Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)

Sathya

Senior member
Dec 2, 2017
2,778
1,661
India
If Rafale capabilities cannot be added to the LCA MK2, ADA should plan to develop a prototype for the IAF ORCA and TEDBF simultaneously. The MOD has the power to influence the IAF's choice once the prototype is ready. The import of foreign jets should be stopped in the future...

Rafale M is around tedbf numbers only right?
ORCA is a must then.

I think it ll take strong push to change Import to indigenous culture.

Someone of M parrikar calibre from scientific community is needed as DM.
 

TARGET

Well-Known member
Dec 2, 2017
774
635
Rafale M is around tedbf numbers only right?
ORCA is a must then.

I think it ll take strong push to change Import to indigenous culture.
Absolutely, We should have a fighter plane for every segment ...India 1st, no love for Rafale... This will boost our domestic industry and stop the breathing space of foreign players in the Indian market.
 

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,881
4,688
Bangalore
If Rafale capabilities cannot be added to the LCA MK2, ADA should plan to develop a prototype for the IAF ORCA and TEDBF simultaneously. The MOD has the power to influence the IAF's choice once the prototype is ready. The import of foreign jets should be stopped in the future...
One thing can be done, we can simply import between 36-54 Rafales directly instead of doing whole MMRCA production, it will take upto 2028 to complete this order.

In the meantime this idea can surely be toyed. By that time if we want a land based demonstrator of TEDBF can surely be in the air. But then again this type of things need pro-activeness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya

TARGET

Well-Known member
Dec 2, 2017
774
635
One thing can be done, we can simply import between 36-54 Rafales directly instead of doing whole MMRCA production, it will take upto 2028 to complete this order.

In the meantime this idea can surely be toyed. By that time if we want a land based demonstrator of TEDBF can surely be in the air. But then again this type of things need pro-activeness.
Agree, We should go for the minimum number of Rafale (36) while planning for ORCA because we are lacking in the minimum squadron numbers. It is a waste of time and resources if we can't give large orders of our indigenous products in the name of some capabilities excuses.
 

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,881
4,688
Bangalore
Agree, We should go for the minimum number of Rafale (36) while planning for ORCA because we are lacking in the minimum squadron numbers. It is a waste of time and resources if we can't give large orders of our indigenous products in the name of some capabilities excuses.
It's actually rare now that development falls behind stated requirements of the forces. Both HTT40 and LUH prove more that. I am sure an early decision today can offset any delays and a decent platform can be available by 2032 for production.
 

Domobran7

Member
Dec 7, 2017
52
55
southern Croatia
26-9-5.5 = 11.5T operational empty. This gives us a TWR of 1.17 with full fuel.

It's impressive how quickly we are catching up with other aerospace powers in such a short time and using so little money.
Well, catching up is always easier than inventing. That is basically what China had done: using US as their private research polygon.

Still, impressive.
 

Hydra

Banned
May 19, 2020
3,300
1,602
Mumbai
If Rafale capabilities cannot be added to the LCA MK2, ADA should plan to develop a prototype for the IAF ORCA and TEDBF simultaneously. The MOD has the power to influence the IAF's choice once the prototype is ready. The import of foreign jets should be stopped in the future...
MOD should not & IAF must not get influenced. The procurement must be based on IAF's requirement.
It's actually rare now that development falls behind stated requirements of the forces. Both HTT40 and LUH prove more that. I am sure an early decision today can offset any delays and a decent platform can be available by 2032 for production.
And MK1a & MK2 programs showing delays. The HTT40 & LUH are not a war fighting materials.
 

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,881
4,688
Bangalore
And MK1a & MK2 programs showing delays. The HTT40 & LUH are not a war fighting materials.
Delays will always be there. I am not saying it won't.

What I am saying is instead of facing delays in 2030s if we start to work on this proposal then, why not start now and face any delays now only ?

For MK2 I have said again and again that Mig29s OSD is 2032 after that Jaguar DE and then Mirage 2000. So 2032 is really fine for IAF to start getting Mk2 deliveries.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,516
11,311
India
Delays will always be there. I am not saying it won't.

What I am saying is instead of facing delays in 2030s if we start to work on this proposal then, why not start now and face any delays now only ?

For MK2 I have said again and again that Mig29s OSD is 2032 after that Jaguar DE and then Mirage 2000. So 2032 is really fine for IAF to start getting Mk2 deliveries.

Considering we have a 10-squadron shortfall, we need new jets ASAP. There's no point in waiting for retirement to begin replacement.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Sathya

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,881
4,688
Bangalore
Considering we have a 10-squadron shortfall, we need new jets ASAP. There's no point in waiting for retirement to begin replacement.
In the next 5 years upto 2027, there are no other aircrafts coming other than Mk1A. That's the sad thing whatever we may do now.

We can only ensure that we try to keep things for beyond 2027 on line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya

TARGET

Well-Known member
Dec 2, 2017
774
635
MOD should not & IAF must not get influenced. The procurement must be based on IAF's requirement.
The IAF's requirements do match most of the time. They will always prefer alternative imported equipment because it will have an advantage, so you must bring the IAF to the negotiating table to reach a compromise and give the go-ahead for indigenous goods. There will be superior products on the market if we compare any indigenous stuff.

On paper, what you said makes sense, but in practice, it is not feasible.

we have foreign items that are better than ALH, LUH, ARJUN, and LCA , right?
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
15,516
11,311
India
In the next 5 years upto 2027, there are no other aircrafts coming other than Mk1A. That's the sad thing whatever we may do now.

We can only ensure that we try to keep things for beyond 2027 on line.

I am using a comfortable 2030 date for that. As long as the IAF starts getting Mk2 and MRFA by then, it's gonna be fine. I only have hope for MKI MLU before 2030.

The only saving grace is the IN is getting new jets, which we will naturally use against Pak and China.
 

Ankit Kumar

Team StratFront
Nov 30, 2017
4,881
4,688
Bangalore
That's what some members were advocating..
Atleast N LCA trainers. 8 of them as minimum.
Which will increase the life of other Naval fighters.

My concern is that 26 F18 or Rafales will come in the price range of 6-7 billion USD. And this big a commitment is not feasible or logical for Navy, which has to fund its SSN project also.

And both Rafale M and F18s come with their own restrictions. And 2032-33 is the time we are aiming for TEDBF, its better to fill the gap till NLCA, if it can carry 1 AShM and 2 WVR missiles. That is a really good loadout.
 

Hydra

Banned
May 19, 2020
3,300
1,602
Mumbai
My concern is that 26 F18 or Rafales will come in the price range of 6-7 billion USD. And this big a commitment is not feasible or logical for Navy, which has to fund its SSN project also.

And both Rafale M and F18s come with their own restrictions. And 2032-33 is the time we are aiming for TEDBF, its better to fill the gap till NLCA, if it can carry 1 AShM and 2 WVR missiles. That is a really good loadout.
Today we lost one more mig29k.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,821
4,433
74
France
My concern is that 26 F18 or Rafales will come in the price range of 6-7 billion USD. And this big a commitment is not feasible or logical for Navy, which has to fund its SSN project also.
You are wrong about the price:
Let's take the price of the 36 Rafales sold to the IAF as a basis for calculation, i.e. $8 Billion, for the Navy there will be no need to equip bases because the base of these planes is the aircraft carrier! this saves $1.8 Billion. Similarly, the price of the ISEs should not be counted, i.e. another $1.7 billion. This brings us to 4.5 billion for 36 Rafales, or 3.25 billion for 26 aircraft.