Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)

[randomradio]

We do need a bigger jet for future, or at the very least a jet with high combat radius.
As longer range & faster missiles are proliferating, U.S. Navy is also looking to retreat its carriers further back in pacific than initially to operate relatively safely without being overwhelmed, One of the core requirements of FA-XX.

Chinese SSNs & surface combatants will also carry lot more longer range & faster missiles in future.

We need a carrier fighter having the capability to cover mallacca straight while carrier itself remaining 1500+km behind the straits,to reduce the number & density Of chinese( ship, sub, air launched) anti-ship vectors that have the range to strike the carrier, assuming we can restrict chinese fleet to operate behind the Strait.


Also, when i mention mtow, i'm focusing on the size, range etc performance of other fighters in similar mtow class, not MTOW itself.

We need a jet more in performance range of Su57, SCAF as our primary carrier fighter for post 2040s, operational combat radius of ~1500km along with being a stealth, not a Rafale class jet.

( though report also claim amca will have combat radius of 1500km, I find it hard to beleive, my estimates are 1200+km)

You can calculate the potential range by calculating the fuel fraction on full internal fuel.
LCA Mk2 = 35%
Rafale = 33%
MKI = 34%
F-35A = 38%
Su-35 = 38%
AMCA = 35%
TEDBF = 33%

AMCA and TEDBF have similar FF as MKI, but will come with a far more fuel efficient engine along with a more efficient airframe design. Both jets will comfortably surpass the MKI. AMCA should be able to approach Su-35's 3600 km ferry range, pretty much the same as the F-35A's range.

While AMCA will be a 900 nm fighter, American jets are expected to be 1000+ nm. But their operating environment is different. Plus the American jets will use 6th gen engines that could at least be 15-20% more efficient.

A slightly larger jet than AMCA for the IN should be able to match the US' 1000nm range requirement with a 5th gen engine. Of course, it's possible American jets will actually surpass 1000 nm, but we don't really need to match that.

As for IWB, 4.5-5 m long, 1-1.5 m wide single,should be sufficient.

Also, no. Of carrier fighter will be low, so they need to be qualitatively competent.

We want mission-centric designs, not platform-centric. If we try to match the PLAN's fighter capabilities with smaller carriers, we will lose. The IAF is in the same boat.

I also hope we can make them, but doesn't seem like we are gonna make big enough stealth drones to carry relatively larger anti-ship missiles like brahmos ng in iwb, most likely it will be carried externally.

Bomber designs are not constrained like fighters. We can put a 6.5m WB on a flying wing jet. 2 Brahmos NG are just 3T and need a single 1.4m wide bay, which is far lesser than AMCA's 2.2m wide bays.

Official naval planning reports and analysis suggest INS Vikramaditya has roughly 10–12 years of operational life remaining as of 2025, with a projected retirement around 2037. A structural audit is scheduled for 2035 to determine the feasibility of service beyond this period.

Even if the audit determines its still operationally & cost wise feasible for
Vikramaditya to service beyond 2040, it ain't gonna be a front line carrier.

It will go through. MLU will push it ahead of the IAC-1.

“INS Vikramaditya will serve Navy for 30 years”

India News:“INS Vikramaditya will serve Navy for 30 years”

www.thehindu.com

“The way it has been rebuilt and equipped with advanced systems and machinery will ensure that it plods on for another 30 to 40 years,” Rear Admiral S. Madhusudanan, Admiral Superintendent of the Naval Ship Repair Yard (NSRY) in Kochi, told The Hindu .

This end of life story is for political reasons concerning the operation of a Russian carrier and preventing anymore delays of IAC-2. I wouldn't read too much into it. Come 2035, and Vikram will get MLU'd and TEDBF numbers will climb to 150 for all three carriers.

No one's stopping IN from getting 4 carriers before 2045.

 

[randomradio]

So you're saying they will see the missile long before They see a fighter carrying a missile, hence shorter alert cycle?

The only scenerios where this feasible is if a instrumentally(RF or IR) quite visible missile is flying at altitudes that are lot higher than where fighters fly.
( 20km+ km altitude minimum, basically HCM, HGV, ballistic)

A ship/sub launched supersonic or subsonic cruise missile fly lower ( 10-15km in Hi portion of their flight)

Sensor-shooter network followed by missiles flying using pack tactics. A fighter isn't good enough to find ships, dedicated aircraft like P-8I and satellites are used for that. Once a target fleet is found, the aircraft position themselves to attack the weakest points of the fleet. Friendly ships fire their missiles first, they tend to be the loudest, followed by stealth shots from aircraft (either by speed or time to target). The missiles follow erratic waypoints to confuse hostile sensors to throw them off. The combo attack provides multiple chances to score hits.

Sensors fly high, shooters fly low. Even missiles operate in sensor-shooter networks, where 1 missile cruising at sea level pops up to scan for targets and distributes that data over a network to the missiles that are hidden. In case it's intercepted, the second missile pops up. And while the ship is busy fending off one target, the better positioned aircraft have a better chance at succeeding. And since they are less discoverable, the hostile ships get an alert much later than the larger volley.

Aircraft can also get a whole lot closer, so the distance traveled is lesser. Shorter distances also means missiles have more fuel to play with, so more complex waypoints. More waypoints, the harder it is for radar to track.

And then, yes, offensive jamming by aircraft, whereas friendly ships located further away primarily focus on defensive jamming. The enemy fleet is already overwhelmed by the number of missiles, and they are going to prioritize defensive systems rather than focus on the jamming.

 

[randomradio]

With the new evolving threats ( or already evolved ) of drones, i think AC warfare needs to be revised. Imagine AC being targeted with swarms of drones at 600-1000 km far. AC is will be forced to operates such safe distance from shore limiting the aircraft.
We need to make large ACs & Deck based heavy class aircraft with 2000 kn range, is it even possible or practical?

F-22's combat radius is 590 nm. F-47 intends to double that, so 1100-1200 nm.

Rafale with external fuel already does that, 1000 nm when carrying 2 SCALPs and MICAs each. TEDBF is likely to exceed Rafale.

A next gen ADA design for IN will also do that.

 

[Speedster1]

Vikramaditya was never meant to operate fast jets. Its giant island occupies a lot of space on the flight deck. In fact, it sits smack in the middle of the deck. If that wasn't enough, the 2 ac elevators are located alongside the island and aft of it.

Even if the Rafale just about fits on her tiny lifts, making the Soviet-era ATC system compatible won't be easy.

Tbf, it is an older 1970s-era design comparable to the British Invincible class. So the sortie rate and ac launch prep time would be nothing comparable to modern carriers.

The IN reportedly only bought her to avoid a gap in carrier capability, post the retirement of the INS Virat.

She's best retired as soon as Vikrant 2 arrives. The Brazilians learned the same lesson with the French Clemenceau.

 

[Sathya]

Vikramaditya was never meant to operate fast jets. Its giant island occupies a lot of space on the flight deck. In fact, it sits smack in the middle of the deck. If that wasn't enough, the 2 ac elevators are located alongside the island and aft of it.

Even if the Rafale just about fits on her tiny lifts, making the Soviet-era ATC system compatible won't be easy.

Tbf, it is an older 1970s-era design comparable to the British Invincible class. So the sortie rate and ac launch prep time would be nothing comparable to modern carriers.

The IN reportedly only bought her to avoid a gap in carrier capability, post the retirement of the INS Virat.

She's best retired as soon as Vikrant 2 arrives. The Brazilians learned the same lesson with the French Clemenceau.

Can it be converted to UAV and helicopters carrier post the vikrant 2

 

[randomradio]

Vikramaditya was never meant to operate fast jets. Its giant island occupies a lot of space on the flight deck. In fact, it sits smack in the middle of the deck. If that wasn't enough, the 2 ac elevators are located alongside the island and aft of it.

Even if the Rafale just about fits on her tiny lifts, making the Soviet-era ATC system compatible won't be easy.

Tbf, it is an older 1970s-era design comparable to the British Invincible class. So the sortie rate and ac launch prep time would be nothing comparable to modern carriers.

The IN reportedly only bought her to avoid a gap in carrier capability, post the retirement of the INS Virat.

She's best retired as soon as Vikrant 2 arrives. The Brazilians learned the same lesson with the French Clemenceau.

Vikramaditya manages only a little lower sortie rate than Vikrant. It's not enough to dismiss it.

IN has operated carriers much longer than what you think, and even without the extensive rebuilds the Vikram has gone through.

IN's first carrier was launched during WW2 and only commissioned 20 years later and still served 35+years. The ship was over 50 years old.

The second carrier was even worse. The British operated it for over 20 years and then IN operated it for 30 years. The ship survived over 70 years.

70% of Vikram's hull is brand new. It was built from scratch. Only the underwater hull was largely left untouched. Worse comes to worst, the hull can be rebuilt, effectively increasing the service life to well beyond 2065 at half the cost of a new carrier. A billion bucks for the hull, a billion bucks for propulsion, cables, and sensor upgrades versus almost $5B for IAC-2, which is going to be funded and irrelevant to the topic anyway.

 

[batman]

Frqnkly, it is strange that ADA has dropped the initial design (chined radome and angled belly section forward of the intake) for a more conventional Rafale lookalike layout for TEDBF, retaining only the DSI intakes.

For an organization that has just designed AMCA, they seem to be too risk averse.

With immediate requirements met by 26 + 26 Rafale-M, I'd say they have the luxury of trying out new modifications, leveraging the design experience of the N-LCA mk1.

For AF LCA mk2 canards, modeling tests were conducted in France to validate effectiveness, iirc. Are there some problems still?

True, why are they downgrading its capability.

He did not specifiy, he said anti-shipping role.

Not to mention, we don't need a navalised AMCA for navy if we are going for a stealth design.

We can design a new stealth design for carrier ops, can include a longer IWB for bigger anti-ship missiles.

TEDBF even if approved today, ain't entering service before 2040 MINIMUM.
Then it needs to remain relevant as our *PRIMARY* carrier fighter jet until minimum 2060 with upgrades.

A ~25 tons mtow, non-stealth design will be a repeat of Tejas saga, where ultimately Tejas mk2( which has changed so much that it literally become a entirely new type fighter jet, new class of fighter jet)
had to be developed to address lack of capability of Tejas, even in current scenario Tejas mk1a are not being procured as a high-end fighters, those would be Tejas mk2, rafale, upgraded su-30mki, than amca in future post 2035.


Much better to go back to a design board, design a stealth, ~30-35 tons mtow naval jet for larger future carriers
to be debuted in ~2045.

Vikramaditya will most likely be retiring post 2035, so it won't even see tedbf.

TEDBF
will see use in Vikrant + future larger carriers.

well said, it geometry should be designed so that it would remain relevant until 2060 atleast.

True, why are they downgrading its capability.

seems like it has something to do with forward visibility

 

[randomradio]

True, why are they downgrading its capability.

It's sort of an upgrade. Better aerodynamics and stealth with the new rounded nose.

It's the difference between paper design and real-world conditions. The faceted design is more stealthy, but while it reduces RCS in one area, it increases RCS in another. The rounded nose offers better balance. The faceted design also must have affected air flow into the inlets, plus the rounded nose that's drooped provides better visibility to the pilot.

Overall, it means TEDBF was redesigned to be less stealthy but more balanced to match real-world conditions and actual operational needs.

It will be an upgrade compared to Rafale M in pretty much every area except speed, G performance, and avionics maturity.

The bigger worry is TEDBF will use F414 instead of AMCA's engine. I guess ADA and IN prefer to derisk the program.

 

[Speedster1]

Can it be converted to UAV and helicopters carrier post the vikrant 2

Tbh, the ship is a maintenance nightmare, esp the boiler based propulsion system. There have been multiple accidents onboard since induction with loss of life.

Unless we can replace the pp, she will continue to be a hangar queen, imo.

And frankly I see no signs of that happening. The Russians couldn't possibly develop a bespoke pp just for 1 hull, esp now that they have retired the Kuznetsov, their only carrier.

 

[Speedster1]

True, why are they downgrading its

The LCA Navy mk2 design featured a nose droop to address this exact problem. But they chose to discard it and go with an all new design inspired by the Rafale.

It is bizarre to say the least.

 

[batman]

The LCA Navy mk2 design featured a nose droop to address this exact problem. But they chose to discard it and go with an all new design inspired by the Rafale.

It is bizarre to say the least.

So what's the latest design of the Tejas MK2

 

[Speedster1]

So what's the latest design of the Tejas MK2

I was referring to this.

 

[batman]

I was referring to this.

View attachment 51102

so what is the difference apart from the canards and how does it affect its performance?

 

[Speedster1]

IN has operated carriers much longer than what you think, and even without the extensive rebuilds the Vikram has gone through.

The IN took a gamble with the Gorshkov, which came from a class of ship designed for the VTOL Yak-38 jump jet. The rebuild came with plenty of compromises in terms of deck space, ac line-up on deck, etc. No comparison with the Vikrant and Viraat were designed from the ground up for the job.

70% of Vikram's hull is brand new. It was built from scratch. Only the underwater hull was largely left untouched. Worse comes to worst, the hull can be rebuilt, effectively increasing the service life to well beyond 2065 at half the cost of a new carrier. A billion bucks for the hull, a billion bucks for propulsion, cables, and sensor upgrades versus almost $5B for IAC-2, which is going to be funded and irrelevant to the topic anyway.

Her safety record does not inspire confidence. Even if the hull is sound, the airwing is the Achilles heel. The MiG-29 wasn't designed with carrier ops in mind and the fact that the IN is buying the Rafale within under 20 yrs is proof of that. The upfront cost of Vikram may have been lower than a new build carrier back in 2013.

But being an older hull, the cost of maintenance over her service life will be that much higher. And the engine is a boondoggle in and of itself.

When was the last time she left port again?

 

[Speedster1]

So what's the latest design of the Tejas MK2

The definitive LCA-N MK2 featured tail 'stabilators' which essentially turned into a tailed delta. It wouldve been a step up over the MK1 in every way. Most notably bigger intakes, greater wing area/area ruling, distinct dorsal spine and higher ground clearance. The nose droop was changed to a more gradual taper similar to the Rafale.

In comparison, the latest TEDBF iteration looks pedestrian.

 

[batman]

The definitive LCA-N MK2 featured tail 'stabilators' which essentially turned into a tailed delta. It wouldve been a step up over the MK1 in every way. Most notably bigger intakes, greater wing area/area ruling, distinct dorsal spine and higher ground clearance. The nose droop was changed to a more gradual taper similar to the Rafale.

In comparison, the latest TEDBF iteration looks pedestrian.

View attachment 51103

isnt the current mk2 better than this though?

The old TEDBF had too much Aura tbh

 

[_Anonymous_]

The IN took a gamble with the Gorshkov, which came from a class of ship designed for the VTOL Yak-38 jump jet. The rebuild came with plenty of compromises in terms of deck space, ac line-up on deck, etc. No comparison with the Vikrant and Viraat were designed from the ground up for the job.


Her safety record does not inspire confidence. Even if the hull is sound, the airwing is the Achilles heel. The MiG-29 wasn't designed with carrier ops in mind and the fact that the IN is buying the Rafale within under 20 yrs is proof of that. The upfront cost of Vikram may have been lower than a new build carrier back in 2013.

But being an older hull, the cost of maintenance over her service life will be that much higher. And the engine is a boondoggle in and of itself.

When was the last time she left port again?

The person you're engaging is a votary of IN's operational doctrine of ACs. After all practically all their ACs since the very beginning ( except INS Vikrant ) have been problematic & maintenance prone .

To get something which performs normally like it's expected to is a bigger culture shock to these people than it'd be to the IN. Hence keep overhauling & modernising it & use it till you need a barge to tow it around. And then use it some more.

Consider yourself lucky little britain's not putting up the Prince of Wales for sale. The next thing you'd know is a thread by guess who advocating for its purchase highlighting its many benefits. Bonus would be Paddy batting for the same with justifications uniquely his own.

 

[YoungWolf]

When was the last time she left port again?

How bad are the maintenance issues surrounding Vikram? Genuinely curious, don't really come across much news of it anyway, including the dedicated thread on this forum.

Unless we can replace the pp, she will continue to be a hangar queen, imo.

And frankly I see no signs of that happening. The Russians couldn't possibly develop a bespoke pp just for 1 hull, esp now that they have retired the Kuznetsov, their only carrier.

While I don't think IN would be open to replacing the propulsion wholesale and convert to a COGAG like Vikrant now (space n fuel stores won't be an issue, could use DT-59 based system like our destroyers) considering the RoI will be pretty low (don't see it serving past 2040), it's something that should've been done when it was being brought back to life.

 

[YoungWolf]

I was trying to compare the design choice of delta wing with close-coupled canards for TEDBF (like Rafale) and that of Super Hornet and F-35C, with a focus on the ability to generate lift at take off speeds off a ski ramp. Here's a succinct, AI-helped write up of the same.

Trapezoidal vs Delta Wing Lift

Trapezoidal wings with twin canted stabilizers (often seen on conventional or swept-wing fighters like the F-15, F/A-18, F-35) typically offer predictable stability and high control authority at low speeds because the large, unswept or moderately swept wing area generates significant lift without relying on complex vortex dynamics. The twin stabilizers provide redundancy and effective yaw control even if the fuselage or single tail is blanked, but the configuration generally requires a larger overall wing area to match the low-speed lift potential of a highly swept delta.

Delta canard wings with a single vertical stabilizer (used in designs like the Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Rafale) excel at high Angle of Attack (AoA) lift due to vortex lift generated by the sharp leading edges, which allows them to sustain flight at very low speeds once the vortex is established. The canards provide additional positive lift and superior control authority at high AoA, preventing the main wing from stalling first and allowing for tighter turn radii and better low-speed maneuverability compared to a pure delta, though they may suffer from higher induced drag at cruise.

 

[lmaoxd]

I think we are getting a bit too far ahead of ourselves. The TEDBEF will remain a ghost plane simply because the rafale takes over the vast majority of its capabilities. Its simply not needed. making a 4.5 gen jet that will debut in 2040 is stupid and the IN knows it. Dont see a single proper word from any gov source about TEDBEF approval. Its not happening.