Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Nov 2019 08:01

Rahul M wrote:Conjecture aside, do we actually have any idea what the study for navalizing AMCA concluded ??

This is worth exploring in addition to whether navalizing the AMCA has been totally given up or simply deferred until the system is more mature and after the 4+ gen. aircraft have been fielded. Perhaps Bala Vignesh can provide some insight into what the IN may have considered as part of their schedule and risk trade..

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 28 Nov 2019 13:11

Rahul M wrote:Conjecture aside, do we actually have any idea what the study for navalizing AMCA concluded ??

No information on this in public domain. All we know is that IN wanted NAMCA. ADA was not confident and wanted a 4G aircraft program. ADA was supposed to have made AMCA keeping in mind NAMCA by their own admission of the lessons learnt through LCA/NLCA, key design features like - MLG attachment points spread wider, preferably near the wing root joint, wing design capable of low approach speed and so on, which cannot be changed later (In fact these features actually give positive impact on the AF version as well as we can see in case of Rafale or Gripen-NG). Its easier to replace LG with a stronger LG, strengthen local structural components, replace some alloys, recertify LRUs for Naval applications, even have bigger wing/control surfaces of same fundamental aerodynamic design, if the original design has key interfaces designed for easy navalisation. Whether they have done it or not, if not, why not, we don't know.

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 29 Nov 2019 15:34

Navy LCA Tejas with 2 Derby and 2 R-73 missiles

https://twitter.com/DRDO_India/status/1 ... 42688?s=19

srai · Post by **srai** » 29 Nov 2019 17:55

^^^
New Derby carriage at the inner-most wing pylons

Previously, it was mid-wing pylons.

You can also see how close the main landing gear is to the inner-most pylons. No space for larger 1200/800-ltr external fuel tanks.

disha · Post by **disha** » 29 Nov 2019 22:46

^NLCA Mk1 is an excellent LIFT. Once it completes both phase I testing of landing and take off in clean configuration on Vikramaditya, IN must go ahead and order at least 18 NLCA Mk1 as LIFT.

I think that is a no-brainer!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Nov 2019 02:31

The NLCA reminds me in a way of the A-4 Skyhawk which was the USN's light carrier fighter. We wanted it for the old Vikrant but the US refused to sell it to us.That sent the venerable Seahawks and Alizes into glory in '71.
A first batch of the NLCA , one sqd., should be ordered/built once it completes its carrier trials. These aircraft could be very useful as reserves too, once both the VikA and Vikrant are operational, in case the balloon goes up. Along with the 29Ks around 65 to 70 aircraft for the two carriers.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 30 Nov 2019 14:44

Cain Marko wrote:What I don't get is Why the hell did it take so long for the Navy to come up with a twin engined designt for their carrier fighterr equirement? When aam Abduls could tell that neither nlca mks1 or 2 would have cut it on stobar?

^^^ True dat! Admiral has made that point as well. If we knew that M29K was needed in 2004, why didn't they start work on twin engine back in the day or 5/7 years ago when they were trying to kill the NLCA.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Nov 2019 23:18

disha wrote:^NLCA Mk1 is an excellent LIFT. Once it completes both phase I testing of landing and take off in clean configuration on Vikramaditya, IN must go ahead and order at least 18 NLCA Mk1 as LIFT.

I think that is a no-brainer!

A combat capable LIFT that too!

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Dec 2019 01:40

Philip wrote:The NLCA reminds me in a way of the A-4 Skyhawk which was the USN's light carrier fighter. We wanted it for the old Vikrant but the US refused to sell it to us.That sent the venerable Seahawks and Alizes into glory in '71.
A first batch of the NLCA , one sqd., should be ordered/built once it completes its carrier trials. These aircraft could be very useful as reserves too, once both the VikA and Vikrant are operational, in case the balloon goes up. Along with the 29Ks around 65 to 70 aircraft for the two carriers.

The Scooter was subsonic but it could launch from an Aircraft Carrier, fly and deliver about 1000 kg of ordinance, some 1100+ km out and return without requiring external refueling (J52/E). In fact, that is about 80% of what the F-35C does for the USN at the moment when it operates in Stealth configuration (be it with about 2x the A-4's payload) so the performance was quite impressive for the time. It could do so because it could still launch from an AC even at >2.5 times its empty weight. The NLCA can survive as a LIFT with residual combat capabilities and who knows, if and when a CATOBAR carrier is fielded it could be upgraded and retained for more serious combat operations when it could launch with a bigger payload..

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 01 Dec 2019 01:46

could a JATO assisted takeoff be done? with a mechanism to loose all the JATO related attachment be dropped in air in case of hostilities.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 01 Dec 2019 02:52

Cybaru wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:What I don't get is Why the hell did it take so long for the Navy to come up with a twin engined designt for their carrier fighterr equirement? When aam Abduls could tell that neither nlca mks1 or 2 would have cut it on stobar?
^^^ True dat! Admiral has made that point as well. If we knew that M29K was needed in 2004, why didn't they start work on twin engine back in the day or 5/7 years ago when they were trying to kill the NLCA.

Well this is the time tested technique of the forces to “handle” domestic weapon programs.
1. Introduce delays by shifting goal posts
2. When the product is finally ready after 30 years ask for some new capability - ERA armor in Arjun and IFR probe in LCA ( when there aren’t any available for MKIs and M2ks ( 6 were bought for 600 fighters) and the new radomes
3. When product even jumps through these final hoops, ask for next gen as Mk1A/2 and never release orders claiming variance from SQRs.

So in 10 years, a lot of us will be lurking watching newbies grapple with IAF orderon F-X or M-X or SU-X as the mainstay and asking for Mk3 as the version that it would buy 200 a/c of in 10 years.

So the Navy started out as the better of the forces wrt local purchases but is now in the same boat as the other two. The twin vs single engine issue should have been decided in the 90s. But sab chalta hai! Chai biscottis anyone?

Back to Lurk mode.

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Dec 2019 12:52

Given the Inner-most wing pylons restricted space on NLCA MK.1, typical payload configuration would probably be more along these lines.

Air-to-Air

wing-outer-most —> 2 x CCM
wing-mid —> 2 x 800-ltr tanks
wing-inner-most —> 2 x BVR
centerline —> 1 x 720-ltr tank (subsonic & supersonic) or 2 x BVR

Strike

wing-outer-most —> 2 x CCM
wing-mid —> 2 x 800-ltr tanks
wing-inner-most —> 4 x 250kg or 2 x 500kg munition
centerline —> 1 x 720-ltr tank (subsonic) or 1 x ASM

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 01 Dec 2019 13:43

Naval Tejas gets airborne with weapons, ready to operate from aircraft carrier by March

The navy, however, does not intend to induct the single-engine Naval Tejas Mark I into service – it is merely a test-bed for the aviation systems that will equip the twin-engine Naval Tejas Mark 2. The navy wants the safety back up of a second engine, the power to get airborne with more fuel and weapons, and a longer operating range.

“Using navy-specified technologies matured with the current Mark I, we are developing a twin-engine Mark 2 version, which we are calling the Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TED-BF),” said Deodhare.

With the current Tejas’ single General Electric (GE) F-404 engine replaced by two, more powerful, GE F-414 engines, the TED-BF will be a far bigger and heavily armed fighter.

The current Tejas Mark 1 gets airborne with a total “all-up weight” (AUW) of 14 tonnes. The air force version of the Tejas Mark 2, which will have a single GE F-414 engine, will have an AUW of 17 tonnes. And the navy’s Tejas Mark 2 (or the TED-BF), powered by two GE F-414 engines, will have a beefy AUW of 24 tonnes, says Deodhare.

ADA is targeting 2025-26 for the first flight of the TED-BF. The navy wants the fighter to be inducted into service by 2031, to replace the MiG-29K/KUB that currently flies off INS Vikramaditya and will also serve on board the first indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant, when it is commissioned in 2021.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 01 Dec 2019 16:50

At AUW of 24T and 2xF414, TEDBF will be a hot rod superior to MiG29K and it might surpass perhaps even Rafale in every respect, given superior TWR and clean sheet dedicated Naval design from scratch. An Airforce version of TEDBF is sure to make IAF drool. We should definitely cancel MMRCA2.0 if this fighter can see induction around 2030. The opportunity cost in terms of a few years is worth paying over a complete dependence on a foreign country.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 01 Dec 2019 16:54

^^+1000

I think neither Raffy nor FA18 fit the lifts of both the carriers and this is forcing IN to go clean sheet and given that In wants twin engine, it doesn't have any other option.

That FA18 is a beast though, 12000 hours of flight with deck landings must be something.

chola · Post by **chola** » 01 Dec 2019 17:01

JayS wrote:At AUW of 24T and 2xF414, TEDBF will be a hot rod superior to MiG29K and it might surpass perhaps even Rafale in every respect, given superior TWR and clean sheet dedicated Naval design from scratch. An Airforce version of TEDBF is sure to make IAF drool. We should definitely cancel MMRCA2.0 if this fighter can see induction around 2030. The opportunity cost in terms of a few years is worth paying over a complete dependence on a foreign country.

Agree but we need that local engine for full independence. I hope we are serious there as well.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 01 Dec 2019 19:55

Goes without saying. But let's get the Fighters done, so our forces are completely locked in the desi programs forgetting about the imports. Engine program can be run separately and engine designed as a drop-in replacement as an when its available. I think everyone understands the need of it, but I feel people are simply clueless about how to proceed about it. We need babus and mantris who can loosen purse strings and scientists in DRDO with can-do attitude given resources. I am tired of people saying this is not possible, that it not possible.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 01 Dec 2019 20:39

Any idea on the status of NP-5 and when it is expected to fly?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 02 Dec 2019 02:12

JayS wrote:At AUW of 24T and 2xF414, TEDBF will be a hot rod superior to MiG29K and it might surpass perhaps even Rafale in every respect, given superior TWR and clean sheet dedicated Naval design from scratch. An Airforce version of TEDBF is sure to make IAF drool. We should definitely cancel MMRCA2.0 if this fighter can see induction around 2030. The opportunity cost in terms of a few years is worth paying over a complete dependence on a foreign country.

+100..

if the 24,000 kg figure is the frozen MTOW, then this will be an aircraft with eye-watering performance with 2 X 98 kN AB thrust engines. If somehow they could manage not to have a wing folding mechanism, the TEDBF will be easily able to attain +9G performance. Nevertheless, acceleration and climb rate will be truly something.

At 24T MTOW, it is right in the middle of the Hornet (23,500 kg MTOW) and MiG-29K (24,500 kg MTOW). The Super Hornet, OTOH with 2X F414s has a MTOW of 30,000 kgs..TEDBF will likely have the same installed thrust, but carry a lot less structural weight and payload, which means superlative thrust to weight ratio.

I too would hazard a guess that none of the MRCA contenders seem to offer anything over this. If the program is on track to achieve an in-service date of 2031, then the IAF would be tempted to dump the never-ending MRCA that isn't going anywhere and instead go for an Air Force version of the TEDBF to partly replace its huge Su-30MKI fleet as they begin to age.

Don't know if I should be so optimistic, but I think we may have a winner here!

nam · Post by **nam** » 02 Dec 2019 04:43

There will be more twin engine lca in IAF colors, than in IN.

IAF will not replace 24 250kg at once, carrying Su30 with AMCA.

I really hope atleast this one would be built at TASL. HAL can handle mwf and amca.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Dec 2019 05:07

It will only be an MKI replacement if it can carry about 8-10 tons of fuel and similar amount of external payload.

For IAF the AMCA is better bet and more future proof. Why would they use a less stealthy airframe if they don't have to. I could be wrong, but I think IAF's choice of higher stealth is the right move. TBDEF is a compromise solution for Indian navy, given it's very specific needs.

If anything IAF just needs to add 20/30 more MKI and 36/54 Raffies and used platforms like qatari m2k and upg 29 instead of buying MRCA to get over the drop in numbers instead of waiting 10 years when all these will fructify. But this is a naval thread, so back to that.

chola · Post by **chola** » 02 Dec 2019 07:54

TBDEF is a compromise solution for Indian navy, given it's very specific needs.

I notice people get the name wrong a lot on multiple forums. This is truly a horrible acronym.

Just remember it's "TED" as in the common Amreeki/Britshit name and "BF" as a teenage girl would call her boyfriend. So just think "Ted boyfriend" and you'll get it right -- TEDBF.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Dec 2019 08:13

We have 4x "primary" programs now, MWF, TEDBF, AMCA, Ghatak/AURA. I is happy. This is enough to give sufficient depth and scale to the desi aero components and aerospace industry, to add to the 123 Tejas and perhaps a few more Tejas LIFT.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Dec 2019 09:48

chola wrote:
TBDEF is a compromise solution for Indian navy, given it's very specific needs.
I notice people get the name wrong a lot on multiple forums. This is truly a horrible acronym.

Just remember it's "TED" as in the common Amreeki/Britshit name and "BF" as a teenage girl would call her boyfriend. So just think "Ted boyfriend" and you'll get it right -- TEDBF.

After the first "T" I was trying to just follow alphabet sequence with an occasional drop like "C". It is some 5 letters starting with T

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 02 Dec 2019 11:29

Kartik wrote:
JayS wrote:At AUW of 24T and 2xF414, TEDBF will be a hot rod superior to MiG29K and it might surpass perhaps even Rafale in every respect, given superior TWR and clean sheet dedicated Naval design from scratch. An Airforce version of TEDBF is sure to make IAF drool. We should definitely cancel MMRCA2.0 if this fighter can see induction around 2030. The opportunity cost in terms of a few years is worth paying over a complete dependence on a foreign country.
+100..

if the 24,000 kg figure is the frozen MTOW, then this will be an aircraft with eye-watering performance with 2 X 98 kN AB thrust engines. If somehow they could manage not to have a wing folding mechanism, the TEDBF will be easily able to attain +9G performance. Nevertheless, acceleration and climb rate will be truly something.

At 24T MTOW, it is right in the middle of the Hornet (23,500 kg MTOW) and MiG-29K (24,500 kg MTOW). The Super Hornet, OTOH with 2X F414s has a MTOW of 30,000 kgs..TEDBF will likely have the same installed thrust, but carry a lot less structural weight and payload, which means superlative thrust to weight ratio.

I too would hazard a guess that none of the MRCA contenders seem to offer anything over this. If the program is on track to achieve an in-service date of 2031, then the IAF would be tempted to dump the never-ending MRCA that isn't going anywhere and instead go for an Air Force version of the TEDBF to partly replace its huge Su-30MKI fleet as they begin to age.

Don't know if I should be so optimistic, but I think we may have a winner here!

I don't think its possible to avoid wing folding.

Airforce version of TEDBF will likely have MTOW of at least 26T and if the wings could produce enough lift, possibly more. At least the thrust wont be an issue. Given its a clean sheet design specifically for Naval application, its bound to have mouth-watering slow speed performance, during landing and TO. And imagine its combat performance in A2A mode with 4-6 AAMs and 50% internal fuel with the kind of high TWR and low Wing loading. We could potentially have a fighter superior in kinematic performance than MiG29/Rafale and much higher growth potential with more power and possibly larger size for more electronics to pack in it. We could make powerful dedicated EW platforms based on TEDBF for both Naval and AF applications. Endless possibilities.

If TEDBF can take TO from Ski jump, it will have far better MTOW from CATOBAR. A CATOBAR version is relatively simple modification from a STOBAR.
My wet dream -
- It makes all the sense to simply order 36 more Rafales and close the case on it.
- Cancel MMRCA and 57 Naval jet tenders.
- Put full force behind LCA/MWF/TEDBF/AMCA.
- Make sure the Forces' seat down with DRDO/HAL and get the blueprint for next 30yrs worth of Fighter development based on these four platforms and UCAV/UAVs. Tell them all that no more imports in unequivocal terms.
- Make sure red tapism is cut, enough funds are available.
- Tell Pvt industry that this is the only chance they are gonna get. So either be ready to take up work packages from these projects or F off. Facilitate those who are willing. I'm sure there are a lot of firms who are willing, if GOI ensures stable business.
- Hold DRDO/HAL accountable for timelines and IAF/IN for commitments. Work on an engine for the entire set of Fighters. Very crucial.

We can have a beautiful future built out of it.

PS - Please don't spoil my dream by making negative comments on it. Let it last for at least a week.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 02 Dec 2019 11:43

Cybaru wrote:It will only be an MKI replacement if it can carry about 8-10 tons of fuel and similar amount of external payload.

For IAF the AMCA is better bet and more future proof. Why would they use a less stealthy airframe if they don't have to. I could be wrong, but I think IAF's choice of higher stealth is the right move. TBDEF is a compromise solution for Indian navy, given it's very specific needs.

If anything IAF just needs to add 20/30 more MKI and 36/54 Raffies and used platforms like qatari m2k and upg 29 instead of buying MRCA to get over the drop in numbers instead of waiting 10 years when all these will fructify. But this is a naval thread, so back to that.

We don't need to replace MKI for quite a while. And MKI replacement cannot be a 4G fighter. It will have to be a 5/5+ generation fighter. Too long into the future for now.

IAF still wants 114 4G multirole fighters and possibly more. So there is a business case for TEDBF based fighter for AF as well. AMCA has its own space in IAF which is stealthy missions like DEAD/SEAD/Strike missions. There is no clash between the two there. But there is a space for non-stealthy platform. Because even AMCA wont remain stealthy with external payloads and we are definitely going to need Fighters with external loads for a lot of missions when the shit will hit the fan. TEDBF can be more capable than MWF and more stealthy than Su30MKI. IOW, our own Rafale-esq capability that IAF is so much smitten by.

Whatever junk we buy now, the old M2K and MIG29, they will be outdated in 10yrs from now anyhow. Starting in 2030s we are going to need a massive replacement program. MWF will not cover the whole spectrum. TEDBF can de-risk AMCA program. And its not gonna remain a mere 4 or 4.5G platform. We can and will be infusing some of the 5th and 6th Gen capabilities in it, mainly on the electronics and the weapons side, but also in materials. With cost effective desi solutions in MWF, TEDBF and AMCA, IAF can truly dream for 50+ Sq force in 2030s with all the capabilities the want.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Dec 2019 16:35

srai wrote:^^^New Derby carriage at the inner-most wing pylons. Previously, it was mid-wing pylons.

The LCA Navy Mk1 was designed from the time Project 71 was known as Air Defence Ship. So the role of the current fighter is A2A and unlike the IAF Tejas configuration of inner wing drop tanks, mid wing BVRAAM and outer wing CCAAM, LCA Navy Mk1 has BVRAAM in both inner and mid wing pylons, outer wing CCAAM and centerline drop tank.

This is also corroborated in ADA documents used in JayS & Indranil's article

Indranil wrote:The navy wants the safety back up of a second engine, the power to get airborne with more fuel and weapons, and a longer operating range.

Given that range and payload operating from an aircraft carrier are the biggest considerations of the IN, the LCA Navy Mk1 is being tested in its lightest possible operational configuration of 4 Derby, 2 R-73E and centerline drop tank.

Also refer the buddy refueling of MiG-29K in IN 2019 video, it is to extend the range

https://twitter.com/indiannavy/status/1 ... 9306825729

Buddy refueling is inefficient because it uses internal fuel from another aircraft. The pod just houses the pump, hose and drogue.

This is the reason why a larger fighter is requested.

Single engine is not a concern for LCA Navy Mk1 as its GE F-404 IN20 has a wonderful FADEC and BITE and has never given cause for concern on any LCA test flight ever throughout the development cycle. Tejas has flown long sea sorties enroute and back to Bahrain and Malaysia flown by Mao and Shivnath.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 03 Dec 2019 16:46

tsarkar wrote: Buddy refueling is inefficient because it uses internal fuel from another aircraft. The pod just houses the pump, hose and drogue.

TSarkarda,

In the buddy refuelling role, wouldn't the MiG29K actually carry 4 drop tanks on the inboard pylons and just orbit overhead the Carrier or may be set up an orbit in a pre-determined position ahead of the strike package?

I agree with you that it's inherently inefficient but the fuel it transfers could be from external tanks as well, not just restricted to internal fuel alone, imo.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 03 Dec 2019 17:20

Depends on whether the refueler can take off with the extra tanks. Refer 0.08 of video, the refueler is in clean configuration.

Reminded me of my village where children of affluent people going to school are accompanied by children of EWS carrying their bags, tiffin & books who dont get to attend classes. But I diverge from the topic here.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 03 Dec 2019 21:45

tsarkar wrote:
Given that range and payload operating from an aircraft carrier are the biggest considerations of the IN, the LCA Navy Mk1 is being tested in its lightest possible operational configuration of 4 Derby, 2 R-73E and centerline drop tank.

It probably is also the max that NLCA MK1 can TO with. But we need to see about that. We will only know when ADA flight tests from AC for MTOW. They should have a fair bit of idea now as well from the simulations, but so far there is no talk about MTOW of NLCA Mk1 from Ski jump that I could locate.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 24 Dec 2019 11:42

HVT in one tweet mentioned that NLCA has performed many "overshoots". Landing is eminent on Vik.

Overshoots mean the aircraft comes to flare altitude, and goes around without touching.

I guees there will be some touch and go, and then landing.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Dec 2019 11:55

Approaches just short of touch and go. I had reported this too. The plane is fine in the wake of the carrier.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 24 Dec 2019 12:09

Isn't 'overshoot' for carriers technically when an AC touches down and either misses the arresting wire or the arresting wire snaps and the AC has to take off again (also called Bolter in US carrier slang)?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Dec 2019 13:41

Yes. Overshoot a little more and you will just fly over the runway. This is what they do during testing. There will be overshoot, followed by touch and go (bolter simulation with hook not deployed), followed by trap.

kit · Post by **kit** » 24 Dec 2019 14:05

JayS wrote:At AUW of 24T and 2xF414, TEDBF will be a hot rod superior to MiG29K and it might surpass perhaps even Rafale in every respect, given superior TWR and clean sheet dedicated Naval design from scratch. An Airforce version of TEDBF is sure to make IAF drool. We should definitely cancel MMRCA2.0 if this fighter can see induction around 2030. The opportunity cost in terms of a few years is worth paying over a complete dependence on a foreign country.

same thoughts here.. the TEDBF could be a percursor for a heavy fighter for the IAF .. Advanced Heavy (stealth?) Fighter !

kit · Post by **kit** » 24 Dec 2019 14:08

Also i do hope all the simulations for carrier aircraft on the shore based facility and the Vikram can be used for a future unmanned carrier fighter !

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 24 Dec 2019 14:31

Indranil wrote:Yes. Overshoot a little more and you will just fly over the runway. This is what they do during testing. There will be overshoot, followed by touch and go (bolter simulation with hook not deployed), followed by trap.

Ah. So is 'Overshoot' of training (on land) the same/close to 'Go round'/'Wave off' of Ops (on carrier)?

mody · Post by **mody** » 24 Dec 2019 19:00

NLCA with a load out of 1-800Ltr centreline drop tank, 4 BVR and 2 CCM would be decent enough for providing air defence cover for the carrier task force. How much internal fuel they carry would matter, though.

In fact I have never seen pictures of the Mig-29K with any kind of ordinance, apart from 2 R73s operating from the Vikramaditya.
About 16 NLCA would be a good complement to the Mig-29K till the TEDBF come along in 10-11 years.
Add another 16-32 Tejas MK1/1A for the IAF, along with the proposed 21 Mig-29s, 12 Su-30MKI and 18-36 additional Rafael and we can kiss the whole MMRCA circus goodbye.
The production at HAL can also be ramped up to 24 LCAs per year, from 2021 onwards, with a good production run for another 6 years, till the MK2 production starts.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 24 Dec 2019 20:32

Which world we live in? LCA will not get produced more than handful a year. Even after being certified, it is taking years to order, even after committing 8 or 16 0 have been flying (FOC) and 3/4 of Fiscal year is over.....
No body is serious (except for people here at BR) and this is not a joke, but reality...

srai · Post by **srai** » 26 Dec 2019 12:29

NLCA with a load out of 1-800Ltr centreline drop tank, 4 BVR and 2 CCM would be decent enough for providing air defence cover for the carrier task force. How much internal fuel they carry would matter, though. ...

What would be the combat radius of such a configuration? 300km? 400km?