Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,138
5,519
India
This. Conventional wisdom has it that a AF fighter flows out of a naval version. Yet in the case of the LCA we went reinventing the wheel & attempted to derive a naval version from an air force version which obviously didn't get anywhere.Lesson learnt, you think the ADA would go back to repeating it's mistake. There seems to be more in common the AMCA Mk 1 AF version has with the TEDBF or rather vice versa than a N AMCA which doesn't exist today & may / will come into play after the full development envelope of the AMCA AF versions are complete.
Nah, that actually had nothing to do with ADA. They went ahead with designing an air force specific version. They said a naval version would be made later on. Then some navy guys said it would be a better idea to just make the naval version first and then convert it to an AF version. The same wisdom they pointed out went into the Rafale.

To which, ADA said converting one from the other will see compromises in both designs, Rafale has it too, which is why the AF and N will get two separate next gen designs. They are sticking to their guns for now. Hence TEDBF came into being.

ADA claims the naval design will be slightly bigger, fatter for carrying more fuel and internal weapons. So the AF version cannot be derived from it due to the AF requirement for a smaller, leaner, meaner aircraft.

Nor has the IN expressed any interest in a 5th gen N version of the AMCA for good reason. They aren't confident of the ADA's ability to deliver nor does there seem to be any pressing reason for the Navy to induct a 5th gen Naval fighter aircraft. They seem to have their road map planned perfectly. Get the TEDBF to replace the MiG 29s & if it's good enough , go in for the same of better iterations on the INS Vishal before moving on to the development of the N AMCA where either the better iterations of the TEDBF would fly off it or the N AMCA would or both.
It's the latter in the second sentence. The thing about naval aviation is their radars are powerful enough to pick up stealth aircraft from reasonable distances, so they have less need for a 'stealth' aircraft, not to mention the aircraft also use long range weapons long before they reach the detection range of naval radars. You could say that what the air force call stealth is still not good enough for the navy at this time. What the navy would definitely like is stealth force multipliers, but that concept doesn't exist yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chain Smoker

Ankit Kumar

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
1,952
1,689
Bangalore

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
12,190
7,717
Mumbai
Speaking purely on airframe life 20 years is guaranteed without any major overhaul. But an overhaul extends it by minimum 10 years. And two such overhauls are possible. They should be able to serve till 2045 or till whenever INS Vicky remains in active service.
Technically, the INS Vikramaditya is supposed to be decommissioned around 2040. I suspect though the IN is dissatisfied with the MiG-29K's performance & if the TEDBF manages FOC by 2035 , they may go in for wholesale replacements of the MiGs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ankit Kumar

Ankit Kumar

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
1,952
1,689
Bangalore
Technically, the INS Vikramaditya is supposed to be decommissioned around 2040. I suspect though the IN is dissatisfied with the MiG-29K's performance & if the TEDBF manages FOC by 2035 , they may go in for wholesale replacements of the MiGs.
Obviously even with those engines , the aircraft is unable to operate from ACs with any meaningful A2G loadout.

Vicky will remain as a training platform for quite long time, minimum 40 years of service for sure.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,138
5,519
India
Technically, the INS Vikramaditya is supposed to be decommissioned around 2040. I suspect though the IN is dissatisfied with the MiG-29K's performance & if the TEDBF manages FOC by 2035 , they may go in for wholesale replacements of the MiGs.
The Mig-29K is fine as a fleet defence aircraft, which is what it was bought as, but it's the complete opposite of a carrier fighter.
 

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
12,190
7,717
Mumbai
The Mig-29K is fine as a fleet defence aircraft, which is what it was bought as, but it's the complete opposite of a carrier fighter.
What are you talking about? Why would you buy 2 squadrons of fleet defense aircraft especially when they're the only aircraft you plan on having on your carrier? If they're there for fleet defense which aircraft would perform the other tasks?
 

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
3,714
5,910
Bangalore
What are you talking about? Why would you buy 2 squadrons of fleet defense aircraft especially when they're the only aircraft you plan on having on your carrier? If they're there for fleet defense which aircraft would perform the other tasks?
Indian carriers are designed for fleet defense. The actual project name was Air Defence Ship (Project 71 ADS). Technically, there are no 'other tasks'. It is not designed to invade Africa or Pakistan. Mig-29K fulfills all the requirements that it asks for. Only with IAC-2, we will have a true western type multi-tasked true power projecting carrier battle group (CBG). By then we will have SSNs to escort them.
 

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
12,190
7,717
Mumbai
Indian carriers are designed for fleet defense. The actual project name was Air Defence Ship (Project 71 ADS). Technically, there are no 'other tasks'. It is not designed to invade Africa or Pakistan. Mig-29K fulfills all the requirements that it asks for. Only with IAC-2, we will have a true western type multi-tasked true power projecting carrier battle group (CBG). By then we will have SSNs to escort them.
So, our existing carriers exist only for themselves, is it?
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,138
5,519
India
What are you talking about? Why would you buy 2 squadrons of fleet defense aircraft especially when they're the only aircraft you plan on having on your carrier? If they're there for fleet defense which aircraft would perform the other tasks?
2 squadrons is the minimum you need to be available and fill enough jets on a carrier with near 100% availability for fleet defence. With 60% availability, you will have at least 26 aircraft fully available out of 45 jets, and during wartime extra supplies are made available to allow for an increase in availability to 80% or more, which will allow the use of extra jets as reserves to counter battlefield losses.

Both Kuznetsov and Vikramaditya, even Vikrant, are air defence carriers. So their main objective is to protect the fleet. In fact, Vikrant was supposed to be even smaller and a true air defence ship, later they increased its size a bit and started calling it an aircraft carrier.

So both Mig-29K and Su-33 have a minor role as a strike fighter. Their main job is to deny the enemy the use of the airspace over friendly fleets, and use tactical missiles against some type of targets, land and sea. They also carried bombs, but even those were mainly to perform some light strike, CAS and anti-ship roles. Basically, they are incapable of complex roles like SEAD/DEAD and DPS.

Vikramaditya and Vikrant normally carry 24 Mig-29s. Most of these jets are used up for air defence, in order to maintain a 24/7 presence in the air. Which means, of the 24 jets you will only have about 8 aircraft for the strike role at a time, which is fine for the roles I've listed above. You need 4-6 aircraft to fire AShMs and LACMs and a similar number for other simpler A2G missions. So these 2 carriers carry the aircraft type necessary for such missions. It's due to the extra 8 aircraft that these 2 ships barely cross the threshold required to be called an aircraft carrier.

Hence why you need much larger carriers, that can at least carry 36-48 jets, like a large carrier. Preferably 60-90 jets, supercarriers. This way, with a large carrier you give up 16-20 jets for air defence, and use the remaining 16-28 jets for complex strike missions. Naturally, you will also need avionics and other capabilities that are specific to strike aircraft, which are only carried by the F-35C, Rafale and SH, and with the range and endurance necessary to carry the weapons to long distance targets. The Mig-29K lacks both, which is why it's the exact opposite of what's required from a carrier aircraft.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Sathya

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
12,190
7,717
Mumbai
2 squadrons is the minimum you need to be available and fill enough jets on a carrier with near 100% availability for fleet defence. With 60% availability, you will have at least 26 aircraft fully available out of 45 jets, and during wartime extra supplies are made available to allow for an increase in availability to 80% or more, which will allow the use of extra jets as reserves to counter battlefield losses.

Both Kuznetsov and Vikramaditya, even Vikrant, are air defence carriers. So their main objective is to protect the fleet. In fact, Vikrant was supposed to be even smaller and a true air defence ship, later they increased its size a bit and started calling it an aircraft carrier.

So both Mig-29K and Su-33 have a minor role as a strike fighter. Their main job is to deny the enemy the use of the airspace over friendly fleets, and use tactical missiles against some type of targets, land and sea. They also carried bombs, but even those were mainly to perform some light strike, CAS and anti-ship roles. Basically, they are incapable of complex roles like SEAD/DEAD and DPS.

Vikramaditya and Vikrant normally carry 24 Mig-29s. Most of these jets are used up for air defence, in order to maintain a 24/7 presence in the air. Which means, of the 24 jets you will only have about 8 aircraft for the strike role at a time, which is fine for the roles I've listed above. You need 4-6 aircraft to fire AShMs and LACMs and a similar number for other simpler A2G missions. So these 2 carriers carry the aircraft type necessary for such missions. It's due to the extra 8 aircraft that these 2 ships barely cross the threshold required to be called an aircraft carrier.

Hence why you need much larger carriers, that can at least carry 36-48 jets, like a large carrier. Preferably 60-90 jets, supercarriers. This way, with a large carrier you give up 16-20 jets for air defence, and use the remaining 16-28 jets for complex strike missions. Naturally, you will also need avionics and other capabilities that are specific to strike aircraft, which are only carried by the F-35C, Rafale and SH, and with the range and endurance necessary to carry the weapons to long distance targets. The Mig-29K lacks both, which is why it's the exact opposite of what's required from a carrier aircraft.
My take on it is very simple. Both the INS Vikramaditya & Vikrant are there essentially for air defense of the fleet, air superiority & for anti shipping role. That was what it's predecessors were for too.That's it. Nothing more nor less. And these tasks are not adequately performed by the MiG-29K aircraft due to frequent maintenance issues , inherent design & other performance deficiencies which cannot be wholly ameliorated

The other roles you've specified are peripheral & though it's welcome it isn't mandatory given that the scope of our carriers at present is limited to dominating the Arabian Sea & the BoB in which you can also include the Malacca Straits.

We aren't going to use them in the IOR or the Indo Pacific.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,138
5,519
India
My take on it is very simple. Both the INS Vikramaditya & Vikrant are there essentially for air defense of the fleet, air superiority & for anti shipping role. That was what it's predecessors were for too.That's it. Nothing more nor less. And these tasks are not adequately performed by the MiG-29K aircraft due to frequent maintenance issues , inherent design & other performance deficiencies which cannot be wholly ameliorated

The other roles you've specified are peripheral & though it's welcome it isn't mandatory given that the scope of our carriers at present is limited to dominating the Arabian Sea & the BoB in which you can also include the Malacca Straits.

We aren't going to use them in the IOR or the Indo Pacific.
The maintenance and performance issues are overblown. The carrier jets maintain near 100% availability while deployed and the jet pretty much operates the way it's been designed.

There are other issues with the Mig-29, which are their short service life, higher maintenance costs, incapable of performing some missions etc. In a sense, it was inadequate since the day it was purchased.

If the IN replaces the Mig-29s between 2035 and 2040, it basically means the Migs are being used to the limit of their lives and a new class of more capable and more maintenance-friendly jets are going to replace the lot.

30 years is the absolute limit of the rusty Marine Migs.
 

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
1,766
2,194
United States
My take on it is very simple. Both the INS Vikramaditya & Vikrant are there essentially for air defense of the fleet, air superiority & for anti shipping role. That was what it's predecessors were for too.That's it. Nothing more nor less. And these tasks are not adequately performed by the MiG-29K aircraft due to frequent maintenance issues , inherent design & other performance deficiencies which cannot be wholly ameliorated

The other roles you've specified are peripheral & though it's welcome it isn't mandatory given that the scope of our carriers at present is limited to dominating the Arabian Sea & the BoB in which you can also include the Malacca Straits.

We aren't going to use them in the IOR or the Indo Pacific.
You guys are forgetting that mig29M's are a big step up from harriers we have been flying. From design perspective, there are very few aircraft in the world that can hold it's own against a Mig29 in a2a, It's radar is lacking in capability but that is something IN needs to blamed for, an AESA is a must for the Mig29M fleet. Next for Anti Shipping, I think the targeting system is adequate, and aircraft very easily supports the KH31, KH35 and KH29ME systems which remain the backbone of our anti-shipping aerial platforms.

For the Mig29s, IAF mig29's and IN Mig29's both historically have had servicibility problems. Now given India operates so many of these aircraft there should be a nodal agency that maintains both the systems and ensures an x% of availability at all times. HAL was once on the cards to become that agency, but I don't know what happened to that. IAF's BRD does a piss poor job of maintaining the Mig29 fleet it has. I am not aware of IN 's servicing capabilities for its fleet, I know for a fact that HAL supported it's Il38's and TU142's which also has had problems. Now given how poor HAL's service side agility has been, I hope HAL is not given this role and a private player can be roped in to become maintenance hub for both IN and IAF fleets.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,138
5,519
India
You guys are forgetting that mig29M's are a big step up from harriers we have been flying. From design perspective, there are very few aircraft in the world that can hold it's own against a Mig29 in a2a, It's radar is lacking in capability but that is something IN needs to blamed for, an AESA is a must for the Mig29M fleet. Next for Anti Shipping, I think the targeting system is adequate, and aircraft very easily supports the KH31, KH35 and KH29ME systems which remain the backbone of our anti-shipping aerial platforms.

For the Mig29s, IAF mig29's and IN Mig29's both historically have had servicibility problems. Now given India operates so many of these aircraft there should be a nodal agency that maintains both the systems and ensures an x% of availability at all times. HAL was once on the cards to become that agency, but I don't know what happened to that. IAF's BRD does a piss poor job of maintaining the Mig29 fleet it has. I am not aware of IN 's servicing capabilities for its fleet, I know for a fact that HAL supported it's Il38's and TU142's which also has had problems. Now given how poor HAL's service side agility has been, I hope HAL is not given this role and a private player can be roped in to become maintenance hub for both IN and IAF fleets.
The Mig-29K will be maintained by the IN itself at Hansa, and the IAF plans to do the same for their fleet at Ozhar.

The Hansa facility will be run by the Russians directly.
 

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
1,766
2,194
United States
The Mig-29K will be maintained by the IN itself at Hansa, and the IAF plans to do the same for their fleet at Ozhar.

The Hansa facility will be run by the Russians directly.
Both of those choices hasn't worked out well yet.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,138
5,519
India
Both of those choices hasn't worked out well yet.
The govt is working out a system to enable Russian companies to create JVs and set up factories in India for spares production. Right now it's not been going well due to the poor spares supply.

The work itself should go fine due to the numerous changes made to the IAF Mig-29's airframe and engine, unlike before.

As for the Mig-29K, I'm not sure if it's even begun yet.