Naval Fighters
INDIA’S QUEST FOR AN INDIGENOUS NAVAL FIGHTER
Cdr Sandeep Dhawan (Retd)
Mon, 20 Jan 2025
The first Indian naval air station, INS Garuda, was commissioned in May 1953. However, it wasn’t until 1959 that naval aviation received its first fighter, the Hawker Sea Hawk. This was followed by the formation of INAS 300, the White Tigers, which consisted of 36 Sea Hawks. The Sea Hawks saw action during the Goa Liberation in 1961 and the Bangladesh Liberation in 1971, operating from India’s first aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant.
The Sea Hawks were decommissioned in 1983, and the Indian Navy had to wait five years before inducting the BAe Sea Harriers in 1988, which gained fame during the Falklands War. A total of 30 Sea Harriers were integrated into INAS 300. As the Sea Harriers neared the end of their operational life, the Indian Navy began receiving MiG-29K fighters in 2009, acquiring a total of 45 jets, including MiG-29KUB trainers. However, due to unsatisfactory performance with the MiG-29Ks, the Indian Navy has decided to procure 26 Rafale Marine jets and is expected to finalise these orders in the coming months.
The Quest for Indigenous Fighter
The Indian Navy faced resource constraints that hindered the development of an indigenous fighter jet, making it more practical to rely on imported deck-based fighters while receiving support from the Indian Air Force from shore. The Jamnagar-based No. 6 Jaguar Squadron and the Thanjavur-based No. 222 Su-30MKI Squadron are at the forefront of maritime operations.
Meanwhile, the Navy continued its pursuit of an indigenous fighter. In 1983, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) initiated work on India’s second indigenous fighter program, the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). The LCA prototype completed its first flight test in 2001 and received operational clearance in 2011. The Indian Navy became involved with the program early on. The NP-1 prototype was rolled out in 2010, and its first flight occurred in 2012. The NP-2 took to the skies in 2015.
The Indian Navy planned to acquire 50 deck-based aircraft for the aircraft carriers INS Vikramaditya and the under-construction Vikrant. Additionally, the Navy invested $22.4 million in six naval Tejas aircraft. Unfortunately, the underpowered Tejas did not meet the stringent requirements for a deck-based fighter, leading the Indian Navy to withdraw from the program.
Birth of a Twin-Engine Deck-Based Fighter
In response to the unsatisfactory performance of the Naval Tejas in 2020, the Indian Navy initiated the design of a dedicated naval fighter known as the Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF). The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), based in Bengaluru, has been entrusted with the design of this fighter.
While the project has received clearance from the Ministry of Defence (MoD), it still awaits critical approval from the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS). The TEDBF is scheduled to undergo a Critical Design Review (CDR) by mid-2025. Upon successful completion of the CDR, the project will be presented to the CCS for funding approval. The ADA is seeking funding ranging from ₹13000 to ₹15000 crore for this initiative.
The ADA has classified the TEDBF as a 5-minus-generation fighter. It features a canard delta wing design, is semi-stealthy, and is built as a twin-engine fighter jet capable of achieving air superiority. Its intended roles include anti-ship operations, electronic warfare, and anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) missions, as well as support missions. The advancements in the Indian Air Force’s Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) program have also helped the TEDBF programme in many ways.
The TEDBF features advanced stealth capabilities essential for operational effectiveness in hostile environments. Its design includes radar-absorbent materials and blended surfaces to reduce radar cross-section (RCS). Twin engines minimize infrared (IR) emissions, enhancing protection against detection by heat-seeking missiles.
A key innovation is the diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI), which automatically adjusts for optimal engine performance, increasing thrust and fuel efficiency, especially at high speeds. Innovative serpentine air intakes improve stealth by concealing engine fan blades and optimising airflow, contributing to lower RCS. These intakes also enhance performance across varying altitudes and speeds.
Additionally, the TEDBF is equipped with advanced electronic warfare (EW) systems that jam and deceive enemy radar and communication, enhancing survivability in contested environments. Overall, the TEDBF showcases cutting-edge aerospace technology, positioning the Indian Navy at the forefront of modern naval aviation.
Commercial Viability
When evaluating the feasibility of a fighter jet programme, three key terms should be considered: Program Unit Cost (PUC), Unit Procurement Cost (UPC), and Operational Cost. PUC is calculated by dividing the total program cost by the total number of aircraft produced. In contrast, UPC is determined by dividing the cost of the most recent production contract by the number of aircraft included in that contract, which typically excludes most research and development (R&D) and support costs.
A comparison of various fighter jet programs:
| Aircraft Type | UPC (Million USD) | PUC (Million USD) | Program Cost/Units |
| F/A-18 | 78.4 (2007) | 95.3 (2005) | 44.03 Bn, 462 |
| Rafale-M | 67.8 (2005) | 145.7 (2005) | 8.72 Bn, 60 |
| AMCA | 80-100 (estimated) | 60 (estimated) | ~6 Bn, 125-200 |
| LCA Tejas Mk1 & 1A | 40, 79 | 30, 23 | 1.2 (40)1.9 Bn (180) |
| Tejas Mk2 | NA | NA | 1.2 Bn, 120-250 |
| TEDBF | NA | NA | Expected 2 Bn, 100 |
In the long run, the cost per flight hour can significantly impact the viability of a programme. The estimated cost per flight hour for the F/A-18 Super Hornet ranges from $10,000 to $24,000. This range is influenced by factors such as mission complexity, maintenance requirements, fuel consumption, spare parts, and support infrastructure. In comparison, the cost for the Rafale-M is estimated to be between $16,500 and $19,000 per hour. The cost per flight hour for the F-35, however, is considerably higher, ranging from $38,000 to $50,000 depending on the aircraft variant. Currently, there is no data available regarding the cost per flight hour for the TEDBF or AMCA.
Getting back to the advantages of local production, we can consider the example of the indigenous production of the Su-30MKI. Many people compare the Su-30MKI produced in India by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) with those produced in Russia. While the Su-30MKI in India may have higher initial costs, it provides long-term benefits such as self-reliance, local job creation, and potential export opportunities. On the other hand, acquiring the Su-30 directly from Russia may seem more cost-effective initially, but it does not offer the same strategic and economic advantages as domestic production.
When examining the production and operation patterns of various fighter programmes, several facts emerge. Firstly, aircraft designed by a single country are not necessarily more expensive than those developed through international cooperation. Additionally, single-nation development does not guarantee lower costs, as evidenced by the fact that U.S. fighters like the F-35 and F-22 are significantly more expensive than European fighters such as the Rafale-M and Gripen. Furthermore, long production runs do not always result in less expensive aircraft. Thus, maintaining continuity in development is the best way to avoid cost overruns. Finally, development costs are influenced more by the management and development history than by the aircraft’s actual capabilities.
The Challenges
India faces a significant challenge in achieving self-reliance in defense manufacturing, particularly in developing advanced aero engines, which are crucial for the performance and reliability of fighter aircraft. The Kaveri engine, developed by the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) since the 1980s for the LCA, has encountered numerous technical issues and has not met performance standards, leading the Tejas to depend on an American-supplied GE engine.
To address this, the DRDO has sought partnerships with international firms like France’s Safran and the U.S. General Electric to expedite indigenous engine development. However, India has already faced two years delays with the GE F404-IN20 engine for the Tejas Mk1, anticipating similar issues for the Tejas Mk2 and AMCA programmes.
The Way Forward
