Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)

[Speedster1]

I believe they will offer even the PAK DA to India. Even the PAK VA (stealth transport).

Given that we have operated the Tu-95 (Bear-F) in a maritime role, I wouldn't completely dismiss the idea of us getting some Blackjacks. But China is a factor we cannot ignore. PAK-DA is just too far into the future to speculate.

As for downgrading, it depends. The radar is largely irrelevant, but we need a robust EW suite, preferably Indian.

We'd probably be better off with a new design than MKI-zing Blackjack.

know, and that's fine over land against China. But against PLAN at sea, we will need the Tu-160's small RCS, high altitude, and supersonic persistence to survive. The weapons too, say, a subsonic Kh-555 stealth replacement, 3000+ km, to complement existing supersonic and hypersonic capabilities launched from sea.

Against China, our strategy is sea denial vs sea control for Pak. For the foreseeable future, that probably won't change.

We need to invest in a 200+ ship navy backed by shore-based AShBM (including hypersonics) and SSK + SSN in droves. The latter, in particular, would keep the PLAN on its toes throughout the IOR.

For the most part, maritime bombers are good only for posturing. Isn't that why Russia sends bomber patrols to the fringes of NATO every so often?

 

[_Anonymous_]

Given that we have operated the Tu-95 (Bear-F) in a maritime role, I wouldn't completely dismiss the idea of us getting some Blackjacks. But China is a factor we cannot ignore. PAK-DA is just too far into the future to speculate.


We'd probably be better off with a new design than MKI-zing Blackjack.


Against China, our strategy is sea denial vs sea control for Pak. For the foreseeable future, that probably won't change.

We need to invest in a 200+ ship navy backed by shore-based AShBM (including hypersonics) and SSK + SSN in droves. The latter, in particular, would keep the PLAN on its toes throughout the IOR.

For the most part, maritime bombers are good only for posturing. Isn't that why Russia sends bomber patrols to the fringes of NATO every so often?

Given the huge tussle on between the IAF & IN , wonder what makes people think the IAF will permit IN procurement of Maritime Bombers ?

It's another issue that stealth rules & presently there's absolutely nothing in the cupboard of our traditional allies viz France or Russia in terms of a stealthy bomber.

In fact the solution may lie closer home in the Ghatak. If the present one is certified double quick , we could think in terms of having our own B-2 equivalent powered by 4 KED perhaps uprated to offer 57KN - 60KN thrust per KED.

I'd go so far as to say even if we retain the existing KED which has a ~ 50KN thrust output that should be good enough.

This is what Sriram Thyagarajan was rooting for as the next project ADA / ADE ought to undertake after delivering the Ghatak.

 

[randomradio]

Given that we have operated the Tu-95 (Bear-F) in a maritime role, I wouldn't completely dismiss the idea of us getting some Blackjacks. But China is a factor we cannot ignore. PAK-DA is just too far into the future to speculate.

IN's unlikely to get bombers. It's not part of their mandate. Anyway, I am talking about 2035+. It's pointless right now, when there's no real Chinese threat and we don't wanna piss off the Americans. This bomber's necessary to counter the USN too.

We'd probably be better off with a new design than MKI-zing Blackjack.

Given the numbers the IAF talked about, like 6, we will have to depend on an import. And I doubt Russia's gonna make a new one anytime soon.

The question is if we want the Tu-160 or are willing to wait for a stealth bomber, prioritizing the IAF's mission. The IN needs supersonic.

The IAF has the option of developing a twin-engine Ghatak for use along the borders. 2 Dry AMCA engines can easily provide more than GCAP's 6500 km range on a flying wing design along with twice the payload. So their strategic needs are easily met by the Ghatak family eventually.

Against China, our strategy is sea denial vs sea control for Pak. For the foreseeable future, that probably won't change.

We need to invest in a 200+ ship navy backed by shore-based AShBM (including hypersonics) and SSK + SSN in droves. The latter, in particular, would keep the PLAN on its toes throughout the IOR.

For the most part, maritime bombers are good only for posturing. Isn't that why Russia sends bomber patrols to the fringes of NATO every so often?

The minimum is a given. 1500-2000 km range will be taken care of by fighters carrying large missiles, as planned, along with the P-18 destroyers. We can even extend the range of the LRAShM to 4000 km. But if we are to use the full extent of our satellite network, we will need true long range massive fires along the lines of the Kh-55/555 carried by supersonic bombers and supported by EW drones.

Simply because we cannot allow PLAN any space to willy-nilly operate in the IOR without being challenged. Especially if they wanna approach other islands in the South IOR we are mandated to protect, Seychelles, Mauritius, Reunion etc, that fighters cannot reach and ships take their own sweet time to get to. We need to develop persistent presence from the coast of Madagascar to Australia, that's roughly 5000-6000 km from TN. That can only be provided by supersonic bombers alongside refuelers.

 

[Speedster1]

Simply because we cannot allow PLAN any space to willy-nilly operate in the IOR without being challenged. Especially if they wanna approach other islands in the South IOR we are mandated to protect, Seychelles, Mauritius, Reunion etc, that fighters cannot reach and ships take their own sweet time to get to. We need to develop persistent presence from the coast of Madagascar to Australia, that's roughly 5000-6000 km from TN

One way to do this is by securing more bases like Agalega, and joint patrols with allies like France (Reunion). We also need to build up Lakshadweep big time. If push comes to shove, take a leaf from China's book and build some artifical islands along key SLOCs. Ultimately, it is intent that dictates capability. Before we can acquire bombers, our doctrine will need to change.

 

[randomradio]

One way to do this is by securing more bases like Agalega, and joint patrols with allies like France (Reunion). We also need to build up Lakshadweep big time. If push comes to shove, take a leaf from China's book and build some artifical islands along key SLOCs. Ultimately, it is intent that dictates capability. Before we can acquire bombers, our doctrine will need to change.

The islands are too few to hold mass if 1 or 2 Chinese CBGs show up. But you can imagine how far away such an eventuality really is.

Anyway if ACM Raha was talking about Tu-160, their new 2022 doctrine likely covers it.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

CAUTION - topic of thread getting derailed.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

Some ADA pics

View attachment 43793
View attachment 43794
View attachment 43795
View attachment 43796

This CAD Vs artist Satwik Sadhukhan's CAD, width equalized :

 

[babablacksheep]

Why aren't we making navalised amca for future tedbf, specifically when the given timeline for tedbf is 2038, similar timline as to amca mk2?
Chinese have land and naval j35.
US has land and naval f35.

J35's mockup was seen on chinese stobar carrier, so j35 naval is also skip jump compatible.
Unlike naval f35.

 

[Bon Plan]

Why aren't we making navalised amca for future tedbf, specifically when the given timeline for tedbf is 2038, similar timline as to amca mk2?
Chinese have land and naval j35.
US has land and naval f35.

J35's mockup was seen on chinese stobar carrier, so j35 naval is also skip jump compatible.
Unlike naval f35.

Indeed. 2 same class weight.
At least they may share the engines, radars, weapons systems.

 

[babablacksheep]

Indeed. 2 same class weight.
At least they may share the engines, radars, weapons systems.

They can share everything except the fuselage.
Even the fuselage can be 20-30% shared between land and naval amca.

Unlike current tedbf design(rafale with dsi) where fuselage/airframe is completely different, and non stealth.

 

[Subgradewalker]

Aren't we being too optimistic about AMCA, let alone TEDBF?

 

[Ashwin]

Why aren't we making navalised amca for future tedbf, specifically when the given timeline for tedbf is 2038, similar timline as to amca mk2?

Because it is too difficult and less efficient to convert a land fighter to a ship-based one after the design is mature.

Except for the MiG-29K, all naval fighters today are designed from the ground up for the task. Those Migs have design issues because of it.

 

[babablacksheep]

Because it is too difficult and less efficient to convert a land fighter to a ship-based one after the design is mature.

Except for the MiG-29K, all naval fighters today are designed from the ground up for the task.

Amca is too difficult too for us, its a next gen stealth fighter.
But china did it.
So did usa.
So did russia/USSR.

Plus you don't need to modify the design, you can create a new clean sheet design and then where possible you can try to get component sharing with land based amca.
Naval f35C and f35A only share 20% of their airframe components.

 

[Ashwin]

Amca is too difficult too for us, its a next gen stealth fighter.
But china did it.
So did usa.
So did russia/USSR.

Western nations wont do it for a modern fighter. Russians do it as they lack options and money. Chinese J-35 is a naval design first. French Rafale M version is another example. The main issue with NLCA was that its a hard conversion.

Naval f35C and f35A only share 20% of their airframe components.

Which is the whole point. Its a different aircraft design altogether.

Its better to go for a clean sheet than to convert AMCA.

 

[babablacksheep]

Which is the whole point. Its a different aircraft design altogether.

Its better to go for a clean sheet than to convert AMCA.

Are we going for a clean sheet stealth design? Or the rafale with dsi design will remain?

 

[_Anonymous_]

Are we going for a clean sheet stealth design? Or the rafale with dsi design will remain?

Looks like the IN has been mostly successful in pulling off a con job . In retrospect it can be said they always wanted 57 MRCBF imported which they were partially successful at when the original requirement was truncated.

This was also achieved when they pretended to collaborate with ADA for the TEDBF. As soon as the agreement was inked the IN started singing a different tune & now wanted a 5th Gen Naval FA.

To that end they pushed the induction of the TEDBF to the end of the next decade. We've no news on how far the TEDBF has progressed nor have they shown any interest in inducting 1-2 squadrons of N-LCA as a LIFT & secondary shore based duties. In all likelihood the TEDBF is in the backburner awaiting plans to convert it into a 5th Gen design.

IN is probably banking on the IAF securing the MRFA with localized mfg under MII post which it'd open its cards for additional Rafales which may well exceed the shortfall in the original MRCBF requirement they were forced to accede to .

That's also the reason they've embarked on a full scale modernisation program of the MiG-29 Ks. How far they manage to prolong the lives of a sub standard FA remains to be seen else we must get used to these FAs falling from the skies something the IN has plenty of experience with the Sea Harriers , more than half of which crashed due to age related among other issues.

I'm trying to imagine what's the IN FA fleet going to look like in the 2040s. I can't see the MiG-29 flying then . Effectively what it'd have then are the 26 nos Rafale M they've ordered now the prospective 5th Gen FA under developmental trials .

How many additional Rafales they'd get is anybody's guess at this point in time ?!

And the IN has plans for at least 1INS Vikrant size AC & by the looks of it & at least 2 x 65,000+ class ACs of which one will have N propulsion , given the projected requirement of 2 nos EMALS in a recently released document projecting the armed forces requirement for the next 15 years .

What's going to be the composition of the Naval Aviation complex in those 3 additional ACs is anyone's guess?!

 

[RationalGuy]

Looks like the IN has been mostly successful in pulling off a con job . In retrospect it can be said they always wanted 57 MRCBF imported which they were partially successful at when the original requirement was truncated.

This was also achieved when they pretended to collaborate with ADA for the TEDBF. As soon as the agreement was inked the IN started singing a different tune & now wanted a 5th Gen Naval FA.

To that end they pushed the induction of the TEDBF to the end of the next decade. We've no news on how far the TEDBF has progressed nor have they shown any interest in inducting 1-2 squadrons of N-LCA as a LIFT & secondary shore based duties. In all likelihood the TEDBF is in the backburner awaiting plans to convert it into a 5th Gen design.

IN is probably banking on the IAF securing the MRFA with localized mfg under MII post which it'd open its cards for additional Rafales which may well exceed the shortfall in the original MRCBF requirement they were forced to accede to .

That's also the reason they've embarked on a full scale modernisation program of the MiG-29 Ks. How far they manage to prolong the lives of a sub standard FA remains to be seen else we must get used to these FAs falling from the skies something the IN has plenty of experience with the Sea Harriers , more than half of which crashed due to age related among other issues.

I'm trying to imagine what's the IN FA fleet going to look like in the 2040s. I can't see the MiG-29 flying then . Effectively what it'd have then are the 26 nos Rafale M they've ordered now the prospective 5th Gen FA under developmental trials .

How many additional Rafales they'd get is anybody's guess at this point in time ?!

And the IN has plans for at least 1INS Vikrant size AC & by the looks of it & at least 2 x 65,000+ class ACs of which one will have N propulsion , given the projected requirement of 2 nos EMALS in a recently released document projecting the armed forces requirement for the next 15 years .

What's going to be the composition of the Naval Aviation complex in those 3 additional ACs is anyone's guess?!

Well those 2 60,000 tonne ACs are not getting on the water anytime before 2040, by when maybe we will have TEDBF.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Well those 2 60,000 tonne ACs are not getting on the water anytime before 2040, by when maybe we will have TEDBF.

Those TEDBFs are likely to materialise only in the 2040s & will in all likelihood be 5th Gen FA. They aren't going to the workhorses of the IN but the tip of the spear which only implies we'd be using the Rafales in the former role.

In all likelihood we'd be going in for at least 60-70 Rafales, likely more. Won't be surprised if the figure touches 100 nos .

I'd have preferred we go in for 100 nos TEDBF & either launch a 6th Gen joint program between IN & the IAF or go in for a clean sheet 5th Gen FA program based on the AMCA .

However at the moment that plan is DoA.

 

[RationalGuy]

Those TEDBFs are likely to materialise only in the 2040s & will in all likelihood be 5th Gen FA. They aren't going to the workhorses of the IN but the tip of the spear which only implies we'd be using the Rafales in the former role.

In all likelihood we'd be going in for at least 60-70 Rafales, likely more. Won't be surprised if the figure touches 100 nos .

I'd have preferred we go in for 100 nos TEDBF & either launch a 6th Gen joint program between IN & the IAF or go in for a clean sheet 5th Gen FA program based on the AMCA .

However at the moment that plan is DoA.

By 2040 PLAN will have a nuclear carrier strike force permanently stationed in the Indian Ocean. Thankfully, our LRHASM, Agni P, Brahmos ER and other assets will make sure that the PLAN cannot come within 1,500 km of the Indian mainland if we want. Which also means entirety of Bay of Bengal, Arabian Sea also off limits to their surface fleet. The only issue will be their Type 93 and Type 95 nuclear submarines and sub,marine drones, for which we need to operationalize SMART and enhance our version of the SOSUS underwater network.

Hence, I am not necessarily that worried about TEDBFs delay.

 

[Speedster1]

Looks like the IN has been mostly successful in pulling off a con job . In retrospect it can be said they always wanted 57 MRCBF imported which they were partially successful at when the original requirement was truncated.

This was also achieved when they pretended to collaborate with ADA for the TEDBF. As soon as the agreement was inked the IN started singing a different tune & now wanted a 5th Gen Naval FA.

To that end they pushed the induction of the TEDBF to the end of the next decade. We've no news on how far the TEDBF has progressed nor have they shown any interest in inducting 1-2 squadrons of N-LCA as a LIFT & secondary shore based duties. In all likelihood the TEDBF is in the backburner awaiting plans to convert it into a 5th Gen design.

IN is probably banking on the IAF securing the MRFA with localized mfg under MII post which it'd open its cards for additional Rafales which may well exceed the shortfall in the original MRCBF requirement they were forced to accede to .

That's also the reason they've embarked on a full scale modernisation program of the MiG-29 Ks. How far they manage to prolong the lives of a sub standard FA remains to be seen else we must get used to these FAs falling from the skies something the IN has plenty of experience with the Sea Harriers , more than half of which crashed due to age related among other issues.

I'm trying to imagine what's the IN FA fleet going to look like in the 2040s. I can't see the MiG-29 flying then . Effectively what it'd have then are the 26 nos Rafale M they've ordered now the prospective 5th Gen FA under developmental trials .

How many additional Rafales they'd get is anybody's guess at this point in time ?!

And the IN has plans for at least 1INS Vikrant size AC & by the looks of it & at least 2 x 65,000+ class ACs of which one will have N propulsion , given the projected requirement of 2 nos EMALS in a recently released document projecting the armed forces requirement for the next 15 years .

What's going to be the composition of the Naval Aviation complex in those 3 additional ACs is anyone's guess?!

Iirc the IN had projected a requirement for a 5G carrier fighter back in 2016. They first did a joint study with ADA on navalizing AMCA. Ultimately settled on TEDBF as a more realistic solution that could replace the 29Ks by the mid 2030s. By all accounts, a clean sheet naval 5G design is still under consideration at NHQ.

I'd have hoped the IN would've taken an incremental approach like the Korean KF-21- build a semi stealth basic version and iterate to full-spec 5G stealth V2,V3 over time.

The initial TEDBF design looked promising with its chined forward fuselage and DSI intakes. Blending the canards into the wing ( a la levcons pioneered on N-LCA mk1 and copied by the Russians on Su-57)+ canted tails would've given us a fairly decent LO jet, imo. Unfortunately, the latest design is nothing more than a upscaled Rafale with DSI.