TEDBF Program: Indian Navy's Modernization Drive Advances Despite Delays

The Indian Navy's pursuit of a modern, indigenous carrier-borne fighter jet is advancing with the development of the Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF).

Spearheaded by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the TEDBF aims to replace the aging MiG-29K fleet currently serving on the aircraft carriers INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant.

Critical Design Review and Timeline Adjustments​

The ADA is making strides towards completing the Critical Design Review (CDR) for all TEDBF systems by early 2025.

The CDR marks a pivotal phase, ensuring that all systems meet the Indian Navy's stringent performance requirements and are ready for seamless integration.

Following an initial evaluation of two design proposals, the Indian Navy has selected a preferred design that ADA will refine for the CDR process.

Once the CDR is successfully completed, the TEDBF program will receive final approval from the Indian Navy and proceed to the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) for funding clearance.

After CCS authorization, the timeline anticipates the TEDBF's first rollout within four years, with the jet entering service by 2034. Although the original goal aimed for a first flight by 2026, it appears likely to be revised to late 2029 or the early 2030s.

Procurement Plans and Engine Development​

The Indian Navy plans to procure the TEDBF in two batches of 45 units each.

While initial prototypes will likely employ GE-F414 engines, the production version, especially the second batch, could feature a more powerful 110kN engine currently under development for the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) Mk-II program.

To support the ambitious TEDBF project, the ADA is seeking approximately ₹13,000 crores in funding. This substantial investment highlights the importance of this program to bolster the Indian Navy's maritime security capabilities.

Significance of the TEDBF​

The TEDBF program represents a critical step in enhancing the Indian Navy's operational readiness and self-reliance. It will address the urgent need to replace the aging MiG-29K jets.

A successful outcome will provide the Indian Navy with a modern and capable carrier-based fighter jet developed within the country.

This achievement will not only increase India's naval prowess but will also be a testament to its growing technological maturity in the defence sector.

 

[Ashutosh]

Not quite. Easy...

Vikramaditya normally carries 26 fighters and 10 helicopters, though that can be increased to 30-32 fighters if need be (a total of 40 airframes is expected). Vikrant has a similar capacity. Between these two carriers, you would need 60-ish fighters for full deployment plus another 6-8 attrition replacements.

IAC-II will have a similar capacity, though you can probably leave off a few aircraft due to plans to operate UCAVs. Let's assume you would need 30 aircraft here including attrition replacements.

Now, IAC-III would be a 65,000 ton conventional CATOBAR carrier as originally planned some years back. With IAC-II coming in, IAC-III could be pushed back a few years to replace Vikramaditya, and at best, would be a 75,000 ton nuclear CATOBAR carrier. At best, you could carry some 32-36 fighters plus 10-12 helicopters plus UCAVs. Add 4 attrition replacements here.

Hence, between IAC-I, IAC-II, and IAC-III, you would need around 86-90 aircraft here. Now, add another 30 or so aircraft for shore-based use, since we would also have 26 Rafale Ms. That comes to a total minimum production run of 120 aircraft, which could be increased further in case there were export orders (highly unlikely), or if shore-based use was to be stepped up. Even so, the chances of the overall production run exceeding 150 are miniscule.

Are u assuming that the fighter would be available given that naval fighters have horrible availability rates!?
If a carrier carries 18 fighters, then it must have it's own share of 30 fighters so that atleast 15 are available in any more moment

 

[Anant]

MIG-29k is not old but the Indian Navy does not like it.

The aircraft aren't exactly new, Sir. Moreover, the problem with the MiG-29K is that they have serviceability and availability issues. That said, the MiG-29K can probably be stretched out to 2040 if absolutely needed, but anything beyond that would be practically unfeasible.

 

[Sandeep]

Wait for it. The delay “bomb” citing reasons like no funds, no manpower, no water or traffic jam at chowringhee is coming.

Don’t hold your breath

The delay was down to the navy as they had several designs made by the ADA and that took several years to develop despite working closely with the navy.

 

[Sandeep]

Not to forget Covid-19.

Well previously Covid 19 did delay a huge amount of work with all jet development programs along with production of it.

 

[Sandeep]

I think the timeline for TEDBF got messed up because of prioritising AMCA. Tejas mk2 and tedbf, both have seen delays but amca is still on track. I guess its ok, since rafale marine order is finalised. So we wont need tedbf until 3rd carrier gets operational.

No the delay is down to the navy. ADA had to draw up several design sets of the jet which would take several years to do but the navy still couldn't finalise which design to pick until now.

Also there are different and dedicated teams working on each Tejas and AMCA programs separately all of the time so they don't work on the jets in order they are placed.

 

[Sandeep]

The aircraft aren't exactly new, Sir. Moreover, the problem with the MiG-29K is that they have serviceability and availability issues. That said, the MiG-29K can probably be stretched out to 2040 if absolutely needed, but anything beyond that would be practically unfeasible.

It used to have a lot of service and availability issues because the corrupt jihadi party neglected to order the correct parts from Russia in time. It's improved a lot since the B J P was in power and more jets are available when needed.

 

[Sandeep]

The delay is mostly the navy's fault because they had several designs developed by the ADA and navy but just recently managed to settle on one. Now HAL or a private company should start manufacturing the parts and develop the technology as soon as possible because we need to fill the current vacancies on our carriers. It's not good enough that they push back the first flight to 2030 as we need these jets now and for the next 40 years. If they have their first flight in 2030 then it will take several years to test the plane and technology which would take a number of years before it is certified so production could start only in 2033-2035.

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

No the delay is down to the navy. ADA had to draw up several design sets of the jet which would take several years to do but the navy still couldn't finalise which design to pick until now.

Also there are different and dedicated teams working on each Tejas and AMCA programs separately all of the time so they don't work on the jets in order they are placed.

well, I was not just referring to the design. That is the easy part. Prototyping and testing are the most time consuming. India is working on 3 jets at same time. Naturally if AMCA is priority then other 2 jets will face delays.

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

18 will be carried internally, deck pe bhi fighters utha sakte hai

Vikramaditya internally carries 34 fighters and on deck can carry more.

Moreover, the question here is about availablity

Aircraft for Navy need more maintenance and spend quite a good amount of time in maintenance especially after a deployment.

So basically for Vikramaditya only you will need 50+ aircraft so that atleast 30 fighters are available in any moment

Same goes for Vikrant it would need around 40+ aircraft so that atleast 20 of them are available at a moment

30X2= 60( Vikrant and IAC2)
55- Vikramaditya
IAC 3 - 80+ .

Easily crossing the 150 mark and nearing 200

All these numbers are of mobile sea based carriers

Permanent carriers like INS Jatayu and naval bases of Lakshadweep and Andaman Nicobar shall have their own share of fighters

It might get close to 250

I dont know where you are getting these numbers. Max for vikramaditya is 34-36 aircraft. A large chunk of this is supposed to be helicopters, both for recon, AEW, ASW etc. And it is the same for Vikrant. And this is max capacity, in ideal case, the load is lesser.

As for IAC 3, it would carry maybe 15 more aircrafts.

 

[Ashutosh]

I dont know where you are getting these numbers. Max for vikramaditya is 34-36 aircraft. A large chunk of this is supposed to be helicopters, both for recon, AEW, ASW etc. And it is the same for Vikrant. And this is max capacity, in ideal case, the load is lesser.

As for IAC 3, it would carry maybe 15 more aircrafts.

Idk what's the confusion here !?

26- internal with few more on deck
10 - helos and maybe UAVs

still for Vikramaditya only, 45 Mig 29 k are proving to be insufficient all because of availability issues

IAC1 and IAC2 - 18+ fighters so if add the actual no. required for them it simply closes to 70

Queen Elizabeth carries 72+ . So naturally IAC 3 shall too carry 72+ right!?

So if we take the actual no. IAC 3 itself would need more than 100 aircraft for itself.

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

Idk what's the confusion here !?

26- internal with few more on deck
10 - helos and maybe UAVs

still for Vikramaditya only, 45 Mig 29 k are proving to be insufficient all because of availability issues

IAC1 and IAC2 - 18+ fighters so if add the actual no. required for them it simply closes to 70

Queen Elizabeth carries 72+ . So naturally IAC 3 shall too carry 72+ right!?

So if we take the actual no. IAC 3 itself would need more than 100 aircraft for itself.

36 is max including both deck and internal. And Aircraft carriers dont move around with maximum loadouts. They practical amount they carry is 20-30% less than the max capacity.

you are again inflating queen elizabeth numbers. It does not carry 72+. Its maximum is 65- which is fighters+ helicopters. Its normal loadout is less than 50 aircraft (fighter+helicopters).

Again, IDK how you are making statements like "IAC 3 itself would need more than 100 aircraft for itself".

 

[Ashutosh]

36 is max including both deck and internal. And Aircraft carriers dont move around with maximum loadouts. They practical amount they carry is 20-30% less than the max capacity.

you are again inflating queen elizabeth numbers. It does not carry 72+. Its maximum is 65- which is fighters+ helicopters. Its normal loadout is less than 50 aircraft (fighter+helicopters).

Again, IDK how you are making statements like "IAC 3 itself would need more than 100 aircraft for itself".

Why do u think I mentioned the Vikramaditya case!?

I don't know why and how most people totally ignore important things like availability, logistics and Data links, Network Centric warfare.

Do u think that if u bought 26 Rafale- Ms and have them in your inventory that means they are available and ready for deployment!?

I would repeat myself,"Naval fighters have horrible availability".
Understand the meaning of this statement.

There is a reason why almost 50 Mig 29 Ks were bought with plans to extend to 60 all because the 26 Mig 29K carrying Vikramaditya never gets short of fighters.

In any case an aircraft carrier shall have it's own share of fighters and that too atleast twice of what it can carry.

I have over simplified it now, hope u understand the point of availability.

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

Why do u think I mentioned the Vikramaditya case!?

I don't know why and how most people totally ignore important things like availability, logistics and Data links, Network Centric warfare.

Do u think that if u bought 26 Rafale- Ms and have them in your inventory that means they are available and ready for deployment!?

I would repeat myself,"Naval fighters have horrible availability".
Understand the meaning of this statement.

There is a reason why almost 50 Mig 29 Ks were bought with plans to extend to 60 all because the 26 Mig 29K carrying Vikramaditya never gets short of fighters.

In any case an aircraft carrier shall have it's own share of fighters and that too atleast twice of what it can carry.

I have over simplified it now, hope u understand the point of availability.

you talk about naval fighter availability yet you dont point out aircraft carrier availability. look at america. They have 11 supercarriers yet at any given time only 1/3 are deployed. 1/3 are in maintenance and 1/3 are in reserve. If India gets IAC-2 it will have 3 operational carriers, and by the time IAC-3 gets operational, vikramaditya would have retired.

India is going to have 3 operational carriers out of which at any given time 1 will be deployed. On very rare occasions or for exercises, we can see 2 being deployed. Which means 50 fighters at max. at deployment.

 

[Anant]

Are u assuming that the fighter would be available given that naval fighters have horrible availability rates!?
If a carrier carries 18 fighters, then it must have it's own share of 30 fighters so that atleast 15 are available in any more moment

Normally, one can assume a 60-65% availability rate for naval fighters. The thing is that fighters deployed at sea generally have lower availability than land-based fighters due to such things as moisture and sea-spray. This is true more for aircraft parked on the deck than in the hangar, but the challenge persists.

Now, if you are assuming the carrier carries 26-30 aircraft, not all of those may be available at a given point. However, cramming 40 aircraft into the carrier isn't a solution to this.

A lot of those shore-based aircraft I have taken in my estimate would be used as replacements for carrier aircraft as well, with airframes left ashore generally being slightly easier to maintain and enjoying a higher availability rate. Moreover, I have assumed that the Navy will only continue the old practice of having two-thirds to one naval squadron ashore for naval strike missions, and won't increase this number. If they do, well, for each squadron they bring in extra, that is another 18-20 aircraft to be added.

The only scenario where you may see a production line approach or cross 200 aircraft is if the Navy decides to put a squadron each into the Andamans, Goa, Kochi, Minicoy, etc. Not impossible, but certainly implausible.

 

[Ashutosh]

you talk about naval fighter availability yet you dont point out aircraft carrier availability. look at america. They have 11 supercarriers yet at any given time only 1/3 are deployed. 1/3 are in maintenance and 1/3 are in reserve. If India gets IAC-2 it will have 3 operational carriers, and by the time IAC-3 gets operational, vikramaditya would have retired.

India is going to have 3 operational carriers out of which at any given time 1 will be deployed. On very rare occasions or for exercises, we can see 2 being deployed. Which means 50 fighters at max. at deployment.

U r just proving me right!

For 11 super carriers they have more than 37 sq. operational.
Keep this in mind , they use UCAVs UAV and Helos in dominant numbers simultaneously with the fighters

This simply highlights the needs of fighters in high numbers.

Moreover we are much lucky that we have got a good amount of immobile aircraft carriers

 

[Anant]

Kya bol rehe bhai without researching?? Amca 25 tonne, tedbf 26 tonne ...
They already buying 4.5 gen rafale then why new design 4.5 gen fighter jet again?

You are only taking the estimated maximum take-off weight, which is useless in this discussion. Navalising a fighter normally adds between 1.5 and 2.5 tons to its empty weight. Now, add the fact that naval fighters need to have a better range as well (we do not operate carrier-based aerial refuelers), and the fact that our carriers (being STOBAR) would have concerns about weight of the aircraft, you very quickly end up in a scenario where a navalised AMCA would either have to compromise on payload, or armament, or maybe both. That makes it lesser effective as a fighter.

 

[Ashutosh]

Normally, one can assume a 60-65% availability rate for naval fighters. The thing is that fighters deployed at sea generally have lower availability than land-based fighters due to such things as moisture and sea-spray. This is true more for aircraft parked on the deck than in the hangar, but the challenge persists.

Now, if you are assuming the carrier carries 26-30 aircraft, not all of those may be available at a given point. However, cramming 40 aircraft into the carrier isn't a solution to this.

A lot of those shore-based aircraft I have taken in my estimate would be used as replacements for carrier aircraft as well, with airframes left ashore generally being slightly easier to maintain and enjoying a higher availability rate. Moreover, I have assumed that the Navy will only continue the old practice of having two-thirds to one naval squadron ashore for naval strike missions, and won't increase this number. If they do, well, for each squadron they bring in extra, that is another 18-20 aircraft to be added.

The only scenario where you may see a production line approach or cross 200 aircraft is if the Navy decides to put a squadron each into the Andamans, Goa, Kochi, Minicoy, etc. Not impossible, but certainly implausible.

That's quite optimistic, still it leads to numbers more than 150......good enough for TEDBF development right!?

Also One thing I would like to ' point out and deny' is that immobile aircraft carriers will share a good amount with mobile aircraft carriers.

They shall have their own share especially in Andaman Nicobar Islands where a good strike force is important.

 

[Ajath]

Actually India is going 26+114 =140 Rafale bcoz they want some Tech & consultant for AMCA & TEDBF. SoTEDBF may b Inducted over 100 . if Rafale Marine were brought in Excess of 50 . There was less chance to go with Indigenous Naval Fighter project.

114 is meant for IAF. Please dont mix IAF no.s with IN.

 

[Ajath]

India should have gone with just one 5th generation fighter with two variants, AMCA-IAF and AMCA-IN with at least about 80% commonality like Rafale and Rafale-M does.

Too many programs and too much resources, and too many human resources allocation will lead to too many failures for sure.
USA utilizes F/A-18 for USNavy and USAirForce/Marines, and National guards of states.

Too unwieldy to proceed with so many programs at the same time.

You are absolutely correct. With frugal budgets and an over ambitious project coupled with low enthusiasm among the end user is going to prove death knell for IAF and IN modernisation plans.

 

[ABHIJIT APSINGIKAR]

I am now seriously sick and tired of the rubbish "Indigenous Weapons Development Model" as propounded by our PSU agencies inclusive of DRDO, DRDL, HAL, ADA, ADE, and NAL among others. There is hardly any accountability and emphasis on delivery. R&D continues for 10-15 years without any shred of responsibility. Prototype construction itself takes 2 years. Then the sluggish pace of test flights. It's not even as though these bums lack facilities. All the facilities that were requested have been delivered.

I know some people will point out the lack of a flying test bed for Kaveri, but frankly after its colorful record of disintegrating mid-flight multiple times, it's hardly surprising Russians were asking for a kings ransom to test fly it. Till it proves stable output on unmanned platforms it should not go anywhere near a manned platform period.

I am all for assembling components and sub-system assemblies sourced from worldwide suppliers or even allied countries such as Russia, Israel, if it so means that the aircraft will reach induction quicker. There is no point in building a weapon platform fully Indigenously, when it its going to arrive 2 decades late and cannot make any useful impression on the battlefield. By the time it will arrive at the scene the whole technology itself would have evolved and this would then turn into a irrelevant platform that will only be inducted because it was "FULLY INDEGENOUS".