These people will gleefully gloat for any Chinese, American success while treating their own programs with complete apathy.
The IN did consider a naval AMCA variant back in 2010. TEDBF itself has been through two design iterations already. Prior to that the IN scrapped the LCA-N Mk1 and even a larger LCA-N Mk2 variant proposed by ADA because it didn't want a single engine carrier fighter.
They are venting out their frustration. Maolankar spent larger part of a decade on NLCA development as a test pilot. Apathy is from the bureaucracy and political class.
IN proposed the AMCA as a joint venture & IAF rejected with the MoD busy scratching their balls with the then Raksha Mantri St Antony busy sitting on proposals for he knew he was in a minefield .
Doubt Rajnath Singh is any better at making quick/prescient decisions. He's been played by both babudom and military brass over the years.
About just the same as far as competence goes & as far as decision making goes it's a function of the government he's in which is to say the old ecosystem is no longer in power , hence that eases the process of decision making not that this character has proved he's decisive or anything. He's just a place holder as I put it long ago.
Future procurement must take into account not only the analogue of INS Vikrant being inducted but also a ~ 65,000 ton displacement CATOBAR equipped INS Vishal preferably with IEP & EMALS such that by 2040 you should have at least 3 ACs ( assuming both INS Vikrant analogue & INS Vishal are commissioned with INS Vikramaditya retired ) with two more under various stages of construction.
We need to get on par with PLAN as far as possible but I'm not a votary of the kind of plans the IN is executing at least as far as the Naval Aviation Complex goes , if I think I've read them right.
They're smitten by Rafale just as the IAF was. I don't believe the IN will stop at 26 MRCBF. A follow-on purchase is an easier sell to MoF/MoD than starting a new project from scratch. Rafale will soon be a MII product.
True. But we're talking two TEDBF versions- a STOBAR and CATOBAR + a 5G naval design whenever that's approved. I doubt the IN will accept any compromises with regard to payload, range. Afaik, the case for Vikrant-2 hasn't even made it to DAC yet.
For the foreseeable future, the IN carrier air wing will likely be centred around Rafale. Whether TEDBF will find a place, we won't know for sure until it completes a critical design review which according to some reports was slated for this year.
Yes that's what I'm afraid of & it's the wrong approach. MP would've shot it down . Problem is he's dead & gone & we've a dunce occupying his seat today.
The TEDBF itself isn't a bad concept. It arose coz the IN deemed the N-LCA inadequate. They had full freedom to choose the way they designed the FA. This has nothing to do with the MoD . It's purely IN fooling around.
Why 2 versions for STOBAR & CATOBAR ? As I pointed out earlier the Rafale M is capable of operations from either decks . During the initial design phase of the TEDBF , IIRC the IN claimed similar capabilities for the TEDBF.
That's coz the 200 MWt N reactor wasn't ready. It's expected to by the end of the decade late by 5-10 if it arrives by 2030 depending on whom you ask .
Looks like that unless somebody reads the riot act to the IN & gets them to work on realising the TEDBF as per previous plans & timelines in a 4.5th Gen FA avatar & then move on to the 5th Gen FA program.
I was referring to the follow-on Vikrant class carrier which is to be built in the interim as a replacement for Vikramaditya. The nuke powered carrier is only in the conceptualization stage atm.
You mean the ADA is designing 2 variants of the TEDBF - one for STOBAR & one for CATOBAR operations ?
The payload that a naval aircraft can carry is most often limited by its ability to bring back loads when it lands on the aircraft carrier. The Rafale has the best bring-back capability of all naval aircraft, which is why the F-18 E lost out to it.
The Rafale M clearly cannot operate from our STOBAR carriers with the same fuel and weapon loads as your CVN Charles de Gualle. Depending on the mission, we can either load up on fuel or weapons, not both.
The Rafale will be able to take off from the Vikrant with the same operational configurations as from the Charles de Gaulle, including fuel: the Charles de Gaulle is capable of catapulting aircraft weighing up to 25 tonnes, and all Rafale aircraft, including the Rafale M, are capable of taking off from land weighing up to 24.5 tonnes. so any land configuration could take off from the Charles de Gaulle, yet the French navy limits catapulting to 22,283 kg, which is the nou nou configuration so as not to have to jettison expensive equipment into the sea before landing on the aircraft carrier. And a Rafale at 22,283 kg is perfectly capable of taking off from the Vikrant because its canards increase its lift considerably.
Isn't Rafale M heavier than the B/C on account of strengthened landing gear, arrestor hook and other structural modifications? Iirc, it had a MTOW of ~29t vs 26t for land-based versions.
The Rafale M is heavier than the B and C versions, but only by 600 kg, and its MTOW is 24,500 kg, like the others. However, when taking off from a French aircraft carrier, the operational configurations are lighter, whereas the CDG's catapults could launch it.
My point exactly. Cats can launch much heavier loads compared to STOBAR. I may be wrong but my understanding is that Aeronavale Rafales have only ever flown A2A escort missions in support of French AF Rafales and M2000s (armed with heavy weapons like Scalp, etc) in NATO airstrikes in Syria and other places over the years.
Most of the French military missions against Libya, which were bombing missions, were carried out from the Charles de Gaulle using Rafale M aircraft.
I don't think you're going to see any movement on the TEDBF , tbh . The IN is in the process of executing a real smooth con.
Imo, makes no sense to induct TEDBF in its current form. It won't be much better than a F5 model Rafale-M by the time it arrives.
