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.

 

BrahMos Aerospace in Talks with Indian Army for Ground-Based BrahMos-NG Missile System to Meet High-Altitude Needs Malaysian Vessel with Five Chinese Nationals Receives Critical Fuel Supply from Indian Navy 225 Nautical Miles West of Indira Point

[Anant]

Which gen is LCA Mk1A?

There's no difference between you and the "import army," my friend. We have to stride harder to achieve these goals, and the MRFA tender is a blocker. And tell me, when will we start receiving your favorite Rafale if we order in 2025? In 2032 or 2035?

4+ years it took without a backlog, now with hundreds in the backlog, it will take 7-8 years—sufficient time for us to work on indigenous options.

Sir, read the full sentence, please. I did not say we can't develop a 4.5th generation fighter. I said we can't do so on time. The Tejas Mk 1 was supposed to enter service back in the late 1990s. We are over a quarter of a century beyond that point, and the Tejas is just barely in service today, at two squadrons. If that isn't a catastrophic delay, I don't know what is

Time is key at any point, and with most of the IAF's fighters starting to age towards retirement, we need more fighters, and we need them quickly.

Did I ever say we should scale down any of our indigenous programs, let alone cancel them? I haven't, so take that "import army" accusation elsewhere. We have to build what we can in whatever numbers we can on a suitable timeline, and while we gradually scale up (both qualitatively and quantitatively), we have little option but to get foreign options for the rest.

Now, since people seem to keep wanting to accuse me of favouring the Rafale, I pose this open challenge to you and literally everyone else on this platform: Show me one time when I have said we should only get the Rafale.

My stance is what it always has been: MRFA is a quantitative necessity, and if deemed necessary by the IAF, fifth generation jets can be included too. The only two MRFAa contenders I am against are the Su-35 (just get more Super Su-30MKIs with new engines in this case) and the MiG-35 (we don't need an old MiG-29 with the serial number filed off and some new systems, thanks very much).

Moreover, did I say we shouldn't explore sixth generation jets at all? What I am saying is that an independent foray into this is pointless for us, simply due to the financial commitment and technological maturity needed. It would be far more sensible for us to join one of the two multi-national efforts for the sixth generation program (GCAP or FCAS), and then contribute to, and learn fron, those.

 

[Anant]

Compare the cost of Rafales and desi jets. At 26 Rafales price we will have R&D and 50 units of TEDBF produced. Mid life upgrade costs of mirages was huge. Similarly Rafales mid life cost and maintainance cost will be way more than TEDBF's. Arms and missiles for Rafales will be mostly French and sesi weapons integration would cost us good amount of money. So even if we procure 50 units of TEDBF's our costs will recover.
More important point to consider is that we need to fast track our technology. This is a good time to plan to match with our large and mighty neighbor. We should merge AMCA and TEDBF into one project for 5th gen platform. Like China has J35 and its naval variant. USA has F35 A and its naval variant. Start planning for a 6th gen jet which can see the light in early 2040s.

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.

 

[Dipesh Debnath]

Naval version's folding wings, salt water resistant materials, arrester hook and additional reinforced structure would need significant design changes from land variant.

 

[Rational Guy]

110 kn engine by GTRE will materialise in distant future. It will join later after it is successful and certified, means at least 10 years.

If done in collaboration with Safran, it will be done in 10, maybe 11 years.

 

[Rinku Pandey]

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.

Only China and USA have flown 6th Gen fighters, Europe been building fighter planes for longer than we have been independent country and all they could do is 4.5 Gen only. So there's nothing "humiliating" about it. 4.5 gen itself is not easy to master! China US reached 6th gen by dumping money which India can ill afford. China spent $30 billion alone on J20 program almost half our defence budget lol. People expect miracles from peanuts nowadays.

But except France every European country has 5th generation fighters and are involved in supply chain for the same. This learning was helpful for them in building 6th gen fighters. By 2035 both the groups will fly 6th gen fighters.

 

[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.