Man idk why people still think the TEDBEF program is going to be a 4,5gen. The rafale is enough ffs, we desperately need a 5th gen and the IN knows it which is why they've barely even initiated procedures for the TEDBEF. The rafale F5 variant(which is what would be active then if not a F6 variant) is more than enough.
Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)
- Thread starter Gautam
- Start date
It's possible on the trapezoidal airframe of the KF-21, although the Koreans are better off with a clean-sheet design.
ADA is going clean-sheet here, stealth jet.
ADA had a clean-sheet trapezoidal design for TEDBF with stealth features and no internal bays but settled on a Rafale-esque design to derisk the program.
Korea's carrier program was aimed at countering China and Japan. When they realized they couldn't hide that fact, they canceled it. They are turning their carrier into a drone carrier instead, maintaining experience with the hopes of eventually building one someday.
TEDBF is 4.5th gen to serve two purposes.
One: Prevent Rafale from taking over the IN's fleet. The cost of developing TEDBF and buying the required numbers would be so cheap that if we were to buy the same number of Rafales, the difference amount could pay for the new carrier too. ADA needs the carrier aviation experience too.
Two: It's the only jet around that can be operated from our STOBAR carriers, which have been designed with elevator and arrestor limitations.
A 5th gen design would be bigger and wouldn't be able to operate from our STOBAR carriers.
We are gonna design a stealth jet for CATOBAR instead while Rafale F4/F5 act as interim CATOBAR aircraft.
Yes , more Rafale M as yours truly has pointed out plenty of times before.
Yes that document there is a real giveaway. The IN always wanted the 4.5th Gen FA to be the Rafale M. They only wanted the 5th Gen FA to be developed in house by the ADA.
For good reason too . There's no other 5th Gen Naval FA in sight except for the F-35B & F-35C & these are unobtainable. Hence ADA.
However here the IN hit a roadblock. ADA couldn't dedicate resources & was possibly not confident of developing a Naval 5th Gen FA. Remember this is 2015 we're talking about when the N-LCA was still under trials & the IN wasn't satisfied with the results.
Moreover the IAF rejected IN's requests for joint development. Hence the 4.5th Gen TEDBF as a via media before embarking on the development of the definitive 5th Gen FA program.
It all makes sense now. IN had no intention of going in for a 4.5th Gen TEDBF . That requirement was to have been fulfilled by the MiG-29K initially & since that proved to be a disappointment , in comes the Rafale M for additional nos as well as its replacement.
Since a lot of water has flown down the Arabian Sea & it's quite clear ADA has acquired the requisite design expertise to proceed with the design of a 5th Gen FA program courtesy their experience with the N-LCA , the Mk-2 & the AMCA , from the IN's perspective it makes little sense to proceed with the design & development of the 4.5th Gen TEDBF program now especially since they've already gone in with the Rafale M & thanks to the exertions of the IAF the Rafales would now be a MII project.
That's where they expect any forthcoming needs for a 4.5th Gen FA to be fulfilled from. The TEDBF then would only be restricted to the status of a TD much like N-LCA. It all makes sense now.
However this procurement of the Rafale M would still cost a bomb & cause a huge hole in the CAPEX Budget of the IN if & when they do go in for additional requirements.
My only hope is they continue with the TEDBF program even if it's going to be only a TD for both the IN & ADA to gather as much experience as they can before moving on to the 5th Gen FA program.
Right now that need is stalemated as MoD hasn't granted the clearance for the analogue of the INS Vikrant which was to have been cleared on yesterday's basis at least going by news reports. How on earth can they go in for the IAC-3 with 65000 tons of displacement meant to house the prospective 5th Gen FA ?
That's where things are poised at the moment. This is my reading of the situation. For more exciting stories aka Manohar Kahaniyaan , you know whom to approach !
Yes because the IN can't approach the MoD for sanction especially since their previous request for the 65000 ton displacement IAC-3 was turned down. If they approach the MoD they'd be asked what's happening about the TEDBF meant to go on the IAC-2 which the IN doesn't want as it has set its eyes on the Rafale M for this role.
Hence unless the deal for the Rafales for the IAF goes through you're likely not going to see any movement on the TEDBF which IMO is a shame . MoD ought to lay down the line that unless the TEDBF is realised & ordered in decent qtys there will be no talk of a 5th Gen FA program . However for that we require a strong Raksha Mantri . Things have hit a dead end.
Answered all these points in the above comments.
So where are you proposing to launch these 5th Geb FAs from ?
TEDBF was always supposed to be a 5th Gen FA program as the IN had envisaged it. The issue is whether it's going in for a 4.5th Gen TEDBF only to transition that design into a 5th Gen FA program as was decided between the MoD , ADA & the IN earlier or if the IN in pursuit of its original plan of restricting the 4.5th Gen FA requirements to the Rafale M while developing the TEDBF as a 5th Gen FA comes to pass.
The IN will require a lot of deft manoeuvring & some sleight of hand tactics to get their way. They ought to consult Professional Story Teller for success in this regard.
TEDBF will proceed in its 4.5th gen form.
While the IN wanted Rafales followed by stealth, they were brought back to reality by ADA. It wasn't some magic maneuvering or an opinion, it was hard facts that dry-docked the navy.
When IN asked for AMCA to be converted to N-AMCA, ADA pointed out that it cannot be done, 'cause it's impractical to take this route. When IN asked for AMCA to be designed navy-first and then converted to AF use, a more practical route, ADA pointed out that it will compromise the AF design. Rafale was designed that way as a cost saving measure, but comes with deficiencies in both its AF version and marine version. IAF wasn't interested in such deficiencies. In any case, AMCA was not gonna meet the IN's internal payload requirement anyway.
ADA pointed out that what the navy wanted, a Rafale-class jet but with stealth and the ability to operate from our carriers, the technology for it doesn't exist anywhere. So ADA proposed Desi Rafale + stealth for CATOBAR and the IN accepted.
Hence a clean-sheet design will be taken up after AMCA and TEDBF have progressed to an advanced stage.
As for TEDBF, ADA created two designs with two roadmaps, a Rafale-esque design with limited future and a KF-21 type 4.5th gen design which can be steathified and designed for CATOBAR at a later date for future carriers. The IN chose the former, opting for a proper next gen clean-sheet stealth design instead while de-risking TEDBF in the process.
So is the Rafale-esque 4.5th gen gonna happen? Yes.
No amount of deft magical maneuvering is gonna beat physics.
While the IN wanted Rafales followed by stealth, they were brought back to reality by ADA. It wasn't some magic maneuvering or an opinion, it was hard facts that dry-docked the navy.
When IN asked for AMCA to be converted to N-AMCA, ADA pointed out that it cannot be done, 'cause it's impractical to take this route. When IN asked for AMCA to be designed navy-first and then converted to AF use, a more practical route, ADA pointed out that it will compromise the AF design. Rafale was designed that way as a cost saving measure, but comes with deficiencies in both its AF version and marine version. IAF wasn't interested in such deficiencies. In any case, AMCA was not gonna meet the IN's internal payload requirement anyway.
ADA pointed out that what the navy wanted, a Rafale-class jet but with stealth and the ability to operate from our carriers, the technology for it doesn't exist anywhere. So ADA proposed Desi Rafale + stealth for CATOBAR and the IN accepted.
Hence a clean-sheet design will be taken up after AMCA and TEDBF have progressed to an advanced stage.
As for TEDBF, ADA created two designs with two roadmaps, a Rafale-esque design with limited future and a KF-21 type 4.5th gen design which can be steathified and designed for CATOBAR at a later date for future carriers. The IN chose the former, opting for a proper next gen clean-sheet stealth design instead while de-risking TEDBF in the process.
So is the Rafale-esque 4.5th gen gonna happen? Yes.
No amount of deft magical maneuvering is gonna beat physics.
By all accounts, TEDBF is/was to be a 4.5G airframe with 5G electronics derived from the AMCA mk1/2. So much of the dev cost would be amortized anyway.
As you pointed out, ADA probably couldn't spare any of the core team of designers working on the AMCA for the INs requirement and TEDBF was turned into a 4.5G program as a result.
The INS Vikrant is reported to have cost INR 23,000cr at 2021 exchange rates. A follow-on would cost substantially more, esp since the IN wants unspecified design modifications.
A 65,000 EMALS carrier, whenever it is approved, will likely be designed to be able to operate future 5G jets from the very outset. Le France is an example of this.
The design of their PANG CVN has already been frozen while the FCAS that's one day supposed to fly off it is nowhere in sight. The IN will have no doubt learnt from its epic blunder of designing the Vikrant only around a combat ac type too.
I'd imagine that a 5G TEDBF too would have been designed in both STOBAR and CATOBAR specific variants, much like the 4.5G model we have now.
The IN probably doesn't remember the late CDS Rawat too fondly for opposing its carrier plans. There is a glimmer of hope now though. A 2nd batch of Rafale-M is reportedly under discussion which would mean approval for Vikrant-2 might follow soon enough.
So we've another story about the evolution of the design of the TEDBF undoubtedly without any references or citations . Wonder what do we make out of it ?
Should we take it seriously or do we ignore it given professional story teller's own confession that he oughtn't to be taken seriously or at face value.
Meanwhile he's dropped another bomb about "the sub optimal design" of the Rafale. PST seems to be suggesting it's neither fish nor fowl .
Mon Dieu ! Pour votre aimable attention Monsieur @Picdelamirand-oil
En référence au message #1006 de cette discussion, votre cher ami a tenu des propos plutôt scandaleux concernant le savoir-faire français en matière de conception.
Est-il vrai que la conception du Rafale est de qualité inférieure car il devait convenir à la fois à la Marine et à l'Armée de l'Air ?
Et que si sa conception avait été dédiée à une seule des deux forces, il serait bien plus performant ?
We could consider a STOVL 5th Gen FA but the concept itself is problematic & maintenance intensive & it adds to the complexity of design especially if you consider that ADA doesn't have the depth of experience expertise & knowledge for it that it's contemporary design houses have .
Should we take it seriously or do we ignore it given professional story teller's own confession that he oughtn't to be taken seriously or at face value.
Meanwhile he's dropped another bomb about "the sub optimal design" of the Rafale. PST seems to be suggesting it's neither fish nor fowl .
Mon Dieu ! Pour votre aimable attention Monsieur @Picdelamirand-oil
En référence au message #1006 de cette discussion, votre cher ami a tenu des propos plutôt scandaleux concernant le savoir-faire français en matière de conception.
Est-il vrai que la conception du Rafale est de qualité inférieure car il devait convenir à la fois à la Marine et à l'Armée de l'Air ?
Et que si sa conception avait été dédiée à une seule des deux forces, il serait bien plus performant ?
STOBAR in itself is a sub optimal solution wherein every FA operates at nearly half its efficiency . What's the point in having a 5th Gen STOBAR where the weapons capacity is already limited due to design considerations & on top of it you've to consider the limitations due to STOBAR ?!
We could consider a STOVL 5th Gen FA but the concept itself is problematic & maintenance intensive & it adds to the complexity of design especially if you consider that ADA doesn't have the depth of experience expertise & knowledge for it that it's contemporary design houses have .
Adapting a STOBAR design for CATOBAR (esp as a dedicated variant) is far easier than developing an all new STOVL jump jet. Our exposure to the RR Pegasus engine on the long retired Sea Harrier wouldn't be of much use.
I saw it but didn't take note: what our friend from the Forum is reporting is ADA's point of view. I understand that an Indian might trust ADA, but I don't have much respect for ADA, and therefore I don't get involved in a matter like this. The Rafale's limitation is its landing on return if it's too heavily loaded, and that's where it won against the F-18E. The launch method doesn't matter compared to this constraint, except for the time needed to get all the aircraft airborne because the flight deck is more crowded, but generally, that's manageable.
Only by a small margin.
If I remember well (some doubts).
The M variant is fully optimised for this role.
The C and B variants used some M frame parts, increasing the weight a little (but with more strenght).
Quite frankly I've never come across any such statement by the ADA. This isn't an organisation to comment flippantly on any other organisations' short comings in public. Nor are there any academic literature from ADA to this effect or any source quoting them .
Anyway thanks to both of you for your inputs .
To think I spent a good 15 min of my time wracking my rusty brains to conjure up a paragraph in French & not one word of appreciation from you.
Rafale has design deficiencies compared to what it could have been had it been a purely air force design.
Similarly, Rafale M has design deficiencies compared to what it could have been had it not catered to air force requirements.
Now designing something like Rafale, a single airframe meant to operate from both carrier and land, is out of the scope of ADA. The F-35 also has design deficiencies due to making such a choice, so the USN is going alone on NGAD. Unlike Dassault, ADA is not constrained by air force requirements for TEDBF and naval requirements for AMCA, so it makes things easier for ADA to design two different jets.
The fact is if Rafale was two different designs, one for the air force and the other for MN, both jets would have been different, and both would have been even better than the slightly compromised Rafale. They made a financial decision, the US did the same for the F-35, but India is not constrained by this.
For example, Rafale M does not need supercruise or mach 2 speed. It could use an even wider wing and larger fuselage with more fuel. The fuselage could have had 2 heavy hardpoints instead of 1. The Rafale C otoh could have been longer and carried more AAMs on its fuselage, Typhoon style, instead of just 2. It could have been designed for higher performance relative to the current C. Faster acceleration, faster climb etc.
TEDBF's goal is to be a less air superiority and more strike-oriented fighter, relative to the Rafale. It will compensate for less high-end performance relative to Rafale with larger and greater amount of sensors, like the larger radar, combined with an airframe that generates a smaller frontal RCS.
The safety margins for TEDBF when operating from carriers will be higher than Rafale while also having a smaller carrier footprint even while being longer and bigger. It's also being designed for easier maintenance than Rafale. It's essentially being designed to generate a greater sortie rate from carriers than Rafale can. The airframe materials will be more advanced with greater marinization, as will the engine. It will have higher optimization from STOBAR than Rafale M too.
It's essentially plugging gaps in Rafale's naval performance, while enhancing the capabilities the navy desires from Rafale.
And it will come with all sorts of new avionics features that cannot go on Rafale due to its older airframe design. Not to mention all next gen indigneous avionics with more advanced specifications than F5.
The aircraft will soon go through CDR, and we should see the finalized model in Feb. Perhaps pics a lot earlier.
Similarly, Rafale M has design deficiencies compared to what it could have been had it not catered to air force requirements.
Now designing something like Rafale, a single airframe meant to operate from both carrier and land, is out of the scope of ADA. The F-35 also has design deficiencies due to making such a choice, so the USN is going alone on NGAD. Unlike Dassault, ADA is not constrained by air force requirements for TEDBF and naval requirements for AMCA, so it makes things easier for ADA to design two different jets.
The fact is if Rafale was two different designs, one for the air force and the other for MN, both jets would have been different, and both would have been even better than the slightly compromised Rafale. They made a financial decision, the US did the same for the F-35, but India is not constrained by this.
For example, Rafale M does not need supercruise or mach 2 speed. It could use an even wider wing and larger fuselage with more fuel. The fuselage could have had 2 heavy hardpoints instead of 1. The Rafale C otoh could have been longer and carried more AAMs on its fuselage, Typhoon style, instead of just 2. It could have been designed for higher performance relative to the current C. Faster acceleration, faster climb etc.
TEDBF's goal is to be a less air superiority and more strike-oriented fighter, relative to the Rafale. It will compensate for less high-end performance relative to Rafale with larger and greater amount of sensors, like the larger radar, combined with an airframe that generates a smaller frontal RCS.
The safety margins for TEDBF when operating from carriers will be higher than Rafale while also having a smaller carrier footprint even while being longer and bigger. It's also being designed for easier maintenance than Rafale. It's essentially being designed to generate a greater sortie rate from carriers than Rafale can. The airframe materials will be more advanced with greater marinization, as will the engine. It will have higher optimization from STOBAR than Rafale M too.
It's essentially plugging gaps in Rafale's naval performance, while enhancing the capabilities the navy desires from Rafale.
And it will come with all sorts of new avionics features that cannot go on Rafale due to its older airframe design. Not to mention all next gen indigneous avionics with more advanced specifications than F5.
The aircraft will soon go through CDR, and we should see the finalized model in Feb. Perhaps pics a lot earlier.
NOTE - Mods, i've reduced colors, fonts, bold & emojis than initial draft. You can reduce more at your will.
I would highly appreciate if personal comments, abuses can be avoided, thanks & regards.
> Before writing further on reducing pilot life risk by 5gen TEDBF, i went through page 40-51, took 2 weeks after office & family time, collected many points & divided them into 2 groups depending upon inclination more to 4gen or 5gen.
So, later in another post i'ld put the 5gen inclined points.
> 1st, for 4gen lovers i would like to do an approximate scaled comparison of this 4gen TEDBF with USN 4gen TEDBF the F-18 SH bcoz they would have same 2x F414 engines, IDK if we'll get EPE model. And then present some points in my onion
, i mean opinion. Others can keep their onions & opinions, as if we belong to 2 different companies or consortiums.
NOTE - the EWP'll be implemented, but dorsal CFTs have been cancelled due to technical/performance issues, still i'm considering that theoretically, analogous to a hypothetical model. Considered CFT weight = 2x400 Kg & fuel in them = 2x1.6 tons, EWP weight = 408 Kg & its payload = 1,134 Kg.
> In emerging 6gen era, behind global 4gen jets are different nation's/people's different justifications -
Other 4gen reasons around world -
We can avoid pitfalls where others got compelled or stuck.
> If we expect AMCA to kill JF-17, J-10, F-16, Su-30MKK, J-11, J-15, J-16 then be ready to get LCA, MWF, TEDBF, MiG-29, Su-30MKI, Rafale killed by J-20, J-35, J-36, J-50.
Remaining points although i've also drafted in notepad but will make post very long, will be expanded in 5gen TEDBF posts like -
- anti-ship mission
- big weapons
- converting AMCA
- converting 4gen TEDBF
- Cleansheet design
- tip & body of spear
- beast mode Vs steath mode
- STOBAR Vs CATOBAR, lifts, arrestors
- 5gen jet size & weight
- progressing with each gens
- 5gen TEDBF geographical positioning in seas.
- possible future naval threats
- rework, redesign
- 5gen performance Vs 4gen
- UCAV compensating lack of 5gen.
And from tech PoV there's nothing to panic as such on all these points for techies, it's all daily paid job & India got AI/ML, robotics, supercomputing, JV & collabs, millions of techies now for PPP. Every domain from outside looks tough, like surgery.
The thing to panic is that time-bound & result oriented management is needed with accountability & free from molopoly to reduce life risk of pilots.
I would highly appreciate if personal comments, abuses can be avoided, thanks & regards.
> Before writing further on reducing pilot life risk by 5gen TEDBF, i went through page 40-51, took 2 weeks after office & family time, collected many points & divided them into 2 groups depending upon inclination more to 4gen or 5gen.
So, later in another post i'ld put the 5gen inclined points.
> 1st, for 4gen lovers i would like to do an approximate scaled comparison of this 4gen TEDBF with USN 4gen TEDBF the F-18 SH bcoz they would have same 2x F414 engines, IDK if we'll get EPE model. And then present some points in my onion
, i mean opinion. Others can keep their onions & opinions, as if we belong to 2 different companies or consortiums.NOTE - the EWP'll be implemented, but dorsal CFTs have been cancelled due to technical/performance issues, still i'm considering that theoretically, analogous to a hypothetical model. Considered CFT weight = 2x400 Kg & fuel in them = 2x1.6 tons, EWP weight = 408 Kg & its payload = 1,134 Kg.
> In emerging 6gen era, behind global 4gen jets are different nation's/people's different justifications -
+ Everybody want to save money 
, newer stuff is costlier, older stuff is cheaper, people can spend saved money on other assets, salty marine environment makes maintenance costly, etc but -
, newer stuff is costlier, older stuff is cheaper, people can spend saved money on other assets, salty marine environment makes maintenance costly, etc but -- defence has always been costly matter in every gen's era - 2gen'll be costly, 3gen'll be costly, 4gen'll be costly.
- salty marine environment has never ever stopped R&D from 1st gen towards 5gen then 6gen with RAM, RAS improvements.
- We're socialist economy, not capitalist, if only we can tweak the beauraucratic system.
- Economise but also field future tech IN TIME
side by side, which didn't happen so far.
side by side, which didn't happen so far.- Economy should be boosted by absorbing citizens into industry & shifting from more consumer to more producer model. IT boom happened in 1990s, this is mid-2020s. Exploit supercomputing, AI/ML, robotics, etc. Our vehicles, appliances, etc makers should compete globally.
- Whichever Force doesn't have budget is destined to get defeated by technology.
+ continue old business, market, 
ecosystem by R&D/producer nations for lagging/importing nations, whiile our present & future exports are skeptical.
ecosystem by R&D/producer nations for lagging/importing nations, whiile our present & future exports are skeptical.- USA supplies/services Taiwan, S.Korea, Indonesia, Singapore, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand, Israel, UAE, Bahrain, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arab, Kuwait, Greece, Turkey, Poland, Romania, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, cannad, Chile, Argentina. Only S.Korea & Turkey have made their own jets KF-21, Kaan.
- Russia after big history, supplies/services Algeria, India, Iran, Etheopia, etc.
- UK supplies/services Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Austria, Italy, Germany, and Spain.
- France supplies/servies Egypt, India, Qatar, Greece, Croatia, Indonesia, UAE, Serbia, Ukraine.
- China trying to expand beyond Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, etc.
- India needs to get out of the above list of importing nations, but making too many new 4gen will create import tender for future 5/6gen even after AMCA which cannot be only 5gen for big India. STOBAR AC can have medium 5gen & CATOBAR AC can have 5.5-6gen N-AHCA.
- Whether all above customer nations will buy Indian 4gen LCA, MWF, TEDBF, etc or USA, China, EU, Russia will try to sell them affordable 5gen is debatable.
They're making modification of exisitng 4gen since past few decades while we're attempting multiple brand new 4gen from scratch for next few decades.
+ 4gen can be given many MLUs - radar, cockpit, Networking, composites, RAS, some RAM, sensor pods, LR weapons, even a DEW pod, but -
- still 4gen body'll be most visible object in sky to be hunted by 5gen.
- using LR weapons on 4gen is compelling thing to use their last series, not ideal/desired/efficient which is actually with stealth sneaking closer & increasing NEZ, that's where 5gen got limited & 6gen will fulfil.
- Stealth jet has higher chance of breaking lock.
- And now 5gen also threatened by 6gen R&D.
- Hence on both sides of battle if USA, China, EU, Russia fight eachother in proper blown war not just skirmishes, in 2030s/40s whenever, they'll also suffer big 4gen losses,
that would be the job of 5/6gen
that would be the job of 5/6gen
But 1 of most ignored point is that last series of 4gen'll hide behind 5/6gen & UCAVs if AI fully matured, while our 5gen & UCAV R&D sluggish & no 6gen R&D -
- USN has F-35, will have FA-XX,
- PLAN is ready for J-35, will have J-50,
- Russia is sluggish, but might disclose next gen successor of Su-33 any day.
- France will have N-FCAS, could relax & jump to 6gen as Russia is sluggish.
- Indian 4gen TEDBF will shout "AMCA help us!".
+ UCAVs will cover 4gen like bodyguard. Sure, that's the future to protect even the 6gen. But -
- it needs agile, true naval AI-UCAV with ATWR>1 which is difficult for boomerang shaped UCAV.
- our land based UCAV R&D is sluggish, naval UCAV TD not there yet.
- Next we need full scale model test on STOBAR, CATOBAR.
- Enemy will also use their UCAVs against our 4gen, 5gen.
- UCAVS can also be put in 5gen, 6gen categories.
- Chinas has shown at least 5 types of UCAVs, some are manned fighter sized.
+ 4gen to be used in uncontested areas, in other words for brooming,
mopping, against weaker adversaries, but-
mopping, against weaker adversaries, but-- this happens after 5/6gen does SEAD/DEAD,
- 4gen can also do SEAD/DEAD with networking & LR weapons but enemy SAMs, AAMs are also getting networked IADS & LR.
- IADS will be fortified by layered defence.
- hence this still doesn't reduce threat to 4gen by mobile SAMs, MANPADS, IADS, 5/6gen.
- Enemy's Stealth jets are like moving 'contested area'.
+ People want to be self reliant free from imports, that's good, but should happen IN TIME bcoz a jet is matter of 20+40 years. ADA slide indicated 4gen TEDBF in 2038+ & wind tunnel test also yet to happen. China's economy & military was like us decades back, but -
- 5gen FC-31 paperwork began in 2007, flew in 2012, we flew 4gen LCA-N same year.
- After AMCA paperwork in 2010, IN approached ADA for 5gen jet but (as per posts in page 40-51) ADA stating -
= N-AMCA conversion not efficient,
= Navy-1st design'll impact & upset IAF,
= no cleansheet design either bcoz ADA is tiny
, lacks manpower for CAD/CFD, wind tunnel tests of multiple projects, or previous govts. not giving funding, etc, but 5gen to be built on top of brand new naval 4.5gen which was wrong bcoz, we got experience from LCA, LCA-N, MWF designs & started AMCA project & DRDO was working on RAM, RAS, etc.
, lacks manpower for CAD/CFD, wind tunnel tests of multiple projects, or previous govts. not giving funding, etc, but 5gen to be built on top of brand new naval 4.5gen which was wrong bcoz, we got experience from LCA, LCA-N, MWF designs & started AMCA project & DRDO was working on RAM, RAS, etc.- IN had to settle for 4gen TEDBF & paper work in 2019, Otherwise a cleansheet 5+gen TEDBF TD in parallel to AMCA would be ready in 15 years by now.
- 6gen J-50 speculated to be naval, flew last year, we don't even've official diagram of our domestic naval/AF 6gen but looking for possible naval FCAS, AF-GCAP.
- 5gen J31/35 ready now, we've frozen the 4gen design
to make in next decade.
to make in next decade.- Russia also gives surprises. After revealling Su-75 in 2021, what if it revealled & offered naval Su-75 or some other design?
- IMO too many Rafale-M also not good. Earlier i thought that like plans for converting KF-21 to true 5gen, if 4gen TEDBF airframe can be upgraded like that then some LSP can be done. 4gen TEDBF could've been flying TD by now like X-35. But it's too late & wind tunnel test yet to happen hence IMMEDIATELY start stealth design exploiting supercomputing, AI/ML, etc, otherwise it'll automatically become problem later like MiGs as AMCA nears completion, it means when things are too late then no option is cheap overall, today appearing cheap, later it'll backfire.
Other 4gen reasons around world -
+ designers wan't to see their creation fielded,
+ revenue for future R&D, black budgeting
+ corporate profit
+ bonus of lobbysts
+ no R&D organisations for pure consumer nations
+ industrial rivalry
+ international agendas & interests
+ political intentions
+ cheap but risk to pilot's life
+ increasing falling squad strength
+ overconfidence, over-optimism with peace,
+ ignorance of global tech advancements,
+ some other bitter & natural facts of war.
We can avoid pitfalls where others got compelled or stuck.
> If we expect AMCA to kill JF-17, J-10, F-16, Su-30MKK, J-11, J-15, J-16 then be ready to get LCA, MWF, TEDBF, MiG-29, Su-30MKI, Rafale killed by J-20, J-35, J-36, J-50.
Remaining points although i've also drafted in notepad but will make post very long, will be expanded in 5gen TEDBF posts like -
- anti-ship mission
- big weapons
- converting AMCA
- converting 4gen TEDBF
- Cleansheet design
- tip & body of spear
- beast mode Vs steath mode
- STOBAR Vs CATOBAR, lifts, arrestors
- 5gen jet size & weight
- progressing with each gens
- 5gen TEDBF geographical positioning in seas.
- possible future naval threats
- rework, redesign
- 5gen performance Vs 4gen
- UCAV compensating lack of 5gen.
And from tech PoV there's nothing to panic as such on all these points for techies, it's all daily paid job & India got AI/ML, robotics, supercomputing, JV & collabs, millions of techies now for PPP. Every domain from outside looks tough, like surgery.
The thing to panic is that time-bound & result oriented management is needed with accountability & free from molopoly to reduce life risk of pilots.
Last edited:
Rafale was never designed for STOBAR ops. TEDBF is being specifically designed for it. Add to that better range and endurance which is certainly desirable for a ship-based combat ac.
But at the end of the day, the overlap between the 2 in terms of capabilities is too great to justify the dev and logistics
cost, imo. Ultimately, it what's inside the airframe that matters.
It would've been a different matter had ADA adopted an incremental design approach (like the KF-21) in terms of fundamental shaping, control surfaces, etc.
But they seem to have regressed in terms of design thinking and adaptability, choosing instead to use the Rafale template.
I'd say a naval version of Ghatak/ISUAV could provide the same or similar capability as TEDBF at a far lower cost (~2 for 1 replacement). Heck, the Chinese are already deploying a GJ-12 UCAV variant at sea.
Update: China's Type 076 Sichuan takes on GJ-21 UCAV mock-up
An unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) resembling the naval version of Hongdu GJ-11 has been seen aboard China's newest amphibious assault ship, the Type 076...
www.janes.com
Imo, ADA could theoretically develop a 5G naval fighter design inside of 5 yrs But for that to happen, the IAF must approve the AMCA design, freeing the design team to concentrate on the naval prog.
We need a complementary system of systems approach, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel with the TEDBF as it is currently designed.
Last edited:
It was a quite good french langage. Congrats.
I though it was "just" to gain our interest.
As said years ago by a french air force chief of staff : Rafale is not the best in any field, but very good in all.
When the goal is to replace 7 different types of jet of an air force you have to made compromises. And Dassault always made quite light jets so as to be affordable. Rafale is the result of that : an affordable jet, able to make all kind of jobs.
Not for USAF, but mainly for medium air forces. It is so good that even a big air force, IAF, choose it !
5th gen is LM marketing. Use at the beginning for F22, with emphasis on stealth, supercruise, super agility. Then affordability.NOTE - Mods, i've reduced colors, fonts, bold & emojis than initial draft. You can reduce more at your will.
I would highly appreciate if personal comments, abuses can be avoided, thanks & regards.
> Before writing further on reducing pilot life risk by 5gen TEDBF, i went through page 40-51, took 2 weeks after office & family time, collected many points & divided them into 2 groups depending upon inclination more to 4gen or 5gen.
So, later in another post i'ld put the 5gen inclined points.
> 1st, for 4gen lovers i would like to do an approximate scaled comparison of this 4gen TEDBF with USN 4gen TEDBF the F-18 SH bcoz they would have same 2x F414 engines, IDK if we'll get EPE model. And then present some points in my onion
NOTE - the EWP'll be implemented, but dorsal CFTs have been cancelled due to technical/performance issues, still i'm considering that theoretically, analogous to a hypothetical model. Considered CFT weight = 2x400 Kg & fuel in them = 2x1.6 tons, EWP weight = 408 Kg & its payload = 1,134 Kg.
View attachment 51207
View attachment 51208
View attachment 51209
View attachment 51210
> In emerging 6gen era, behind global 4gen jets are different nation's/people's different justifications -
+ Everybody want to save money- defence has always been costly matter in every gen's era - 2gen'll be costly, 3gen'll be costly, 4gen'll be costly.- salty marine environment has never ever stopped R&D from 1st gen towards 5gen then 6gen with RAM, RAS improvements.- We're socialist economy, not capitalist, if only we can tweak the beauraucratic system.- Economise but also field future tech IN TIME- Economy should be boosted by absorbing citizens into industry & shifting from more consumer to more producer model. IT boom happened in 1990s, this is mid-2020s. Exploit supercomputing, AI/ML, robotics, etc. Our vehicles, appliances, etc makers should compete globally.- Whichever Force doesn't have budget is destined to get defeated by technology.+ continue old business, market,- USA supplies/services Taiwan, S.Korea, Indonesia, Singapore, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand, Israel, UAE, Bahrain, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arab, Kuwait, Greece, Turkey, Poland, Romania, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, cannad, Chile, Argentina. Only S.Korea & Turkey have made their own jets KF-21, Kaan.- Russia after big history, supplies/services Algeria, India, Iran, Etheopia, etc.- UK supplies/services Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Austria, Italy, Germany, and Spain.- France supplies/servies Egypt, India, Qatar, Greece, Croatia, Indonesia, UAE, Serbia, Ukraine.- China trying to expand beyond Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, etc.- India needs to get out of the above list of importing nations, but making too many new 4gen will create import tender for future 5/6gen even after AMCA which cannot be only 5gen for big India. STOBAR AC can have medium 5gen & CATOBAR AC can have 5.5-6gen N-AHCA.- Whether all above customer nations will buy Indian 4gen LCA, MWF, TEDBF, etc or USA, China, EU, Russia will try to sell them affordable 5gen is debatable.They're making modification of exisitng 4gen since past few decades while we're attempting multiple brand new 4gen from scratch for next few decades.+ 4gen can be given many MLUs - radar, cockpit, Networking, composites, RAS, some RAM, sensor pods, LR weapons, even a DEW pod, but -- still 4gen body'll be most visible object in sky to be hunted by 5gen.- using LR weapons on 4gen is compelling thing to use their last series, not ideal/desired/efficient which is actually with stealth sneaking closer & increasing NEZ, that's where 5gen got limited & 6gen will fulfil.- Stealth jet has higher chance of breaking lock.- And now 5gen also threatened by 6gen R&D.- Hence on both sides of battle if USA, China, EU, Russia fight eachother in proper blown war not just skirmishes, in 2030s/40s whenever, they'll also suffer big 4gen losses,But 1 of most ignored point is that last series of 4gen'll hide behind 5/6gen & UCAVs if AI fully matured, while our 5gen & UCAV R&D sluggish & no 6gen R&D -- USN has F-35, will have FA-XX,- PLAN is ready for J-35, will have J-50,- Russia is sluggish, but might disclose next gen successor of Su-33 any day.- France will have N-FCAS, could relax & jump to 6gen as Russia is sluggish.- Indian 4gen TEDBF will shout "AMCA help us!".
View attachment 51320
+ UCAVs will cover 4gen like bodyguard. Sure, that's the future to protect even the 6gen. But -- it needs agile, true naval AI-UCAV with ATWR>1 which is difficult for boomerang shaped UCAV.- our land based UCAV R&D is sluggish, naval UCAV TD not there yet.- Next we need full scale model test on STOBAR, CATOBAR.- Enemy will also use their UCAVs against our 4gen, 5gen.- UCAVS can also be put in 5gen, 6gen categories.- Chinas has shown at least 5 types of UCAVs, some are manned fighter sized.+ 4gen to be used in uncontested areas, in other words for brooming,- this happens after 5/6gen does SEAD/DEAD,- 4gen can also do SEAD/DEAD with networking & LR weapons but enemy SAMs, AAMs are also getting networked IADS & LR.- IADS will be fortified by layered defence.- hence this still doesn't reduce threat to 4gen by mobile SAMs, MANPADS, IADS, 5/6gen.- Enemy's Stealth jets are like moving 'contested area'.+ People want to be self reliant free from imports, that's good, but should happen IN TIME bcoz a jet is matter of 20+40 years. ADA slide indicated 4gen TEDBF in 2038+ & wind tunnel test also yet to happen. China's economy & military was like us decades back, but -- 5gen FC-31 paperwork began in 2007, flew in 2012, we flew 4gen LCA-N same year.- After AMCA paperwork in 2010, IN approached ADA for 5gen jet but (as per posts in page 40-51) ADA stating -= N-AMCA conversion not efficient,= Navy-1st design'll impact & upset IAF,= no cleansheet design either bcoz ADA is tiny- IN had to settle for 4gen TEDBF & paper work in 2019, Otherwise a cleansheet 5+gen TEDBF TD in parallel to AMCA would be ready in 15 years by now.- 6gen J-50 speculated to be naval, flew last year, we don't even've official diagram of our domestic naval/AF 6gen but looking for possible naval FCAS, AF-GCAP.- 5gen J31/35 ready now, we've frozen the 4gen design- Russia also gives surprises. After revealling Su-75 in 2021, what if it revealled & offered naval Su-75 or some other design?- IMO too many Rafale-M also not good. Earlier i thought that like plans for converting KF-21 to true 5gen, if 4gen TEDBF airframe can be upgraded like that then some LSP can be done. 4gen TEDBF could've been flying TD by now like X-35. But it's too late & wind tunnel test yet to happen hence IMMEDIATELY start stealth design exploiting supercomputing, AI/ML, etc, otherwise it'll automatically become problem later like MiGs as AMCA nears completion, it means when things are too late then no option is cheap overall, today appearing cheap, later it'll backfire.
Other 4gen reasons around world -
+ designers wan't to see their creation fielded,+ revenue for future R&D, black budgeting+ corporate profit+ bonus of lobbysts+ no R&D organisations for pure consumer nations+ industrial rivalry+ international agendas & interests+ political intentions+ cheap but risk to pilot's life+ increasing falling squad strength+ overconfidence, over-optimism with peace,+ ignorance of global tech advancements,+ some other bitter & natural facts of war.
We can avoid pitfalls where others got compelled or stuck.
> If we expect AMCA to kill JF-17, J-10, F-16, Su-30MKK, J-11, J-15, J-16 then be ready to get LCA, MWF, TEDBF, MiG-29, Su-30MKI, Rafale killed by J-20, J-35, J-36, J-50.
Remaining points although i've also drafted in notepad but will make post very long, will be expanded in 5gen TEDBF posts like -
- anti-ship mission
- big weapons
- converting AMCA
- converting 4gen TEDBF
- Cleansheet design
- tip & body of spear
- beast mode Vs steath mode
- STOBAR Vs CATOBAR, lifts, arrestors
- 5gen jet size & weight
- progressing with each gens
- 5gen TEDBF geographical positioning in seas.
- possible future naval threats
- rework, redesign
- 5gen performance Vs 4gen
- UCAV compensating lack of 5gen.
And from tech PoV there's nothing to panic as such on all these points for techies, it's all daily paid job & India got AI/ML, robotics, supercomputing, JV & collabs, millions of techies now for PPP. Every domain from outside looks tough, like surgery.
The thing to panic is that time-bound & result oriented management is needed with accountability & free from molopoly to reduce life risk of pilots.
Result : F35, a so called 5th gen, is short on supercruise and affordability. Even the agility is questionable.
So..... LM bull shit.