2 EMALS is for a single aircraft carrier. American ones have 3 catapults/EMALS for example.
Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)
- Thread starter Gautam
- Start date
What you're referring to is a different part of the same paradigm , namely the nature of our response which what you're describing can be characterized as A2 / AD !
I was referring to the offensive part of the same paradigm which is the deployment of FAs.
Indeed. I stand corrected . So instead of a 5-6 AC Navy the IN seems reconciled for a 3 AC Navy by 2040 by the looks of it with 2 INS Vikrant types & 1 x 65,000 ton displacement INS Vishal with 2 x EMALS & N propulsion.
The INS Vikramaditya will potter around till 2035-40 whereas both the former as well as the MiG-25 K should've been retired by 2035 latest.
These mig29k's are quite new.
First of these entered service in 2010, they are newer than su30mki's.
Just like super sukhoi upgrade, we can operate upgraded mi29k's till 2040s, after that retirement can begin.
The issue isn't the operations per se , it's their absolute availability which has been abysmal at the best of times. They were are & will be sup optimal platforms.
While you can always deploy them against the likes of Paxtan , against China it'd be a case of on a wing & a prayer , assuming it does go up against China which itself is a big question mark.
The IN could just be playing for time. They probably hope to piggy back on the IAFs plans for 114 Rafale which seems likely to happen post Op Sindoor. That way, they'd get the 57 MRCBF they'd originally envisaged. They can then directly ask for a 5G ship-based fighter.
Unlike LCA Mk2 which is a stepping stone to AMCA, TEDBF is largely redundant. It's the N-LCA mk1 prog that has been the test case for indigenous carrier ac design. Sadly, the jet hasn't got its due.
Those low availability figures are from before 2020s, early to mid 2010s, which caused extensive rework by navy with its partners to improve it.
Recent reports indicate avaliablity Rate of 65-70%.
Regardless, it's not getting younger with time. Besides the entire design itself is sub optimal derived as it is from a land based FA , only to cash in on India's haplessness having chosen to upgrade / modernize the INS Vikramaditya from the original Admiral Gorshkov , where the naval aviation complex capabilities didn't exist & had to be created literally on the fly just to fill in their pockets. Enter the MiG-29.
There're serious design flaws with the FA which hasn't been designed for this kind of operations . Add to it the wear & tear from a humid saline drenched environment particularly the fatigue to the air frame given every landing is almost a controlled crash landing & you'd see the reason this air frame has already started developing structural problems. There were reports not long ago the IN had noticed structural defects creeping in over a period of time . These problems aren't easily resolved , if at all.
And now we suddenly come across news the IN is planning to upgrade / modernise it to last up until 2040 which you can bet your last dollar will be more like 2045 if not 2050 when the last of them will be retired where only a few years ago the ostensible reason they initiated the development of the TEDBF was because the performance of the MiG-29 was sub par & that they didn't expect the said FA to last till 2030 -35 . They've executed a virtual sommersault now .
I'd rather we go back to your previous post of developing the TEDBF & building upon it for the 5th Gen capabilities instead of relying on imports for their 4th Gen FA needs.
It can still be undertaken though things would be delayed which the IN is now trying to make up for by upgrading / modernizing the MiG-29 K .
How successful it'd be in both ventures is anyone's guess ?!
The IN's threat perceptions have changed since the TEDBF prog was launched. Now that they've ordered 26 Rafale-Ms, it's only logical that they'd buy more in the future to fill the original MRBCF requirement.
Unless the TEDBF is re-designed significantly, it won't fit the INs future needs, imo. I've said this before and I'll say it again, we're throwing away the lessons learned from the N-LCA mk1 prog. I'll leave it at that.
No idea what their threat perceptions are except to mimic PLAN from what one can see out here.
In any case their 5th Gen FA isn't going to arrive before the mid 40s even if they begin now & there's no indication they're beginning now . So what are they going to do between now & whenever it is their 5th Gen FA plans are sanctioned ?
Frankly there was a lot of talk the TEDBF with its low numbers would be uneconomical . If that be the case how's a 5th Gen FA built exclusively for the IN going to be economical ?
Add to that the import bill for the Rafale - present as well as forthcoming & later the upgradation package , various consumables during their life span & the dependencies created .
Can't see how is this a wise decision tbh that too coming from the IN which has always been in the forefront & stood steadfast in support of indigenization.
You'd have to elaborate on both your points.
TEDBF is still on the drawing board. Could be years before it gets to even the CDR stage. Besides, ADA currently has its hands full with LCA Mk2 and AMCA related work. I suspect the IN would opt for more Rafale-M using the same line of reasoning as the IAF- commonality/sunk costs of infra, training, etc (wrt the 26 jets it has on order from DA)
The IN appears to only have approval for a 2nd Vikrant sized STOBAR carrier at the moment. The TEDBF as it is currently designed is STOBAR specific. Developing a CTOL version for the projected 65k ton CATOBAR carrier is likely to have its own share of issues, considering the fact that we've not operated CTOL naval ac since the Sea Hawks/Alize, both turboprops.
Given the problems the Chinese have been having converting the STOBAR J-15 for CTOL ops from the Fujian carrier, the IN might opt for a clean sheet 5G design for the follow-on carrier.
Earlier reports indicated that the first flight of the Mk-2 , AMCA Mk-1 & the TEDBF would be separated by a period of ~ 2 years from each other.
Then came a somewhat major redesign of the TEDBF to mimic the Rafale M . Now the entire project has gone in limbo with no word on why has the IN postponed dates of the development of the TEDBF from later this decade to the end of the next decade.
A stronger MoD & Raksha Mantri would squeeze the IN's balls.
Yes that seems likely but why should the GoI give in to the IN's fanciful wishes ? As long as it was restricted to the induction of 26 nos Rafales , it was fine.
If the IN was planning all along for the induction of Rafales EXCLUSIVELY why did it go thru the elaborate charade of developing a 4th / 4.5th Gen TEDBF ?
I don't think the MoD should let them off scot free. Not after their experiments with the N-LCA which the IN turned down for it didn't meet their requirements only to sink in more money to develop & validate technology & then refuse to consider inducting those improved N-LCAs too.
There must be accountability.
I've read reports stating both the Rafales & the TEDBF are capable of flight off either decks. So where's the problem ?
Don't think so . You simulate that on land once the EMALS are ready assuming we'd be going in for an indigenous one else the US EMALS are already validated . So once again I don't see any issue.
The J-15 itself has been a problematic FA because the FA it's based on namely the Su-33 has been a problematic FA. Those are the perils of cut copy paste.
Moreover the Chinese developed their own indigenous EMALS where the pioneers in this field GA itself has been facing issues with this technology.
So that's another problem in addition to a sub par Carrier Based FA the Chinese have to put up with.
By all accounts, there seems to have been a rethink at NHQ and the focus has shifted to 5G. I wouldn't be surprised if the TEDBF goes thru another round of design iterations post a CDR by the IN.
I guess we'd have to see how the Rafale-Ms (originally designed for CATOBAR) perform in real-world conditions flying off Vikrant.
But the idea of having a common TEDBF airframe(albeit two versions) doing both STOBAR and CATOBAR will have its trade-offs. While we have built up quite a deep knowledge base via N-LCA Mk1 on the former, CATOBAR will be a whole new ball game for both ADA and the IN.
I suspect the IN might turn its attention to UCAV/CCAs to complement its carrier air wing in the short to medium term and ditch TEDBF for a new 5G jet. Would be a logical thing to do, imo.
I recall reading @Picdelamirand-oil 's posts on this when the MRCBF competition was on.
According to him the Rafale M was designed for both kinds of deck operations , something Dassault has clarified plenty of times before during & after the MRCBF contract was signed.
You apprehensions regarding this is misplaced.
We can always get Dassault consultancy for solutions to CATOBAR related design issues if needed. Besides the old INS Vikrant we operated had a steam driven catapult .
Admittedly it's been nearly 3 decades since we retired that AC & the tech is of WW-2 vintage with subsequent upgradations to it but we had zero knowledge or experience of operating those systems when we inducted them .
Another sub optimal proposition though I won't put it beyond the IN given their thought process & the situation they've gotten themselves into.
I'd rather IN & ADA developed their skills on developing a 4.5th Gen FA before moving on to a 5th Gen FA . That's what a smooth transition would look like. More so since the MoD / GoI are inclined towards sanctioning such a 4.5th Gen FA .
Otherwise they'd be the first ones to throw a spanner in the works suggesting imports for the sunk costs of a TEDBF project would be inexorably high given the small numbers we'd be inducting them in .
Here the problem lies somewhere else.
Mig29K is badly born, and as all the russian jets suffer from low availability and low quality support.
The comparison with Rafale M in the naval Sqd will be painfull for the Mig.
About f35 starting out as naval varient.
X35 prototype.
F35A.
F35C.
F35 started out as airforce only fighter, later it evolved into jsf with navy and marines joining.
Attachments
From the product definition stage of the JSF program itself, the idea was to have separate variants. It is not a conversion from the Air Force version but was purposefully designed for commonality of parts.
X-35 itself had multiple versions:
- X-35A: Demonstrated CTOL (Air Force).
- X-35B: Converted from the X-35A to demonstrate STOVL, using the lift fan.
- X-35C: Larger wing and stronger gear, tested carrier suitability.
I don't know about anything else, but the TEDBF should have started out as a, 5th Gen Jet design, especially, when IN didn't joined the AMCA.
Its not like TEDBF started in 2010, it was always known it will be inducted in the mid-30s & Rafale-M procurement was sure as well.
When the first images of TEDBF came out, I was disappointed to see it as a, 4/4.5th Gen design. Our Military leaders & planners need to look a bit, in the future. We can always have a "Non-Stealth" layer Naval Jet based on 5th Gen, if we want the numbers, that much.
Both; money & time was wasted for nothing! The only thing that has happened is, chinese threat has increased manifolds.
Its not like TEDBF started in 2010, it was always known it will be inducted in the mid-30s & Rafale-M procurement was sure as well.
When the first images of TEDBF came out, I was disappointed to see it as a, 4/4.5th Gen design. Our Military leaders & planners need to look a bit, in the future. We can always have a "Non-Stealth" layer Naval Jet based on 5th Gen, if we want the numbers, that much.
Both; money & time was wasted for nothing! The only thing that has happened is, chinese threat has increased manifolds.
