Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)

[Lolwa]

Now that it has become clear that the navy would like to have a stealthy airframe, and the timeline has been extended to 2037 and beyond, ADA should be working on a new design. Let's call it TEDBF-NG.

To make it future-ready and financially viable, they can position it as a cheaper alternative to AMCA and export ready. The Navy does not have stringent requirements like all-aspect stealth or supercruise.

• Ability to operate from STOBAR, CATOBAR and EMALS
• A shore-based version with a lower empty weight because there is no need for reinforced landing gear and folding wings.
• Engine options: GE F414 or 110kn AMCA engine
• Common avionics with AMCA Mk1 (We can drop fancy things like EOTS and limit it to IRST)
• No need for all-aspect stealth or supercruise

This will provide a more affordable alternative to every fifth-generation fighter available in the market at that time.

Keep in mind that you can't adapt a land-based fighter design to be carrier-compatible; it has to be the other way around. Design has to be cleansheet not based on AMCA.

The tedbf programme needs to take the korean kf-x route. We need the first batch of tedbf in 4.75 of about 60-100 fighters I suppose. The tedbf ng needs to be all aspect stealth. The tedbf will be going against j-31 in the future so it atleast needs all aspect stealth.
I hope iwb with capacity of 4+2 missiles, uprated ge 414 , eots,irst is needed. So is DEW. We don't need an affordable alternative. We need a proper naval fifth gen fighter that can face an f-35C or j-31. The tedbf air frame is not half bad. Something like a fifth gen rafale. I hope tedbf ng does look like this.

 

[Ashwin]

The tedbf programme needs to take the korean kf-x route. We need the first batch of tedbf in 4.75 of about 60-100 fighters I suppose. The tedbf ng needs to be all aspect stealth. The tedbf will be going against j-31 in the future so it atleast needs all aspect stealth.
I hope iwb with capacity of 4+2 missiles, uprated ge 414 , eots,irst is needed. So is DEW. We don't need an affordable alternative. We need a proper naval fifth gen fighter that can face an f-35C or j-31. The tedbf air frame is not half bad. Something like a fifth gen rafale. I hope tedbf ng does look like this.

You live in a la la land. Be it F-15EX dreams or your fighter wishlist.

 

[Zarion]

Dassault worked with Boeing on X32 developpment. Why not with India ?

I really don't understand why they don't chose a twin vertical fin config.
It is nearly the norm now.

Even the initial cdr isn't complete so we don't have any idea how the real thing will look like.

Having or not having a twin vertical stabilizer will be a decision taken on the basis of Navy's requirements so doesn't matter if it's a "norm" or not.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

Now that it has become clear that the navy would like to have a stealthy airframe, and the timeline has been extended to 2037 and beyond, ADA should be working on a new design. Let's call it TEDBF-NG.

To make it future-ready and financially viable, they can position it as a cheaper alternative to AMCA and export ready.
The Navy does not have stringent requirements like all-aspect stealth or supercruise.

• Ability to operate from STOBAR, CATOBAR and EMALS
• A shore-based version with a lower empty weight because there is no need for reinforced landing gear and folding wings.
• Engine options: GE F414 or 110kn AMCA engine
• Common avionics with AMCA Mk1 (We can drop fancy things like EOTS and limit it to IRST)
• No need for all-aspect stealth or supercruise

This will provide a more affordable alternative to every fifth-generation fighter available in the market at that time.

> No need to think so cheaply. Our Socialist mixed economy, if handled sincerely, can easily produce a genuine 5.5gen TEDBF-NG in the emerging 6gen era. Defence is a costly matter, not like consumer goods industry. But still many citizens wan't latest over-budgeted gadgets, mostly imported, whose most features they hardly use.
> Naval jets won't get any threat discount from enemy SAMs, AAMs, jets. So all-aspect stealth will become default in future.
> EOTS = LD + IRST. It has become compact & lighter with time. In front of a 25-30 ton jet, it hardly weighs anything & has become something usual like DAS sensors, etc. May be Navy doesn't require LGB to attack any sea targets. Perhaps ARH, PRH, IR are enough. But a naval jet could be required to be re-tasked to attack land/shore targets.
> F-35's F135 engine is euivalent to 2x F414 engines. F-35 has also shown that its IWB capacity is not enough. So a future naval jet needs to be bigger with better engines, and also custom weapons with folding fins. I wouldn't be surprised if USN discloses F/A-XX prototype with 2x F-135 or XA-100/1/2/3 engines. That's equivalent to 4x F414 engines, i'm not saying we should make TEDBF-NG with 4x F414

Keep in mind that you can't adapt a land-based fighter design to be carrier-compatible; it has to be the other way around. Design has to be cleansheet not based on AMCA.

Looking at F-35 A/B/C, the adaptation has already been proven. A naval jet just needs stronger landing gears & bigger wings for low speed stable landing.
Also, the looks from certain angles of certain parts of J-20, J-35, KF-21, Kaan, AMCA, GCAP, FCAS are similar to F-22/35, like intakes, fuselage, IWB, canted rudders, cropped diamond wings, etc, bcoz planform shaping has become a default norm for future survivable stealth jet.
So a N-AMCA can be easily derived.

The tedbf programme needs to take the korean kf-x route. We need the first batch of tedbf in 4.75 of about 60-100 fighters I suppose. The tedbf ng needs to be all aspect stealth. The tedbf will be going against j-31 in the future so it atleast needs all aspect stealth.
I hope iwb with capacity of 4+2 missiles, uprated ge 414 , eots,irst is needed. So is DEW. We don't need an affordable alternative. We need a proper naval fifth gen fighter that can face an f-35C or j-31. The tedbf air frame is not half bad. Something like a fifth gen rafale. I hope tedbf ng does look like this.
View attachment 41306

That's a nice looking concept.
> Some media says TEDBF prototype will take FF next year, some say in 5yrs. But whatever be the case, if not started yet, then we should immediately start either cleansheet design or tweaking either AMCA or TEDBF into A-TEDBF or TEDBF-NG whatever people wanna call it.
The YF-22 was re-designed in just 3 months in July-October 1986 using primitive computing & CAD of that era. So using today's computing, CAD with AI/ML, we should be able to rapidly design & prototype.
> I won't be surprised if France revealed a stealth Rafale version or naval-FCAS. Some day soon something better has to come. Russia can reveal a naval stealth jet any time, succeeding Su-33.

Currently, TEDBF (& all other 4.5gen jets) looks not just very good but excellent...... target tech evolution

There is an indication by IN about 5gen TEDBF, means complete stealth.
See the 1st ticked point.

View attachment 40815

IDK the complete video or transcript but the current TEDBF design could be scrapped or heavily modified.
So this is different from the earlier linear roadmap which IMO is contributing problem rather than parallel, independent projects.

View attachment 40831
View attachment 40832

Technology constraints, challenges, hurdles, complexities, etc are NORMAL part of Engineering.
Just like our commercial tech of laptops/desktops, cellphones, etc have improved drastically & helps us so well technically & non-technically, similarly, Industrial Technology improves not just H/w components making, testing, but also business processes & decision making through secured conferencing, networks, databases, inventory management S/w, product lifecycle & project mgmt. S/w etc. Since our IT boom in 1990s we've been making all these things.
In most populous country with technical colleges in almost every city, 10s of 1000s of tech students passing out every year, If ADA, DRDO, HAL lacks resources then obviously they should expand + private sector.
Our Socialist mixed economy is supposed to be more economical than Capitalist free market one.

We have our RAMs & RAS now, we need geometric structure.
It's good that IN understand now that Naval jets won't get threat concession by enemy SAMs, AAMs, jets.
The era of 5gen is said to begin with B-2 & F-117 revealed in 1988, then YF-22/23 revealed in 1990. They were developed in 1980s & initiated in 1970s. So we are 30-40 years behind that way.

But we are 15 years down the line with AMCA & many common components with MWF, TEDBF. There are 3 options now -
- tweak AMCA like F-35 A & C models.
- tweak current TEDBF design. The MWF can act as TD like X-35 & final Naval TEDBF can be stealthy like F-35C, although inflated to 2-engine jet.
- cleansheet AHCA with stronger engines for a good airframe TWR to take-off & carry sufficient minimum custom weapons.
Our engine JV shoud cater to this, meanwhile we should arrange interim engine for prototype.

View attachment 40829

Also, a panic has been created about humidity, salinity, higher CAPEX & OPEX of naval jets, etc as if it is a solid barrier in way of tech advancement. It sounds like 4.5gen is the end of line & pinnacle of Naval jet tech & no future version of RAM & RAS can protect the jets in affordable cost. On land/sea, in space, deep under water, if something needs to be done, will be done. So let's not fuel this point which goes against stealth naval jet rather than being constructive & progressive.

The next carrier should have EMALS which should be sanctioned a.s.a.p.

Now ADA is in a dilemma on how to cater to IN.
- tweak AMCA to N-AMCA
- or tweak TEDBF to A-TEDBF
- or new cleansheet design
- when to officially initiate
- define timeline keeping in mind global tech advancements.

AMCA & current TEDBF would use same engines in twin config. So their dimensions, weight, size are also identical.
Following is a scaled comparison as per their width:




The above front view is identical to F-16 Vs F-35-C :



Although unofficial CADs are not the ultimate thing, the AMCA CAD looks relatively matured but if the TEDBF needs to be tweaked then clearly some things have to be modified like -
- lengthening & widening fuselage.
- reshaping narrow cockpit & over-sized canopy.
- create space for frontal sensors.
- adjust smaller intake area.
- pull up intakes & increase belly width for IWB.
- reduce bulky shoulder like fused CFT.
- remove vertical tail to twin canted ones.
- blend the wing more into fuselage.
- perhaps increase wing width/area little more.
- remove wingtip hardpoint by conformal tapered EW antennas.

 

[Lolwa]

You live in a la la land. Be it F-15EX dreams or your fighter wishlist.

Tedbf is a failure if it doesn't get all aspect stealth. That's a fact. Most people overestimate our capabilities. What you propose for the tedbf will make it a halfbaked product like the mk1.

 

[Speedster1]

Now that it has become clear that the navy would like to have a stealthy airframe, and the timeline has been extended to 2037 and beyond, ADA should be working on a new design. Let's call it TEDBF-NG.

To make it future-ready and financially viable, they can position it as a cheaper alternative to AMCA and export ready. The Navy does not have stringent requirements like all-aspect stealth or supercruise.

• Ability to operate from STOBAR, CATOBAR and EMALS
• A shore-based version with a lower empty weight because there is no need for reinforced landing gear and folding wings.
• Engine options: GE F414 or 110kn AMCA engine
• Common avionics with AMCA Mk1 (We can drop fancy things like EOTS and limit it to IRST)
• No need for all-aspect stealth or supercruise

This will provide a more affordable alternative to every fifth-generation fighter available in the market at that time.

Keep in mind that you can't adapt a land-based fighter design to be carrier-compatible; it has to be the other way around. Design has to be cleansheet not based on AMCA.

At minimum, the ADA would have to go back to the intial concept imo (w/faceted front fuselage) displayed just 4 years ago at Aero India 2021. Together with DSI intakes, that config would offer some frontal stealth (twin canted tail fins + conformal weapons stations would take it to -5G level). Such a design would build on the work already done over the last few years. A 'minimum change' config.

Later, we could look at a full-up stealth Mk2 design with blended candards (levcons), delta planform w/edge alignment, IWB, cropped tail fins, etc. A cleansheet design is easily a 10+ year effort, and the IN can't afford to wait that long. At this point though, it's all up in the air.

 

[Hydra]

> No need to think so cheaply. Our Socialist mixed economy, if handled sincerely, can easily produce a genuine 5.5gen TEDBF-NG in the emerging 6gen era. Defence is a costly matter, not like consumer goods industry. But still many citizens wan't latest over-budgeted gadgets, mostly imported, whose most features they hardly use.
> Naval jets won't get any threat discount from enemy SAMs, AAMs, jets. So all-aspect stealth will become default in future.
> EOTS = LD + IRST. It has become compact & lighter with time. In front of a 25-30 ton jet, it hardly weighs anything & has become something usual like DAS sensors, etc. May be Navy doesn't require LGB to attack any sea targets. Perhaps ARH, PRH, IR are enough. But a naval jet could be required to be re-tasked to attack land/shore targets.
> F-35's F135 engine is euivalent to 2x F414 engines. F-35 has also shown that its IWB capacity is not enough. So a future naval jet needs to be bigger with better engines, and also custom weapons with folding fins. I wouldn't be surprised if USN discloses F/A-XX prototype with 2x F-135 or XA-100/1/2/3 engines. That's equivalent to 4x F414 engines, i'm not saying we should make TEDBF-NG with 4x F414


Looking at F-35 A/B/C, the adaptation has already been proven. A naval jet just needs stronger landing gears & bigger wings for low speed stable landing.
Also, the looks from certain angles of certain parts of J-20, J-35, KF-21, Kaan, AMCA, GCAP, FCAS are similar to F-22/35, like intakes, fuselage, IWB, canted rudders, cropped diamond wings, etc, bcoz planform shaping has become a default norm for future survivable stealth jet.
So a N-AMCA can be easily derived.


That's a nice looking concept.
> Some media says TEDBF prototype will take FF next year, some say in 5yrs. But whatever be the case, if not started yet, then we should immediately start either cleansheet design or tweaking either AMCA or TEDBF into A-TEDBF or TEDBF-NG whatever people wanna call it.
The YF-22 was re-designed in just 3 months in July-October 1986 using primitive computing & CAD of that era. So using today's computing, CAD with AI/ML, we should be able to rapidly design & prototype.
> I won't be surprised if France revealed a stealth Rafale version or naval-FCAS. Some day soon something better has to come. Russia can reveal a naval stealth jet any time, succeeding Su-33.

Currently, TEDBF (& all other 4.5gen jets) looks not just very good but excellent...... target tech evolution



Now ADA is in a dilemma on how to cater to IN.
- tweak AMCA to N-AMCA
- or tweak TEDBF to A-TEDBF
- or new cleansheet design
- when to officially initiate
- define timeline keeping in mind global tech advancements.

AMCA & current TEDBF would use same engines in twin config. So their dimensions, weight, size are also identical.
Following is a scaled comparison as per their width:

View attachment 41307
View attachment 41308

The above front view is identical to F-16 Vs F-35-C :

View attachment 41309

Although unofficial CADs are not the ultimate thing, the AMCA CAD looks relatively matured but if the TEDBF needs to be tweaked then clearly some things have to be modified like -
- lengthening & widening fuselage.
- reshaping narrow cockpit & over-sized canopy.
- create space for frontal sensors.
- adjust smaller intake area.
- pull up intakes & increase belly width for IWB.
- reduce bulky shoulder like fused CFT.
- remove vertical tail to twin canted ones.
- blend the wing more into fuselage.
- perhaps increase wing width/area little more.
- remove wingtip hardpoint by conformal tapered EW antennas.

I really don't know why we are obsessed with 110 kn engines? Why not more powerful engines like F110-129 by GE or inhouse equivalent is not considered for next fighter jets. Yeas, aircraft will be bit bigger,but in order to cope up the limited space inside iwb, we need a bigger aircraft.

 

[TARGET]

Tedbf is a failure if it doesn't get all aspect stealth. That's a fact. Most people overestimate our capabilities. What you propose for the tedbf will make it a halfbaked product like the mk1.

Stealth is not needed for a fighter plane that is flying for the navy. You fly low ... you fly over the sea, and no radar is scanning from your belly side; only frontal stealth will be enough. My thought is that once your LCA MK 2 is ready, plan for a twin-engine version of LCA MK 2, and there is no need for a divertless air intake; just check the fuel and lift capacity with IN ... That's it. Your fighter plane is ready for IN.

 

[Ashwin]

Tedbf is a failure if it doesn't get all aspect stealth. That's a fact. Most people overestimate our capabilities. What you propose for the tedbf will make it a halfbaked product like the mk1.

By defining the TEDBF requirements to be "like the Rafale" in the 2030s, the Navy did ask for a good enough carrier-based fighter, but not a contemporary world beater. They don't have to because their area of responsibility is limited to IOR. They also want to limit developmental risk.

I believe you are more concerned with "stealth in all aspects." What I mean is that it only needs to be as stealthy as an F-35B/C, not an F-22. We aim to achieve F-22-like low observability in the AMCA design. Thats not required for a carrier based fighter.

 

[Lolwa]

Stealth is not needed for a fighter plane that is flying for the navy. You fly low ... you fly over the sea, and no radar is scanning from your belly side; only frontal stealth will be enough. My thought is that once your LCA MK 2 is ready, plan for a twin-engine version of LCA MK 2, and there is no need for a divertless air intake; just check the fuel and lift capacity with IN ... That's it. Your fighter plane is ready for IN.

What happens when we are facing a bvr situation against chinese Flankers i.e j-15B's with modern aesa and pl-15 and pl-17 integration. What happens when we will be facing j-31. F-22 has lower RCS than f-35 without dsi. When I'm saying all aspect stealth what I want is iwb, eots and slanted dual vertical stabilizers like the f-23 or su-57. Otherwise we will have have a arjun situation where we need to do interim upgrades which basically take redesigning the entire turret.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

I really don't know why we are obsessed with 110 kn engines? Why not more powerful engines like F110-129 by GE or inhouse equivalent is not considered for next fighter jets. Yeas, aircraft will be bit bigger,but in order to cope up the limited space inside iwb, we need a bigger aircraft.

Bcoz hearing that continiously it has become reflexive muscle memory for some people. Such people forget to consider tech evolution in future 40-50 years, the importance of stealth, its impact on airframe design & engine power required.

Stealth is not needed for a fighter plane that is flying for the navy. You fly low ... you fly over the sea, and no radar is scanning from your belly side; only frontal stealth will be enough. My thought is that once your LCA MK 2 is ready, plan for a twin-engine version of LCA MK 2, and there is no need for a divertless air intake; just check the fuel and lift capacity with IN ... That's it. Your fighter plane is ready for IN.

Then F-35, J-35 are big mistakes & we shall not see any stealth naval jet in future by any country.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

By defining the TEDBF requirements to be "like the Rafale" in the 2030s, the Navy did ask for a good enough carrier-based fighter, but not a contemporary world beater. They don't have to because their area of responsibility is limited to IOR. They also want to limit developmental risk.

I believe you are more concerned with "stealth in all aspects." What I mean is that it only needs to be as stealthy as an F-35B/C, not an F-22. We aim to achieve F-22-like low observability in the AMCA design. Thats not required for a carrier based fighter.

Why not have a world beater & be a world leader? Why limit our capability? Did USA compare with its puny neighbors before becoming leader?
IOR is a huge region for our peninsula.
In school itself we were taught that Enterpreneurship is about risk taking. There is risk in every business. But our DoD has monopoly, no competition. But then also lacking confidence.
Do you think that our IIT, NIT & other school/college guys should not aim for scoring 100% if possible? Leaders keep pushing themselves to eradicate competition. That's how jets like F-22, B-2, F-117, SR-71, etc were created.
Eeverybody is developing & improving LPI stealth detecting radars. So why limit stealth capabilty?

 

[Hydra]

Why not have a world beater & be a world leader? Why limit our capability? Did USA compare with its puny neighbors before becoming leader?
IOR is a huge region for our peninsula.
In school itself we were taught that Enterpreneurship is about risk taking. There is risk in every business. But our DoD has monopoly, no competition. But then also lacking confidence.
Do you think that our IIT, NIT & other school/college guys should not aim for scoring 100% if possible? Leaders keep pushing themselves to eradicate competition. That's how jets like F-22, B-2, F-117, SR-71, etc were created.
Eeverybody is developing & improving LPI stealth detecting radars. So why limit stealth capabilty?

The biggest example if F15, USA miscalculated mig25 in an exaggerated manner and developed F15. And it has 104 vs zero.

In our case we are like 1) JF17 is Chinese, so it won't be problem.2) J20 is not stealthy 3)Tibet is higher altitude so chinese cannot take off 4) after seeing the pathetic perfomance of russian weapons in Gulf war (when brute majority of our weapons are Russian origin ) we were like, those weapons are second grade 5) when Russia failed its wespons in Ukrain, we started blaming Russian soldiers.

Even Tejas program should have started around PW F100 or F110 from GE, we could have avoided this MMRCA, mrfa circus.

 

[Lolwa]

The biggest example if F15, USA miscalculated mig25 in an exaggerated manner and developed F15. And it has 104 vs zero.

In our case we are like 1) JF17 is Chinese, so it won't be problem.2) J20 is not stealthy 3)Tibet is higher altitude so chinese cannot take off 4) after seeing the pathetic perfomance of russian weapons in Gulf war (when brute majority of our weapons are Russian origin ) we were like, those weapons are second grade 5) when Russia failed its wespons in Ukrain, we started blaming Russian soldiers.

Even Tejas program should have started around PW F100 or F110 from GE, we could have avoided this MMRCA, mrfa circus.

F100 & f110 series was there creme de la creme in engine design during cold war. They wouldn't have shared it with us at all. And neither we had the expertise to absorb such a high end engine.
Only Nato nations have production of f100 series and there's only one country in nato that does that and its Turkey. Everybody else in Nato+ produces the g404 or g414. And turks might end up having a pretty robust fifth gen due to using the more powerful ge engine.

I really don't know why we are obsessed with 110 kn engines? Why not more powerful engines like F110-129 by GE or inhouse equivalent is not considered for next fighter jets. Yeas, aircraft will be bit bigger,but in order to cope up the limited space inside iwb, we need a bigger aircraft.

If we had actually went for the f100 series the tejas would actually be on par with f-16 and j-10 and would likely be better too due it's design. Same for use case in AMCA. AMCA then would habe easily replaced our Flankers too.
The twin engined tedbf/omca would literally be a super rafale with a huge carrying capacity but I wonder if it would be capable of supercruise.

 

[TARGET]

What happens when we are facing a bvr situation against chinese Flankers i.e j-15B's with modern aesa and pl-15 and pl-17 integration. What happens when we will be facing j-31. F-22 has lower RCS than f-35 without dsi. When I'm saying all aspect stealth what I want is iwb, eots and slanted dual vertical stabilizers like the f-23 or su-57. Otherwise we will have have a arjun situation where we need to do interim upgrades which basically take redesigning the entire turret.

If we are talking about 5th generation stealth fighter jets, no one is saying stop developing AMCA; China is a bordering country, and we have our airfields to use AMCA. For IN we don't need stealth fighters; the main objective of IN will be an anti-ship mission. So LCA MK2 with a twin-engine will be good enough; else, get it from the international market. Since we are planning for lots of things and are unable to deliver. We need to be more practical about what we can do and set our priorities.

Bcoz hearing that continiously it has become reflexive muscle memory for some people. Such people forget to consider tech evolution in future 40-50 years, the importance of stealth, its impact on airframe design & engine power required.


Then F-35, J-35 are big mistakes & we shall not see any stealth naval jet in future by any country.

F35 B and F35 C are the only currently operating 5th generation marine fighter jets. We are not a blue water navy and have no plans to send our aircraft carrier to the South China Sea. There is no J35 inducted in the PLA NAVY. AMCA is not yet ready, and we are struggling to get LCA MK1A production; it will be foolish to plan for TEDBF with stealth characteristics from ADA. If it's just a wish list, then no issues.

 

[randomradio]

Dassault worked with Boeing on X32 developpment. Why not with India ?

We do not have a fighter jet contract with Boeing, only Dassault.

Presumably Dassault will win MRFA and act as a partner in AMCA and TEDBF, wherever Indian designers find deficiencies in know-how and know-why.

I really don't understand why they don't chose a twin vertical fin config.
It is nearly the norm now.

TEDBF doesn't require shaping stealth. It's a Rafale++ for STOBAR ops from our first 3 carriers.

Drones will provide all-round stealth.

 

[randomradio]

Tedbf is a failure if it doesn't get all aspect stealth. That's a fact. Most people overestimate our capabilities. What you propose for the tedbf will make it a halfbaked product like the mk1.

By defining the TEDBF requirements to be "like the Rafale" in the 2030s, the Navy did ask for a good enough carrier-based fighter, but not a contemporary world beater. They don't have to because their area of responsibility is limited to IOR. They also want to limit developmental risk.

I believe you are more concerned with "stealth in all aspects." What I mean is that it only needs to be as stealthy as an F-35B/C, not an F-22. We aim to achieve F-22-like low observability in the AMCA design. Thats not required for a carrier based fighter.

You can't get sufficient stealth out of manned agile fighter designs. You need unmanned drones.

 

[randomradio]

I really don't know why we are obsessed with 110 kn engines? Why not more powerful engines like F110-129 by GE or inhouse equivalent is not considered for next fighter jets. Yeas, aircraft will be bit bigger,but in order to cope up the limited space inside iwb, we need a bigger aircraft.

All our current programs within this half of the century will be achieved with a 110 kN engine.

AMCA and TEDBF will be our heaviest jets around. Any new next gen jet for the navy will use an uprated engine, say 120 kN. And drones will be smaller and lighter and will require less than 110 kN. Heavier drones can use 2 engines.

 

[randomradio]

Now that it has become clear that the navy would like to have a stealthy airframe, and the timeline has been extended to 2037 and beyond, ADA should be working on a new design. Let's call it TEDBF-NG.

The IN is talking about their next fighter for CATOBAR.

This is confirmation that the IN won't be going for a CATOBAR version of TEDBF, but will require a whole new "stealth" "5th gen" design.

The quotes indicate it's all subjective too.

The extended timeline is for the redesigned TEDBF. Internal fuel has been improved from 5.5T to 7T and MTOW from 24T to 26T. Perhaps (very likely) AMCA engine instead of F414.

 

[Hydra]

All our current programs within this half of the century will be achieved with a 110 kN engine.

AMCA and TEDBF will be our heaviest jets around. Any new next gen jet for the navy will use an uprated engine, say 120 kN. And drones will be smaller and lighter and will require less than 110 kN. Heavier drones can use 2 engines.

Yeas, our programsvare revolving around GEf404 or its variants or its indigenous solution. The thing i am asking is, why didn't we pursue an aircraft from begening with a GE F110-100/129? We would have end up with an indigenous MMRCA fighter now instead of a desi mig21.