Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)
- Thread starter Gautam
- Start date
Why don't we make a rafale mki and be done with this. What's the point of making a fighter that looks like rafale but will be inferior in every aspect? Just do the snecma-kaveri deal. Use the m88 hot core on the kaveri engine and produce the rafale in India with Indian systems on it. Make naval versions,EW version AF version like the Chinese are doing with their j 11/15/16. Why are we wasting money in redesigning the wheel similar to the Arjun fiasco and get a product which will be inferior to every major 4th gen aircraft? Tejas mk 2 makes sense because we don't have a fighter of the type. And now is the navy planning to drop the 57 fighter deal too? 4th gen NAMCA makes senses but why rafale like design . This is just a myopic project and why aren't we involving the French then. Are we capable of making ew suite like SPECTRA?? Instead do the 57 deal make rafale m the winner do the snecma deal start producing kaveri with m88 core and make 200-250 versions for both NAVY and AF . Just focus on AMCA and get the prototype ready by 2024-25. I hope this project is chucked down the garbage bin. BS
As if we have money to design two fourth gen and fifth gen aircrafts. In case of the tedbf/orca or whatever shit it's going to be called it's a waste of time and money. The total cost for the Tejas was 5 billion dollars I guess including the development cost and mark 1a comparitively cheaper than anything we could have achieved. Even if orca is cheap enough what is the unique thing that it brings to the table which will beat the rafale. Ok we will have a bigger uttam but chances are we will go for the elta 2052 again. The same American engine so screwdrivergiri there. Basically more payload and that's it and it will still not match the rafale m. Because the radar will be inferior you don't have a meteor equivalent. The EW will be obviously inferior but enough for the Pakistanis I think but the performance on 27 th feb makes me doubt how good are ew capabilities really are. I doubt orca will be as agile as the rafale. I just don't see this as a good idea. But for 57 planes this programme doesn't make sense. If the IAF ditched the 114 it will still make sense. But right now ORCA is just a very stupid idea a fourth gen NAMCA should be mad instead . It will be a learning experience for both hal and IN and IAF too. Once we get the NAMCA first then IAF can review with the IN and simultaneously do additions and do improvement on the design. That would make more sense you are getting somewhere with this approach. The faults of the plane will be fixed and by the time IAF will induct the fifth gen amca a lot of its subsystems will already be tested with the IN which has to deal with much harsher environment than the IAF. You get a rugged and reliable fifth gen which is field tested. ORCA will meet the same fate as marut. Too late to the party and offers nothing new or unique. Instead a Tejas mk3 fifth gen SEF programme would be better than orca. Why are we still stuck in the past. There is no way I see the ORCA ever being an equivalent to both rafale and
f 18 even if it might surpass them in flight characteristics it will be technologically inferior
TEDBF is a simpler aircraft because ADA cannot make a much more complex CATOBAR capable aircraft at a cheap price quickly. Also, the IN is not interested in a complex aircraft yet. They want something that can fire long range missiles, so the stealth factor doesn't come into play.
Also, TEDBF and ORCA are not the same. TEDBF is a clean sheet design from ADA. ORCA is a paper project from HAL.
AMCA has been designed for the IAF, it's not suitable for the IN. Also N-AMCA will see its induction only after 2040, possibly after 2045, making it useless to the IN. The IN would likely rather go for their own specific design after 2030, once TEDBF is in production, instead of relying on the IAF.
The timeframes we are talking about, both 2052 and Uttam will be outdated by the time TEDBF becomes operational. Also, India will have a Meteor-equivalent long before then.
So are buying the 57 multirole naval aircrafts or tedbf will replace them and fill the role instead. Navalising AMCA would be the better option and will be less of a logistics nightmare than having different design for AMCA and TEDBF . I doubt SFDR will come online before the 2030's by that time the Chinese will have their 4 th carrier ready.
MRCBF will continue. TEDBF will replace the Mig-29K after 2035.
Then IN will have to import more MRCBF after 2035. The money is better used for our own project. Also, AMCA cannot be navalised. ADA says they will have to design a new jet after AMCA is designed. So you can say that ADA will take up naval next gen design only after 2030 and then building and testing it will take 10-15 years after that. So nothing until 2045. Logistics doesn't even come in the picture here.
So the choice is between 57 MRCBF + 100-150 MRCBF or 57 MRCBF + 100-150 TEDBF. And IN prefers an indigenous solution since they do not have control over MRCBF.
Another problem is neither Rafale nor SH are capable of being operated from both our carriers effectively. And Mig-29K isn't all that great either.
If the third carrier is cancelled, then MRCBF and TEDBF become useless. Then, 10 years down the line they can restart the carrier program, with a next gen fighter design.
I don't see the relation.
That clears things up.
Having meteor will keep us in advantageous situation rather than waiting for SFDR to come online. But it seems the super hornet has higher chances of taking that deal unlike the IAF one. Then Tedbf becomes more relevant...
TEDBF will use an Indian radar, and MBDA is willing to integrate Meteor with Indian radars. SFDR should become operational after 2025 anyway, whereas TEDBF will come only after 2032.
Also MRCBF winner will likely be Rafale-M, which means IN will operate Meteor anyway.
It's a shit aircraft that's highly compromised for most missions.
Plus too many strings attached, like EUM, which gives the Americans access to Indian bases. There will be restrictions to integrating our own weapons as well, especially ones we develop with the Russians like Brahmos and SFDR.
It's a generation behind Rafale. 57 Rafales will be as good as operating 100+ SH.
Take it from me, with the IAC -2 indefinitely postponed, if TEDBF materializes by 2030 timelines , not only will it replace the MiG-29Ks, it'd also go on board the IAC -2 & become the MRCBF with the Rafale - M & the SH out of the window.
I meant if the IAC - 2 comes in 2035 timeline. I think that's the plan with a TEDBF - Mk2 taking over & the MRCBF being canned.
MRCBF is necessary for the design of the second carrier.
LHD is a critical need. We currently have limited to no real access to our own islands, let alone become a net security provider in the IOR.
I agree with most points but the reason super hornet is an interesting choice is because of growlers that might come later as well as the engine similarity to our Tejas otherwise it's a fat POS which can't fly or dogfight. The radar is also pretty lame even though it is claimed to have a higher range than rafale's.
Also for the LHD I hope we end up buying the f35b's an expensive and impractical idea but will give us a major capabily boost. We could by 24 f35 B's and convert 2 of the LHD's into semi aircraft carrier role while the rest of two will stick to normarl LHD roles. Converting all 4 for aircraft carrier role in my opinion is not a bad idea but let's see
Last edited:
No, the SH's radar has much lower range than the Rafale's radar.
The US won't sell the Growler to India. At best they will only sell a Growler-lite, which is just the aircraft, without the EW suite. And developing and equipping our own EW suite will cost too much. Not to mention, IAF is going for dedicated EW aircraft based on business jets, so the Growler is pointless to India, also less capable in comparison to a business jet.
If we are to use our own EW suite, then basing it on the MKI is a far superior option. The MKI already comes/coming up with new gen low, mid and high band jammers.
The Growler is only useful when operating from a carrier, otherwise business jets are better. The USAF are also going for business jets.
It's Official, the USAF's Next Jamming Plane Will Be a Gulfstream BizJet
Such aircraft have a lot of fuel, are very fast, and carry a lot more people and equipment.
Rafale doesn't need Growler support.
I don't think so.
Boeing and Dassault have a good knowledge of their respective plane and of the naval operations. All two said that it is possible to use their beast without catapult, but with a load penalty. The real question is "what penalty for each ?".
?
The SH18 nose is bigger, and Raytheon is very skilled in AESA, so.... It's doubtfull, no?
I think SH radar has a bigger range, but the plane has also a bigger RCS, so the result is mitigate.
Neither aircraft can be used on Vikramaditya, and very difficult to use either jet on IAC-1 due to width. It's because of the small elevators on both carriers.
Nothing to do with performance of the aircraft.
AN/APG-79 AESA – Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance
SH Block 2's radar is better than RBE-2 PESA. Detection range = 150Km vs 1m2 target. So that's about 200Km vs 3m2 target.
RBE-2AA should be higher.