Bharat Rakshak

In 2003, based on the progress made on the Air Force LCA Programme the Govt approved Phase-1 development of 2 LCA Navy Prototypes that would operate from an aircraft carrier with the concept of Ski-jump Take-off and Arrested Recovery (STOBAR). Navy actively supported this Challenging programme to design, develop, build and flight test a carrier borne aircraft for the first time in the country. The two prototypes under development would be used to demonstrate that the aircraft is capable of operating from a ship, i.e., carrier compatible.

The question often asked is ‘what are the changes in LCA(Navy) in comparison to the Air Force version?’ Typically the aircraft will get airborne in about 200m over the ski-jump on the ship as against a land based take-off run of about 800m. Landing on the ship is with an arrester hook on the aircraft engaging an arrester wire on the ship and the aircraft stops in 90m which is about 1/10th land based stopping distance.

Unlike shore based take-off and landing applications, typical ship borne requirements imposes large loads on the aircraft structure which entails new design. Also, the nose section of the aircraft is drooped down in order to have better pilot vision for ship landing. Whilst the external aerodynamic shape of the aircraft is same as the Air Force Trainer, the internal structure is entirely different due to larger loads resulting from carrier operations. However, all Mechanical, Avionics and Flight Control system layout are by and large common with the Air Force version. The design of LCA(Navy) has been performed in a 3Dimensional Computer Aided Design (CAD) concurrent engineering environment. A Digital Mock Up (DMU) of the aircraft was ultimately created which had all the internal equipment laid out. This helped in visualising possible areas of clash with various system groups and the structural interfaces due a possibility of ‘virtual walk through’. No physical mock up has been built. Due to first time design, there could be additional reserve factors taken as a conservative measure, but would be optimised based on experience in the future prototypes. This would result in significant weight savings.

Areas identified as challenges over and above the Air Force Version were structural design, Landing gear design, arrester hook, introduction of a new control surface (LEVCON) and ski-jump take-off. A case in point for Naval specific activities was the development of large sized landing gear forgings. Midhani had to develop the special tooling and processes and provide the special steel forgings. In addition, Bharat Forge, Pune provided the near shaped forgings of the major landing gear elements. These have been fabricated at private companies at Hyderabad and landing gears have been assembled at HAL (Nasik). Some of the typical challenges encountered during the development cycle, resulted in them taking longer than anticipated. However, today these have been resolved and we all await the aircraft’s rollout in the presence of the Hon’ble Raksha Mantri and the Chief of the Naval Staff.

In its primary role of Air to Air combat, the aircraft will carry both Close Combat Missiles (CCM) and Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Missiles. In its Air to Sea role, the aircraft will carry Anti Ship Missile (ASM). The aircraft can carry external fuel drop tanks to increase range and endurance. The aircraft can carry a wide variety of bombs based on role requirement.

To meet specific Naval testing, new test facilities have and are being developed. A new landing gear drop test facility has been created to handle testing to Naval requirements for qualifying larger landing gear loads. A hardware-in-loop simulation for flight control system testing called ‘Iron-bird’ has been set up and functioning. In this facility, entire hydraulics, flight control system and avionics would be integrated for the evaluation of the software. The Avionics and Weapon test rigs have been suitably modified to test the changes in system layout and architecture required for the Naval version. Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF) to simulate an aircraft carrier with ski-jump and arrested recovery is being set up at the Naval Air Station at Goa. The ski-jump facility is expected to be ready by the last quarter of 2011 and the landing area a year later. Goa Shipyard Ltd is handling the complete structural work, system integration and operations. R&D Engineers and CCE(R&D) west Pune are handling the civil works. Specialised equipment supply is from Russia in order to have the same configuration as on the Vikramaditya.

It is critical to demonstrate carrier compatibility to infuse confidence in the Indian Navy that we indeed have a Carrier borne aircraft and towards that it is critical to demonstrate ski-jump take off and validate the simulations that have been carried out by the control Law team. Navy has defined the Mission and Performance requirements expected of the aircraft. As mentioned earlier, due to first time design, there may be shortfall in certain parameters with the current engine. Two more LCA(Navy) prototypes has been sanctioned by the Govt in Dec 2009 with a higher thrust engine to enable meeting the Mission objectives set out by the Navy.

The act of ‘Rollout’ is a significant milestone in the development process of an aircraft wherein it is structurally complete, equipment installed, plumbing and wiring completed. The aircraft is on its wheels and can be moved by assisted power and is a precursor to the phase of ground based system integration testing leading the engine ground run, taxi tests and flight. Every effort is being made by all the stake holders to have the maiden flight in 3 to 4 months time.

This day of NP1 rollout has been possible with the active involvement of HAL as the Principal Partner of ADA and support by DRDO, CSIR labs, CEMILAC, DGAQA, Public and Private sector industries, Educational Institutions and a host of other agencies. I wish to salute all of those who have contributed as a composite LCA Navy Team in realising this important milestone and look forward to the same spirit to take the aircraft towards its maiden flight at the earliest.

It is often said that there is only 15 per cent difference between both versions. The Navy has always maintained that it may be 15 per cent in terms of material and systems, but it is a substantial part. And they [ADA] underestimated it.

“It is scheduled to fly this month. Many challenges are new and we are taking them head on.”

<SNIP>Everyone blaming HAL, ADA etc have to stop and think what these folks are being paid and why we expect them to have sacrificed pretty promising careers outside, and then have to take flak for "not being committed enough". SO hire folks who will be committed and pay them the right amounts and attention (and of course FUND the programs well enough) to ensure they can deliver. Piecemeal funding will result in delays, and that is a golden rule that no one from either side of this divide can deny. imho, ADA et al are to a lesser extent to blame for these delays.

In hindsight, it would have been easier to design the naval variant first and then quickly move onto the air force variant and not the other way around. Our initial estimates on the amount of work required on the Naval variant were not quite accurate and the programme gave us some surprises

rohit, I dont buy that. There is a lot of difference between land based and aircraft carrier based planes. IN having operated aircraft should have realised it and insisted on comprehensive oversight. I can timage throwing some specs and wait for a plane to show up. Weren there any periodical program reviews in the last few years? From both articles the plane is mostly new and totally new infrastructure for testing and mfg has come into place. Did all that happen without the IN senior leadership being unaware?

A chinese saing goes"When you point a finger, three are pointed to you!" I add the thumb is skyward towards chance or act of god.

Rohit, you are fully entitled to your anger and opinions. My point is simply that blaming the developers for every delay is not right. Without funding on time, without client/user guidance, without clear goals and a fully staffed team, no large-scale project can succeed. This is borne from my experience, especially working on large-scale GOI projects.

Not sure what you mean by bringing in ISRO or Arjun? Were they not fully staffed or funded? Of course, they weren't... and that they succeeded is a testament to the teams involved. Surely you cannot claim the same for the LCA project, and one cannot blame the team for all ills. It's just what the DDM does, and I for one, cannot agree with Rajat Pandit or his followers on such views.

A balanced view of the project is all I ask of you.

For people advocating more funds for the LCA program: Is the bottle neck for the LCA program insufficient funds?

Sridhar, this could be the usual case of 15% change requiring 85% additional work? Both IN/ADA look at the 15 percent number and take way very different things from it.

Is the NLCA so heavy that it wont even fly?

Aerospace America puts IIT especially the one in Madras in one of the top aero institutes in the world in undergradaute teaching.

When he asked me to be his official number two for the HF-24 project I refused his kind offer. He wanted to know why not and I said that it was because no one in HAL listened to the test pilot.

HAL had tried to clear the aircraft for four-gun firing. The vibration level in the aircraft when firing four guns was frighteningly high, almost violent, during butt tests. The traces of flight test records showed very high amplitudes. Yet HAL had cleared it.

In the current environment, there appears to be lesser support for indigenous development (as opposed to the earlier decade) than for outright purchases.

How should that be brought about?

rohit, I dont buy that. There is a lot of difference between land based and aircraft carrier based planes. IN having operated aircraft should have realised it and insisted on comprehensive oversight. I can't imagine throwing some specs and wait for a plane to show up. Weren't there any periodical program reviews in the last few years? From both articles the plane is mostly new and totally new infrastructure for testing and mfg has come into place. Did all that happen without the IN senior leadership being unaware?

A chinese saying goes "When you point a finger, three are pointed to you!" I add the thumb is skyward towards chance or act of god.

The CNS clearly says that challenges to developing a naval fighter were always known. Stopping atleast 6500 kg at 120 knots within 90 meters will require structural strengthening of most parts. It will definitely require more than 15% part change/redesign.

CNS/user angst is for trivializing that complexity by making bombastic statements like Naval Tejas will be realized with re-design of 15% parts. Like the designer who came up with empty weight 5000/5500 kg.

Because such overtly-optimistic statements impact further activities/development roadmap, and any error further magnifies further down the road.