Analysis Why India's TEDBF is Not a Copy of Rafale, But An Indigenous Marvel of Techs Derived from Tejas and AMCA?

Why India's TEDBF is Not a Copy of Rafale, But An Indigenous Marvel of Techs Derived from Tejas and AMCA?


The recent showcasing of India's planned Twin Engine Deck-Based Fighter (TEDBF) has ignited considerable discussion online regarding its design origins.

Developed by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the scale model presented, notably around the time of Aero India 2025, bears a visual similarity to the French Dassault Rafale, leading to questions about whether India's future carrier-borne aircraft is an independent design or influenced by the Rafale.

Speculation across various digital platforms has drawn comparisons between the TEDBF's canard-delta wing configuration and twin-engine layout and those of the Rafale fighters recently acquired by the Indian Air Force (IAF) and Navy.

While some observers see this as a natural convergence of aerodynamic solutions for similar operational requirements, others suggest that ADA might have replicated aspects of the French jet.

However, officials associated with the project strongly refute claims of imitation or reverse-engineering. An ADA representative stated that the design resulted from an internal evaluation of competing concepts, with the final configuration chosen by the Indian Navy based on its specific needs.

They emphasized that the TEDBF's development leverages experience gained from the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas and its naval variant programs, not access to Rafale blueprints or technology. The official denied having access to the IAF's Rafale fleet or its confidential technical data for the TEDBF's design process.

This debate occurs as India strengthens its defence relationship with France, highlighted by the procurement of 36 Rafale jets for the Air Force and a subsequent agreement for 26 Rafale Marine aircraft for naval carrier operations.

Some critics theorize that access to Rafale information could have been gained through offset agreements linked to these deals or interactions with the IAF.

Despite superficial resemblances, ADA highlights key technical differences distinguishing the TEDBF from the Rafale. A significant feature is the use of Diverterless Supersonic Inlets (DSI), an advanced intake design that improves stealth characteristics by reducing radar signature and complexity compared to the Rafale's conventional intakes.

This DSI technology is understood to be derived from advancements made during the development of India's other future fighter program, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), rather than the Rafale.

Furthermore, the TEDBF is specifically designed for aircraft carrier operations aboard INS Vikrant and INS Vikramaditya. It incorporates a wing-folding mechanism essential for optimizing space on carrier decks, a feature not present on the land-based Rafale variants and engineered independently by ADA for the naval role, although the Rafale M (Marine) used by the French Navy also has folding wings.

Dimensionally, the TEDBF is planned to be larger than the Rafale M, with a reported length difference of nearly 2 meters and a Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) of 26 tonnes, compared to the Rafale M's 24.5 tonnes. This suggests a greater capacity for fuel and ordnance, potentially offering longer range and endurance for maritime missions.

The Indian Navy's selection of this design reflects its strategic requirements for a "5th Generation Minus" fighter. This classification indicates a focus on advanced capabilities, carrier compatibility, and multi-role versatility, potentially balancing cutting-edge features with affordability and achievable timelines, rather than pursuing the full stealth characteristics of aircraft like the F-35 or the planned indigenous AMCA.

The TEDBF is anticipated to enter service around the mid-2030s, replacing the Navy's ageing MiG-29K fleet and operating alongside the newly ordered Rafale M fighters.

Arguments against the possibility of reverse-engineering also point to logistical challenges. The IAF Rafale fleet operates under strict protocols, and there is no public evidence suggesting ADA gained access to proprietary Dassault design information.

Defence offset agreements typically involve manufacturing or component supply, not the transfer of core design secrets. Moreover, conceptual work on the TEDBF reportedly began before the Rafale M deal was finalized, making the timeline for copying less feasible.

As development progresses, the TEDBF represents a significant step in India's push for self-reliance in advanced defence technology, building upon decades of aerospace research and development.
 
Why shouldn't we copy? In the industrial world, either you are first or copy fast to stay ahead of the curve. TEDBF should be before 2030, when most of the avionics are already developed. The only new thing will be folding wings and strengthened undercarriage with landing gears, which too have been tested in the LCA naval version. Don't understand why such slow movement for naval TEDBF. In fact, MRFA should not be proceeded with, and instead ORCA should be prioritised. 72 more Sukhois should bridge the gap. If Su-35 could dominate Ukraine against the world's best AD system, then where is the need for Rafale? In fact, the touted F-16s of Ukraine didn't venture out post the shooting down of one of them by the Russians.
 
The TEDBF has fulfilled the NSQR’s envisaged by the users , our Navy. That is extremely important as users fly into combat from our aircraft carriers.

Time to speed up the program to build indigenous fighters in large numbers for maritime strike .
 
When I look at the TEDBF images, I don't see the Rafale... other than the passing resemblance of any modern canard fighters like the Typhoon, or Gripen. Instead, I see a twin engine evolution of the basic LCA Tejas design. There are more common design features in common with the Tejas than the Rafale. Then again, unlike most Francophile eyes, I am less biased, and have studied images of various combat aircraft through the past 5 decades. My eyes may now be a little blurry, but not enough to be mistaking the TEDBF to be anything but an Indian design from its roots in the LCA.
 
In fighter designing and production, it is always better to do our own from scratch. China can do it, not India. We do not have the technical skill or commitment from any side. Though the Chinese copied the basic Su-27 and are making a fairly good copy, they ran into problems on the naval variant and had many crashes and dead test pilots. They decided to dump it for a new deck-based fighter based on the J-35, and the program is going successfully ahead.

If the EMALS succeeds on the latest carrier Liaoning, then the naval variant of the Su-27 will become relevant, and it will rival the range of the F-18 of the US.

It is difficult to copy the Rafale, especially FBW platforms. ADA got a good idea of the aerodynamics, and that is all they will know. The LCA seems to others as a copy of the Mirage 2000 for outsiders, just because both have delta wings, but the wing of the LCA is more advanced than the Mirage 2000. But why the LCA does not have the performance of the Mirage 2000 is another story.

The deck-based fighter is bound to create heartburn in French circles. So did the Swedes when we made a similar AWACS platform like the SAAB AWACS, like what Pakistan got. But we all know, and they also know, apart from the ERJ-145, nothing is common in the Netra AWACS.
 
What Reasons???
1. Stealth coatings do not last for a reasonable period at sea. Therefore, a navalised AmcA would suffer a fair bit from the increased maintenance requirements, impacting availability. Consider this: Even the US Navy doesn't plan to completely operate the F-35C rather than the Super Hornets for a fair while still.

2. AMCA in its present form is already quite heavy. Navalising it would add another 2.5 to 4 tons to the airframe. Now, that might be acceptable for a CATOBAR carrier, but with STOBAR, this would eat up a lot into the fuel and payload capabilities of the jet, rendering it less useful operationally.
 
1. Stealth coatings do not last for a reasonable period at sea. Therefore, a navalised AmcA would suffer a fair bit from the increased maintenance requirements, impacting availability. Consider this: Even the US Navy doesn't plan to completely operate the F-35C rather than the Super Hornets for a fair while still.

2. AMCA in its present form is already quite heavy. Navalising it would add another 2.5 to 4 tons to the airframe. Now, that might be acceptable for a CATOBAR carrier, but with STOBAR, this would eat up a lot into the fuel and payload capabilities of the jet, rendering it less useful operationally.
You don't understand why US navy decided to keep Super Hornet around. F-18 similarly to F15, carries a lot of payload. They need an aircraft that can carry multiple bombs. F-35 can only carry 2 internally. Space is a huge issue in an aircraft carrier and it very limited to how many aircrafts it can carry. They cannot carry 2 squadrons of both. Hence they decided they want to keep around F-18 for heavy lifting SINCE F-18 currently is still more advanced than most jets. That the key important detail.

It has nothing to do with stealth coating. Its a minimally extra cost.
 
Even if TEDBF resembles similar to Rafael so be it, what is the big deal. These critics why aren't they comparing the chinese fighters and bombers which is exact replica of American, Russian fighters and bombers. Turkish KAAN fighter is another similar replica of F35. I am not too bothered about how our fighters resembles like the important thing for me is that HAL delivers the fighters according to scheduled timelines with some minor delays are understandable because quality and safety is the utmost priority.
 
Nothing wrong in copying just make is more batter by the way we need technology for copying. Batter to build industry which can reverse engineer many things like china do. Japan did same so so US and Russia. Most of missile tech is actually from Germany tech during second world war. Same is fighter jet father was Germany. Radar was actually from Britain and subs from Germany. Russian tanks was originally from US idea but changed for cost effectiveness.
 
You don't understand why US navy decided to keep Super Hornet around. F-18 similarly to F15, carries a lot of payload. They need an aircraft that can carry multiple bombs. F-35 can only carry 2 internally. Space is a huge issue in an aircraft carrier and it very limited to how many aircrafts it can carry. They cannot carry 2 squadrons of both. Hence they decided they want to keep around F-18 for heavy lifting SINCE F-18 currently is still more advanced than most jets. That the key important detail.

It has nothing to do with stealth coating. Its a minimally extra cost.
Naval officers have listed those reasons, so this isn't something I have pulled from thin air.

Regardless, you ended up supporting Reason 2 with your point. The USN maintains Super Hornets due to payload. AMCA N would have a fairly low payload when in STOBAR operations, which would impact operational usefulness. Therefore, the Navy is not exactly in favour of AMCA N over TEDBF. Obviously, we cannot carry two different types of aircraft in sufficient numbers to be useful due to the limited size of our carriers.

As for the stealth coatings, money is not the major concern. The problem is that re-application of stealth coatings is time consuming, and will impact aircraft readiness in times of intensive use.
 
This jet is not a copy or reverse engineered version of the Rafale jet. While we might have borrowed the overall concept or idea we aren’t copying anything compared to what China does.

Our jet will be more advanced, carry more weapons, better equipment along with better capabilities. Also there’s a strong possibility that the air force can buy it with some modifications to increase the number of twin engine 4.5th generation jet we have. So once the jaguar, Mig 29 and Mirage start to retire in the next 10 years we will only be left with 36 Rafale jets. To increase our twin engine jet numbers we will need an air force version of the TEDBF as not every mission will require a 5th generation stealth jet which are notoriously expensive to maintain and operate.
 
AMCA in its present form is already quite heavy. Navalising it would add another 2.5 to 4 tons to the airframe. Now, that might be acceptable for a CATOBAR carrier, but with STOBAR, this would eat up a lot into the fuel and payload capabilities of the jet, rendering it less useful operationally.
AMCA-Navy requires EMALS. Our STOBAR carriers and AMCA-N are incompatible.That being said, South Korea is developing a KF-21-Navy version with folded wings.
 
Why Dassault being nervous? It is not a copy of Rafale. Like all 5th gen aircraft have similar designs doesn't mean they are a copy.
 
AMCA-Navy requires EMALS. Our STOBAR carriers and AMCA-N are incompatible.That being said, South Korea is developing a KF-21-Navy version with folded wings.
Sir, the variant was planned, but with South Korea dropping plans for the CVX, the KF-21N might never materialise.
 
AMCA in its present form is already quite heavy. Navalising it would add another 2.5 to 4 tons to the airframe. Now, that might be acceptable for a CATOBAR carrier, but with STOBAR, this would eat up a lot into the fuel and payload capabilities of the jet, rendering it less useful operationally.
In future carriers after IAC2 are most likely CATOBAR, thus an increased weight may not be a problem!

IMO, IN may need both TEDBF and AMCA at some point in the future! Question is, can we fund all this and get TEDBF out by 2035-2040, in numbers!
 
In future carriers after IAC2 are most likely CATOBAR, thus an increased weight may not be a problem!

IMO, IN may need both TEDBF and AMCA at some point in the future! Question is, can we fund all this and get TEDBF out by 2035-2040, in numbers!
Sir, you are right. However, given the Navy's recent decision of having IAC-II replace Vikramaditya and push IAC-III back for a bit, I don't think IAC-III will be entering service until the late 2040s or so. In such a scenario, AMCA N might not be sufficient, and we might need some new aircraft then. Therefore, it might be prudent to look at TEDBF and then a dedicated naval fighter (either 5th or 5.5th generation) at a later point.
 
In fighter designing and production, it is always better to do our own from scratch. China can do it, not India. We do not have the technical skill or commitment from any side. Though the Chinese copied the basic Su-27 and are making a fairly good copy, they ran into problems on the naval variant and had many crashes and dead test pilots. They decided to dump it for a new deck-based fighter based on the J-35, and the program is going successfully ahead.

If the EMALS succeeds on the latest carrier Liaoning, then the naval variant of the Su-27 will become relevant, and it will rival the range of the F-18 of the US.

It is difficult to copy the Rafale, especially FBW platforms. ADA got a good idea of the aerodynamics, and that is all they will know. The LCA seems to others as a copy of the Mirage 2000 for outsiders, just because both have delta wings, but the wing of the LCA is more advanced than the Mirage 2000. But why the LCA does not have the performance of the Mirage 2000 is another story.

The deck-based fighter is bound to create heartburn in French circles. So did the Swedes when we made a similar AWACS platform like the SAAB AWACS, like what Pakistan got. But we all know, and they also know, apart from the ERJ-145, nothing is common in the Netra AWACS.
Yes, there have been a few J-15 crashes, but flying carrier fighters is inherently dangerous and you are always going to lose some men over the course of time. To get to its leading position in carrier aviation and to have the deep institutional knowledge and experience it has, cost the US the heavy price of over 2,000 men killed in crashes over the last 100 years. Frankly, it is really impressive that China has come so far so fast and has not lost more pilots with its much more limited experience.

China has not "dumped" the J-15. They are going to be flying it for many years to come. They have recently updated it with better radar, engines, avionics, and missiles: the brand new J-15T variant which will replace the older J-15s and not only fly from the current ski jump carriers but also be able to use the catapults on the new Type 003 carriers like the Fujian and the Type 004 nuclear powered carrier.
 
There may be few similarity but we can not call it copy.
TEDFF has a folding wing and deverterless stealth airintake.
 
Copying something good is prudent. We don't need to justify or offer explanations. Never respond to say negative criticism. Note it down. Analyse it for any merit in it. Any corrections to be carried out, do so. Move on.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
4,406
Messages
47,815
Members
3,003
Latest member
soothsayer
Back
Top