LCA News and Discussions

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 07 Jul 2010 22:02

Kartik wrote:
Kanson wrote:LCA & Harrier, both have similar dimensions though span and height are bit higher. I guess, it can be accomodated in the same hangar & lift as the one with Harrier and both are having similar payload. Take off for the LCA could be bit long but can be operated from Viraat. So the point is if there is delay from Groky and IN intended to keep the Viraat longer than planned, LCA can be operated from Viraat as Harrier is in depleted strength. What is the current Harrier strength, 7 or 6 ?
how will an N-LCA land even if does manage to take off from the Viraat ? The Viraat has no arresting wires and will require costly and time-consuming refit to be modified with an arresting wire if it were ever done. I'm also not quite sure about the Viraat's lift's fitting N-LCAs..they have unfolded wings and their span may well be larger than the lift's width or the clearances may be too small (just mentioning another factor that may be needed to be considered). The Sea Harrier's wing span is 7.7m whereas that of the N-LCA is 8.2 m. That's 0.5m more than the Shar.

Dear Katik

We are talking abt HMS Hermes, right ? Is Sea Harrier the only operated a/c from this ? See, the first important criteria to operate an a/c is the length, size and strength of the flight deck. Hangar and Lift comes next. More than one source indicated the length required for the LCA is 200 m. When IAC-1 was still known as ADC the planned flight deck length was around 200+ m and it is meant to operate only SHAR and LCA with dimension, size & displacement very similar to HMS Hermes. The then ADC became IAC-I as Mig-29K came along. HMS Hermes was originally a CATOBAR. If needed it can be refitted for arrested recovery. AFAIK, it was planned to operate throu this coming decade after life extension in 2009.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jul 2010 22:04

Naval Tejas can/should be capable of carrying Kh-35U/Harpoon block 3 possibly even the Kh-31 anti-ship variant and similar anti-ship missile , most likely they can also integrate a single klub , thats a good antiship firepower if backed by numbers.

Most fighters in the world will never be able to carry Brahmos that does not make them any less offensive , there are many ways to achive the same objective.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jul 2010 22:23

kanan, suggest you lurk around and restrict posting to newbie thread for the time being. else you run the risk of being the butt of jokes or worse. it's an honest suggestion so take it in the right spirit.

as far as brahmos goes, NO in-service or planned naval aircraft is going to carry one AFAIK. the STOBAR take-off could itself rule out such a long missile, even if we ignore bringback weight.
of course, it's irrelevant for LCA, as Austin lists it would have enough missiles to choose from. also add nirbhay to that, as and when it appears.

kartik, the viraat operated bucaneers in its earlier birth as a CATOBAR ship, wonder what their width was when wings folded. but I guess Philip saar's suggestion is the most practical one, the amphib forces could do with some punch.

negi · Post by **negi** » 07 Jul 2010 23:07

^ It operated Sea Vixens too (larger and heavier than NLCA) in fact even a F-4 Phantom has successfully landed on Hermes. But it underwent a major refit and was converted to a amphibious assault ship (CATOBAR removed along with straightening the deck ), later 12deg ski jump was added for SHar but angled deck was never restored as STOVL AC do not need one.

Kanson initial estimates for ADS were drawn around SHar's capabilities(NLCA was not in picture as far as ADS was concerned) the revised design caters to the Mig-29K operating requirements it remains to be seen if NLCA matches/betters those (a low wing loading should help but might affect handling in rough sea state at low altitudes specially during landing approaches).

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 07 Jul 2010 23:18

The mid-deck lift on the Viraat is ~15m x 13m and the forward lift is ~16m x 11m. IIRC the Viraat still has the belowdeck arrangements required for Barrier Arrested Recovery. Though I am not sure if it will ever be done for the Viraat.

IIRC the Viraat and the SHARs were to be retired together.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 07 Jul 2010 23:31

Kanson wrote:
We are talking abt HMS Hermes, right ? Is Sea Harrier the only operated a/c from this ? See, the first important criteria to operate an a/c is the length, size and strength of the flight deck. Hangar and Lift comes next. More than one source indicated the length required for the LCA is 200 m. When IAC-1 was still known as ADC the planned flight deck length was around 200+ m and it is meant to operate only SHAR and LCA with dimension, size & displacement very similar to HMS Hermes. The then ADC became IAC-I as Mig-29K came along. HMS Hermes was originally a CATOBAR. If needed it can be refitted for arrested recovery. AFAIK, it was planned to operate throu this coming decade after life extension in 2009.

yes we're talking about the ex-HMS Hermes. The flight deck is possibly large enough to operate N-LCA's, that is not likely to be a problem. The problem I'm talking about is the dimensions of the lift. With a 0.5 m larger span and non-folding wings, the N-LCA may or may not fit on the Viraat's lift. if it doesn't fit on the lift, operating N-LCA's from INS Viraat is possibly going to be non-starter as a modification to the lift would be a big affair.

IAC-1's first avatars (or ADS not ADC, Air Defence Ship as it was first known) would've had a lift designed from the beginning to accommodate N-LCA's, so that point of comparison is moot. Anyway, the current IAC-1

And I said that modifying the Viraat to get arresting wires would require a refit which would take time and cost. I didn't say that it was not possible at all. Those arresting wires and their mechanisms were removed from the HMS Hermes when it was meant to operate only Shars.

Regarding how long it will operate, I haven't read that the Viraat will go on through 2010-20, though I could be wrong. I thought that it will most likely be retired once the INS Vikramaditya is in service.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 07 Jul 2010 23:40

>>Kanson initial estimates for ADS were drawn around SHar's capabilities(NLCA was not in picture as far as ADS was concerned) the revised design caters to the Mig-29K operating requirements it remains to be seen if NLCA matches/betters those (a low wing loading should help but might affect handling in rough sea state at low altitudes specially during landing approaches).

Nope. You may check the old articles on this. Fist incarnation is meant for SHAR, latter SHAR + LCA and then MiG + LCA. NLCA handling exceedes that of MiG-29K. The reason it moved from 20K+ ton displacement to 37k ton displacement is to accommodate MiG-29K.

>>IIRC the Viraat and the SHARs were to be retired together.

I think, that was before the 2009 life extension refit. 1999 life extension refit was to run the ship till 2010. So this refit, i think, if IN plans well goes into end of coming decade. Anyway this all depends what IN wants.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 07 Jul 2010 23:52

>> The problem I'm talking about is the dimensions of the lift. With a 0.5 m larger span and non-folding wings, the N-LCA may or may not fit on the Viraat's lift. if it doesn't fit on the lift, operating N-LCA's from INS Viraat is possibly going to be non-starter as a modification to the lift would be a big affair.

Always you have the option of placing the a/c diagonally rather than longitudinally if that is the problem. You will get the extra desired space. As per shalav, it has enough space.

>>And I said that modifying the Viraat to get arresting wires would require a refit which would take time and cost. I didn't say that it was not possible at all. Those arresting wires and their mechanisms were removed from the HMS Hermes when it was meant to operate only Shars.

It better to spend that time & cost rather than parading the empty Viraat with no or less than required strength. If I have the LCA ready and there is life in Viraat, def i would try spending the cost on getting arresting wires. What is the current strength of Harrier ? I heard the strength is in fast depletion.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 07 Jul 2010 23:53

shiv wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:er... brahmos is almost as big as the LCA!
So Brahmos can carry LCA no?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 07 Jul 2010 23:59

jamwal wrote:Is radar signature of NLCA any different from LCA or it's trainer version ?

might be slightly higher thanks to the higher surface area of the canopy and consequently that of the cockpit. Cockpit reflections are a big source of RCS.

karthik · Post by **karthik** » 08 Jul 2010 00:05

The Naval Tejas canards look little different, i wonder what advantage it give over the regular canard in the LCA?

Also they have not even tested the AOA of the aircraft yet how are the betting on the performance of the LCA if the angle of attack tests have not been carried out? One of the test pilot claimed it will experience flame out at 28degs and not that 28deg aoa is great by any standard! I hope they test it soon.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Jul 2010 00:08

And BEHOLD the genius! Strategic SSM being compared to an Anti-ship missile! For ur kind information, Rafale-M has 9500 Kg payload, Su-30 MKI and Super Hornets have 8000 Kg payload! Any Naval strike aircraft has good Payload!(though MKI is not Naval)

Ever heard of the term sarcasm? He’s mocking your BS post.

Vivek, what is the point of comparing the fighters that have retired from most Air forces round the world with the one we are going to use in the future?! Remember that Brahmos has become our premier anti-ship missile ( also to be used for land attack) and hence an airborne Brahmos platform for the Navy makes so much sense! That is why airforce is integrating Brahmos into MKIs!

What is the point? The point is that it’s a light fighter. It occupies less space, weighs less and hence light aircraft carriers without catapults can also operate it with a useful payload. That’s the point of a light fighter. It can carry other smaller and lighter anti-ship missiles so its not like if it cannot carry Brahmos then it’s useless in the anti-shipping role (which is only one role for a naval fighter). Not being able to carry one specific over-sized and overweight weapon doesn’t mean that the IN has no use for it. The very fact that you’re saying that and even trying to defend such an asinine statement pretty much sums up how much you know about naval aviation or the use of air power for a navy.

Since when did the ability to carry Brahmos come to define what is good and what isn’t for a naval fighter? So if the IN contracts for the F-35C or F-35B and they cannot carry the Brahmos then they must be useless too no? Even the newly inducted MiG-29Ks are not much use for the navy since they cannot carry the air launched Brahmos. Even if a F-22 N variant were available, your logic would basically render it as being useless for a navy.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 08 Jul 2010 00:16

The LCA does not have canards, and the NLCA has LEVCONs.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Jul 2010 00:20

karthik wrote: The Naval Tejas canards look little different, i wonder what advantage it give over the regular canard in the LCA?

They’re called LEVCONS. Please do read earlier discussions on this (maybe just a page or two before).

Also they have not even tested the AOA of the aircraft yet how are the betting on the performance of the LCA if the angle of attack tests have not been carried out? One of the test pilot claimed it will experience flame out at 28degs and not that 28deg aoa is great by any standard! I hope they test it soon.

What do you mean “not even tested the AoA of the aircraft”?. Just because you don’t know what alpha its been tested to doesn’t mean that “its not even tested”. It’s been tested up to 22 deg AoA.

And guess what Mr Critical ? the Mirage-2000’s max AoA is a “mere” 25-28 degs.

“Not great by any standard” indeed.

That of the uber-great Rafale is 29 deg or 20 deg depending on the mode at which it is flying.

Another classic case of ridiculous unqualified statements being made on internet forums by people who won’t bother to educate themselves on the topic they comment on and if you point that out they’ll be offended.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 08 Jul 2010 00:20

But further to a comment upthread, with the beefier main gears, it looks as if space for the gun has been utilized.

Wonder if the gun on the NLCA will still fit in the normal place or be relocated?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Jul 2010 01:09

Kakarat wrote:Have others noticed or is it just me, the Tailhook seems to be missing

yes it is missing for now! says the pilot in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlxRfw_u ... re=related

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 08 Jul 2010 01:45

Ever heard of the term sarcasm? He’s mocking your BS post

.

I am illiterate and can't comprehend ENGLISH

Since when did the ability to carry Brahmos come to define what is good and what isn’t for a naval fighter? So if the IN contracts for the F-35C or F-35B and they cannot carry the Brahmos then they must be useless too no? Even the newly inducted MiG-29Ks are not much use for the navy since they cannot carry the air launched Brahmos. Even if a F-22 N variant were available, your logic would basically render it as being useless for a navy.

my point is does LCA better the MiG-29k at any parameter? Payload? RADAR? RCS? EW? Because already having ordered the MiG-29k, India should go for what is better! Unlike the IAF which is in dire need of fighters, Naval aviation is just blossoming and hence better to aim higher and not stop gap measures! IAC-2 will be able to handle bigger aircraft and Navy is already looking at F-35! LCA will only add to the maintanence woes!While MiG-29k will be able to carry TWO Brahmos (the Scramjet version under development expected to weigh 1.5-2 tons), The LCA will have problems with that too!

Raptor and lightning are stealth platforms and hence your comparison is asinine

karthik · Post by **karthik** » 08 Jul 2010 02:14

Kartik wrote:
Also they have not even tested the AOA of the aircraft yet how are the betting on the performance of the LCA if the angle of attack tests have not been carried out? One of the test pilot claimed it will experience flame out at 28degs and not that 28deg aoa is great by any standard! I hope they test it soon.
What do you mean “not even tested the AoA of the aircraft”?. Just because you don’t know what alpha its been tested to doesn’t mean that “its not even tested”. It’s been tested up to 22 deg AoA.

And guess what Mr Critical ? the Mirage-2000’s max AoA is a “mere” 25-28 degs. “Not great by any standard” indeed.

That of the uber-great Rafale is 29 deg or 20 deg depending on the mode at which it is flying.

Another classic case of ridiculous unqualified statements being made on internet forums by people who won’t bother to educate themselves on the topic they comment on and if you point that out they’ll be offended.

The mirage-2000 5 is an out dated comparison particularly for a naval variant. I was asking why have they not tested the aoa of the aircraft yet! One of the test pilots claimed that it could be flame out at high aoa, an test pilots words surely means something worth looking into.

Moreover it would be better you stop with the personal attacks, we all live in the same country and i live in Bangalore too. No one is wishing bad for the project.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 08 Jul 2010 02:18

karthik wrote: The mirage-2000 5 is an out dated comparison particularly for a naval variant. I was asking why have they not tested the aoa of the aircraft yet! One of the test pilots claimed that it could be flame out at high aoa, an test pilots words surely means something worth looking into.

Moreover it would be better you stop with the personal attacks, we all live in the same country and i live in Bangalore too. No one is wishing bad for the project.

Karthik, the bolded part makes no sense what so ever. And that is what Kartik responded to. LCA hasn't been tested to the max designed AoA. And as documented numerous times, it is the first time they are doing such testing, and they are very cautious. They have roped in EADS to help them test the high AoA in smaller number of tests. BTW, the aircraft will have some AoA everytime it takes off and lands too. So saying that AoA hasn't been tested is, well to put it mildly, laughable!

And irrespective of Mirage 2000 being a older design or not, please read the other pages of this thread that Kartik and others have mentioned. For a delta wing, there is a limitation on how much AoA you can have. And 25-28 deg AoA is not a bad value.

karthik · Post by **karthik** » 08 Jul 2010 02:25

putnanja wrote:
Karthik, the bolded part makes no sense what so ever. And that is what Kartik responded to. LCA hasn't been tested to the max designed AoA. And as documented numerous times, it is the first time they are doing such testing, and they are very cautious. They have roped in EADS to help them test the high AoA in smaller number of tests. BTW, the aircraft will have some AoA everytime it takes off and lands too. So saying that AoA hasn't been tested is, well to put it mildly, laughable!

And irrespective of Mirage 2000 being a older design or not, please read the other pages of this thread that Kartik and others have mentioned. For a delta wing, there is a limitation on how much AoA you can have. And 25-28 deg AoA is not a bad value.

I read the article too about roping in EADS. I know the delta bleeds energy faster than other wing designs and thats exactly why i was particular about the tests and also it already being promised to be the replacement they should have moved a bit faster. I know wish full thinking is wrong but the test pilots comments made me wonder.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Jul 2010 02:27

kan-an-uddin needs to report to kave kamplex 453b for some herps and de-briefing... that will soon bring him to the path of the true jeehard

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 08 Jul 2010 03:09

EADS Offers Mako Trainer Technology For LCA
Aviation Week

EADS also has responded to a Request for Information for development of an Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar for the LCA.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 08 Jul 2010 03:20

Kanan wrote:Navy is already looking at F-35! LCA will only add to the maintanence woes!While MiG-29k will be able to carry TWO Brahmos (the Scramjet version under development expected to weigh 1.5-2 tons), The LCA will have problems with that too!
Raptor and lightning are stealth platforms and hence your comparison is asinine

Please compare the payload of F 35 with LCA, and stop throwing foolish statements about LCA maintanence woes. As if F-35 will be no maintanence.

That was it wasn't it all these posts building up to sneak in F-35 for IN, fanboy!

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 08 Jul 2010 04:07

Airforece to get 20 more LCA - Antony

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Jul 2010 04:09

Kanan wrote:
I am illiterate and can't comprehend ENGLISH

your lack of english comprehension skills are quite evident.

Kanan wrote: my point is does LCA better the MiG-29k at any parameter? Payload? RADAR? RCS? EW? Because already having ordered the MiG-29k, India should go for what is better!

Bullshit. Pure and simple. You said clearly in that bunkum post of yours that the IN has chosen the Brahmos as its anti-ship missile (which is BS as well since its air-launched missiles are not the Brahmos, but Harpoons for the P-8Is and Kh-31s for the MiG-29Ks and possibly N-LCA) and the N-LCA cannot carry it so its not of any use for a navy. When your bluff is called, you change your tune and talk about comparing it to the MiG-29K which you didn't even mention in your first post about the N-LCA being of no use to the IN. You were talking about the MKI instead..

Anyway, the N-LCA doesn't need to better the MiG-29K in any respect, although in many ways the avionics and weapons on board will be as good if not better. The MiG-29K can stay at the cutting edge of the IN's airpower teeth, but the N-LCA gives the IN the bulwark, the ability to embark more platforms which in itself is an advantage in any operation. It is very affordable to buy (cheaper than MiG-29K), it will be cheaper to operate than the MiG-29K, it is indigenous and gives the ADA, HAL and IN as well as the testing and certifying agencies the ability to fully test and qualify a naval fighter, a first for India. That in itself is a strategic advantage, and the N-LCA is a step towards the ability to design, develop and operationalise a 4.5 or 5th generation naval fighter version of the AMCA since the PAK-FA is possibly too large for a naval variant. And since it is cheap to buy and operate, and it is indigenous, the IN can buy 50 or more and dedicate a few to land-based operations itself in places that the IAF cannot cover since when 2 carriers are out to sea, 1 will be in refit. The more fighters the IN gets, the merrier as far as I am concerned since all will defend Indian airspace and battle groups.

Kanan wrote: Unlike the IAF which is in dire need of fighters, Naval aviation is just blossoming and hence better to aim higher and not stop gap measures! IAC-2 will be able to handle bigger aircraft and Navy is already looking at F-35! LCA will only add to the maintanence woes!While MiG-29k will be able to carry TWO Brahmos (the Scramjet version under development expected to weigh 1.5-2 tons), The LCA will have problems with that too!

All this BS talk about "naval aviation is just blossoming and hence better to aim higher and not stop gap measures" indicates what your real knowledge and experience of technology development is. You cannot just jump a complete generation and get something "better than the MiG-29K" just because some internet poster thought so. The IN approached ADA for a naval fighter to replace the Shar and as Lt. Cmdr Ankur said during an interview to a news channel, it’s a quantum leap in capabilities for the IN as compared to the Sea Harrier. For the INS Vik and the IAC-1, the MiG-29K and N-LCA will complement each other if the N-LCA proves itself during its testing phase.

As for the part about MiG-29K being able to carry 2 Brahmos missiles, post a link to proper article where such a preposterous idea is given. As of now, it cannot carry a single Brahmos and here we have wazoos telling us it will carry 2. Besides, it's not like there are no other anti-ship missiles available anywhere else in the world. the IN operated Sea Eagles and Kh-31s and did just fine.

Raptor and lightning are stealth platforms and hence your comparison is asinine

so what if they're stealthy fighters? does that make them handicapped in some way so that if they cannot carry externally slung Brahmos then they're somehow exempt from being "useless to the navy" whereas non-stealth fighters have to be able to carry Brahmos in your weird bizarro world? Common sense would indicate the opposite- that since they are stealthy, the hit to their overall RCS by carrying the large Brahmos missile would be smaller in comparison to non-stealthy aircraft that carry such a large missile. So in fact stealthy aircraft should be the ideal platforms for carrying large sized externally slung weapons.

The fact is your whole argument was rubbish. I know that arguing with you won't matter since you'll just come up with more bizarro world arguments (I don't expect you to know what bizarro is, so just google it)..there used to be a standard joke on BRF about jokers who cribbed about fighters lacking death star capabilities. You my friend, are the very embodiment of that clown we laugh at.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Jul 2010 04:23

karthik wrote: The mirage-2000 5 is an out dated comparison particularly for a naval variant. I was asking why have they not tested the aoa of the aircraft yet! One of the test pilots claimed that it could be flame out at high aoa, an test pilots words surely means something worth looking into.

Moreover it would be better you stop with the personal attacks, we all live in the same country and i live in Bangalore too. No one is wishing bad for the project.

oh so now since you believe that the Mirage-2000 is outdated, it shouldn't be compared. Well, those are the specs that the IAF set.

So what should we compare it to? JF-17 Thunder Bunder? F-16 ? Typhoon ? I already gave you the data on the Rafale which is in the range of 20-29 degs max AoA only, which is 1 deg more than 28 degs max AoA which you scoffed at.

As for personal attacks, let the mods decide. If you post critical remarks without having a clue about the subject then I will respond in such a manner only. All it takes is a bit of googling and some diligent reading and you'll find that 28 deg max AoA is quite standard for fighters.

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 08 Jul 2010 04:29

Manish_Sharma wrote:
Kanan wrote:Navy is already looking at F-35! LCA will only add to the maintanence woes!While MiG-29k will be able to carry TWO Brahmos (the Scramjet version under development expected to weigh 1.5-2 tons), The LCA will have problems with that too!
Raptor and lightning are stealth platforms and hence your comparison is asinine
Please compare the payload of F 35 with LCA, and stop throwing foolish statements about LCA maintanence woes. As if F-35 will be no maintanence.

That was it wasn't it all these posts building up to sneak in F-35 for IN, fanboy!

Hi Manish,
there seems to be a misunderstanding!

Lets compare Indian Navy to the Largest, the U.S Navy:

U.S.N fighters: F-18(Super Hornet& Growler) +F-35>>>>>2 aircraft types

Indian Navy:MiG-29k+LCA-N+Advanced Fighter(for IAC-2)>>>>3 aircraft types AND HENCE THE MAINTAINENCE ISSUE!

Hence it is better for Indian Navy to stick to two types:MiG-29k+ Advanced Fighters for IAC-2[f-35/Rafale/Super Hornet].................

While LCA for IAF is quite essential, I don't see the need for them in Navy! LCA is very good for IAF but for NAVY might result in maintanence woes!

As per ur comparison of F-35 & LCA,Hmmm....F-35c can carry 18000 pounds of ammo twice that of LCA!(If you load the external hardpoints) Link is:http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/ ... riant.html!
F-35 can superbly complement another aircraft with its stealth and my choice for another aircraft would be MiG-29k!

Unless you can tell us all how the Naval-LCA is better.......... I would be glad to corrected!

And Kartik you were the one who suggested that raptor/F-35 are not good! I have always supported stealth platforms! Katik read and understand others' posts before you reply fot God's Sake! Patriotism might help but jingoism leads to doom!And you seem to be after anyone who questions the LCA's capabilities!!

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 08 Jul 2010 04:31

Karthik,
Any (or most barring perhaps Su-27,30 and F-22 whose intakes are designed for absurdly high aoa) aircraft will flame out at some high enough aoa (depending upon aircraft to aircraft). This is because of increase in air turbulance at high aoa. Please check past pages on this as this issue was discussed only a few days ago. So, the pilot's comment shows nothing worrrying because checking max aoa is a very dangerous test because of the problem mentioned and this is the reason we are taking consultation for it.

Kanan wrote: While MiG-29k will be able to carry TWO Brahmos (the Scramjet version under development expected to weigh 1.5-2 tons), The LCA will have problems with that too!

Raptor and lightning are stealth platforms and hence your comparison is asinine

How did you come to the conclusion that Mig-29 can carry 2 Brahmos leave alone LCA having "problems" with that? I am not able to find any reference on the internet confirming this weight reduction but I am ready to blame it on my poor googling skills. But even with the weight reduction, it is totally impossible to say if any aircraft other than MKI will be able to carry that much. Brahmos is simply too large and and too heavy for one hardpoint.
I suggest you take RahulM's advice. I mean it sincerely and with the best intentions. Everyone need a lot of lurking and use of newbie thread in the beginning. There is no shame in that and even the most experienced members use newbie thread for such questions. You mostly got away in MRCA thread because its kind of wild wild west of BR, but you will find members much less forgiving in other threads such as this one.

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 08 Jul 2010 04:35

Hi Gaur,

I am talking about the Brahmos under development! The SCRAMJEt! It is said that it will be ready around 2015-2017!

This to start: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairw/20100406.aspx

also found this:
BrahMos II is a hypersonic cruise missile that has been lab tested with a speed of Mach 5.26 making it the fastest cruise missile in the world. [35] BrahMos II is expected to be ready by 2013-14 [36] and will arm the Project 15B destroyers of the Indian Navy. [37]

Scramjets are much lighter because they don't carry the oxygen to burn but obtain the oxygen from the atmosphere! It is a fast growing technology!

this confirms that new BrahMos will be MUCH LIGHTER: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/509 ... ahmos.html

if the Su-30 can carry three of the new brahmos, the MiG-29 should be able to manage two!

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 08 Jul 2010 04:41

^^
Again, I answered considering that your speculation turned out to be accurate.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jul 2010 04:57

Kanan wrote: And all info is speculative, I must admit!

It is best NOT to post speculative stuff on BR.

If you cannot get rid of that itch, then put it within [OT] ................ speculative post .......... [/OT], so no one will read it or take it seriously.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Jul 2010 05:01

Juggi G wrote:EADS Offers Mako Trainer Technology For LCA
Aviation Week

EADS also has responded to a Request for Information for development of an Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar for the LCA.

So, EADS is trying to recover the cost of the MAKOs development.

Recall that the Brits offered India the co-dev of the Jag AFTER it was in production and while they were in the process of developing their own MRCA (the Tornado).

Bad habits die hard.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 08 Jul 2010 05:01

Brahmos isn't the be-all and end-all of weapons. There are different roles for different weapons systems. Not all aircraft need to carry Brahmos nor is Brahmos suitable for all situations. IN has a need for LCA and that is why they have invested in 40% of the development cost of LCA-N.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Jul 2010 05:35

NRao wrote: So, EADS is trying to recover the cost of the MAKOs development.

Recall that the Brits offered India the co-dev of the Jag AFTER it was in production and while they were in the process of developing their own MRCA (the Tornado).

Bad habits die hard.

yup sounds like a pretty much worthless offer..what on earth does the Mako, a plane that didn't progress beyond mockup and prototype status have to offer to India. if what they're offering is to partner in the co-development and marketing of a LCA trainer to compete with the M-346 and T-50 Golden Eagle, then India should only take the most relevant bits, like the simulator, consultancy in flight testing, help with marketing etc.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Jul 2010 05:38

Kanan wrote:
And Kartik you were the one who suggested that raptor/F-35 are not good! I have always supported stealth platforms! Katik read and understand others' posts before you reply fot God's Sake! Patriotism might help but jingoism leads to doom!And you seem to be after anyone who questions the LCA's capabilities!!

man, your posts are such a waste of time and bandwidth..what I said just went all over your head.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jul 2010 06:42

Kanan wrote:!While MiG-29k will be able to carry TWO Brahmos (the Scramjet version under development expected to weigh 1.5-2 tons), The LCA will have problems with that too!

Raptor and lightning are stealth platforms and hence your comparison is asinine

Troll alert. Kanan is a troll.

You will get into trouble answering his queries unless you are both sarcastic and scathing. You can fill up a whole thread arguing about what has been said time and again by patient and wel informed people - but this person does not intend to get it.
Note how he makes the other guys statement asinine while he pulls out rubbish from his own musharraf about MiG 29 in an argument. And the other crap about maintenance intensive etc.

This guy's musharraf needs treatment.

He is no newbie to trolling.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jul 2010 06:50

Kartik wrote:
man, your posts are such a waste of time and bandwidth..what I said just went all over your head.

The guy does not intend to allow anyone's post to stop him from saying what he wants. This guy is yet another person who is going to be destructive on here. He needs to meet his houris rapidly. And like all trolls he will argue that we are jingos who will not allow good sense and intelligence to prevail. And he will be right - this forum is too low for him. He needs to be elsewhere - not dealing with ill informed jingoistic idiots like us.

I mean why would a thoroughbred racehorse like Kanan want to be in a pigsty like BRF no? Could be lack of horse sense no?

negi · Post by **negi** » 08 Jul 2010 06:51

Kanan's posts should be moved to noob thread if his intention is to get answers by stirring the pot he should have no qualms about posting in that thread else bredators might shorten the rope for all of us here.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 08 Jul 2010 07:06

So, EADS is trying to recover the cost of the MAKOs development.

Recall that the Brits offered India the co-dev of the Jag AFTER it was in production and while they were in the process of developing their own MRCA (the Tornado).

Bad habits die hard.

Is it to develop new AJT using LCA has a platform or to put MAKO tech in Tejas MK-2 ?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Jul 2010 07:28

one thing I noted about NP-1 was that they used a R-73 mockup on the outer pylons..PS Subramanyam is on record as having stated that the Navy decided to go with the Derby for the N-LCA..will be interesting to see the Derby's on the N-LCA.