Their requirement is twin engine and tejas isn't.
Idk why navy is opting for TEDBF when it can simply go for Naval AMCA with few modifications?
Or navy really wants more hardpoints?
@Nilgiri
Probably as TEDBF can be developed lot faster. AMCA lot of first principle stuff still has to be made concrete...and then there is question of how it holds up with time in specific naval environment/rigour....or navalised version has to be developed once credibility+experience built up to some degree first with original TDs etc.
Overall I am more interested in seeing what choice IN will make for a dedicated AWACS platform for its carrier wings.
Like what will be the naval NETRA.
ASW is adequately covered now....but there need to be far more aerial sensoring capacity and networking for CBG.
C4I network behind MFSTAR will only be fully unlocked when we have our version of hawkeye....not to mention projection by the naval air groups.
The envelope set by this AWACs choice.... along with what the weapons profile + integration capacity + available sustained flight hours.... available per fighter unit (that succeeds the Mig-29K....be it TEDBF or foreign sourced platform) for next 3 decades...will determine the choice.
If foreign sourced fighter, India will need full cooperation with the provider at very intrinsic level as to what options/plans are available (in coming decades) to deal with evolving technologies at the unit level. This will be some fairly deep RnD analysis, cooperation and trust. They cannot be left hung out to dry given the investment.
People have to look well beyond the unit brochure/specs as far as possible. Some platforms cost lot more because of what will be unlocked in them with time (that India needs to know as fully as possible before commiting)....whereas Mig 29 K is clear example of something stuck in time warp relatively speaking.