LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

member_28788 · Post by **member_28788** » 15 Jan 2015 10:59

Shreeman wrote:^^^ Nope. Again, sentences out of context dont carry any weight. And one qualified individusls opinion doesnt change the ground realities either.
So what is it going to be loaded with? Take off light --light as a rocket and refuel from 29k. Then wander around for 3 hours keeping watch on a2a. Land empty. The TWR doesnt play a role. Training from dega, again TWR doesnt play a role.

Fishes. I say, fishes.

Hey would you mind making some sentences in your posts more elaborate on words? sentences such as 'land empty.' don't lend their meaning fully to some readers like me. I would really like to be sure if you meant exactly what I understand. Dont take this otherwise.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Jan 2015 11:13

Shreeman wrote:^^^ Nope. Again, sentences out of context dont carry any weight. And one qualified individusls opinion doesnt change the ground realities either.

Re. thrust/weight, again it is dependent upon the role. NLCA as a multi role replacement for 29k comes with baggage. 29k as tanker, trainer, interceptor comes with its 2x costs, reduced numbers and availability.

Buying more from Russia or NLCA are the choices on the menu. Still want to overload the poor little donkey and call it a arabian workhorse? While workhorses are doing the work of the donkeys?

It is a mixed message, whichever way you want to look at it. The specifications re. TWR/load for some roles are not relevant here. The legs are only 500km at best and thats not taking you to any land from vik or IAC. Its not lifting pj10 regardless of TWR. So what is it going to be loaded with? Take off light --light as a rocket and refuel from 29k. Then wander around for 3 hours keeping watch on a2a. Land empty. The TWR doesnt play a role. Training from dega, again TWR doesnt play a role.

Fishes. I say, fishes.

You must be right!

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 15 Jan 2015 11:20

And I am at sea regarding the last few posts

.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 15 Jan 2015 11:28

^^^ Re. the two posts above,

-- if the aircraft aborts a sortie, then presumably fuel is dumped. Provision is there. SOP likely requires it. Stores are likely not brought back either. This is even more likely to be the case in any SOP.

-- At the normal conclusion +reserve, fuel weight is reserve (or little more than that) only. Fuel is loaded per need, one hopes beyond reserve you dont take spare to weigh you down for no reason.

--If you refuel for *some* missions, you dont need to always use short takeoffs with full furl+max. weight.

So far this seems routine. So TWR for an interceptor+trainer is different thsn a 3t+full fuel loaded craft needing short take off.

TWR may not be *the* factor requiring the new engine. However, more roles and higher capacity would be offered with 414. When it comes, there is nothing wrong with using it.

But those going to AI15 can ask the NLCA folks as to what role the aircraft will play. How will the first 20 be used? What will they carry and off what?

I am not claiming anything radical here. But I also havent seen the harriers carrying 3t of dumb bombs all that often.

Pratyush -- there was a theory floated that NLCA Mk1 is not good enough for the Navy, only Mk2 would do. I am trying to ascertain what really changes in Mk2 and why Mk1 is not good enough. My conjectures may well be wild, but the arguments against mk1 are worse off the mark.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Jan 2015 11:38

nash wrote:Does anyone has any idea about this? is this true?

https://www.facebook.com/IADnews/photos ... =1&theater

MINDBLOWING NEWS .... AESA radar for Tejas MK-II "UTTAM" been tested Air-to-Air mode ......................

Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar for Tejas is being developed under name "Uttam" . DRDO has already finished calibration of prototype AAAU with indigenous TR modules and is testing Air-to-Air Mode software .
Air-to-ground mode software is under development and will have capability of carrying out high resolution mapping, multiple ground moving target detection and track, combat identification, electronic warfare, and ultra high bandwidth communications.

Some Reports claimed that DRDO is taking Israels help in making this AESA radar which will have a range more then 420 Km

It is news taken from the DRDO e-book, plus mirch masala.

Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar Uttam
DRDO has taken up the development of flight control radar for fighter aircraft with 100 km range and multimode operation. Realisation and calibration of prototype Active Aperture Array Antenna Unit (AAAU) has been completed with indigenous TR modules. Airworthy radar processor and exciterreceiver have been realised and tested on a high rise platform in Mechanical Scanned Array (MSA) configuration for validation of various algorithms and waveforms of the fire control radar. Software development for air-air sub-modes has been carried out.

Actually, I am interested in "Station 2" marked in this diagram:

All the "stations" are mounting brackets. So is "Station 2" the mounting bracket for future IRST?

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 15 Jan 2015 11:54

IN inteligently used IAF project in this case. They are also quite ok with taking Mig29k instead of asking for F35s, Rafales etc. As always IN showed clear head and it can balanced its needs and local projects.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 15 Jan 2015 12:17

@writetake: HAL likely to hand over 1st series production SP-1 Tejas to IAF on Jan 17. Def Min, CAS to witness.

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 15 Jan 2015 12:27

As we are discussing reliability concerns over twin and single engine a/c there is one more consideration. Over the past couple of decades engines / control systems have advanced even further. An analogy I will draw upon is the hue and cry that was created when long range flights which traditionally used a 4 engine wide body config moved to a twin engine wide body config. There was a lot of thought about how it will be unsafe for a transatlantic flight. In fact, now most airlines are using a twin engine wide body twin aisle aircraft for long range flights as well. It works out economical and almost equally safe.

As many have pointed out most Navy a/c have been single engine aircraft (from WW2 times, if I may add). The only advantage if any of a twin engine is longer legs - for ground attack. The LCA was always supposed to be a point defence a/c (intended to originally replace the 21/23) before it started becoming a multirole a/c. Two LCA's flying CAP with two LR-SAM and two SR-SAM, will effectively offer a protective envelope of 500kms+ with a detection range even longer than that. Most of the AShM's have a range of 150 - 300 kms, which means that the LCA's offer an effective deterrent. Two Mig's in flight ready mode can then launch if a bigger punch is required. The LCA may also be able to carry a smaller AShM if required.

Also in a fist fight the LCA may actually offer a better alternative to the Mig. (better turn rate, airspeed bleeding, etc.)
Overall the Navy has a two layer protection for the carrier group. Also the fuel burn factor for two LCA's will be lower than a single Mig (404/414 vs the RD). IIRC the MTBO/MTBF of the 404/414 is also better than the RD, which means lower requirement of spares on board a medium sized Aircraft carrier. Just my 2 paise.

SanjayC · Post by **SanjayC** » 15 Jan 2015 13:04

YashG wrote:
Shreeman wrote:^^^ Nope. Again, sentences out of context dont carry any weight. And one qualified individusls opinion doesnt change the ground realities either.
So what is it going to be loaded with? Take off light --light as a rocket and refuel from 29k. Then wander around for 3 hours keeping watch on a2a. Land empty. The TWR doesnt play a role. Training from dega, again TWR doesnt play a role.

Fishes. I say, fishes.
Hey would you mind making some sentences in your posts more elaborate on words? sentences such as 'land empty.' don't lend their meaning fully to some readers like me. I would really like to be sure if you meant exactly what I understand. Dont take this otherwise.

I think he means the plane will land empty of fuel after loitering for 3 hours.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 15 Jan 2015 14:37

Kakarat wrote:@writetake: HAL likely to hand over 1st series production SP-1 Tejas to IAF on Jan 17. Def Min, CAS to witness.

Hear hear!

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 15 Jan 2015 15:13

Lungi dance.

John · Post by **John** » 15 Jan 2015 17:03

Yagnasri wrote:IN inteligently used IAF project in this case. They are also quite ok with taking Mig29k instead of asking for F35s, Rafales etc. As always IN showed clear head and it can balanced its needs and local projects.

Navy had no choice other than Mig-29k when it went with STOBAR route. As mentioned earlier LCA-N can still carry decent payload and operate from Ski jump would still be more capable than Su-33/J-15.

Su-33: If we had gone the CATOBAR route this would have been perfect choice, but flanker is far too hampered operating from a ski jump. As Chinese are finding out you have 25 ton plane that can only provide fleet air defense (lucky if they can get even 50% of Mig-29k load and range operating from Liaoning). Even worse Su-33 as notorious poor track record with Russian navy, which raises whether this is even reliable option in naval purpose.

Rafale: Apart from its price tag and also other questions whether will French make us adsorb a lot of R&D cost of Rafale M. It would also require Dassault to test the aircraft in Ski jump operations. Which would raise the price tag even more..

F-35B/C:IMO the most likely Navy's fall back plan if LCA never materializes. But considering it was never on table when Mig-29k were procured and deliveries aren't likely before 2020 it was never really an option.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 15 Jan 2015 21:00

Before we get into the advantages or disadvantages of single-engine/twin-engine fighters, wouldn't it be useful to first examine the intended role of carrier-borne air power in the Indian context?

Is it land attack and anti-ship strikes? I suppose it could be, but then that leaves me wondering why the Navy is buying destroyers that pack 16 supersonic cruise missiles and frigates that carry 8 supersonic and 8 subsonic missiles, all capable of hitting land and naval targets out at 300 km? Especially when these destroyers make do with fewer anti-air missiles than their contemporaries (leading to much heartburn on BRF).

My uneducated guess is that the Navy sees carrier-borne fighters as a largely defensive asset (which need not be limited to fleet air defence - protection of other platforms like AEW helicopters is also vital) with a significant, but secondary, strike role. After all, the Navy's first homegrown aircraft carrier was even called the "Air Defence Ship" at one point.

This arrangement seems to jive well with the larger strategy of controlling vital choke-points and SLOCs instead of trying to dominate the entire maritime environment.

In this context, I don't see why a single-engined, short-legged LCA shouldn't be a useful asset if used properly.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Jan 2015 21:23

Shreeman ji, why all this entirely unnecessary blue on blue trying to prove who is a deeper shade of green ?
nothing in indranil's posts indicate he opposes NLCA induction in any form. please give that strawman a rest.
it is only worsening the noise to signal ratio and derailing the thread.
kindly cease and desist.

oh, I find that fish flamebait extremely fishy. take care,
- Rahul.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 15 Jan 2015 21:33

IIRC, this whole multi-engine requirement was mainly promoted by the US Navy during the 1960s onward (some say that the roots of this philosophy went back to World War II experiences), because they were worried that the failure of the engine in a single engine aircraft could cause the pilot to ditch the aircraft. In those days, jet-engines weren't all that reliable, so it made sense. For a while, it was impossible to sell a carrier-based aircraft to the USN if it was single-engined. In fact, they were refusing to accept the F-35 in the early stages as well, for this reason. Engine reliability has significantly improved over the years, but the USN has a conservative approach and didn't want to change the status quo. I believe it took some major arm-twisting to get them to accept the F-35.

Other navies around the world didn't have this philosophy.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Jan 2015 22:05

If one consider IAF incidents between M2K vs Mig29s, it is quite evident on which type is more safer [talking safety only

here is a nice article: https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/201 ... -fighters/ although biased, and flaming Indian Mig mftr quality.

John · Post by **John** » 15 Jan 2015 22:11

Mihir wrote: Especially when these destroyers make do with fewer anti-air missiles than their contemporaries (leading to much heartburn on BRF).

Not sure i follow your comment they are about the same air to air armament as Euro DDG sure they might not be as heavily armed as Aegis class DDGs but you are talking about vessels that are over 10000 tons in displacements. Even USN Burke in most deployment don't carry full complement of air to air missiles due to cost purposes.

Mihir wrote:In this context, I don't see why a single-engined, short-legged LCA shouldn't be a useful asset if used properly.

As i mentioned earlier ski jump drastically reduces payload see how hampered Su-33 are operating from kuznetsov, it is about thrust not number of engines. In paper the most capable aircraft in terms of range and payload operating from STOBAR is F-35C which is single engine aircraft..

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 15 Jan 2015 23:01

John, my point is that the new Kolkatas are bristling with anti-ship and land-attack missiles, but lack capacity to carry as many SAMs as some of their contemporaries do (see Vishnu's post for a comparison). This leads me to believe that they are meant to pack the offensive punch while carrier-based fighters will mostly be used in a defensive role.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Jan 2015 23:02

I will just give cold math and physics.

Twin engines giving more safety was definitely a strong point earlier. But modern engines are sufficiently reliable. That is not the current point.

An important aspect of a naval fighter is how quickly can it accelerate to take off speed. The only factor that determines this is thrust to weight ratio (TWR). This defines how much fuel and armament the fighter can carry. Now let us look at the TWRs of some contemporary naval fighters (with loaded weight:i.e. full internal fuel and no armament):
Mig 29K: 0.95
Rafale M: 1.04
F-18: 0.95
Su 33/J 15: 0.84
NLCA-Mk1: 0.84

So, NLCA Mk1 will struggle to reach take off speed with full fuel pretty much like the Su-33/J-15. This is why they are waiting for NLCA Mk2 with a TWR of 0.95-1.

This is why Navy is on record that it will not operationalize NLCA Mk1 on ships. It will ceremonially land it and take off with less than full fuel, but not operationalize it. This does not mean NLCA Mk1 is not useful. As I said it is technology feeder to Mk2 and it will train the pilots and technicians. NLCA Mk2 will be fielded along with the Mk2.

But there is a problem with all single engined naval fighters. For a given armament, the TWR deteriorates faster than that of twin engine fighters with much larger thrust. Therefore, the ideal machine for the task is AMCA-N, and the NLCA Mk2 will be the feeder program for the AMCA too.

@Mihir sahab, you are absolutely right about the primary role of fighters in the Indian Navy. But an important criterion to give good cover is time at station. This is a critical problem for carrier-based single engined fighters.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 15 Jan 2015 23:05

Rahul M wrote:Shreeman ji, why all this entirely unnecessary blue on blue trying to prove who is a deeper shade of green ?
nothing in indranil's posts indicate he opposes NLCA induction in any form. please give that strawman a rest.
it is only worsening the noise to signal ratio and derailing the thread.
kindly cease and desist.

oh, I find that fish flamebait extremely fishy. take care,
- Rahul.

Rahul,

Yes, I admit the humor inserted is always one step past the "accepted" line.

But the rest of the argument wasnt focused on one specific individual, certainly not indranil. There is a notion that "X is not meeting paper specification Y" but MkZ will meet it. This applies to a lot of hardware, certainly all LCA models. And this creates more signal to noise issues than I am responsible for. Speculation about future vs anger against speculation and evidence of past unmet expectations.

AI15 is nearby, SP1 would have been handed over 1/17,etc. This was a timely debate. Hopefully folks will wander off from this to actually bug those manning stalls with actual questions on what, why, and how of real usage.

No more from me on this either way.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Jan 2015 23:43

ArmenT wrote:IIRC, this whole multi-engine requirement was mainly promoted by the US Navy during the 1960s onward (some say that the roots of this philosophy went back to World War II experiences), because they were worried that the failure of the engine in a single engine aircraft could cause the pilot to ditch the aircraft. In those days, jet-engines weren't all that reliable, so it made sense. For a while, it was impossible to sell a carrier-based aircraft to the USN if it was single-engined. In fact, they were refusing to accept the F-35 in the early stages as well, for this reason. Engine reliability has significantly improved over the years, but the USN has a conservative approach and didn't want to change the status quo. I believe it took some major arm-twisting to get them to accept the F-35.

Other navies around the world didn't have this philosophy.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6203&p=1780567#p1780567

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 15 Jan 2015 23:50

Aircraft taking of from ski jump on a carrier say a 200m run not only depends on TWR but also say approach speed of the aircraft i.e, wing design or say take of speed of aircraft on full load.

If my memory serves right for earlier version of mig 29 take of speed was 125knots, Su27 take of speed was 135knots and rafale approach speed for landing as 115knots and for Nlca mk1 was 120knots.

Mig 29k TWR on full load=18t/24.5t=0.735

Su 33 TWR on full load=25t/30t=0.833

NLCA MK1 TWR on full load=8.56T/12.5t=0.685 given in ADA website and GE website.

NLCA MK1 TWR on full load=9.18T/12.5t=0.7344 if emergency rating for full thrust is 90kn for take off?

NLCA MK2 TWR on full load=10t/13.5t=0.74 based on my estimate (mk1 wing design is taken as that of mk2)

earlier MIG 29K version had MTOW of 22.4t on engine thrust of 17.4T and present has increased wing width of 12m leading to increased MTOW OF 24.5t on engine thrust of 18t.

Mig 29k, NLCAmk1 and NLCAmk2 all have TWR of 0.735.

disha · Post by **disha** » 16 Jan 2015 00:32

^ What are CATOBARs for? Isn't INS Vishal (the second one which is still in "design" stage) was already evaluated for EMALS (Electro-magnetic assisted launch System). Of course INS Vishal if it comes around will not come around before 2030.

But it will surely be useful for both NLCA Mk II or AMCA-N or a mix of both. We do not know how we will deal with ChiPandas in 2030 - maybe the Navy will fly an EW Suite on the N-LCA MkII or do something else like CAP support for fleet - given that MiGs are still in operation even after >40 years - we can safely assume that NLCA-MkII or NLCA-MkIII will be in operation at least until 2050. That is a whole 2 decades after INS Vishal comes onboard (assuming it is progressing as planned).

Added later: I will not even rule out NLCA-MkI on Indian carriers. It can find uses in providing CAP over say 200 km radius - freeing up the larger leg'ed Mig29ks to do something better.

John · Post by **John** » 16 Jan 2015 02:54

We are simplying things saying its about TWR but overall Full load of Su-33 is 33 tons which it can achieve operating from a land base and operating from Kuz typical take off weight is less than 25 tons. Identically Russians have found Mig-29k to be far capable carrying twice as much payload and achieving about 50% more range.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Jan 2015 03:06

sankum wrote:Aircraft taking of from ski jump on a carrier say a 200m run not only depends on TWR but also say approach speed of the aircraft i.e, wing design or say take of speed of aircraft on full load.

If my memory serves right for earlier version of mig 29 take of speed was 125knots, Su27 take of speed was 135knots and rafale approach speed for landing as 115knots and for Nlca mk1 was 120knots.

I think you meant take off speed. But beyond that it is an excellent point that take off speed of different planes are different.

sankum wrote: Mig 29k TWR on full load=18t/24.5t=0.735

Su 33 TWR on full load=25t/30t=0.833

NLCA MK1 TWR on full load=8.56T/12.5t=0.685 given in ADA website and GE website.

NLCA MK1 TWR on full load=9.18T/12.5t=0.7344 if emergency rating for full thrust is 90kn for take off?

NLCA MK2 TWR on full load=10t/13.5t=0.74 based on my estimate (mk1 wing design is taken as that of mk2)

earlier MIG 29K version had MTOW of 22.4t on engine thrust of 17.4T and present has increased wing width of 12m leading to increased MTOW OF 24.5t on engine thrust of 18t.

Mig 29k, NLCAmk1 and NLCAmk2 all have TWR of 0.735.

TWR for Mk1 at MTOW is 8.4/13.2=0.64. Why use the emergency power only for NLCA Mk1, and not for the others?

disha wrote: Added later: I will not even rule out NLCA-MkI on Indian carriers. It can find uses in providing CAP over say 200 km radius - freeing up the larger leg'ed Mig29ks to do something better.

Why would you not want 2 long legged Mig-29, instead of one short-legged NLCA Mk1 and one long-legged Mig-29?

vina · Post by **vina** » 16 Jan 2015 03:41

Why would you not want 2 long legged Mig-29, instead of one short-legged NLCA Mk1 and one long-legged Mig-29?

In Inglees, it is all about Phyual phrackshuns. Mig -29 has two engines, gulps fuel like bhakasur and might end up with same range as a thin scrawny fuel sipping LCA and end with same range ,even if Mig-29 carries more fuel ! Ok. the Mig -29 might carry more payload to the same range though.

Trouble is, the Mig 29 from a STOBAR can't take off with the fuel packed to the gills fuel and weapon load as it's land based analogue can. It will need catapult launch to do that ! So net-net it is a toss up.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jan 2015 03:43

Added later: I will not even rule out NLCA-MkI on Indian carriers. It can find uses in providing CAP over say 200 km radius - freeing up the larger leg'ed Mig29ks to do something better.

Would it matter? After all the carrier will have a capacity - say 40 air crafts. Of which, let us say, X will have to be allocated for CAP. Unless you build a larger carrier AND the number of MiG-29s increased (which is good assumption), there will no "freeing up" as far as I can see. ???????

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 16 Jan 2015 04:25

NRao,

Length: 13.20 m (43 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 8.20 m (26 ft 11 in)
= 108.2sqm

Length: 17.37 m (57 ft)
Wingspan: 11.4 m (37 ft 3 in)
=198sqm

Still no freeing up?

13t at worst vs 20t.

Size is an issue. The LCA is tiny.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Jan 2015 04:29

vina wrote: Trouble is, the Mig 29 from a STOBAR can't take off with the fuel packed to the gills fuel and weapon load as it's land based analogue can. It will need catapult launch to do that ! So net-net it is a toss up.

Come on, Vina! You, of all people, think that NLCA Mk1 can take off with MTOW? Just justify to me how!

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 16 Jan 2015 04:42

The LCA MK1 size is in my VHO reflective of the success in 1965 of the Folland Gnat vs. the F-86 Sabre. From then on it's been tees mar khan/david-goliath stuff. Built to be agile in knife fights etc.

But who does 'knife fights' these days. It's all about 'sniping' from BVR and PGM standoffs.

Design folk fell into the trap of cheaper than M2K by being smaller. The Nano syndrome.

I'm a big booster of the LCA but I confess I was deflated when I learned that MK2 will only have 45% commonality with MK1 ..

They are trying to do a Hornet/Super Hornet thingie here. MK2 is a new plane and it will have all the usual hiccups.

I just hope that Parrikar gets the game that's being played. The whole mentality, structure and rewards system has to be up ended.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Jan 2015 04:54

Shreeman wrote:NRao,

Length: 13.20 m (43 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 8.20 m (26 ft 11 in)
= 108.2sqm

Length: 17.37 m (57 ft)
Wingspan: 11.4 m (37 ft 3 in)
=198sqm

Still no freeing up?

13t at worst vs 20t.

Size is an issue. The LCA is tiny.

This is completely wrong. The footprint on a carrier is not a rectangle. That is wastage of space. The pictures below show how planes are stowed away. The critical aspect here is wingspan. Mig-29s wings are folded when being stowed away. The wingspan of Mig-29K with folded wings is 7.8 mtrs (0.4 mtrs smaller than the Mk2). So the footprint of the Mig-29K in stowed away condition is very similar to the LCA.

I have no clue on the significance of the absolute weight of the aircrafts. It does not matter as long as the aircraft lifts can accommodate them.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jan 2015 05:03

Shreeman ji,

Let me back up a wee bit.

So, if a carrier is able to host 40 crafts (not worrying about the mix for the time being). If, say, 10 are expected for CAP duty. Then what does it matter if 10 are LCA (tiny) or MiG-29 (large)? As long as the remaining are MiG-29s it should not matter. Right? Or am I still missing something?

Where it would matter is if 10 are required for CAP and 20 LCAs are placed. Or even if the original mix of 10 LCA and rest MiG-29 are maintained, but they send 5 MiG-29 for CAP, when they can replace them with MiG-29s.

???????

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 16 Jan 2015 05:29

Question for the experts.

What on earth do you need 40 AC for?? I would expect 6 rotating CAP and maybe 12 for strike missions. Keep 2 in spare.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 16 Jan 2015 05:33

NRao wrote:Shreeman ji,

Let me back up a wee bit.

So, if a carrier is able to host 40 crafts (not worrying about the mix for the time being). If, say, 10 are expected for CAP duty. Then what does it matter if 10 are LCA (tiny) or MiG-29 (large)? As long as the remaining are MiG-29s it should not matter. Right? Or am I still missing something?

Where it would matter is if 10 are required for CAP and 20 LCAs are placed. Or even if the original mix of 10 LCA and rest MiG-29 are maintained, but they send 5 MiG-29 for CAP, when they can replace them with MiG-29s.

???????

NRao,

Clearly the operating cost is an important factor. And the limit of 40? is imposed by size, weight, and stores --including fuel.

Also, Max. air wing on vik. appears to be 30 fixed wing. Presume that includes using all the deck parking as well. Not sure if they have storage for all 30+6 rotary beneath deck. 6 rotary also seems like they will be 1-2 SAR + 4 radar pickets. No space for anything medium weight.

If the role is suitable for smaller aircraft then why not have half the area open, to work on things. A factor of approx. 2 is not a small difference. There are obvious savings, so what is the downside?

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 16 Jan 2015 05:56

Rishirishi wrote:Question for the experts.

What on earth do you need 40 AC for?? I would expect 6 rotating CAP and maybe 12 for strike missions. Keep 2 in spare.

Lets evaluate the utility of the carrier. at 18 craft -- 18 launches/18 recoveries, its an event every two minutes. Seems like a busy day. But statistics are deceptive.

Assume a 2 week war, 24 hour cycle, 100% aircraft availability without losses kept up with crew rotations. Impossible. But what can the carrier contribute at this rate? Daily sorties -- 12×24 =288.

Over 14 days, approx 4000. 4000 is not a lot of targets by themselves over 2 weeks. Wont keep a whole lot of defenders busy.

When IAF was not a central role, there were still 550 sorties needed for safed sagar. In a pretty target barren terrain. You expect an order of magnitude larger number available in a full on conflict. None avoidable unlike safed sagar.

With 24 craft, you cut down the sorties rate of individual aircraft, still keep up the tempo even with 50% availability, or work at peak rates with lower crew size. So on.

Not everything has to be up and available all the time if its 24. With 12 the margin is pretty thin, you run out of options pretty fast due to crew, maintenance, etc. Realistic numbers are a fraction of the theoretical maximum.

These numbers eventually decide the role for the carrier. Is it just for knocking out karachi in an eventuality or a multi purpose device.

ps -- this is getting tangential to LCA, so I bow out ahead of mullahs. Please ask the navy thread how they see the usage of the whole group for further insights.

edit --folded up at 7.8m, the 29k takes 130sqm. Not quite twice, but still not the same as NLCA. Two triangles back to back make a square. Overall loaded weight is a constant for the ship. Still nothing negative for the single engine, even if not a 100% space savings.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jan 2015 05:59

I think we are headed in two diff directions. ??????

I was responding ot teh original post that stated that a MK-I would free up a longer legged MiG-29.

So, let us take the 30 planes you mention (I picked 40 out of thin air - only as an example). So, FOR CAP, you replace let us say 5 MiG-29s (that you would use for CAP) with LCAs - one for one swap. So, now you have 5 LCA (for CAP) and still 25 MiG-29s for "longer legged" work - which you already had.

So what gives?

Going with your Vick example, so, it carries 30 MiG-29 (war conditions). So, what would you suggest the IN do to make the CAP situation better?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jan 2015 06:03

Question for the experts.

What on earth do you need 40 AC for?? I would expect 6 rotating CAP and maybe 12 for strike missions. Keep 2 in spare.

(No where close to an expert.)

IF, India wants to project into the SCS, then I would expect India to field a couple of 80 air craft carriers. 80-90K tons. with the full complement - AWACS and all. even for projection within IOR there should be a need for larger carriers than the ones proposed.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 16 Jan 2015 06:08

NRao wrote:I think we are headed in two diff directions. ??????

I was responding ot teh original post that stated that a MK-I would free up a longer legged MiG-29.

So, let us take the 30 planes you mention (I picked 40 out of thin air - only as an example). So, FOR CAP, you replace let us say 5 MiG-29s (that you would use for CAP) with LCAs - one for one swap. So, now you have 5 LCA (for CAP) and still 25 MiG-29s for "longer legged" work - which you already had.

So what gives?

Going with your Vick example, so, it carries 30 MiG-29 (war conditions). So, what would you suggest the IN do to make the CAP situation better?

You save on fuel/maintenance in the one for one swap, and also have 2 29k worth of storage space available. 2/30 is a measurable fraction in terms of the tight space. If it costs less, you train with it more often too.

If fuel/stores are available, I would assume the overall impact of smaller aircraft would be a greater number carried overall. Not just a one/one swap. Perhaps Navy thread on where the NLCA fits if 10 were on the deck?

No reason for a one to one swap. Or space saved adds to the strike element.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jan 2015 06:18

Let us stick with the original "Longer legged" stuff (that is what that poster stated).

CAP is CAP. Let us say 2 hours per plane. It means 2 hours per plane. That should not matter irrespective of the plane.

MiG-29 should occupy *less* space than a LCA (as far as I know), not more. But no matter what it is not substantial enough to make a diff. The Vick will still carry 30 .................... Max.

In fact I suspect that if the Vick were to loaded only with LCAs it will carry less planes.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 16 Jan 2015 06:33

The LCA doesnt fold, and even folded up nothing takes away the length disadvantage 13m vs 17m for the 29k. So not sure how there could be fewer LCAs. Its a much smaller craft.

As you said CAP is CAP, so the 2 hours is what matters. On a one to one basis you save only money. May be stretch you aviation fuel supplies.

edit -- an inherent assumption here is also that the number of 29k imported is a constant and can only go down or is redirected to another role. The number of NLCA is not constant and can only go up. What becomes free serves off land, or different ship.