Bharat Rakshak

I am sure he knows it and must derive a lot of satisfaction for having made his contribution towards that. I always remember him as a smiling, pleasant man and a very good teacher and researcher and of course highly respected.

Even here they are consulted. Not just IITM.

Ramana saheb, There are regular meeting apprising of the situation and actions to take. Everyone is in the loop. But Naval Chief mostly don't go through the nitty-gritty. His role is more of a ringmaster. So his action is to see whether something happened or not. These things are part of the business and the only difference is that now he voiced that in public. Somebody made money by selling that as news. And we, ordinary people, burden ourselves on such news. I have to concede that he is polite compared to ex Air chief.

There are always theories on how to go about a project. I stress on theories becoz they are just theories which has not been put into effect. Otherwise if successful we will be following those. So these theories are bandied about on both success and failure of any projects by even members withing the development team who don't agree with what happened. So if there is success, there is going to be someone who is going to say, I told you so. And similarly there is going to be others who will say the same words when there is failure. These are part & parcel of any projects any where. Success has many fathers - a known saying.

Regarding 15% details, everyone can express their opinion in binary. But Proj Mgm team can't work based on binary answers. I can comment on how huge the work needed is or disagree that it needs more wrok, but i don't exactly know how much of work needed to finish that. But Proj Mgm team need details to work on the resources needed, timelines, series of actions to take etc. So in case of such uncertainties you fix on a point what is known as best possible and make projection based on that. So these 15%, 20% figures are based on that. To borrow a line, there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns. What kind of accurate projection one can give on unknown unknowns. So these comments like, "this project was sold or misguided on wrong commitments and everybody knows its not going to happen" falls into this category.

To bring out a live example, in Capt Maolankar speech at AI-II, he talks abot LEVCON and flatter approach speed curve Vs weight that was promised by designers but expressed that he doesn't believe in that. So what shall we do in this case? We take such opinions and burden ourselves to think its not worth the effort to make or criticize the team for not putting enough efforts to convince everyone beforehand? Or carry on with what we have, with what we know to learn and overcome any mistakes that comes by? You tell us which is the path these developers should take?

The whole comments surrounding this project is like this - half baked. Becoz no ones which one works correctly. Everyone struts around saying what they think is right. Since these kinds of projects which huge uncertainties always slips the timelines, everyone are very eager to pat their back saying, I told you so, as if thinking that they had some remarkable foresight. But when comes to fixing the project timelines/resources need, it is the same story.

No lynching - it is a fair opinion, and I happen to agree with it.
[RANT ON]I can understand the IAF wanted something smallish as a MiG-21 replacement and so they went with the LCA "smallest/lightest" goal. But what constrains the Navy from going slightly bigger? I would hardly be surprised if this is just the start of their problems for NLCA. It is hard enough to build an LCA for the IAF, and now we want to do the same for naval ops, that too STOBAR ops! Effin' nuts - is it any wonder that almost every CV operating today has twin engined fighters barring the Shar? And no, please don't cite the JSF- they are having problems enough - not to mention it is being developed by those who have a century's worth of experience in making fighters, not to mention it operates with CATs. Twin engined a/c are good not only in terms of safety but also tend to provide greater thrust - a critical requirement for STOBAR ops. This bird is going to need some v.serious power and fuel fraction. Even if they get the F414, it is going to be damned tight - perhaps they will use the EPE? What will that mean in terms of intake redesign?

NO, imvho - the development for the NLCA should've been around a twin engined design - start testing out with two GE-404s or even RD33s, and later progress to Kaveris. Something stable and known. Use the experience gained via the Mig-29K development in which the IN was such an integral part.

I think the IN is just as much to blame as the ADA in this - it wasn't just the ADA that wanted "lightest/greatest" this time - the IN too seemed all for it knowing fully well that by pushing for a tiny single engined bird, you are completely bucking the trend. The CNS can complain all he wants, but perhaps he should have complained a LOT earlier.

Sorry if I come across as cynical about the LCA - don't have much confidence in this. It was/is hard enough to get a decently powered landbased LCA for the IAF, and now they keep the same constraints where power is even more critical. Let us see...[/RANT OFF]

^ CM, the basic constraint is the engine. Type of fighter you can field is dictated by the propensity for the engine you like to have. And i guess you know the background of LCA/Marut pgm. Seccond, it is made as a replacement of MiG-21 but on the lines of Mirage-2k. So a small a/c. Navy has to start some where to have their own ind. a/c. It is the smartest and easiest thing to cling on from AF LCA project. Once they made a start, they can go for what they wish. Naval LCA Mk2 will be to their expectations.

the problem would be still nLCA using the leaky turbo engine ge-404 variant for the prototypes.

Kanson ji,

We have the following variants of LCA MK I (AF, Navy, Trainer). Is the plan to rev each version independently to MK II (AF->AF II, Navy -> Navy II, Trainer -> Trainer II)?

On top, MK I needs to clear IOC 2, FOC.

Looks like too many variants are going on in parallel ADA team must be a restless/sleepless bunch

Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 1776 Test Flights successfully. (08-Feb-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-212,PV3-330,LSP1-67,LSP2-198,PV5-36,LSP3-46,LSP4-44,LSP5-63)

from

LCA-Tejas has completed 1774 Test Flights successfully. (02-Feb-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-211,PV3-330,LSP1-67,LSP2-198,PV5-36,LSP3-46,LSP4-43,LSP5-63)

After a long time PV2 has flown. LSP4 after the weapon trials has flown now. The regular suspects PV3/LSP5 havent flown
Meanwhile, from the ADA website the MK1 director has changed from Shri Prakasha to Shri JJ Jadhav

Thanks SuryaG. Always look forward to your posts.

The paint color is interesting..not the usual yellow that we see when they do first flight

More important than that news from Tarmak007 is the upcoming article detailing the technical challenges that were faced. Pic looks like some kind of static test on the landing gear assembly.. Awaiting details!

[Self Delete]

NP is probably what is slowing down LCA....esp with the comment that ADA/HAL is giving too much imp to IAF version

Good .. atleast they have learned a lot of lesson which will be helpful in FGFA / LCA MK2 ...

The NP-1 has a separate team and is in no way related to the AF team(on HAL's side). Infact each A/C has its own team of flight test engineers and my ex roomie works on the NP-1 and he has been busy ever since the roll out. I am not sure about the ADA guys but i believe they have a separate team too. The roll out actually happened with a lot of haste and my personal opinion(and my friend's too) is that it was done to maybe please the belligerent media. But now things are looking very good for the N-LCA, infact the NP-1 and PV-6 both have the same team and the PV-6 also is in an advance state of development and you may hear the good news soon(relatively). Side by side NP-1 looks sexier (and different mainly) than the PV-6.

PV - 6 ???

weaponized trainer!

How is it going to be different from the regular trainer? I thought the trainer is combat capable just like any other Tejas?

Cheers....

An MMR, stations wired for missiles and other weapons, EW suite, in all its like a twin seat LSP-4

RaghuK if not classified, what is common between our MMR and EL 2032? because there is lot confusion.

Has the r-73 tests been done at Goa. Will PV-6 be testing Derby integration?

Assume the nLCA program had succeeded, was on time and in capability roughly equivalent to the AF LCA Mk-I. So for mumble billion dollars for the carrier, escort group and support tail we would be able to throw at the enemy - all of a couple of dozen nLCA.

Unlike the AF where the LCA would form the lowest part of the capability matrix - the nLCA is supposed to be the spearhead of the surface navy. Why was the navy willing to accept the low capability LCA to crown the umpteen billions of CVBG investment?

The case for AF LCA is clear. What was the argument for the nLCA?

without catapult, Mig29K and nLCA are the only two options for ADS1.
given the problems in Mikoyan, perhaps it was felt good to have a Plan-B with an eye to the future also.

ADS2+ might be bigger, but ADS1 will have a 50 year lifespan. can you take bets if Mikoyan will exist in 20 years and what is after sales service will be ? they have no new project, no funding barring Mig29 rework and its clear Sukhoi is the one going fwd with pakfa and pakda.

Ummm, in India the carrier protects the escorts. Let me explain.

Other than US and French navies that had full spectrum capability carriers, UK, Russia and India have modest expectations from its carriers.

UK carriers were ASW to protect shipping channels vital to Britannia and later Harriers to protect the Seakings. They could support limited campaigns like Falklands where Argentinian aircraft had limited ToT because of range from their home bases.

Russian carriers provided air cover to their missile carrying cruisers and submarines. That is why even their carriers carried a huge missile load.

Similarly Indian carriers with limited ~ 20 fighters deployed at peak strength will not be able to maintain a high strike offensive tempo. The carriers & Harriers were to protect the missile carrying Missile Craft/Corvettes/Frigates/Destroyers from Exocet armed Mirage 5 and Harpoon armed Orions. That is why Kora class carries an amazing 16 missiles per ship and no air defence. They would be protected by the Harriers. So Viraat escorts Kora, rather than the other way round.

Now LCA/JF-17/Gripen old gen/US F-5/MiG-21/J-7 performance specs are just better that modern AJT/LIFT. These are deliberately designed with modest capabilities to serve limited roles. NLCA will do fleet Air Defence with its 4 Derby and 2 R73, Anti Shipping strike and LGB strikes in support of amphibious ops. Both carriers will not carry sufficient aircraft to sustain intense campaigns.

How can one only mention Derby and completely forget the Astra Mk1 and MkII?

Yes, this is somewhat the point, however, the NLCA will not be the spearhead for the IN. That will be either the MiG-29K OR the newer acquisition, an RFP for which has been sent out. Point is, with a small airframe and small engines, they really have to manage to keep the weight down or it'll be tough - jmt though.



I think the Rafale could be very likely option as well. While it does not operate STOBAR as of now, it has more than enough power (better than the MiG-29K or Su-33) to do so. IIRC, the IN had evaluated it way back, and it was the price that had made them choose the Fulcrum.



Probly because the Astra is nowhere in sight as of now?

I guess, it will be.

Is it not stated that bulk of nLCA will be of Mk2?

It is mentioned that nLCA Mk2 will fulfill their mission requirement.

It is been the expectation & demand of IAF that, whether it is Su-30, MMRCA or LCA mk2, though they are classified as heavy, medium and light, they all will have standard capabilities. IOW, LCA Mk2 is expected to face the same opponent and take part in std ops like of that MMRCA and Su-30. JMT.

So this is completely new! There never was a PV-6 AFAIK.

So there are three views on nLCA.

1. A long term backup alternate for MiG-29K (in itself a 'forced' choice for Gorshkov). Seems eminently reasonable.
If so what priority could one resonably expect from ADA for nLCA. i.e. must-have AF version vs plan B naval version?

2. The 'ADS' carrier doctrine is one which I thought was now discarded and originally used to fly under the IAF opposition to fleet air arm. The ADS view was quite true in the Harrier-carrier days but unlikely to hold true for the future. IAC2 onwards carriers are likely to be large ships equipped with catapults. More would be expected of them than just fleet defense. The IN will see the induction of Barak-2MR and Barak-2ER equipped ships (probably P-17A) which are entirely adequate for fleet air defense. The fleet air arm can surely be used more offensively than now.

Vikki is covered by MiG-29K. IAC2 will require something better than nLCA. This leaves ViraatVikrant as the likeliest carrier whose primary armament would be nLCA. It is interesting to note that Fulcrum purchase is sufficient to cover both Vikki and ViraatVikrant needs.

3. IN wanted something better than nLCA/MiG-29K (suggestion is Rafale) but could not purchase it due to Russian stipulation of Russian sourced airwing and cost. If this was the primary reason then what is the position today.

raghuk, do you know what is the status of LSP-7? Is there a possibility of it flying in the next couple of months. I am rather more interested in seeing the AF version get closer to induction quickly than the Naval version. The navy already made it clear that only the naval version of the MK2 will be inducted. The NP-1 and it's brothers will only be used for solving the technical challenges in developing a naval fighter so that the Mk2 naval version development would be smooth. In any case with 45 Mig-29Ks coming in, the navy is not going to be short of aircraft anytime soon.

I highly doubt the Viraat will ever host the NLCA or any other aircraft besides the Harrier. It is up for retirement as soon as the Vikramaditya is operationalized and what's left of the Harriers will serve till then.

The NLCA will most likely serve on the IAC1/2. It's smaller size may enable them to carry more aircraft. They might carry a mix of NLCAs and whatever other aircraft that the navy decides to buy, if it does. The NLCA can take care of fleet air defense while the larger aircraft can be used for anti-shipping and land attack.

I meant Vikrant not Viraat. Corrected it above as well.


Yep, nLCA could be used to flesh out the numbers a bit. I am just not sure how much sense it would be to have air group of two different types in small numbers. I wonder if the tradeoff of a few addition wings against additional complexity is worthwhile.

There was. But it wasn't known that this would be another twin-seater that would be used for weaponisation trials of the twin seat trainer.

PS Subramanyam interview from F mag

It s going to be a very long time before the NLAC will serve aboard an IN carrier.In the "hot and high" environment and stringent launch and recovery systems of STOBAR carrier ops,the NLCA will need a more powerful engine than the IAF version,to be able to carry a useful load of ordnance with sufficient range and endurance as well. One cannot see an IOC date before 2017/18 at the earliest,if at all and there was one report which said "2020" would be the date of induction! We already have the MIG-29K in service (for sceptics) ahead of the arrival of the Gorky and totally a figure of about 50 on order to equip the Gorcky and IAC-1.Upgraded versons of these are bound to appear with the next lot,if the IN after operating them finds them fitting the bill.By 2020 also,the naval variant of the FGFA will hopefully also be available.At that time,who will want a 20 yr.old design in the form of the NLCA? Its delayed arrival hs and will accelerate its diluted relevance and as the years pass,increase its obsolescence.

The AURA programme,if envisioned to have a naval aspect also,similar to the USN's X-47B,will revolutionise IN carrier warfare if and when it arrives.many moons ago I mentioned that using the LCA's experience,we should develop a UCAV version out of it.One hopes that something similar is being done with the AURA.

Hot and High means High temperature an High Altitude. How can a carrier at sea level be at "high" altitude?

The runway is small obviously, but the Navy is going to induct the Mk2 version only. The F414 should provide adequate power to the Mk2 Naval version to enable it to undertake unassisted takeoffs from carriers, unless the Mk2 is significantly heavier than the Mk1.

My, my. Picky .........................

The ramp is 'high' above a leveled sea. And, if you really want it 'high' then base it in the land of the fair: Russia. Surely you will agree that Russia is WAY above IO.

Anyways, ............................................

nLCA, no matter what even the CNS says, the IN cannot drop this ball. Granted statements have been rather misleading, but, like the other LCA this is going places. IMHO of course.

The difference between LCA and NLCA is something like the difference between civilian nuclear power reactors and submarine nuclear reactors. It is more complex and room for manoeuvre is less.

As regards power, it will use the engine used for LCA MKII and any shortage still will have to be compensated with a lower weapon load

Hi, Can you tell us something about LSP-6?

Thanks! I missed that somehow.

ADA will have a nice set of aircraft to test technologies on once serial productions start for the IAF and Mk1 development is considered complete.

He!He! I enjoyed those missiles,I guess quite a few of us are at a "high" alt. indeed! Someone once asked me what weed I was puffing.

NR,Nachi,The "high" point of my post was the relative inferiority of the NLCA when compared with Chinese naval Flankers (which it will confront when operating in the Indo-China Sea) which have a service ceiling of supposedly 18,000m,as opposed to the LCA at 16,000m.The LCA in current form with its underpowered engine is going to be no match when confronted with a Flanker which outperforms it almost in every aspect .Taking of from a carrier STOBAR style puts added limitations to its performance.If the aircraft was available to be inducted within a couple of years ,it would be worthwhile given the fact that the carriers too are delayed in arrival.Looking at the new aircraft under development by our principal enemy,by the end of the decade,the IN I'm sure would want something far more potent than an NLCA.Even the MIG-29K by 2020 will need to have a more capable sister naval fighter,preferably of the stealth variety.

Having sunk in 900 crores into the project,the IN certainly wants its pound of flesh,but it may have to like the IAF,wait and wait and wait,until the NLCA is perfected. Looking at the amount of differences between the two variants,I am not that optimistic.It would require herculean task to accelerate dev. of the NLCA to meet a cut-off date/timelines after which its relevance reduces by the day.