MoD Considers Integrating Indian Air Force into Navy's TEDBF Program to Achieve 200+ Order Size and Potential AMCA Synergy

In a strategic move aimed at optimizing defence resources and bolstering indigenous manufacturing, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is considering integrating the Indian Air Force (IAF) into the Indian Navy's Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) program.

This decision seeks to address the substantial funding and production requirements of the TEDBF project, which are comparable to those of the IAF's Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) program.

The TEDBF program, intended to replace the aging MiG-29K fleet operating from Indian Navy aircraft carriers, requires significant investment. While the Navy has identified a need for approximately 145 units, the MoD has initially approved the procurement of only 80.

To ensure the financial viability of the project and attract private sector participation, it is estimated that an order size of around 200 jets is necessary.

A larger order size would bring several benefits:

• Reduced per-unit costs: Increasing the order volume would lower the cost of each aircraft, making the program more financially attractive.
• Private sector involvement: A larger, more financially viable program would encourage private companies to invest in manufacturing and development, boosting India's domestic defence industry.
• Economies of scale: Increased production volume allows for economies of scale, further reducing costs and improving efficiency.

Integrating the IAF into the TEDBF program offers the potential for significant synergy with the AMCA program. Both aircraft are expected to share several critical components, leading to cost savings and technological harmonization:

• Common LRUs: Both the TEDBF and AMCA will utilize similar Line Replaceable Units (LRUs), simplifying maintenance and reducing logistical complexities.
• Shared avionics: The avionics suites for both jets are expected to have significant overlap, allowing for shared development costs and faster integration of new technologies.
• Common engine: Initially, both platforms will be powered by GE F-414 engines, with a planned transition to new high-powered 110kN engines developed by the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) for the AMCA program. This streamlines logistics and paves the way for future upgrades.

By integrating the IAF into the TEDBF program, the MoD aims to achieve a larger order size, making the program more financially viable and attractive for private sector participation.

This strategic move not only supports indigenous manufacturing but also fosters greater synergy between the TEDBF and AMCA programs, optimizing resources and accelerating the development of critical defence technologies.

 

[Vineet Sharma]

R&D is always a challenge, and the product is always a compromise between what we have and what we can have. Decision-makers should decide according to cost, priority, and feasibility-based timelines to execute the program. We are making big mistakes. China produces with whatever they have and adopts it, so they are quick, maybe less effective, but we want the best performance. So we have very long timelines. We are slow and sluggish. They are winning psychological warfare every day against the world, and we are also among the losers. War may happen once or twice a decade, but daily defeat will allow them to defeat you in a day. So guys, get ready to make a compromise and go ahead with whatever you have. Make the planes first and then improve, maybe in batches, but if you stay slow and sluggish, you will lose everything you have.

 

[Kira]

An issue I have been highlighting for a rather long time: the TEDBF is entirely unviable without the direct participation of the IAF, as the IN simply does not have the budget to foot the bill itself.

Having said that, it's going to be interesting to see how the IAF fits this twin-engine fighter into their plans, given their budget would be consumed by the Tejas Mk-1A/2, additional Rafales, and 5th-gen jets like the AMCA/F-35 in the near future.

Finally, HAL probably can't develop so many active jet programs at the same time, given that they can't even properly develop trainer aircraft or even baseline 4th-gen jets on time.

Either India needs another competing aviation firm, or HAL needs to be privatized fast to actually produce competent fighter jets in the future.

 

[abhinav srivastava]

Sir, as it is looking, AMCA Mk 1 will be entering operational service in the late 2030s at the earliest. Therefore, any hopes of a sixth generation jet by the early 2040s is too optimistic if we go for a solo foray here.

As for the Rafale M, I am just as unhappy with the price as the next person, but we don't have an option, do we? The Super Hornet doesn't seem to be considerably cheaper, the F-35B is out of our reach, and the MiG-29K is both old and problematic, so there can be no question of getting more of those. The Tejas N has its own set of challenges. Therefore, unless we can get the TEDBF, we have that essentially amounts to 1.5 carrier air wings (assuming over 85% availability, which is a dream) across two carriers.

I agree with you that Rafale is a necessity for IN right now. TEDBF is atleast 10-12 years away. I am of the opinion that we should by 26 and a follow on clause in the deal with 13 to 26 more Rafales for the IN. Club the requirements with IAF and negotiate modification and upgrade rights with Dassault.
Regarding TEDBF, my point is its financially viable even if we procure 50 units of it. It will turn out to be cheaper than Rafale, including the R&D costs.
However at this point in time we should have a common fighter program of 5th gen jet for IN and IAF. US and China have airforce and naval variants of their 5th gen jets. Instead of developing a 5 minus and TEDBF and 5th gen AMCA concurrently. We should go for single 5th gen jet platform with variants for IAF and IN. Concurrently we should develop 6th gen jet. 6th gen development may lag 5th gen by say 5-6 years.
We all know when they say AMCA by 2035 we assume its 2040-42. Similarly when they say 6th gen jet by 2045, it would be 2050+. But if we delay 6th gen jet further it will be 2060s.

 

[Ysmir Rewari]

Not to mention weight. AMCA is pretty heavy as it is. Navalising it would add even more weight, causing significant compromises on endurance or payload when operating from our STOBAR carriers.

That's why we need EMALS

 

[Ayush raj]

If this happens, it will be good. The government should merge them and, instead of MRFA, fund this program so that it can take its first flight by 2030 and enter production in 2031. Then it will also match the delivery time of any jet ordered via MRFA. And it will have all the capabilities that are evaluated in MRFA, and in many terms, it might exceed Rafale's capabilities.

 

[Ayush raj]

If this is true, then the government should give a repeat order of Vikrant by mid-2025 and simultaneously funds should be released for studying and designing a heavy 70,000 or 75,000-ton carrier with EMALS/flat deck powered by nuclear energy. If we start design and development now, then by the time Vikrant gets delivered, we would have completed the critical design review as well as the 190 MW reactor would also become operational, so we can use them in this carrier in a twin configuration. This will be the best utilization of all resources and funds. This is much better than buying foreign jets with 25 billion dollars.

 

[Sandeep]

For everything, HAL has to first fly the prototype of TEDBF. Anyway, it's humiliating when the world is vouching for 6th gen, and we are still almost a decade away from our first squadron of indigenous 4.5 gen. As a wise senior officer once said, "Make, buy, borrow, or steal, we need the most advanced jets right now, not some 10-20 years later when that would be obsolete in the global market." The Air Force needs much more niche aircraft than the Navy. Joining TEDBF will cost us time and money for replacing jets like Rafale. Do we need that when we already have an MRFA program going on along with LCA Mk2 and AMCA? I don't know.

China can’t afford to attack India because we have nuclear weapons. At most all they can do is have border skirmishes and they even lost in that fight and they had to run back home in defeat. That’s more embarrassing!

 

[Anonymus]

We already have Tejas Mk1a and Tejas Mk2 as 4th-gen programs. Why go for another TEDBF (4th gen)? Just merge it with the AMCA program and make a naval AMCA, so it will benefit both the IAF and Navy.

AMCA is not feasible for our current carriers.

 

[Sandeep]

India needs more jets but they need more offensive jets. We need to sort out manufacturing the Tejas MK1A and fix the delays and issues.

We also need to quickly manufacture the Tejas MK2 and AMCA prototypes which are critical if we want to develop an indigenous and self reliant combat fleet.

Instead of having the MRFA competition then we should just order more TEDBF jets as the air force can still use the same type of jets with just a few modifications. This will give us a twin engine, strong, fast and powerful jet that can also hold more weapons, more hard point, advanced equipment and technology than any Tejas MK1A or MK2 jets. We should only do this if the private sector can manufacture the TEDBF and AMCA jets and not HAL as they should focus on manufacturing the Tejas jets. This will prevent long delays as HAL already has a large backlog of jets that need getting made.

 

[Andy]

Mk1 will replace Mig 21,27, Mk2 will replace Mirage, Jaguar, Mid 29, TEDBF/ORCA will replace Sukhoi. AMCA will be out of additional squadron not available now.

 

[Shanker]

It will be better if the two programs are merged and we develop a common 5th gen fighter for IAF and its naval variant. Also intiate a 6th gen fighter developmemt programme and program to develop jet engines.
We will have to shun the mentality that we won't develop what we can import. Recall kargil war we had to pay exorbitant money for emergency imports.
We need not spend govt money for all R&D projects. Make your requirements, testing criteria, timelines and procurement size crystal clear. Many subsystems can be developed by academia and pvt companies.

This is a possibility only if both the aircrafts are mostly similar. That will be known only after the final critical design specification for TEDF is ready. As of now, I remember to have read that CDS for TEDF will be ready by 25-26 only. And, AMCA has crossed beyond its CDS milestone last year itself.🙂

Additionally, if they are dissimilar, why are they so when both Rafel and F18 can have their naval versions?🤔

 

[abhinav srivastava]

This is a possibility only if both the aircrafts are mostly similar. That will be known only after the final critical design specification for TEDF is ready. As of now, I remember to have read that CDS for TEDF will be ready by 25-26 only. And, AMCA has crossed beyond its CDS milestone last year itself.🙂

Additionally, if they are dissimilar, why are they so when both Rafel and F18 can have their naval versions?🤔

Even 5th gen platforms like F35 and J35 have naval and air force variants.

 

[Mridul baruah]

Do whatever you want. Without a flying prototype the fighter is decades away from being a reality. Indian PSU's efficiancy matches the speed of a snail.

 

[Shrujanam Syama]

That's why we need EMALS

EMALS is high maintenance. If the ship gets hit, a STOBAR will just need some concrete to repair runways but EMALS will need disassembly and repair. This is a problem for countries that have operation theatres on its borders. Only for countries that deploy for faraway places, can this work out

 

[Shrujanam Syama]

This is a possibility only if both the aircrafts are mostly similar. That will be known only after the final critical design specification for TEDF is ready. As of now, I remember to have read that CDS for TEDF will be ready by 25-26 only. And, AMCA has crossed beyond its CDS milestone last year itself.🙂

Additionally, if they are dissimilar, why are they so when both Rafel and F18 can have their naval versions?🤔

The internal components, electronics, avionics will be same. Physical design & FBW will be different. So, where there is commonality, it can be designed together.

 

[Shrujanam Syama]

We already have Tejas Mk1a and Tejas Mk2 as 4th-gen programs. Why go for another TEDBF (4th gen)? Just merge it with the AMCA program and make a naval AMCA, so it will benefit both the IAF and Navy.

TEDBF will be 4.5 gen. Even Tejas MK2 will be 4.5 gen. This means the electronics suite and avionics will be 5th gen, but the physical design will be 4th gen (non-stealth) as the 5th-gen exterior has poor aerodynamics.

 

[Rokuth]

This is a possibility only if both the aircrafts are mostly similar. That will be known only after the final critical design specification for TEDF is ready. As of now, I remember to have read that CDS for TEDF will be ready by 25-26 only. And, AMCA has crossed beyond its CDS milestone last year itself.🙂

Additionally, if they are dissimilar, why are they so when both Rafel and F18 can have their naval versions?🤔

Actually, the F-18 has always been a purely Naval aircraft. Landbased versions still have all the equipment for carrier operations.
FYI, there had never been a successful convertion of a landbased aircraft into a Naval version. However, there have been successful convertions of Naval aircraft into landbased aircraft. The F-18, and the F-4 Phantom II are 2 such examples.

 

[Anant]

That's why we need EMALS

Yes, but our own EMALS is still under development and scale model testing. Moreover, Vikramaditya and Vikrant will remain STOBAR regardless.

 

[Anant]

Actually, the F-18 has always been a purely Naval aircraft. Landbased versions still have all the equipment for carrier operations.
FYI, there had never been a successful convertion of a landbased aircraft into a Naval version. However, there have been successful convertions of Naval aircraft into landbased aircraft. The F-18, and the F-4 Phantom II are 2 such examples.

There hasn't been a fully successful conversion in last 70 years or so. However, the only exception-ish to that is the Rafale, even though the Rafale M has some slight compromises as compared to the land version.

 

[Anant]

Even 5th gen platforms like F35 and J35 have naval and air force variants.

The F-35 has three distinct variants. The F-35A is suited for ground operations, with the F-35C (a slightly different variant) being for carriers. As for the J-35, it is almost certainly there will be multiple variants.

 

[beencensured]

MoD should push IAF for TEDBF derivative instead of MRFA. We can induct these fighters around 2032. Which will be like a couple of years behind the MFRA procurement of signed in 2025.

Also, instead of spending 20 billion dollars on MRFA, spending it for Indegenious research and technology will yield better results, will be cheaper to develop twin engine fighters and also save enough money to built a 65k ton aircraft carrier.

About three aircraft carriers could be built for 25 billion dollars. At least two aircraft carriers with a full deck of planes could also be built.

 

[S. Gupta]

No need for TEDBF as new advanced techology has been given to make sure single engine plane is made adequately safe for naval operations.

 

[Raja Raja Cholan]

This is a possibility only if both the aircrafts are mostly similar. That will be known only after the final critical design specification for TEDF is ready. As of now, I remember to have read that CDS for TEDF will be ready by 25-26 only. And, AMCA has crossed beyond its CDS milestone last year itself.🙂

Additionally, if they are dissimilar, why are they so when both Rafel and F18 can have their naval versions?🤔

This is why the timeline set for first flight test never happened. When planned progression is taking place interjection like this disrupts it's planned schedules. If design stage for AMCA is in the final stages or even mid stage engineers need to redo the design to accommodate the merger of IAF AMCA with IN TEDBF. All these merger intergration is going to disrupt the design and adjust planned timeline.

 

[Rajesh]

Good decision. If MRFA happens, make sure they have both naval and air versions and fulfill the requirements from MRFA. Meanwhile, Mk2 can also be used to increase the numbers for the IAF. TEDBF and AMCA programs should be merged to form a 5th-gen fighter and should be used for both the IN (carrier variant) and the IAF. Or scrap MRFA and fulfill the IAF's needs with ORCA and order used Rafales (24 to 36) as an interim solution, and AMCA as independent programs.

 

[Deepak Hegde]

Do whatever you want. Without a flying prototype the fighter is decades away from being a reality. Indian PSU's efficiancy matches the speed of a snail.

The only difference is even a snail reaches somewhere in 30 years. PSU development of aircraft is nowhere even after 30 years !!