Tejas Mk2 (Medium Weight Fighter) - News and discussions

randomradio said:
TEDBF is a separate ADA-led project, so it should be fine. ORCA is HAL's brainchild, so there's no relation between the two.
Click to expand...
The end users are either IN or IAF or both. Given the resource crunch , I don't see ORCA making any sense especially if you're having the MMRCA 2.0 & both versions of the AMCA for the IAF apart from the Tejas Mk-2 / MWF. ORCA was a non starter to begin with. Expect HAL to quote a ridiculous price for the TEDBF a decade from now citing low numbers as a last ditch attempt to push ORCA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kane
_Anonymous_ said:
The end users are either IN or IAF or both. Given the resource crunch , I don't see ORCA making any sense especially if you're having the MMRCA 2.0 & both versions of the AMCA for the IAF apart from the Tejas Mk-2 / MWF. ORCA was a non starter to begin with. Expect HAL to quote a ridiculous price for the TEDBF a decade from now citing low numbers as a last ditch attempt to push ORCA.
Click to expand...

Even if ORCA is cheap, it won't be ready in time to join IAF's inventory. Rafale is already available and even AMCA Mk1 will become available before ORCA will. So, at the very least, ORCA is definitely not in the running to become part of the IAF's inventory.

TEDBF will also not go to HAL on nomination basis, HAL will have to compete for it with the private sector. If HAL is actually serious about ORCA, then they will have to design it as a competitor to the TEDBF. The advantage for TEDBF is it's a clean-sheet design, hence will be more suitable for carriers, whereas the advantage for ORCA is that it's a modernisation of an existing design, hence less risk. I'd definitely like to see a competition between the two. And the navy is quite willing to accept a 4.5th gen design even in the 2030s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chain Smoker, vikata, Sathya and 1 other person
randomradio said:
That's the only way it can be considered since only the IN will exist as a market at the time. IAF will be out of the picture.
Click to expand...
I thought the ORCA was an air force variant of the TEDBF. At least that's how HVT put it before he disappeared from SM. HAL itself has hardly put out any info on this officially. How you conjured up the ORCA as being in competition with TEDBF for a single slot in the IN is something only you know.
 
_Anonymous_ said:
I didn't improve coz I'm too lazy to read source books or papers or even articles on technical subjects. Those videos are good enough to provide basic stuff & technical stuff once in a while ( which you've got to admit is pretty good. Hell, guys at BR are pleased with him & they're not an easy lot to please) .

You can always rely on AI. Just be sure not to give instructions to such a source in Mallu English. It's easy. Roll your 'r's. You'd sound like Edwin instead of Eshwin.

P. S - Don't go about deleting this exchange like you did the past ones.
Click to expand...
I was talking about videos, not your reading skills.


Ps I don't delete any of your valuable posts, but other staff may interpret these as offtopic.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: vikata and _Anonymous_
_Anonymous_ said:
I thought the ORCA was an air force variant of the TEDBF. At least that's how HVT put it before he disappeared from SM. HAL itself has hardly put out any info on this officially. How you conjured up the ORCA as being in competition with TEDBF for a single slot in the IN is something only you know.
Click to expand...

Not at all. ORCA was advertised in the air force variant form by HVT a long time ago. This was followed up with a naval variant also. ORCA is simply a twin-engine MWF or Mk2.

TEDBF is a brand new naval design. No render of a design has been released yet.

As Milspec pointed out in the previous page, ORCA came out of HAL's ARDC whereas TEDBF is from ADA. So we are now playing with 2 different designs from 2 different R&D houses. Hence they can now compete.
 
randomradio said:
Not at all. ORCA was advertised in the air force variant form by HVT a long time ago. This was followed up with a naval variant also. ORCA is simply a twin-engine MWF or Mk2.

TEDBF is a brand new naval design. No render of a design has been released yet.

As Milspec pointed out in the previous page, ORCA came out of HAL's ARDC whereas TEDBF is from ADA. So we are now playing with 2 different designs from 2 different R&D houses. Hence they can now compete.
Click to expand...
Compete for what? They're 2 different FA for 2 different arms of the armed forces in 2 very different roles. What're you talking about?

Any sources for you claiming ORCA was visualized as a Naval version too by HAL?
 
_Anonymous_ said:
Compete for what? They're 2 different FA for 2 different arms of the armed forces in 2 very different roles. What're you talking about?

Any sources for you claiming ORCA was visualized as a Naval version too by HAL?
Click to expand...

ORCA3.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: vikata
_Anonymous_ said:
Have you even understood what we're discussing & what the video's all about or did you just jump in to score some brownie points?
Click to expand...

Relax sir. Posted the video as this guy says "ORCA is TEDBF. It is a twin engine aircraft for Navy which is also intended to be adapted for IAF (apparently a replacement for Sukhoi 🤣). The picture posted by randomradio is also in the video.

Don't take this ORCA seriously. It is just a paper plane and will remain as such. If the third aircraft carrier for the navy is canceled as proposed by CDS, not sure if this project will be taken up anytime soon. IAF is more interested in AMCA. This twin engine aircraft is more of Navy's requirement.
 
randomradio said:
ORCA3.jpg
Click to expand...
That's from ****. Not from HAL. As far as I know HVT was the only person who tweeted on behalf of HAL about ORCA & he certainly didn't mention a naval version of it. But that's only as far as I know.

None of the HAL officials ever came up with a statement on the record about ORCA either as an Air Force variant or a Naval variant except as unnamed sources for select media houses & journalists & that too only for the IAF version . Since then HVT has either deleted his twitter account or suspended it. It all makes sense in the light of Ananthakrishnan's today's tweet.

From what one can gather, it's this - that ORCA is most likely a HAL in house twin engine development of the Mk-1a for the IAF & likewise the TEDBF is a twin engine development of the N - LCA Mk-1.

You're the one making contrary claims that ORCA will be available in both the Air Force & navalised versions & that from 2030 onwards it's speculated that since shore based patrolling will be the responsibility of the IN, the IN would need both ORCA ( air force / land based & naval versions) & / or TEDBF to which may I draw your attention to the TC & other defence reforms since undertaken which now completely recasts old arguments & does away with turf wars of the past.
 
Last edited:
randomradio said:
That's actually from Vishnu Som. He's claiming ORCA is an ADA design. Obviously not correct.
Click to expand...
There's no mention of Vishnu Som whatsoever in the article HVT quoted. Besides the article never claims that ORCA is an ADA design just that ORCA is an air force variant of the TEDBF, something HVT confirms below.
Excerpts from the same thread.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1251555440778866689
 
_Anonymous_ said:
There's no mention of Vishnu Som whatsoever in the article HVT quoted. Besides the article never claims that ORCA is an ADA design just that ORCA is an air force variant of the TEDBF, something HVT confirms below.
Excerpts from the same thread.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1251555440778866689
Click to expand...

Dude, I can't believe you didn't get what he said.

He's clearly pointed out that ORCA and TEDBF are two different aircraft. Points 3 and 4 clearly bring out the difference.
Ashwin said:
TEDBF is actual development based on navy requirements by ADA.
First report on DDR - The Indian Navy And DRDO Move On From The NLCA Mk2 To The Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)

ORCA graphics took two more moths to render.;)

HAL is just marketing their dream to match MMRCA.
Click to expand...

Exactly. ORCA and TEDBF are two entirely different aircraft from two entirely different design teams from two entirely different R&D houses.

I don't get all the confusion around it. The fact that all the ORCA renders say "HAL" instead of "ADA" is proof enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom