What's there to say? Right now both programs are simply within the minds of ADA. Nothing's official. Particularly ORCA.
Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)
- Thread starter Gautam
- Start date
What's there to say? Right now both programs are simply within the minds of ADA. Nothing's official. Particularly ORCA.
Hadn't Nilesh along with Indranil Roy put together that wonderful article for DDR? Doesn't that show he do understand stuff, rather than being an armchair Marshall. Not holding anybody's brief. Just puting across my opinion, which obviously isn't worth the proverbial 2cents
Nilesh (@nileshjrane) Tweeted:
"Fantasy" Stand-off Strike Mission -
-2xASRAAM (CCM)
-2xAstra (BVR)
-3xSFDR (BVR)
-1xGriffin (LGB)
-1xAASM Hammer (PGM)
-1xSCALP (standoff weapon)
-1xHarpoon (AShM)
-LDP Pod
Phew..
"One Plane Airforce"
Nilesh on Twitter (
)Nilesh (@nileshjrane) Tweeted:
Naval Strike Mission -
-2xASRAAM (CCM)
-4xAstra (BVR)
-2 or 3xSFDR (BVR)
-1xSCALP (standoff CM)
-2xHarpoon (AShM)
If we remove the AShM/CM and add EFTs that would become a nice Air-Superiority config for TEDBF. Nilesh on Twitter ( )
Veterans of Strategic Front would testify that even @randomradio would be circumspect in coming up with such detailed fantasies, Mr Vinod Nair.
I'm extremely disappointed. So is everyone around. You're being a spoilsport.
It is more important that The TWIN Engined MCA is made First for the IAF
Navy can get more MIG 29 Ks
This Guy Nilesh has assumed an Internal EW suite , which might not happen
So it will need a SPJ
Navy can get more MIG 29 Ks
This Guy Nilesh has assumed an Internal EW suite , which might not happen
So it will need a SPJ
Seems the quote wasn't directed at me, but i had replied before completely loading the page. Apologies
I am more concerned about the timeline of the project. HAL hasn't even delivered MK1 FOC yet. Then Mk-1a. After that Mk2(MWF) only after that ORCA(AF verision) if it really exist. Idk when TEDBF will take off. I don't think it has taken off the drawing board yet. All this whilst AMCA, Ghatak, Rustom, HJT 36, IMRH (if they even got permission to go ahead with that project).
Any delta-winged, tailless deck fighter will be a disaster for IN. The FBW certification for the complex flight dynamics will take a considerable amount of time.
Mera order, do plate wada sambar, single batata wada on wingtips.Nilesh (@nileshjrane) Tweeted:
"Fantasy" Stand-off Strike Mission -
-2xASRAAM (CCM)
-2xAstra (BVR)
-3xSFDR (BVR)
-1xGriffin (LGB)
-1xAASM Hammer (PGM)
-1xSCALP (standoff weapon)
-1xHarpoon (AShM)
-LDP Pod
Phew..
"One Plane Airforce"
Nilesh (@nileshjrane) Tweeted:
Naval Strike Mission -
-2xASRAAM (CCM)
-4xAstra (BVR)
-2 or 3xSFDR (BVR)
-1xSCALP (standoff CM)
-2xHarpoon (AShM)
If we remove the AShM/CM and add EFTs that would become a nice Air-Superiority config for TEDBF. Nilesh on Twitter ( )
Veterans of Strategic Front would testify that even @randomradio would be circumspect in coming up with such detailed fantasies, Mr Vinod Nair.
I'm extremely disappointed. So is everyone around. You're being a spoilsport.
Two Mk1 FOC are expected to take their first flight later this month.
The perfect option is to hand over the design blueprints and ToT to a company like TASL. We should not be dependent on only HAL for all our indigenous aircraft needs.
Read from other sources ..
There seems to competition from group of companies..
U got Mk1A, MWF, TEDBF & ORCA
All going simultaneously..
We can bet at least 1 private company will make a fighter jet.
Rafale with 48* sweepback angle has problems of forward visibility and now we have some idiots trying to put a similar design with 62.5* sweepback on deck. What a stupid idea.
Having a canard before the main lifting surface would obstruct the flow over main wing when the FWB kicks in - Given the 1.5 deg approach, there is NO room for error. Surprising that the french went in for the Rafale M.
Last edited:
Giant Super Tejas revealed: Our analysis
By Hush Kit
The Tejas effort to create an indigenous fighter for India took a dramatic turn with last week’s reveal of a plan for a twin-engined variant with twice the thrust and almost doubled weight. The new aircraft is a close-coupled canard delta in the same class as the Rafale. Jim Smith gives his analysis.
“At the turn of the year, Harsh Vardhan Thakur, a test pilot with Hindustan Aerospace, released an image of a twin-engine version of Tejas, identified as ORCA – an acronym for Omni-Role Combat aircraft. Subsequently, comments on the ORCA rendering were made by defenceupdate.in, and by ndtv.com. Having provided a couple of quick comments to @Hush_Kit on the ORCA image, I have been asked to provide an item for the blog.
Firstly, it is apparent that, as is normal with Tejas, the story is not as simple as at appears at first sight. In addition to ORCA, a concept for a twin-engine deck-based fighter (TEDBF) also exists, and if such a project were to proceed, ORCA would essentially be an air force variant, with lower weight, as, among other changes, the deck-landing capable undercarriage could be replaced with lighter landing gear. Neither of these variants relate to the existing air force or navy procurement plans, or directly to the development of the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), a future Indian-developed stealthy fighter, although some technology developments for ORCA and TEDBF might provide risk reduction for AMCA.
Configuration Design
The ORCA rendering shows a close-coupled canard using the Tejas wing planform with twin-engines. Dimensions, weights, engine-specifics are unstated, but the render shows a significant external weapons payload, and what appear to be conformal fuel tanks located on the upper shoulder of the fuselage, as in late-model F-16s.
Initial commentary by defenceupdate.in appears to assume the use of two GE F404 engines, rather than the more powerful F414 engines, and draws attention to the significant design changes that would be required to develop this configuration from the existing Tejas.
Subsequent commentary by ndtv.com provides significantly more detail, focussed primarily on the TEDBF variant. This indicates that TEDBF would be a significantly larger aircraft than Tejas, would feature wing fold and would use two GE F414 engines. These engines are stated (Janes All the Worlds Aircraft) to have a maximum take-off thrust of 22,000 lb (97.9 kN), compared to 18,000 lb (80 kN) for the GE F404 variant fitted to Tejas. The GE F414 is the engine for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, while the GE F404 is the powerplant of the F/A-18 ‘Classic’ Hornet.
The most startling aspect of the TEDBF discussion is the stated weight of the aircraft, which is quoted as 23 tonnes, compared to 13.5 tonnes for Tejas Mk1. As an indication, 23 tonnes is close to the max overload weight of the Typhoon, and similar to quoted maximum take-off weights for Rafale. So TEDBF is in no way the cheap and cheerful solution that might originally have been considered as an outcome of Tejas.
In addition, the TEDBF is expected to carry a significantly greater weapons payload than Tejas, stated to be 9 tonnes, and to have an integrated sensor and avionics suite including AESA radar, IRST, datalinks and sensor fusion.
Configuration comments
On the whole, the illustrations available of TEDBF and ORCA appear credible as twin-engine evolutions of Tejas. However, there are some interesting differences between the designs, and some questionable features. Firstly, the ORCA rendering does not seem to allow sufficient fuselage width to accommodate two engines, noting that there will need to be a strong firewall between the two engines. For TEDBF, it would appear logical to use such a structure as the anchor point for the arrestor hook, but no hook is apparent in the illustrations.
The fuselage of TEDBF appears slightly longer than shown in the ORCA illustration, resulting in a slightly further forward position of the canard relative to the wing. Of course, this might result from the concept drawings representing as-yet unrefined designs, or perhaps related designs at different stages of concept definition. In my view, both ORCA and TEDBF would benefit from a fuselage plug to lengthen the aircraft and position the canards slightly further forward, so that they do not overlap the wing leading edge. I would expect this to improve the canard-wing aerodynamics and lift-dependent drag, as well as increasing fuselage fineness ratio, which should improve wave drag slightly, and provide additional volume for fuel or avionics.
Of course, the big unanswered question is whether the aircraft has GE F404 or F414 engines. I would assume the latter, given the quoted weights, and if so, the larger fan diameter, and airflow requirements for the engine are likely to require larger intake ducts than in the original Tejas.
Tejas: thoughts on an unusual wing here
Development Issues
The ndtv.com commentary on the TEDBF quotes project sources as indicating a cheap and rapid development path exists, building on Tejas experience, and further suggests a development timescale of 6 years from go-ahead.
Let’s consider what would need to be done. Firstly, the propulsion system change will require substantial redesign of the fuselage, together with revision of the structure to accommodate the additional weight and size of the airframe. While some aspects (such as the wing) appear to re-use Tejas components, I suggest this is a superficial resemblance, since the use of a canard, rather than Leading-Edge Vortex Controllers (LEVCONs), will change the aircraft aerodynamics, stability and control and control laws. The significantly higher weight will result in increased loads and require redesign of the structure. Additionally, the landing gear will need to accommodate higher weights, and, presumably will be rearranged for the TEDBF so that the arrestor hook can take advantage of the engine-bay firewall as an attachment point.
To deliver the required operational flexibility and capability, a substantial weapons, sensors and avionics integration programme will be required. Much of this might piggyback on existing or planned integration work for Tejas and other platforms, but type-specific weapons integration, carriage and release programmes will also be required.
Should all this development work succeed, the operational TEDBF will emerge as an aircraft with the same size, weight, configuration and, perhaps, capability as the Rafale aircraft currently just being delivered to India. They would supplement the capability of that aircraft, and would have the imprimatur of being Indian designed and built. Could the ORCA variant then replace the SU-30 MKI? Perhaps, but this seems to be the intent for the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) programme.
Where would ORCA sit compared to the AMCA? If that aircraft is to be stealthy, a further increment of technical difficulty is added in configuration design, manufacturing and propulsion and sensor integration. If the ultimate aim is for India to be able to design its own 5th or even 6th generation stealthy fighter, then the necessary confidence in aerodynamics, control system design, propulsion and system integration gained in a ORCA/TEDBF programme would de-risk at least some platform and system elements. But ORCA/TEDBF could at best be a reduced signature aircraft – more significant configuration changes would be needed to achieve a low signature outcome.
Notwithstanding some risk reduction for AMCA from ORCA/TEDBF, the challenges of materials, build standard, internal weapon and, integrated sensors, stealth system maintenance and operations planning of a 5th or 6th generation system would still remain as the step up to AMCA.”
We spoke to Tejas test pilot Harsh Vardhan Thakur who noted – ” These are (one of) many concept drawings. There are many more. Canards will not overlap with the main planes.” So perhaps caution should be exercised in reading too much into the artwork.
Over 99.9% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £12. Keep this site going.
Giant Super Tejas revealed: Our analysis
By Hush Kit
The Tejas effort to create an indigenous fighter for India took a dramatic turn with last week’s reveal of a plan for a twin-engined variant with twice the thrust and almost doubled weight. The new aircraft is a close-coupled canard delta in the same class as the Rafale. Jim Smith gives his analysis.
“At the turn of the year, Harsh Vardhan Thakur, a test pilot with Hindustan Aerospace, released an image of a twin-engine version of Tejas, identified as ORCA – an acronym for Omni-Role Combat aircraft. Subsequently, comments on the ORCA rendering were made by defenceupdate.in, and by ndtv.com. Having provided a couple of quick comments to @Hush_Kit on the ORCA image, I have been asked to provide an item for the blog.
Firstly, it is apparent that, as is normal with Tejas, the story is not as simple as at appears at first sight. In addition to ORCA, a concept for a twin-engine deck-based fighter (TEDBF) also exists, and if such a project were to proceed, ORCA would essentially be an air force variant, with lower weight, as, among other changes, the deck-landing capable undercarriage could be replaced with lighter landing gear. Neither of these variants relate to the existing air force or navy procurement plans, or directly to the development of the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), a future Indian-developed stealthy fighter, although some technology developments for ORCA and TEDBF might provide risk reduction for AMCA.
Configuration Design
The ORCA rendering shows a close-coupled canard using the Tejas wing planform with twin-engines. Dimensions, weights, engine-specifics are unstated, but the render shows a significant external weapons payload, and what appear to be conformal fuel tanks located on the upper shoulder of the fuselage, as in late-model F-16s.
Initial commentary by defenceupdate.in appears to assume the use of two GE F404 engines, rather than the more powerful F414 engines, and draws attention to the significant design changes that would be required to develop this configuration from the existing Tejas.
Subsequent commentary by ndtv.com provides significantly more detail, focussed primarily on the TEDBF variant. This indicates that TEDBF would be a significantly larger aircraft than Tejas, would feature wing fold and would use two GE F414 engines. These engines are stated (Janes All the Worlds Aircraft) to have a maximum take-off thrust of 22,000 lb (97.9 kN), compared to 18,000 lb (80 kN) for the GE F404 variant fitted to Tejas. The GE F414 is the engine for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, while the GE F404 is the powerplant of the F/A-18 ‘Classic’ Hornet.
The most startling aspect of the TEDBF discussion is the stated weight of the aircraft, which is quoted as 23 tonnes, compared to 13.5 tonnes for Tejas Mk1. As an indication, 23 tonnes is close to the max overload weight of the Typhoon, and similar to quoted maximum take-off weights for Rafale. So TEDBF is in no way the cheap and cheerful solution that might originally have been considered as an outcome of Tejas.
In addition, the TEDBF is expected to carry a significantly greater weapons payload than Tejas, stated to be 9 tonnes, and to have an integrated sensor and avionics suite including AESA radar, IRST, datalinks and sensor fusion.
Configuration comments
On the whole, the illustrations available of TEDBF and ORCA appear credible as twin-engine evolutions of Tejas. However, there are some interesting differences between the designs, and some questionable features. Firstly, the ORCA rendering does not seem to allow sufficient fuselage width to accommodate two engines, noting that there will need to be a strong firewall between the two engines. For TEDBF, it would appear logical to use such a structure as the anchor point for the arrestor hook, but no hook is apparent in the illustrations.
The fuselage of TEDBF appears slightly longer than shown in the ORCA illustration, resulting in a slightly further forward position of the canard relative to the wing. Of course, this might result from the concept drawings representing as-yet unrefined designs, or perhaps related designs at different stages of concept definition. In my view, both ORCA and TEDBF would benefit from a fuselage plug to lengthen the aircraft and position the canards slightly further forward, so that they do not overlap the wing leading edge. I would expect this to improve the canard-wing aerodynamics and lift-dependent drag, as well as increasing fuselage fineness ratio, which should improve wave drag slightly, and provide additional volume for fuel or avionics.
Of course, the big unanswered question is whether the aircraft has GE F404 or F414 engines. I would assume the latter, given the quoted weights, and if so, the larger fan diameter, and airflow requirements for the engine are likely to require larger intake ducts than in the original Tejas.
Tejas: thoughts on an unusual wing here
Development Issues
The ndtv.com commentary on the TEDBF quotes project sources as indicating a cheap and rapid development path exists, building on Tejas experience, and further suggests a development timescale of 6 years from go-ahead.
Let’s consider what would need to be done. Firstly, the propulsion system change will require substantial redesign of the fuselage, together with revision of the structure to accommodate the additional weight and size of the airframe. While some aspects (such as the wing) appear to re-use Tejas components, I suggest this is a superficial resemblance, since the use of a canard, rather than Leading-Edge Vortex Controllers (LEVCONs), will change the aircraft aerodynamics, stability and control and control laws. The significantly higher weight will result in increased loads and require redesign of the structure. Additionally, the landing gear will need to accommodate higher weights, and, presumably will be rearranged for the TEDBF so that the arrestor hook can take advantage of the engine-bay firewall as an attachment point.
To deliver the required operational flexibility and capability, a substantial weapons, sensors and avionics integration programme will be required. Much of this might piggyback on existing or planned integration work for Tejas and other platforms, but type-specific weapons integration, carriage and release programmes will also be required.
Should all this development work succeed, the operational TEDBF will emerge as an aircraft with the same size, weight, configuration and, perhaps, capability as the Rafale aircraft currently just being delivered to India. They would supplement the capability of that aircraft, and would have the imprimatur of being Indian designed and built. Could the ORCA variant then replace the SU-30 MKI? Perhaps, but this seems to be the intent for the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) programme.
Where would ORCA sit compared to the AMCA? If that aircraft is to be stealthy, a further increment of technical difficulty is added in configuration design, manufacturing and propulsion and sensor integration. If the ultimate aim is for India to be able to design its own 5th or even 6th generation stealthy fighter, then the necessary confidence in aerodynamics, control system design, propulsion and system integration gained in a ORCA/TEDBF programme would de-risk at least some platform and system elements. But ORCA/TEDBF could at best be a reduced signature aircraft – more significant configuration changes would be needed to achieve a low signature outcome.
Notwithstanding some risk reduction for AMCA from ORCA/TEDBF, the challenges of materials, build standard, internal weapon and, integrated sensors, stealth system maintenance and operations planning of a 5th or 6th generation system would still remain as the step up to AMCA.”
We spoke to Tejas test pilot Harsh Vardhan Thakur who noted – ” These are (one of) many concept drawings. There are many more. Canards will not overlap with the main planes.” So perhaps caution should be exercised in reading too much into the artwork.
Over 99.9% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £12. Keep this site going.
Giant Super Tejas revealed: Our analysis
Super Tejas — what’s the point? Opinion on twin-engine Tejas from Shiv Aroor
January 9, 2020
We met up with leading Indian defence reporter Shiv Aroor to find out more about the mysterious ORCA artworks revealed by a Tejas test pilot.
What is the point ?
“Well to start off, these aren’t official renders by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) that administers Tejas, but, as I understand it, from some folks at HAL which builds the Tejas. Now to the point. The ADA tells me it was ‘forced’ to propose a twin-engine Tejas design specifically because the Indian Navy has put a hard stop to ambiguity over whether it will operate the existing N-LCA. The sense I got directly from the top is that the team isn’t particularly pleased with the idea of ditching the N-LCA for the twin-engine configuration. So the point, if there is one, is to meet the Indian Navy’s requirement under existing commitments to supply a carrier-compatible fighter. That this will involve an air force variant is obvious. But it’s important to acknowledge that there would be no twin-engine Tejas design of any kind if there was no Indian Navy stipulation to the effect. So this springs from the Indian Navy, not the Air Force.”
Is it a good idea ?
“Like a lot of things, this looks like robust on paper. I’ve seen reports that there’s a six-year development path to first flight and highly optimistic pathways to getting this project off the ground. If those timelines are even remotely realistic, it could be a good idea. ”
Will it happen ?
“While I fully support indigenous aerospace design, I very much doubt this will be a reality for a variety of reasons. For one thing, I don’t think Indian Navy requirements have ever compelled major aircraft design decisions in the country — and they’re not about to start. Even the N-LCA was an afterthought. The Indian Air Force might be more inclined towards a lower-risk LCA Mk.II/MWF that was revealed in concept form a year ago. The IAF has only just begun warming to the Tejas Mk.1 and looks forward to the Mk.1A. I doubt it’ll be looking to see another development path towards a fourth-gen fighter. My sense is it would rather see design hours and resources dedicated to the stealthy AMCA. And I agree with that inclination. Finally, budgetary resources are already stretched thin between committed purchases and existing projects like the AMCA. Adding a new one will merely slow things down.”
Super Tejas — what’s the point? Opinion on twin-engine Tejas from Shiv Aroor
January 9, 2020
We met up with leading Indian defence reporter Shiv Aroor to find out more about the mysterious ORCA artworks revealed by a Tejas test pilot.
What is the point ?
“Well to start off, these aren’t official renders by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) that administers Tejas, but, as I understand it, from some folks at HAL which builds the Tejas. Now to the point. The ADA tells me it was ‘forced’ to propose a twin-engine Tejas design specifically because the Indian Navy has put a hard stop to ambiguity over whether it will operate the existing N-LCA. The sense I got directly from the top is that the team isn’t particularly pleased with the idea of ditching the N-LCA for the twin-engine configuration. So the point, if there is one, is to meet the Indian Navy’s requirement under existing commitments to supply a carrier-compatible fighter. That this will involve an air force variant is obvious. But it’s important to acknowledge that there would be no twin-engine Tejas design of any kind if there was no Indian Navy stipulation to the effect. So this springs from the Indian Navy, not the Air Force.”
Is it a good idea ?
“Like a lot of things, this looks like robust on paper. I’ve seen reports that there’s a six-year development path to first flight and highly optimistic pathways to getting this project off the ground. If those timelines are even remotely realistic, it could be a good idea. ”
Will it happen ?
“While I fully support indigenous aerospace design, I very much doubt this will be a reality for a variety of reasons. For one thing, I don’t think Indian Navy requirements have ever compelled major aircraft design decisions in the country — and they’re not about to start. Even the N-LCA was an afterthought. The Indian Air Force might be more inclined towards a lower-risk LCA Mk.II/MWF that was revealed in concept form a year ago. The IAF has only just begun warming to the Tejas Mk.1 and looks forward to the Mk.1A. I doubt it’ll be looking to see another development path towards a fourth-gen fighter. My sense is it would rather see design hours and resources dedicated to the stealthy AMCA. And I agree with that inclination. Finally, budgetary resources are already stretched thin between committed purchases and existing projects like the AMCA. Adding a new one will merely slow things down.”
Super Tejas — what’s the point? Opinion on twin-engine Tejas from Shiv Aroor
If there's already the pseudo 5th Gen AMCA Mk1 expected to come out between 2025-30 timeline, having the ORCA doesn't serve any purpose. If cost rationalization is offered as justification in terms of the price tag of a single jet fighter to pursue both ORCA & TEDBF then, the TEDBF itself will be procured in numbers exceeding 100. It could well be 120-150 which should be enough to bring down the cost per jet. This should be seen for what it is. HALs attempt to undermine the MMRCA 2.0 . Plus the fact that they won't be the manufacturing partner for the AMCA as per preliminary reports. They just want to get in with their foot in the door. Having said thatSuper Tejas — what’s the point? Opinion on twin-engine Tejas from Shiv Aroor
January 9, 2020
We met up with leading Indian defence reporter Shiv Aroor to find out more about the mysterious ORCA artworks revealed by a Tejas test pilot.
What is the point ?
“Well to start off, these aren’t official renders by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) that administers Tejas, but, as I understand it, from some folks at HAL which builds the Tejas. Now to the point. The ADA tells me it was ‘forced’ to propose a twin-engine Tejas design specifically because the Indian Navy has put a hard stop to ambiguity over whether it will operate the existing N-LCA. The sense I got directly from the top is that the team isn’t particularly pleased with the idea of ditching the N-LCA for the twin-engine configuration. So the point, if there is one, is to meet the Indian Navy’s requirement under existing commitments to supply a carrier-compatible fighter. That this will involve an air force variant is obvious. But it’s important to acknowledge that there would be no twin-engine Tejas design of any kind if there was no Indian Navy stipulation to the effect. So this springs from the Indian Navy, not the Air Force.”
Is it a good idea ?
“Like a lot of things, this looks like robust on paper. I’ve seen reports that there’s a six-year development path to first flight and highly optimistic pathways to getting this project off the ground. If those timelines are even remotely realistic, it could be a good idea. ”
Will it happen ?
“While I fully support indigenous aerospace design, I very much doubt this will be a reality for a variety of reasons. For one thing, I don’t think Indian Navy requirements have ever compelled major aircraft design decisions in the country — and they’re not about to start. Even the N-LCA was an afterthought. The Indian Air Force might be more inclined towards a lower-risk LCA Mk.II/MWF that was revealed in concept form a year ago. The IAF has only just begun warming to the Tejas Mk.1 and looks forward to the Mk.1A. I doubt it’ll be looking to see another development path towards a fourth-gen fighter. My sense is it would rather see design hours and resources dedicated to the stealthy AMCA. And I agree with that inclination. Finally, budgetary resources are already stretched thin between committed purchases and existing projects like the AMCA. Adding a new one will merely slow things down.”
Super Tejas — what’s the point? Opinion on twin-engine Tejas from Shiv Aroor
Having said that , I'd like to see HAL partner IAF to develop a TD on the lines of the NLCA if only to gain design expertise & emerge as a full blown OEM in the future. We need at least 2 design houses for Fighter Aircrafts in the future with ADA being one of them
@randomradio ; @Ashwin ; @Gautam ; @vstol Jockey ; @Milspec
Agreed.
Do we have the money for that ?
So you quoted me and then tagged me. Noice
The IAF needs a "proven" 4th gen TE aircraft. That's why if ORCA is aimed at the air force, it will likely not work. They need an aircraft that can go to war in a very short while. ORCA will need 5+ years just to get it working the way they want it to, whereas for jets like SH and Rafale, the US and French air forces have already done the necessary work. As for a stealth jet like AMCA, even if the IAF gets it in 2030, it will take a long time for them to actually use it optimally, probably 10 years, if not more.
IN is not in the same boat. They have Mig-29Ks and they will get 57 Rafales over that, the remaining jets are needed after 2035, when the 3rd carrier becomes operational.