Wt..?... a Rafale clone to fly in 2070?...
So, from baby Mirage to baby Rafale? Anyway, making a mostly completely new design, such as this TEDBF, sounds very, very time consuming. Is India planning to go from MiG-29Ks to this TEDBF, or will there be a transitional plane for the carrier/s? Somehow I don't think those MiG-29Ks can serve another 20+ years.
A more serious comment: just what are those engines supposed to be? if they're GE-414 class - then just how big is that plane going to be ? 196 kN of thrust would seem like total overkill for a 10 ton fighter. And judging by the size of the cockpit cover, it's not really that much bigger length/wingspan wise than Tejas. Also, the fact it doesn't seem to have internal weapons bay would also make it lighter and less bulky, again not requiring such powerful engine pack. Or is India perhaps counting on M88 engines for this one? 150 kN would, I guess, be acceptable overkill initially for a 10 ton fighter, with room for growth.
A more serious comment: just what are those engines supposed to be? if they're GE-414 class - then just how big is that plane going to be ? 196 kN of thrust would seem like total overkill for a 10 ton fighter. And judging by the size of the cockpit cover, it's not really that much bigger length/wingspan wise than Tejas. Also, the fact it doesn't seem to have internal weapons bay would also make it lighter and less bulky, again not requiring such powerful engine pack. Or is India perhaps counting on M88 engines for this one? 150 kN would, I guess, be acceptable overkill initially for a 10 ton fighter, with room for growth.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,246
Could be that the 2070 timeline is a ploy, and they plan to have it in service far sooner.
Googling TEDBF articles, two different MTOW figures appear. 23 tons and 26 tons. And indeed, GE414 engines are, allegedly, planned/desired for it.
So, if the above is true, it would appear India is aiming not at a baby Rafale but at a full size Rafale counterpart, possibly even slightly heavier. With quite a bit more engine power to boot as well. (possibly required for STOBAR carrier ops, which need more thrust?)
But that model in the images does seem to have slightly too big of cockpit canopy for a Rafale sized plane. Then again, is stealth is a requirement later on, having the canopy follow the nose fusalage lines might require somewhat oversized canopy.
So, if the above is true, it would appear India is aiming not at a baby Rafale but at a full size Rafale counterpart, possibly even slightly heavier. With quite a bit more engine power to boot as well. (possibly required for STOBAR carrier ops, which need more thrust?)
But that model in the images does seem to have slightly too big of cockpit canopy for a Rafale sized plane. Then again, is stealth is a requirement later on, having the canopy follow the nose fusalage lines might require somewhat oversized canopy.
- Joined
- 29 November 2010
- Messages
- 1,733
- Reaction score
- 3,356
if I recall correctly, there are two TEDBF models.. one that looks like this stealthy Rafale, and the other that looks a bit more like the Mirage 4000 (be happy Dassault, they like your designs!).
but I don't see the practicality of all this.
HAL has like 3 designs that are substantially different than Tejas
Tejas Mk2, TEDBF, and AMCA. Tejas Mk2 is obviously closest to Tejas but its still a significant design change like the Hornet to Super Hornet.
Thats 3 'paper' aircraft that needs to be funded and developed.
TEDBF, likely having only the Indian Navy being its customer.. for like what.. 40-60 aircraft? doesn't sound very economically.
wouldn't it be better just to make more Tejas (as is) and focus the rest of the resources entirely on AMCA (both an AF and Naval version)?
but I don't see the practicality of all this.
HAL has like 3 designs that are substantially different than Tejas
Tejas Mk2, TEDBF, and AMCA. Tejas Mk2 is obviously closest to Tejas but its still a significant design change like the Hornet to Super Hornet.
Thats 3 'paper' aircraft that needs to be funded and developed.
TEDBF, likely having only the Indian Navy being its customer.. for like what.. 40-60 aircraft? doesn't sound very economically.
wouldn't it be better just to make more Tejas (as is) and focus the rest of the resources entirely on AMCA (both an AF and Naval version)?
Some more images. That cockpit canopy still looks oversized. It's like someone took a model of the pilot and the plane in 1:100 scale and then used a 1:72 scale canopy. 
View: https://imgur.com/cQ6a5OL
View: https://imgur.com/8mYQb9Q
View: https://imgur.com/cQ6a5OL
View: https://imgur.com/8mYQb9Q
Deltafan
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 8 May 2006
- Messages
- 1,661
- Reaction score
- 2,119
The second model you're talking about was Fan made rendition by Kuntal Biswas not official design.
- Joined
- 29 November 2010
- Messages
- 1,733
- Reaction score
- 3,356
now officially signed
Indian government clears $6.5 billion deal for homemade Tejas fighter jets
The deal will see state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited manufacture 73 LCA MK1A Tejas fighter versions and 10 trainers versions.www.defensenews.com
at 79 million, thats the cost the F-35 is projected to fall down to this year (and down to 77 in 2022). not sure of what else is included in these costs.
Contract signed for 83 LCA Tejas fighters, all eyes now on HAL delivery schedule
IAF is also focusing on Mk 2 version of Tejas and 5th generation AMCA fighter, which HAL is developing and has set ambitious timelines for.
theprint.in
number moved from 77 to 83
Indian government clears $6.5 billion deal for homemade Tejas fighter jets
The deal will see state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited manufacture 73 LCA MK1A Tejas fighter versions and 10 trainers versions.
at 79 million, thats the cost the F-35 is projected to fall down to this year (and down to 77 in 2022). not sure of what else is included in these costs.
Here's the price breakup of the 83 Tejas MK1A #Deal
1.Base price of 83 MK1A: ₹26,145cr
2.ADA consult charges: ₹800cr
3.Maintenance/spares: ₹8000cr
4.Technical training: ₹600cr
5.GSE/GHE: ₹1202cr
6.Central taxes: ₹9000cr
TOTAL: ₹45,696cr
So flyaway cost of Tejas Mk1a is 315 crores which is approximately 43 million. Not 79 million.
View: https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/status/1351059977406976000?s=19
Last edited:
Also, if you include Su-30MKI, which are supposed to be upgraded, Mig-29UPG and MiG-29K, Rafales themselves and upgraded Mirages makes a quite confusing zoo.
- Joined
- 29 November 2010
- Messages
- 1,733
- Reaction score
- 3,356
according to LF, they reported HAL as saying "Hope to conclude a contract for the LCA Tejas Mk1A with a South East Asian nation soon, says HAL chairman R. Madhavan"
this is in line to reports in late 2020 that HAL was about to sell Tejas to a sE Asian country.
im guessing its likely Malaysia.. and a distant possiblity, Vietnam.
this is in line to reports in late 2020 that HAL was about to sell Tejas to a sE Asian country.
im guessing its likely Malaysia.. and a distant possiblity, Vietnam.
My sources say that Malaysia is not interested. If anything they are more interested in either ex-Kuwaiti F/A-18C/Ds or potentially something from the KAI T-50 family.
These are latest renditions of the TEDBF based on the model shown in AeroIndia2021
View: https://twitter.com/i_m_satwikk/status/1357564446009266180?s=19
View: https://twitter.com/i_m_satwikk/status/1357564446009266180?s=19
- Joined
- 29 November 2010
- Messages
- 1,733
- Reaction score
- 3,356
wouldn't blame them.
I'd personally take the KAI Golden Eagle and KFX over the Tejas and AMCA.
for starters it'll get delivered soon and KAI seems to have better project management and less conflict between maker and politicians.
as for the TEDBF model
is it me or does it look like it could accommodate one bay? doesnt seem wide enough to have two side by side bays
- Joined
- 6 September 2006
- Messages
- 4,605
- Reaction score
- 8,577
Just throwing out an idea, do we think that Dassault has been supplying assistance in the design of TEDBF or did the HAL designers just copy the canard/intake layout of the Rafale to graft onto the Tejas as it looked good?
It does look like an odd mashup of features on one airframe. Of course I take computer artist's impressions with a pinch of salt.
It does look like an odd mashup of features on one airframe. Of course I take computer artist's impressions with a pinch of salt.
It's an entirely new airframe. The wings are different from the Teja signature double swept leading edge, feature an untried folding mechanism, the fuselage is new, the cockpit goes further away from all navalized version we have seen so far, the inlets geometry is new and would need a lot of refinement...
IMOHO it's a lot of money that promised to be divested for such a low number of airframe for something that won't bring any radical changes to the Indian Navy that isn't offered by the market.
Yet, the dynamism of the growing Indian aerospace is mesmerizing.
IMOHO it's a lot of money that promised to be divested for such a low number of airframe for something that won't bring any radical changes to the Indian Navy that isn't offered by the market.
Yet, the dynamism of the growing Indian aerospace is mesmerizing.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 29 November 2010
- Messages
- 1,733
- Reaction score
- 3,356
exactly!! LCA MK2.. probably low number.. New carrier jet, even more low numbers. 4 different projects going on in HAL, no economies of scale and they're struggling with just 1. really best they just stick to LCA MK1 and focus on internal upgrades. and make AMCA both navy and AF compatible. not like the IN is hurting for aircraft. they got some nice new MiG-29Ks
- Joined
- 6 September 2006
- Messages
- 4,605
- Reaction score
- 8,577
True, but the question still stands. Is this a case of "Rafale looks cool, let's build something that looks like it" or is there Dassault engineering in it? If this had come out of Chengdu we would have been drowned with "copying" memes. I can't see Dassault being too chuffed having sold them Rafales to find out they are copying it with a lookalike.
I agree with you that the intakes look rather odd and would need further work, but as I said its an artists impression and what you see is a marketing product and not necessarily exactly the real thing.
India is an ambitious industrial nation but unlike China, things take a long time to get moving and their aeronautical expansion and development has been stretched out over decades.
I agree it makes little sense to development three or four fighters in penny packets. Of course its possible this is purely a private-venture concept to interest the Navy. Navalising AMCA makes more sense but HAL might not see it that way if it imposes structural limitations/drawbacks on the basic AMCA design. After all they have experience of trying to make Tejas into a carrier-fighter and might have decided its easier to build two different designs.
My brain is bleeding reading this thread. India clearly has taken the worst sides of a) Su-27 variants and b) chinese fighter designs proliferation, mixed them and created an even larger mess out of this.
I doubt Dassault helped in this. They would rather like IAF go with Rafale follow on orders and Indian Navy buying Rafale-Ms than help HAL making their own clone.
Seems like a bit of a panic since last problems with China, and like they realize how late in the game they are compare to it.
Don’t understand the need for yet another design.
Maybe after the Teja Mk1 navalization problems, they don’t like the idea of an airframe common to Air Force and Navy , and go for a AF stuff (AMCA) and a completely different Navy stuff (TEDBF).
Not meaning that it would make the thing feasible, easier and cheaper.
Seems like a bit of a panic since last problems with China, and like they realize how late in the game they are compare to it.
Don’t understand the need for yet another design.
Maybe after the Teja Mk1 navalization problems, they don’t like the idea of an airframe common to Air Force and Navy , and go for a AF stuff (AMCA) and a completely different Navy stuff (TEDBF).
Not meaning that it would make the thing feasible, easier and cheaper.
Last edited:
The best choice by far IMHO would be for the RMAF to take the 27 Kuwaiti F/A-18C/Ds and add them to their existing 8 F/A18Ds. Maybe give the entire fleet a mild refurbishment/upgrade, then get rid of the Su-30s and centre on a more manageable, more cost effective to maintain fleet of 35 Hornets, maybe split between 2 squadrons with a pool of spare aircraft rotated through storage/maintenance cycles. This would allow them to avoid the costs of multiple different fleets. If they then wish to add new aircraft later, go for the T-50 / F/A-50 to replace their Hawk 108s/208s & MB-339CMs. This would allow a degree of commonality over major sustainment cost drivers such as engines since all have versions of the F404.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 29 November 2010
- Messages
- 1,733
- Reaction score
- 3,356
you think they should keep their MiG-29s?
In the past, Malaysia's leaders have criticized the F-18 as being good but only useful at airshows since there's a lot of restrictions on its operations (the possibility of using it on Indonesia or Singapore i guess). hence them buying a Russian type (and also because the Russians seem to be willing to take payment through rubber)
"They got some nice new MiG-29Ks"
Read this piece to know the reality of those nice Mig29ks
Indian Navy wants Russian MiG-29K jets to be ‘ruggedized’
The call for improved ruggedness originates from an issue after deck landings. The MiG-29K fighter’s settings reportedly require a reset after landing on the deck of the carrier.
www.defensenews.com
Indians have been forced to develop their own Aircraft carrier and carrier fighter due Russians duping them and milking them all these years.
As for TEDBF it's an follow-on development of their Naval LCA which carried succesful landing and take-off from INS Vikramaditya last year. ADA is trying to build up on the data gathered from Naval Tejas.
Indian Navy is set to retire their Mig29ks in 2031 and with the their new indigenous aircraft carrier set to commision at the end of this year they would need more carrier fighters hence the full on development.
Therea are also plans for third aircraft carrier.
AMCA project was started for IAF with navy not being part of it from start, developing a naval version could've derailed project.
- Joined
- 29 November 2010
- Messages
- 1,733
- Reaction score
- 3,356
^ thanks. that is very unfortunate about the 29K and I wonder if what Russia will also do since they operate it too.
They should really think about Rafale M or the Super Hornet (would prefer F-35 tbh).
TEDBF just for the Indian Navy, is still not that economically sound or an efficient use of resources. its a completely new aircraft thats not the same as the Tejas.
They should really think about Rafale M or the Super Hornet (would prefer F-35 tbh).
TEDBF just for the Indian Navy, is still not that economically sound or an efficient use of resources. its a completely new aircraft thats not the same as the Tejas.
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 6,070
- Reaction score
- 6,172
Interesting thread
India has a long history of trying to establish its own combat aircraft capability
en.m.wikipedia.org
If at first you don't succeed....
India has a long history of trying to establish its own combat aircraft capability
HAL HF-24 Marut - Wikipedia
I see a major difference between ability to sustain and thus operationally utilise cost effectively. I don't care about what the capabilities may say on paper between the aircraft types.
They have already retired the MiG-29s from service. The Malaysians were extremely unhappy with them and more so Russian support. Something that does not bode well for the Su-30MKMs.
Re the mentioned "restrictions on its operations", I am curious as to where you are seeing this. I have not seen anything and I doubt it would be easily enforceable if the need arose.
I know the Gen Ackbal, the current Cheif of the RMAF and incidentally a former member of the RMAF MiG-29 Project Team and commander No 19 Sqn, which flew the MiG-29N aircraft, is a keen advocate for the F/A-18D.
- Joined
- 29 November 2010
- Messages
- 1,733
- Reaction score
- 3,356
TMA1
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 February 2021
- Messages
- 528
- Reaction score
- 803
the mig-29k is a more than capable fighter and frankly a lot of the attacks against it were motivated by certain interests. not to say there were not real criticisms. the Malaysian mig-29's are a different and older breed so that is not at all a fair comparison and the su-30mkm is very impressive. no they will not dump them. in these times it is wise for smaller nation states to utilize weapons systems of this kind of importance from more than one or two sources. I won't delve into the politics of why.
Please be more specific - what exactly has been mentioned? What context?
And you consider spending money on already used and thus with far too limited flight hours airframes that are not just obsolete by themselves but inferior to option that is ALREADY in inventory? Don't you think that those resourses can be better spent on better maintaining of Su-30 fleet?
Again, don't fall into the trap of believing everything you read about the mythical Su-30. The reality might be quite different.
As for spending resources better maintaining the SU-30 fleet, it requires an OEM willing to do it and an Industry base able to do it. The MiG-29N debacle shows that this isn't always the case...
Finally, the option I presented was based on the harsh reality of where Malaysia finds itself economically. Having a fleet of 39 fighters across 3 different types (Su-30MKM, F/A-18D, Hawk 208) and 12 jet trainers across two types (Hawk 108 and MB339) is ridiculously expensive and inefficient. Simplifying to one type, with an already well established support base (the F/A-18) is far more economical and at the end of the day will generate a far better operational capability. Doing similar to align on the jet trainers (assuming you even need them) with something such as the T-50 then makes more sense.
As for spending resources better maintaining the SU-30 fleet, it requires an OEM willing to do it and an Industry base able to do it. The MiG-29N debacle shows that this isn't always the case...
Finally, the option I presented was based on the harsh reality of where Malaysia finds itself economically. Having a fleet of 39 fighters across 3 different types (Su-30MKM, F/A-18D, Hawk 208) and 12 jet trainers across two types (Hawk 108 and MB339) is ridiculously expensive and inefficient. Simplifying to one type, with an already well established support base (the F/A-18) is far more economical and at the end of the day will generate a far better operational capability. Doing similar to align on the jet trainers (assuming you even need them) with something such as the T-50 then makes more sense.
Last edited:
The Su-30 looks impressive on paper and in airshows but what has been the actual operational combat experience with it?
Re the second sentence, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. What I can say is that having had quite a lot of direct experience with support of combat platforms in Malaysia, I would say that the level of support and cost of said support the Malaysians have gotten from the Russians leaves an awful lot to be desired. For instance, the problems with the MiG-29s have been long reported.
That all aside, getting back to the HAL Tejas which is supposed to be the point of this thread, I would simply state that IMHO, introducing yet another fighter type, presumably in small numbers, will only continue to exacerbate the situation. It would be far wiser to consolidate their fleet down to a single fighter type. Ideally this should be one whereby their is a proven support network to sustain. In this case, the F/A-18C/D would be by far the best placed. As to the unpalatable issue of getting second hand aircraft, one at some point needs to temper Nationalistic pride with economical reality.
Last edited:
Well, you actually have to budget and pay for support, and shockingly enough when you don't your planes can't fly anymore, which is what happened with their Su-30s.
Su-30 =/= MiG-29 (let alone, basically Soviet era MiG-29Ns) , so the service comparison is poor in any case.
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
-
Tejas - Light Combat Aircraft avionics
- Started by Stealth Spy
- Replies: 5