These jets do be looking badass.Not before being transported to the flight deck, though. See the pic below. I'm guessing that's because of the amidships position of the lift.
View attachment 51123
View attachment 51124
Compare this to the pic below of the Vikrant's lift. 2 DTs are visible underwing.
View attachment 51125
I'm merely inferring this from the pics, of course. Osint and all that
No. Only routine refits at predefined intervals are processed as opex. Anything that requires CCS clearance including sub/warship MLUs would come under the capex head, imo.
If the sorry fate of the Kuznetsov is anything to go by, we'll be lucky if Vikram makes it past 2040 unless used sparingly.
The IN should have integrated a couple of MRSAM VLS on Vikramaditya by now.
Fire control could've been provided by CEC-enabled escorts (P-15A/B or P-17A).
Wonder what's going on with that.
Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)
- Thread starter Gautam
- Start date
I guess the topic of navalizing an AirForce platform to fit into Naval requirements has been discussed to death in this thread and pretty much everyone has concluded that this is a bad idea, and we have a glaring example of the Mig-29K and its problems in front of us.
Tedbf was also supposed to take its first flight in 2026 and service in 2032.
Now if pursued its not coming before early-mid 2040s.
A clean sheet stealth design is needed.
The path charted by the ADA was the right one especially since IAF rejected the IN's offer for joint development of the AMCA beginning with a Naval version.
IN was amenable to the ADA's idea & work was proceeding on the TEDBF till 2024. Once their proposal for 26 nos Rafale M was cleared things took a back seat.
Since it became clear later that year the 114 nos Rafales are going to materialize for the IAF with MII following ACM AP Singh's public outburst , the IN fell back on it's original plan of 57 nos Rafale M as per the original MRCBF tender.
Eventually when the IAC -2 - a sister ship with the same tonnage as IAC-1 is sanctioned by the CCS , they will put forward their proposal for the IAC-3 as a N powered AC with CATOBAR & EMALS with a displacement of 65,000 tonnage carrying 5th Gen FA's .
For all the reticence ADA has been showing on navalizing AMCA, SoKo has already started developing the KF-21s 'N' version. Major changes are 20% larger wing area, higher MTOW and lower max speed. Similar approach to that taken by F-35C, J-35B et all.
Forget about AMCA, did the ADA ever come up with a roadmap for evolving a 5G ship based combat jet from the baseline TEDBF? Don't think it was ever on the cards.
Forget about AMCA, did the ADA ever come up with a roadmap for evolving a 5G ship based combat jet from the baseline TEDBF? Don't think it was ever on the cards.
As an institution, the navy is unlikely to give up on the TEDBF program.
KAI is working on the KF-21N without any specific inputs from the Korean Navy as per the reports, so it's more of a science/tech demo project.
KAI being a Pvt firm and raking in billions in revenue can afford that, on the other hand, ADA being lab under a Govt owned agency does not have the time & luxury to undertake such science projects.
LMAO what? the KAI KF21 "N" doesnt exist and is bascically a paper project that was concieved when SK thought they they wanted a carrier and quickly realised how stupid of a decision that would be when you have bascically no force projection requirements.
they dont need a A/C vs NK and vs china any A/C would have been useless anyway since they're too close to China and the the A/C could be sunk using a barrage from the mainland.
the KF21 is strictly a 4.5+ gen fighter with semi-recessed(at least claimed) weapon stores. the blk 3 version in the late 2030s might change it into a 5th gen but none of the jets being built right now for blk 1 and 2 are likely to get converted to blk 3. cheaper and less worrisome/technically easier to simply make new blk 3s.
That's because the ROKN is yet to decide on the best config for its future carrier. They've even opted out of buying the F-35B for now.
My point is that the Koreans are iterating rapidly, testing new variants and sticking with what works. They've had a plan right from the start. Start with a semi stealth airframe and build on it to create a full spec Block 2, 3, N versions.
What's particularly interesting is that the Koreans have zero carrier ac dev experience. But that isn't stopping them from trying out new concepts. Otoh, the ADA is walking on egg shells, despite the knowledge base from the LCA-N Mk1.
I could understand if they'd done the basic groundwork like CAD/CAM, wind-tunnel testing before foreclosing the option of N-AMCA.
At this rate, TEDBF will be too little, too late. Assuming the IN would even want it in its current config a few yrs down the line.
mate what part of a carrier for ROKN would be an exceesively stupid waste of money did you not understand. If they still want to build it sure lmao, theyre not going to be any good in an actual conflict and the money would be much better spent on more destroyers or subs
Same reason why Japan converted its Izumo class LPH into STOVL carriers. Redundancy in case all its airfields are cratered in a conflict with NoKo, even China. And Japan has dozens of Aegis cruisers for AMD.
Considering that the US has recently moved BMD assets like THAAD out to the ME, I suspect the carrier prog will be revived. Plus it is a natural extension to their Dodko LPH prog.
And how's the ADA supposed to unilaterally do that without IN's involvement ? The original plan was the development of a 4.5 Gen FA after IAF nixed IN's proposal for joint development of the AMCA .
This could've led to the 5th Gen FA program for the IN later. Today you've a situation where the IN's not opting for the N - LCA nor is it committing to the TEDBF .
And our place holder of a Raksha Mantri as well as MoD are holding on to their d!cks watching the sh!t show unfold with nobody pulling up the IN .
It seems clear this is open season & every arm of the armed forces is doing as they please. IA's yet to begin field testing of the MGS after preliminary tests at firing ranges, no news on inducting the WhAP , no progress on the matter of towed 155 mm x 52 cal howitzers beyond a piece meal order of ~ 300 nos for ATAGS , no indication whatsoever on whether the original nos as per FARP is even relevant today given what we've witnessed in the Ukraine war & so on .
IN's case as far as Naval Aviation is before you . IAF is operating in its own world.
Tbf, the IN and GoI would've atleast expected a clear roadmap for evolving the 'interm' 4.5G TEDBF into a 5G carrier based ac from the ADA. That doesn't appear to be the case.
While both design iterations of the TEDBF have been made public over the years. there's no sign of a 5G TEDBF concept. Such a roadmap would've helped the IN better align its expectations and accelerated CCS clearance.
Moreover, the initial design with frontal stealth was inexplicably dropped. Imo, it would've been easier to adapt into a true 5G jet than the latest pseudo Rafale iteration. There is no credible info on cockpit visibility problems attributed to the old design either.
As you've pointed out, the Rafale-M deal pretty much seals the fate of TEDBF in its current avatar. As far as GoI is concerned, Rafale is/will soon be a MII product, no different from LCA Mk1A or Mk2.
Designing a clean sheet 5G carrier based jet is a 10-15 yr effort. Even assuming 85-90% avionics and systems commonality with the AMCA and Tejas Mk2. ADA would do well to start working on it today.
Yes but how are you so confident it's the ADA's fault here & that they lack the requisite expertise ? Have they been mandated to do so by the MoD / IN ?
I haven't seen anything in the public domain to suggest so nor have I seen anything on SM by those better informed indicating this to be the case.
How are you so sure this wasn't at the IN's behest ? Moreover there's a long way to go before a CDC & Design freeze. At this point in time we aren't even sure the TEDBF is going to materialize in the form it was imagined in .
If the IN is truly aiming for a 5th Gen FA then they'd have to begin now. I personally don't think they'd be permitted to do so given the usual spoiler - the IAF will create a lot of impediments.
And since our Raksha Mantri is clueless you can expect no decision as long as he's there . The bureaucracy doesn't matter as they're equally clueless.
If you look at the timelines, you'll see what I mean. We know that the IN had shared its requirement in 2015 with ADA for a 5G carrier based jet. It had only just inducted the MiG-29K 5 years prior in 2010. MRCBF was not even in the picture at the time.
ADA told the IN that a 4.5G TEDBF was more realistic if they wanted it to be ready by 2032. Based on the X post above, ADA promised to adapt it into a 5G in due course. Yet no 5G concepts based on TEFBF were unveiled, based on AMCA or otherwise. There was no roadmap.
In 2017, just 2 years after the INs consultations with ADA, the former approached MoD for 57 MRCBF. They were clearly not convinced that ADA could meet its timelines for a 4.5G jet by 2032.
Imo, the IN decided to play along just to deflect negative media coverage after the cancelation of N-LCA mk1 in 2016.
Answered above
For that to happen, the IN must set up a Project Mgmt Team at ADA and actively steer the initial D&D phase, paying out of its own budget. It should approach GoI for funding only once the basic design is ready.
GoI would anyways not have the fiscal appetite to fund 3 separate ship based combat ac progs - Rafale M, TEDBF and a 5G. TEDBF must be scrapped now and all energies devoted to the 5G prog.
Yes that's what I've been asking you what was the timeline for the unveiling ? Was it after the First Flight of the 4.5 Gen TEDBF or alongside it meaning both would be paper projects.
You yourself answered your dilemma when you suggested ADA suggested beginning with a 4.5th Gen later expanding the envelope to 5th Gen . Obviously there has to be some proof of concept even if the 4.5 Gen TEDBF ends up as another TD like N - LCA without any commitments to get into production.
Well where's it ? Those instructions have to come from the IN. Right now there's none from their end.
I don't see any reason the ADA couldn't fulfill its end of the bargain. There's absolutely nothing about it on SM or MSM . In fact this is the first time I'm hearing of it.
So if the IN hasn't gone in for these measures how's the ADA to blame ? Clearly the IN has a different plan which I've explained before in multiple posts. They're eyeing the Rafale M as their exclusive platform for the 4.5 Gen FA role.
I'd advocate a freeze on any further procurement of Rafale M , read the riot act to IN & get them to commit wholeheartedly to the TEDBF . This project should be directly monitored by the Raksha Mantri's office & MoD.
The pathway to 5th Gen Naval FA should be via the 4.5 Gen TEDBF.
The INs timeline for a 5G ship based fighter coincided with the (initial) retirement date set for MiG-29K which was 2032. They settled for 4.5G TEDBF only ADA promised to deliver it by 2026.
ADA is reported to have explicitly told the IN at the time that it would build on the baseline TEDBF to create a 5G fighter. (Note that the current TEDBF design doesn't appear to be modular like say the KF-21)
I'd say it was incumbent upon ADA to show the IN exactly how it planned to iterate the basic TEDBF into a 5G jet. An evolutionary roadmap with improvements like twin canted tails, blended levcons/tailed delta, nose chine, etc is what was needed.
That initiative should have come from ADA as the design bureau. The market (IN) clearly demanded it and ADA didn't address it. You could argue that ADA is not a commercial entity and hence could afford to do so and you'd be right.
I agree that ADA and IN did carry our joint studies on a prospective 5G ship based jet. If a stealth airframe concept was developed for evaluation, it wasn't put out into the public domain.
The 4.5G TEDBF will yield no new design and dev skills that the ADA wouldn't already have acquired on the AMCA and Ghatak/ISUAV progs. It has already proven complex CTOL tech via the N-LCA mk1 prog.
What isn't clear to me is why they are insisting on building a 4.5G jet first before developing a whole new 5G jet. Time is not on ADAs side.
If Russia were to offer a suitably sized single/twin engine stealth jet a few yrs down the line, the IN isn't going to wait for ADA to cross the R&D finish line.
Last edited:
So why did the development stop ? Up until 2023 we had the project director TEDBF commit dates for first flight publicly. Since then we've had complete radio silence from ADA , IN & MoD.
As I said we don't have the final layout. Right now what we're doing is speculating. Has the TEDBF passed CDR & is the design frozen ? You yourself have pointed out to the various design changes on this very forum.
Surely it can't be that these weren't cleared by the IN. I'd go so far as to say it may have been demanded by the IN with ADA complying.
And why do you suppose the ADA isn't complying with what the IN wants given you're framing it that way ?
Frankly I was under the impression the IN gives the design mandate to the ADA. It's for them to come up with an optimum design subject to approval of the IN .
If the latter isn't satisfied , it's incumbent on the ADA to come up with a design to the satisfaction of the IN unless there are genuine constraints , whatever be their nature , in which case both the agencies come together to work out a solution .
If I'm not mistaken ADA decided against designing a 5th Gen FA exclusively for the IN given they didn't have resources to commit to the project given their commitment to the IAF for AMCA.
Since the IAF turned down the IN's request for joint development , the 4.5 Gen TEDBF was proposed which was accepted by the IN .
Later it was speculated that this 4.5 Gen TEDBF would evolve into a 5th Gen Stealth FA for the IN . Quite frankly I've yet to see any official confirmation of this development from either the IN or ADA or the MoD though I've seen chatter of this on X.
So it wouldn't be out of place to suggest that the entire premise is based on nothing but speculation.
Please refer to my comment above.
Moreover the need of the hour was an urgent replacement for the MiG-29K . I could extend this argument to what's the need for a 5th Gen FA in the IN ? For starters a 5th Gen FA is an offensive platform .
What's it going to be flown from ? Has the IAC-3 been cleared ? Even if it were cleared where do we deploy it ? The INs doctrine envisages guaranteeing maritime security from the Malacca Straits at the confluence of the Western Pacific Ocean & Indian Ocean at one end to the Bab el Mandeb & Straits of Hormuz at the other end & the Mozambique Channel at the Southern end.
In the light of this doctrine , where's the scope for a 5th Gen FA ? Let me elaborate my point. In order to project force into the SCS & ECS we'd require a force of at least 6 ACs of 65000 ton displacement at the very minimum , where 2 would be on constant patrol duty , 2 in Port & 2 under maintenance as the routine goes. When do you see us with these kind of capabilities ?
Furthermore , which Navy has 5th Gen capabilities to challenge the IN in these waters now or is expected to get it in a decade or 2 except USN & PLAN ?
We aren't going up against the USN & if we go up against PLAN in the next couple of decades it'd be more of an area denial strategy with our submarines & missiles like the hypersonic missile we've just demonstrated plus SMART with our Island chains at the ANC & possibly Lakshadweep Islands coming into play apart from peninsular India.
The last thing we'd be doing is pitching our ACs against them assuming we've even 2 such 65000 ton displacement ACs.
So once again I ask you where're we proposing to deploy those 5th Gen Stealth FAs on ? Let's leave aside current developments wherein existing air launched AShM like Brahmos etc are too big to fit in the IWB of these proposed Stealth FAs.
Let's assume as & when development work begins on such FAs , we'd also be developing a new class of such missiles compact enough to be carried in IWB of such 5th Gen Stealth FAs. Hence I didn't bring up this argument.
I thought that's how you go about it. Develop a 4.5 Gen FA & graduate to 5th Gen unless you're suggesting a reversal of the order or concurrent development.
I mean isn't the MiG-29K bad enough that you want to go in for another untried experiment from Russia where we serve as the guinea pig ?
Apparently, the PDR which was originally scheduled for 2023 is yet to be completed. The IN clearly has other priorities.
No. This is from a seemingly official document. Couldn't find the exact source though.
So far, there has been no mention of a 5G ship based TEDBF variant by the ADA team. Given that the current TEDBF is firmly 4G in terms of design features, it'd be back to the drawing board for the ADA in a few years.
The IN asked for a 5G jet in 2015 for delivery in 2032. The ADA said they could come up with a 4.5G airframe in that timeframe, followed by a 5G variant some years down the line. Atleast that was the pitch as you'd see in the post I just shared above.
If a concept 5G design exists for TEDBF, I've yet to see it.
The timelines don't match. I'd referred to this in my prev post too. The IN specified a requirement for a 5G naval jet in 2015, just 5 yrs after inducting the Fulcrum D in 2010.
I don't believe the requirement had anything to do with the Russian birds' servicability problems which would've initially been seen as teething problems with their full extent becoming apparent only years later.
Imo, the key problem for the IN is survivability. Our medium sized carriers have modest airwings (20-24 ac) without dedicated ew support ac (a la Growlerski). On the MiG-29K, this means dedicating precious hard points to carrying SPJ, AAMs limiting room for heavy SOWs or kitting out several ac for A2A escort, limiting their impact.
A 5G jet can theoretically close this gap, improving our carriers' strike rate. The IN probably also wants better endurance to enable its carrier ac to hit multiple targets in fewer sorties.
Between the N-LCA mk1, the Tejas Mk2 and AMCA, the ADA has gained enough practical experience to be able to build a 5G carrier based jet. Why reinvent the wheel?
With Rafale-M now taking over the mantle of the INs premier strike fighter, TEDBF must adapt or die.
Last edited: