The IN must've been under pressure to show some continuity between the cancelled LCA-N Mk1 and TEDBF programs. They had to protect their image of being the most pro-indigenization service.
The LCA-N Mk2 concept was a thoroughly revised multi role carrier based fighter with a front end that was heavily inspired by the Rafale. Only flaw: single engine.
View attachment 49759
Imo, it'd have made for a smoother transition to a 5G jet vs the 25t twin engine jet we now have. Perhaps, it could have been relegated to the role of carrier-based LIFT later on. And that's where we lost the plot.
More complexity when you barely have a functioning airwing (with MiG-29K being a complete dud) can never be a good thing.
Well, the IAF did have a requirement for a MRFA and HAL would've been well within its rights to propose a solution.
The justification for the same has to come from the IAF. If the latter puts its foot down there's little anyone including the GoI / MoD can do about it . After all they're both - the end users & domain experts.
IAF seems to have taken the position they can deal with the J-20 with the Rafales . At least that's what it looks like from here.
Which brings me to the second point - is there a projected time frame in which the IAF sees a conflict with China & if so how do they map this conflict vis a vis the former's role in it ?
Here's where things get murky. There's nothing to suggest the IAF actually foresees a conflict with China & if it does , it is going to be a major one as opposed to a border war where the IA will be facing the brunt with the IAF relegated to a supporting role.
In fact that's pretty much how Gen Rawat saw the role of the IAF which raised the hackles at Vayu Bhavan.
Now for the GoI to get an alternative PoV whom does it turn to ? I'm afraid we haven't quite figured out this dilemma with the Chinese.
I've written before how the CSG - China Study Group was intended to be that independent voice which was insulated from the MEA till the latter weaseled it's way in & now it's become an echo chamber .
Alternatively neither does the armed forces have their own agency or agenda for an independent assessment. They get their inputs from the MEA & PMO.
You can see the odd dissenting voice from the establishment in the form of ex senior personnel objecting to the current security doctrine vis a vis China but these are pretty much isolated voices. It's as if everyone is scared of calling the emperor has no clothes on .
I've linked such articles from before & after the Galwan crisis by AM Arjun Subramaniam , Lt Gen Hooda , AM Chopra of CAPS who discreetly refers to such a situation etc in the Indo China War Gaming Thread.
Besides, the scale vs cost advantages would've been obvious to even the IAF. Although, HAL/ADA program management credentials were never reassuring and both services decided to hedge against dev risk by opting for a proven solution.
The window for the Rafales closed in 2022. Galwan was the perfect opportunity for the GoI to pursue the Rafales assuming the government was nervous about Pappu's allegations of corruption.
That one incident & COVID was enough to over ride all such objections. Why didn't the GoI do so only to pick up the case now is a mystery !
My own take is this government is far too fiscally conservative to have taken such a decision then especially since the entire country along with the world was in lockdown mode with little indication as to when would normal life resume & with it the economy.
Result - the MMRCA 2.0 / MRFA became the casualty. In any case this government is also not serious about defence . It's priority is economy economy economy & infrastructure infrastructure infrastructure with dollops of fiscal conservatism.
Imo, TEDBFs only USP is/was that it was designed for STOBAR ops, not a compromise solution like Rafale-m (clipped wing tips, etc).
TEDBFs can take off from both - STOBAR & CATOBAR . I recall seeing an interview with the Project in charge at ADA stating the same.
But the IN believes the trade-off is acceptable.
In terms of avionics and sensors, TEDBF would've had virtually the same fit as AMCA. Or so it was said. But the IN still chose to buy more Rafale.
Frankly I don't see the connection. There's no N-AMCA , so what's the point ?
I've also written in the past the AMCA Mk-1 could become the MRFA + which negates the need for the ORCA or the Rafale . Till such time the LCA Mk-2 could serve as adequate backup.
This is a post 2022 reading of the situation when there was no sign of the Rafale & in any case IMO it wouldn't have made sense to induct the Rafale in the 2030s when we would have our own indigenous FA programs fructifying.
We must also remember that the Vikrant class CVS can only carry 24-30 ac at a time.
The INS Vikramaditya shouldn't be in service beyond 2035. It's already huffing & puffing & barely makes it a few dozen nautical miles away from the coastline .
The IAC-2 - the analogue & companion to INS Vikrant should've been launched by now . But you won't see that happening any time soon . Why ? Coz the IN is busy blowing up its budget on 57 Rafale M . Result - you're likely to see the Vikramaditya in service well into the 2040s.
Assuming we do see the analogue to INS Vikrant launched sometime later this decade , we won't be seeing the IAC -3 before we commission the IAC -2. When's that going to be is anyone's guess ? !
In this respect we're following little britain.
After all we've inherited her institutions & made it worse by making it our own. It's called the Indian touch . Not that theirs is in a better shape as of now.
The EMALS-equipped, CATOBARs are atleast 10-15 years in the future.
What EMALS & INS Vishal are you referring to when the IAC 2 hasn't been sanctioned ? Besides the US is facing unresolved issues with their EMALS. Plenty of time before it becomes a mature technology. Do you think we're going to get it in tip top condition from the very start ?
