Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1837
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 15 Jul 2017 13:28

Cross post from the LCA thread

by Rishi_Tri » 15 Jul 2017 13:15
Great that daily nourishment of LCA news / discussions is back.

Close up of NLCA from AI17. Beauty.

https://twitter.com/RishiTri76/status/8 ... 7614108672


Beauty indeed... with a mean sting

Would love to see lot's more of her and her type.. from our floating and stationary islands

jahaju
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 95
Joined: 26 Apr 2008 18:40

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby jahaju » 15 Jul 2017 16:11

From the LCA Facebook Page
Rahul Kumar: N-LCA was supposed to start wire trapping trials couple of months back.........absolutely no news. Wonder why? At least some new pics.
9 July at 09:47

Tejas - LCA: post monsoon.


UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11380
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby UlanBatori » 01 Aug 2017 03:25

Refugees from LCA dhaga.
So the issue appears to be that IN is holding out for STOBARS-compatible fighters. If you think through this it becomes clear that STOBARS should ****NOT*** be allowed to drive aircraft design. Any way you look at it, the only way to accommodate STOBARS is to take off with much less than your max design fuel+payload. So your real engine/airframe capacity will never be utilized, which is a ridiculous way to design any aircraft. Consider that an engine with T/W 11 will cost a heck of a lot more than one with T/W of 8, etc.

So the only way to handle STOBARS is to use thrust that costs weight only during takeoff. Meaning rocket thrust, used up at takeoff. The rockets must be cheap and swift to attach to the wingtips or under wings. And safe and compact to store a bunch of them on the ship, enough for X takeoffs at max load. The routine flights can be at lower fuel and payload.

The other political implication (sorry CainMarkoji) is that IN is :(( for Shri Brar's eph-35. But I don't want to go there. Even this design carries this huge lift fan around all the time, not at all worth it just to accommodate STOBARS.

The other technical point I see in this thread is that ppl are wondering about STOBARS vs. CATO before deciding how to design airplanes. I think this totally wrong for the reason mentioned above. The choice of STOBARS is very understandable for cost efficiency. Carting a humongous airfield on the ocean needs a nuclear plant and is immensely expensive (and vulnerable). In think in not too distant future, such point-defence force concentrations will become nice juicy targets that cannot be defended, against, say, a shower of hypersonic cruise missiles. Baaad investment at this stage. So even if India goes for 1 or 2 massive CATO carriers, most of the force projection must come from STOBARS carriers which are fine 99% of the time, for interceptor and helicopter and drone operations.

So it's back to RATO. Or a very efficient afterburner which is basically an air-augmented liquid rocket. More on STOBARS in next post.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3507
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 01 Aug 2017 03:37

Cross posting from LCA thread..
UlanBatori wrote:O I C! Now I understand what "STOBAR" means. It cuts down the range and payload of all aircraft. Makes no sense to expect aircraft performance to go up enough to make up for that - in ANY scenario you are sacrificing range and payload, just for that takeoff thrust. (Landing is different, you can use Active Circulation Control to do that at not much cost). I think rocket assist ("RATO"?) is the most obvious solution, to enable full-load takeoff. The propellant weight is gone in the first 20 seconds. Boosting "wet thrust" somehow may also work, I don't know.

ramana: just saw above. Thx. Will do.


UB Saar, iirc the Mig29k, at least the original one did in fact use some jugaad to boost take off thrust and the klimov belted out more than the normal ab thrust of 9 tons to allow the bird to take off with full payload from longer runway of 200 odd meters.

.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11380
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby UlanBatori » 01 Aug 2017 03:40

Well, that is the obvious solution. Frequent replacement of airframe components suggests more bijnej for Pothanur Bullock Carts and Aerospace Structures (Pvt) Ltd.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3507
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 01 Aug 2017 03:41

UlanBatori wrote:
The other political implication (sorry CainMarkoji) is that IN is :(( for Shri Brar's eph-35. .


I'm afraid this might actually be the case..... There are some in the Navy as here on brf clamoring for a soopah carrier..

Rato might be something they should really look at.... Might make it possible to use better aew platforms from stobar carriers too.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11380
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby UlanBatori » 01 Aug 2017 03:58

You know, a US-ishtyle carrier is a city with 3000 to 5000 ppl? Imagine the target value of that to a soosai submarine etc. Now the Carrier Group must be surrounded by anti-aircraft and anti-missile ships, and by a whole lot of supply ships for this huge workforce of ppl. The above is why I said a private meeting between top civilian netaship and top IN netaship may be urgently needed, in a suitable woodshed.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4062
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 01 Aug 2017 09:12

Also such a large ship would be easily sitting helpless in port for 3 years to get refittments/ upgrades etc. Would be such a waste of resources in a short and sharp war, in fact lot will be assigned to protect this sitting duck.

____------------------

Added later:

Secondly I remember reading on forum that both c17 and Rafael are designed in such a way that there is minimum shock to a/c when landing or taking off. That is to prolong the life of aircrafts. Imagine 15 billion dollar 57 AFF (any foreign fighter) having their life shortened due to crash like landings and catapult throw takeoffs?

Didn't Parrikar say that 20 billion is too much for 126 Rafale mfr here? Soho's come govt gets money for 57 fighters.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6835
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby nachiket » 02 Aug 2017 04:46

Manish_Sharma wrote:Didn't Parrikar say that 20 billion is too much for 126 Rafale mfr here? Soho's come govt gets money for 57 fighters.

The govt. had the money for MRCA as well....till the time came to sign on the dotted line. The Navy will learn this the hard way too it seems.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11380
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby UlanBatori » 02 Aug 2017 08:05

Interesting tidbit from another thread about national awards:

The recipients came from a wide range of military, science and armed police forces, including Rear Admiral Ma Mingwei, the leading engineer of electromagnetic catapult for Chinese aircraft carriers;

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4076
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby JayS » 02 Aug 2017 09:47

UlanBatori wrote:Interesting tidbit from another thread about national awards:

The recipients came from a wide range of military, science and armed police forces, including Rear Admiral Ma Mingwei, the leading engineer of electromagnetic catapult for Chinese aircraft carriers;


Interesting indeed.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 06 Sep 2017 22:17

EXCLUSIVE: Indian Navy Officers Scotch Talk Of ‘Bad-Blood’ Killing LCA Navy
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/09 ... -navy.html

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5225
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 06 Sep 2017 22:23

Bharat Karnad's edit:
[ ERRATA — My Wrong. Rear Admiral Ahuja is a certified test pilot, cleared for catobar flying from carrier deck, and among the first to operate the MiG-29Ks, as well as a number of other combat aircraft and even transport planes. This was a grievous error on my part of not researching more fully into RADM Ahuja’s career. Apologies.]

D.Mahesh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 9
Joined: 02 Oct 2016 02:57

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby D.Mahesh » 06 Sep 2017 23:15

Bhai Log, looks like everyone outside BRF takes Bharat Karnad seriously :eek: :shock:

Even Namma Aaalu Shiv Pakoda Bonda Aroor seems to be in awe of him!

Bharat Karnad used to edit Ashok Advani's ill-fated India Week and then he OD'd on Tom Clancy + Clive Cussler and became a Startegic Expert? :rotfl:

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 581
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby rajsunder » 06 Sep 2017 23:45

Neshant wrote:The downside of EMALS.

1. It can ruin airframes.
2. It cost a LOT.
3. At least 2 are needed.

The US Department of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOTE) revealed yesterday, in its end-of-year report [PDF] for financial year 2016, that the EMALS fitted to the new nuclear-powered carrier USS Gerald R. Ford put "excessive airframe stress" on aircraft being launched.



Isn't the whole aim of EMALS is to control precisely the amount of force that is applied to the catapult? If so, then how can it have "excessive stress" on the aircraft being launched.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby negi » 07 Sep 2017 00:04

^ Teething problems with any new tech I won't read much into it , it's a matter of time for USN to get those resolved as too much has been invested into it. My issues are always with people trying to view platforms in isolation , it's like a guy who has 25 lakh in hand and decides to buy a 5 year old 3 series without realizing that just yearly service alone will be 30k INR and any parts to be replaced will make him poorer by at least a lakh. India should first build it's carriers for STOBAR mode ops . It is better to operate two medium sized carriers as against 1 big carrier.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52582
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 07 Sep 2017 00:10

Rakesh wrote:EXCLUSIVE: Indian Navy Officers Scotch Talk Of ‘Bad-Blood’ Killing LCA Navy
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/09 ... -navy.html


I read this in the car on my phone.
I didn't think it scotched anything.
Waste of time.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5225
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 07 Sep 2017 03:01

ramana wrote:
Rakesh wrote:EXCLUSIVE: Indian Navy Officers Scotch Talk Of ‘Bad-Blood’ Killing LCA Navy
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/09 ... -navy.html


I read this in the car on my phone.
I didn't think it scotched anything.
Waste of time.
Same here. Although the error in reporting the experiences for RADM Ahuja were non trivial, no one is ever going to admit to bad blood being a factor in the decision making. What is important to know is even if there was nothing malafide, professional differences exist within the IN itself on the future of the NLCA and a leader's view within the IN and MoD can make a difference.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 07 Sep 2017 03:34

I really like what the Navy has done. It would have been below them to respond to a baseless report. They have sufficiently rebutted it through unnamed officers and that is good enough. The fact that NLCA Mk2 continues is the only thing that matters and IN is supporting that.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11084
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Gagan » 07 Sep 2017 03:55

Conventional steam catapult, screws up the airframes, because of its explosive start.
EMALS is supposed to provide a much more controlled and gradual start, but giving out the same take off speeds.

Ultimately aircraft launched from both, will have a lot more wear and tear as compared to land based planes.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2013
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Gaur » 07 Sep 2017 10:30

ShauryaT wrote:
ramana wrote:
I read this in the car on my phone.
I didn't think it scotched anything.
Waste of time.
Same here. Although the error in reporting the experiences for RADM Ahuja were non trivial, no one is ever going to admit to bad blood being a factor in the decision making. What is important to know is even if there was nothing malafide, professional differences exist within the IN itself on the future of the NLCA and a leader's view within the IN and MoD can make a difference.

I found Navy's reply quite satisfactory. Professional differences do and should exist in all organizations. And after hearing all those differences, any Organization's stand has to be decided by its Leader. Nothing wrong with it.

Moreover, the article attempts to reason with the false perception that the fate of Naval LCA was totally in Navy's hand.
The issue of LCA (Navy) was initially debated at the Naval Headquarters and then in the DRDO HQ wherein both teams [that of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and that of the Indian Navy] made their points. Based on the discussions, the DRDO senior leadership forwarded their recommendations to the then Defence Minister.

So, final recommendations were forwarded by DRDO. Moreover, in all meetings, all parties ranging from IN, DRDO, ADA, NTFC to MOD had their say. So, the point of the article is that there is a process. And to suspect that IN would have any more or undue influence as compared to other parties is a fallacy. As Vidur very rightly stated in another thread:

Don't underestimate the DRDO . They are very good at protecting its turf and was quite a powerful organization.


Hence, one may not agree with the process or it's outcome but to think that decisions are slave to whims of any "one" Organization(DRDO or IN.) are..well "perceptions".

On a unrelated side note, Organizations with huge Unionized workforce did have the ability to exert undue influence on matters of defence. Thankfully, recent news articles seem to suggest that efforts are being taken to minimize that as well.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3391
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 07 Sep 2017 14:56

Is NLCA in its present config overweight - yes or no?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 07 Sep 2017 19:20

Yes.

samirdiw
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 91
Joined: 18 Jul 2017 22:00

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby samirdiw » 07 Sep 2017 19:29

By how much? Is it not possible to trim the weight or improve the T/W by slight modifications in the design (intakes etc)? If yes how long it will take?

I am assuming these basic questions have been asked by the Navy and if yes what are the answers? It can't be the weight but some other dependent characteristics like T/W or something else the Navy is looking for. In that case we want to know what that is.

The question of rejection of the entire line of aircraft should never arise after the Navy having invested so much time but can say the current version doesn't meet the X or Y parameters which it had asked for in the beginning. Also isn't there a range that is good enough?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3507
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 08 Sep 2017 00:35

Good grief. The same thing again. the nlca is obviously overweight. And things are likely to be same with the mk2 nlca. That's why the Navy bailed out despite making such a serious commitment in terms of men and money.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 08 Sep 2017 01:25

samirdiw wrote:By how much? Is it not possible to trim the weight or improve the T/W by slight modifications in the design (intakes etc)? If yes how long it will take?

I am assuming these basic questions have been asked by the Navy and if yes what are the answers? It can't be the weight but some other dependent characteristics like T/W or something else the Navy is looking for. In that case we want to know what that is.

The question of rejection of the entire line of aircraft should never arise after the Navy having invested so much time but can say the current version doesn't meet the X or Y parameters which it had asked for in the beginning. Also isn't there a range that is good enough?

NLCA Mk2 MUST BE DEVELOPED AND FIELDED IN NUMBERS. There is no other way, we can learn to do it. Sukhoi and Mikoyan, as big as they are cannot field good naval fighters because there is no other way but to field a plane, and learn and optimize. Right now only the Americans and the French have cracked the code, and they will not give it to us. The Chinese are on their way and they are ahead of us just because they will try their crap, fail and learn. We are too scared to fail.

From what I have heard NLCA works quite beautifully. They have not trapped it yet. But they can essentially go all day taking off from the ski jump. There are days when they vibrate every window near INS Hansa flying full AB near sea level just below 1M. I don't think they want to spend too much time optimizing the LGs on Mk1. Mk1 will be used to refine all the aspects of CLAW, and the systems. NLCA Mk2 is structurally designed keeping the naval operation in mind. This allows them to have the right mounting structures for the MLG. This in turn enables a simple straight LG design like what you see on the Rafale Ms.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 08 Sep 2017 01:27

Cain Marko wrote:Good grief. The same thing again. the nlca is obviously overweight. And things are likely to be same with the mk2 nlca. That's why the Navy bailed out despite making such a serious commitment in terms of men and money.

Wow! At so many levels.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17949
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 08 Sep 2017 03:17

^^ Ditto. If anyone is looking for the real reason behind the IN's sudden requirement for a naval fighter, look no further than the MiG-29K fiasco. Its yet another example of bad product, support from the Russian side mixed with improper procurement and test regimen from our side, causing a fiasco. Or perhaps the Russians just plain cooked up data to show us. How would we know. Yet we trash completely transparent local programs while taking these guys at face value with only a limited test regime (unless you will buy and test a fighter to destruction).

I still remember the press conference by a MiG bigwig at MAKS arrogantly dismissing the IAFs MiG crashes as entirely due to the IAF not being great enough (to fly those awesome MiGs). Of course, when the IAF trounced visitor western AFs in exercises, these same chaps rushed to take credit.

Not one iota of admission from the MiG side about how many fixes IAF/HAL etc did to fix their product issues or how the Russian side was unable to supply quality spares.

That was the day I "woke up" and stopped looking at these platforms with a starry eye, but also at how they were actually supplied to be serviceable platforms. Smerch, T-90, MiG-29K... the list goes on and on and on.. and yet we don't seem to understand or learn. Or perhaps that's exactly why the IAF now prefers the Rafale to the FGFA.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3507
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 08 Sep 2017 03:33

Indranil wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Good grief. The same thing again. the nlca is obviously overweight. And things are likely to be same with the mk2 nlca. That's why the Navy bailed out despite making such a serious commitment in terms of men and money.

Wow! At so many levels.

Whatever shape the mk2 was taking, the Navy obviously thought it inadequate. Nothing wow about it. Trying to make such a small single engined fighter workable for stobar ops does not seem very viable. Nobody is denying the need for further development, but let it be in a more practical direction please.

samirdiw
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 91
Joined: 18 Jul 2017 22:00

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby samirdiw » 08 Sep 2017 03:44

Thanks, guys. Is it possible to list out the possible parameters for the aircraft that Navy desires and where the Mk1A is expected to be at?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 08 Sep 2017 04:17

Cain Marko wrote:
Indranil wrote:Wow! At so many levels.

Whatever shape the mk2 was taking, the Navy obviously thought it inadequate. Nothing wow about it. Trying to make such a small single engined fighter workable for stobar ops does not seem very viable. Nobody is denying the need for further development, but let it be in a more practical direction please.

^^^ How much do you think SHornet or a Rafale M carry off a ski jump? And if it is a CATOBAR, how does it matter that it is a single engine or a double engined fighter?

I would do just what China did. Field a damn aircraft carrier just to learn how to build and man a aircraft carrier, and test experimental naval fighter jets. India should crank up another Vikrant class.

On practicality, LCA Navy Mk2 is as much more practical naval fighter than Arihant is a practical SSBN. Yet, Arihant is the bedrock of the Aridaman class and a proper follow on 12,000 T class SSBN. Also, if you knew anything about Mao sir, you would not have said anything about practicality.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 08 Sep 2017 04:31

samirdiw wrote:Thanks, guys. Is it possible to list out the possible parameters for the aircraft that Navy desires and where the Mk1A is expected to be at?

The only one you can tell you that Sir, is the Navy itself. But if one has to take a look at the naval fighter competition for 57 fighters, one parameter would be twin engines. But still, I believe the Naval LCA has a place in the Navy and more specifically on an Indian aircraft carrier.

SiddharthS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 04 Sep 2017 15:45

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby SiddharthS » 08 Sep 2017 04:36

That's how the iterative development is done .India cannot and will not get the Naval aircraft right in the first iteration ,it'll have many shortcomings, the key is persistence .At least three iteration will be required to get to the reasonable level. For that navy must have patience and persistence .If it misses the train now and goes for the imported aircraft it'll tie itself to the import cycle ,with every future naval aircraft project being short of few points (being in it's first iteration) justifying yet another import. Iterative development and induction after each iteration is the only way forward.

This is a very crucial moment, supporting NLCA by inducting it at a juncture when it's going through it's first iteration will assure the prospect of reasonable aircraft in the third iteration .

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 08 Sep 2017 04:55

They are not after two engines for reliability. In fact, IN's RFI never specified the number of engines. Modern engines are incredibly reliable. Additionally, recovering even a double engined fighter with a single working engine is very very challenging. You will essentially drop everything, including fuel that would have otherwise reserved for a go around. None-the-less, if a manufacturer can showcase single engine recovery (the Mig-29Ks are capable of the same), then the Navy will give them browny points, but it is not mandatory requirement for replying to IN's RFI.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7354
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 08 Sep 2017 05:00

So a "twin engine" naval aircraft is not necessary? That is good to know.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3507
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 08 Sep 2017 05:01

Iterations have to demonstrate new directions. Doing the same thing repeatedly doesn't give you different results.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3507
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 08 Sep 2017 05:07

Indranil wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Whatever shape the mk2 was taking, the Navy obviously thought it inadequate. Nothing wow about it. Trying to make such a small single engined fighter workable for stobar ops does not seem very viable. Nobody is denying the need for further development, but let it be in a more practical direction please.

^^^ How much do you think SHornet or a Rafale M carry off a ski jump? And if it is a CATOBAR, how does it matter that it is a single engine or a double engined fighter?


I'm not certain but probably as much as the Mig29k which is able to carry it's full payload from the longer runway.

As far as practicality is concerned, I'm trying to emphasize the infeasibility of a very small fighter on stobar ship. It's hard enough making the land version workable as small as it is. This has nothing to do with Maoji, whose effort I'm sure is exceptional.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 08 Sep 2017 05:49

If that were so, why would the Americans and French put those incredibly expensive, heavy and maintenance intensive catapults for?

You can either have full fuel or full payload, but not both.

SiddharthS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 04 Sep 2017 15:45

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby SiddharthS » 08 Sep 2017 05:57

Cain Marko wrote:Iterations have to demonstrate new directions. Doing the same thing repeatedly doesn't give you different results.


Each iteration consist of Research-Development-Testing . Improving iteratively and inducting after each iteration is the way forward. That's how Dhruv mk 1 to mk 3 became Rudra and ultimately LCH ,Pinaka achieved range of 75 km from 45km in its second iteration ,similarly Akash missiles second iteration will have longer range and better seeker , We did not develop Agni 5 in the first iteration either , Same future awaits LCA and Arjun if it goes through it's iterations .

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2015
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 08 Sep 2017 07:00

Rakesh wrote:So a "twin engine" naval aircraft is not necessary? That is good to know.

Admiral - pilots say that the second engine only gets you to the crash scene quicker!


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests