Rafale F4 for Immediate Needs or Await F5 with M88 T-Rex Engine and Loyal Wingman for Next-Gen Combat

[Mc Addy]

Tech upgrade is the key to battlefield success and since Op Sindoor , all are excited about made in Country , defence hardware. No one imagined ,this type of interest nationwide and world wide as nuclear armed nations have never gone to direct war , but say whatever India and Pakistan did the impossible, we went all out with what's possible and we won that contest with ease . So now all look forward to what's coming from our home kitchen.

 

[sanket]

Very nice. One cartoon was not agreeing on this SWAH plate being developed by DRDO for Super Sukhoi Virupaksha. This is an eye-opener article for that cartoon, who was talking big, big, and that too in the air. At that time, I was telling him DRDO had developed a similar SWAH plate to what Gripen and Eurofighter have. My words are becoming true.

 

[Somnath Sinhababu]

TEDBF will be the biggest mistake by the Navy... you will realise it later... By building the TEDBF, you will spend the same amount or more on a 5th gen jet... AMCA Naval is the best option for the Navy... already building a jet engine... The Air Force will also order AMCA on a large scale... so it will reduce the cost... Rafale is going to be manufactured in India so if the Navy urgently needs any fighter jets then the Navy can go for an additional Rafale as a stop-gap... The Navy is also focusing on a 3rd carrier which will most probably be Nuclear-powered... so it makes sense to go with AMCA Naval and the GHATAK Naval platform...

 

[Biggu]

Very nice. One cartoon was not agreeing on this SWAH plate being developed by DRDO for Super Sukhoi Virupaksha. This is an eye-opener article for that cartoon, who was talking big, big, and that too in the air. At that time, I was telling him DRDO had developed a similar SWAH plate to what Gripen and Eurofighter have. My words are becoming true.

For me, I think India should abandon TEDBF and instead put that money into Rafale M variants or naval AMCA (Rafale M for STOBAR and naval AMCA for CATOBAR), while developing other technologies like radar.

For me, the Indian Air Force and Indian Navy fleet combat aircraft should look like this:

1. HAL Tejas MK1A
2. HAL Tejas MK2
3. Rafale
4. Su-30MKI
5. AMCA
6. A bomber like the Tu-160 or ULRA.

 

[sujith sudhakaran]

At this point, TEDBF is dead before it starts off. Within a few years, China will replace most of its carrier fighters with J-35 variants and we will be the only major naval power along with France that uses 4th gen naval fighters. If the navy doesn't want stealth fighters, they should opt for a non-stealth naval variant of the AMCA based on the stealth airframe and avionics like the KF-21, instead of wasting money and time on an outdated Rafale M knockoff.

 

[Harsh Raj]

For me, I think India should abandon TEDBF and instead put that money into Rafale M variants or naval AMCA (Rafale M for STOBAR and naval AMCA for CATOBAR), while developing other technologies like radar.

For me, the Indian Air Force and Indian Navy fleet combat aircraft should look like this:

1. HAL Tejas MK1A
2. HAL Tejas MK2
3. Rafale
4. Su-30MKI
5. AMCA
6. A bomber like the Tu-160 or ULRA.

I don't understand why everyone is advocating for a bomber. We don't need a bomber; we already have a land-based regiment for rockets and we already have a grip on rocket technology, whether it be Agni or BrahMos. So why do we need a bomber? This will just make our cost higher and higher and maintenance will see sky-high prices. If we really want something like a bomber, then Ghatak UCAVs can be an option but not these traditional bombers.

 

[Ngorno karabakh]

At this point, TEDBF is dead before it starts off. Within a few years, China will replace most of its carrier fighters with J-35 variants and we will be the only major naval power along with France that uses 4th gen naval fighters. If the navy doesn't want stealth fighters, they should opt for a non-stealth naval variant of the AMCA based on the stealth airframe and avionics like the KF-21, instead of wasting money and time on an outdated Rafale M knockoff.

A non-stealth AMCA would be great if it materializes, but naval modifications will turn it into a completely new aircraft.

 

[sujith sudhakaran]

A non-stealth AMCA would be great if it materializes, but naval modifications will turn it into a completely new aircraft.

That's like saying Rafale and Rafale M are completely different aircraft. Turning normal aircraft into naval ones isn't a new concept. They could take the internal weapons bay out of AMCA and reinforce the underside for arrested wire landing; it's 90% of the way there. The rest are software and hardware tuning needed for sea operation that already needs to be done for TEDBF anyway because all its components are made for normal air operations.

 

[Sandeep]

At this point, TEDBF is dead before it starts off. Within a few years, China will replace most of its carrier fighters with J-35 variants and we will be the only major naval power along with France that uses 4th gen naval fighters. If the navy doesn't want stealth fighters, they should opt for a non-stealth naval variant of the AMCA based on the stealth airframe and avionics like the KF-21, instead of wasting money and time on an outdated Rafale M knockoff.

Chinese technology isn’t as great as they say it is. Their technology has faults, defects, it regularly underperforms, poor serviceability rate, needs regular maintenance and their technology falls very short in every category so in terms of its quality it fails in everything.

 

[sujith sudhakaran]

Chinese technology isn’t as great as they say it is. Their technology has faults, defects, it regularly underperforms, poor serviceability rate, needs regular maintenance and their technology falls very short in every category so in terms of its quality it fails in everything.

And what are you basing this on, actually? Because China definitely doesn't release this data. All tech fails, even million-dollar equipment of the US military. Do you think our tech works 100%? No.

There is simply no way to prove their tech is bad compared to others when neither our nor their military releases any data. And the data and intelligence collected by the US and other nations suggest that their tech is pretty much on par with global standards. Only us, without ever fighting China in a modern war, just say their tech is trash while we depend a lot on Chinese tech ourselves.

 

[Sandeep]

It’s great that they are continuously trying to improve their technology to meet new threats and stays in reliance. Now they need to quickly develop and start manufacturing the TEDBF with at least over 90% of indigenous content rate from the start. Also a lot of the technology that we have developed for this jet program we can also use on the Tejas MK2 and add improvements with the latest technology and equipment.

We can also consider to develop an air force version which will be more advanced than the Tejas MK2. After completing the navy’s order then we can make small changes and modifications and start manufacturing more jets for the air force version. This will help us to increase our combat capabilities and squadron strength if we just manufactured around 4-6 squadrons.

 

[Sandeep]

And what are you basing this on, actually? Because China definitely doesn't release this data. All tech fails, even million-dollar equipment of the US military. Do you think our tech works 100%? No.

There is simply no way to prove their tech is bad compared to others when neither our nor their military releases any data. And the data and intelligence collected by the US and other nations suggest that their tech is pretty much on par with global standards. Only us, without ever fighting China in a modern war, just say their tech is trash while we depend a lot on Chinese tech ourselves.

This is based on the feedback from countries that have purchased Chinese weapons and technology like Pakistan, Myanmar, African countries, Bangladesh etc. Their technology even failed against us in Sindoor where their BVR missiles failed and got jammed instead. Also our technology worked properly and flawlessly in Sindoor by intercepting their short range ballistic missiles that’s developed from Chinese technology. Our missiles intercepted every threat possible, our kamikaze drones hit their camps, radars, SAM etc. Also you’re completely wrong about China developing new weapons and technology to global standards. They love to put on a good choice and show off its.

 

[Aditya Khullar]

I don't understand why everyone is advocating for a bomber. We don't need a bomber; we already have a land-based regiment for rockets and we already have a grip on rocket technology, whether it be Agni or BrahMos. So why do we need a bomber? This will just make our cost higher and higher and maintenance will see sky-high prices. If we really want something like a bomber, then Ghatak UCAVs can be an option but not these traditional bombers.

What if your land-based launchers get destroyed by Chinese missiles? You need a backup always. Two squadrons of bombers can be stationed in different airbases and can be used to strike anywhere.

 

[Harsh Raj]

What if your land-based launchers get destroyed by Chinese missiles? You need a backup always. Two squadrons of bombers can be stationed in different airbases and can be used to strike anywhere.

Oh really, and bombers can't be destroyed? In Russia, Ukraine literally destroyed multiple Russian bombers with mere drones and land-based launchers are more mobile; they can be shifted from one place to another easily, not in the case of bombers! What if they attack our hangars on IAF bases with hypersonic missiles? Can we defend our bombers from them?

 

[indigenous_29]

So in 2038 India will start producing a new clean sheet twin engine non stealth 4.5 fighter gen jet.

 

[Mukesh Agrawal]

Oh really, and bombers can't be destroyed? In Russia, Ukraine literally destroyed multiple Russian bombers with mere drones and land-based launchers are more mobile; they can be shifted from one place to another easily, not in the case of bombers! What if they attack our hangars on IAF bases with hypersonic missiles? Can we defend our bombers from them?

Bombers to be kept in the hinterland away from the borders and to be stationed in underground bunkers.
If you want to bomb near Beijing, then you require a long distance bomber.