LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Dec 2016 03:57

Philip, No need for personal remarks on members.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Dec 2016 04:03

Actually, the CNS statement has been badly misconstrued. This is what he actually said: link.

“The present LCA Navy does not meet the carrier capability which is required by the Navy. We will continue to support the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) in their efforts to develop a carrier-based fighter aircraft. At the same time we will seek aircraft elsewhere which can operate on the aircraft carrier,” Admiral Lanba told the media.

Reporters today have to sensationalize everything. Unfortunately, many among us find it easy to use these misconstrued statements to confirm their misconstrued biases. The truth is that this was IN's plan all along. This is what Navy had said when NLCA was launched.

“It may not be what we want, but it is our own aircraft,” says the Indian Navy’s Flag Officer Naval Aviation (FONA) Rear Admiral Sudhir Pillai on the LCA Navy in an interview to FORCE magazine. He was asked how effective the LCA Navy would be for a carrier-based role given that it “only an eight ton platform”. The officer’s response: “I wish wish we could straightaway develop a Rafale. But seriously, we have to look at the Indian Navy and it commitment towards indigenisation. I agree that we have made a modest start, but it has been a huge learning experience. LCA Navy will remain a modest platform with an uprated engine which will give us adequate capability at sea. While it is easy to buy from abroad, sometimes it is extremely difficult to support those platforms. Our past experiences tell us that it is worth committing resources to develop our own assets.”

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 08 Dec 2016 04:31

Indranil, this is the statement that gives wrong impressions: "At the same time we will seek aircraft elsewhere which can operate on the aircraft carrier".

The Mig-29K deal is done and dusted. So you have to assume he is talking about buying a third type. What should or would any journalist conclude from this? That the Navy needs to buy aircraft from abroad because the NLCA is not ready or available. He could have said that the current needs of the IN in terms of fighter aircraft are taken care of by the Mig-29Ks (which, if you look at the numbers, appears to be the case). If they are really looking at new aircraft, it would definitely not be on account of the NLCA not being ready but rather due to deficiencies in the Mig-29K. But that is not what he said.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Dec 2016 09:52

nachiket wrote:Indranil, this is the statement that gives wrong impressions: "At the same time we will seek aircraft elsewhere which can operate on the aircraft carrier".

The Mig-29K deal is done and dusted. So you have to assume he is talking about buying a third type. What should or would any journalist conclude from this? That the Navy needs to buy aircraft from abroad because the NLCA is not ready or available. He could have said that the current needs of the IN in terms of fighter aircraft are taken care of by the Mig-29Ks (which, if you look at the numbers, appears to be the case). If they are really looking at new aircraft, it would definitely not be on account of the NLCA not being ready but rather due to deficiencies in the Mig-29K. But that is not what he said.

Seems rather straight to me. ?????

* NLCA cannot make it as-is
* IN will continue to support DRDO/etc in "their efforts to develop a carrier-based fighter aircraft." The key is "a". IMHO, what he means is since NLCA cannot make it in its current form, either enhance it or come up with a new plane. Either way the IN will support them
* Meanwhile, IN will look for another plane on the international market

My read is that the IN would prefer some other platform than the NLCA.

IF true, I would pitch for a naval AMCA. 2030 time frame should work.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Dec 2016 11:20

We can all interpret in our own ways. The truth is known to the insiders. That information is that mk2 is well and truly on. It always had the support of navy. Now it has the support of IAF and MOD also. You can ask your paanwallas and chaiwallas.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Dec 2016 11:31

Apologies for any personal feelings felt,but HAL's shoddy workmanship at times has been criticised often by the IAF in the past.The HTT-32 was a disaster.We had to get an imported trainer as our Kirans,etc. were also long in the tooth,also needing replacement.What's happened to the IJT? Silence for some time.Is this another failed effort? It took almost 3 decades for us to make up our minds and buy the Hawk,perhaps the last air force in the world to do so,and today the Pilatus and Hawk are performing splendidly in training our future pilots. The DPSUs do not want their budgets cut and make tall promises like the GTRE duping Kalam about the Kaveri. ASTRA has failed again,today's news.However,missiles have fared far better than aircraft.After 3 decades on,we have yet to get a single LCA sqd. in service. Past time to look to the pvt. sector or even the IAF to build aircraft (plans for Pilatus prod. was shot down by HAL).If you read the report about Boeing dumping HAL<you will see that their procurement from Ind. pvt. industry was not affected.
If the DPSUs fail,then we must hand over defence production to pvt. industry where management is superior.

As far as the IN's carrier strike aircraft are concerned,we already have approx 50 MIG-29Ks,enough for two carriers.Another dozen or so to keep numbers happy/war reserves,will suffice until 2020.By then with the keel of the 3rd carrier hopefully laid,the IN will need something much superior to the 29K.One possibility is a naval version of the FGFA .Since the carrier will arrive closer to 2030,by then there certainly will be new alternatives to the 29K.
I do not think that even an NLCA MK-2 whatever, will be adequate enough to meet the new challenges affecting maritime warfare post 2025.WE will need a twin-engined multi-role naval strike/stealth bird.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 08 Dec 2016 12:19

Maybe it is a "Want EMALS integration help? Buy our aircraft" kind of deal that khan is famous for.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 08 Dec 2016 13:04

Manish_P wrote:
Neshant wrote:The Navy should clarify if they want a naval LCA or not right NOW.
Sir, with all due respect, the Navy would have liked to have the naval LCA as of Yesterday!
The IN has a better record than the IAF and the IA of supporting and operating indigenous equipment
The naval chief was perhaps just being pragmatic and hedging his bets
After all he will have to fight with what he has since he might not always have the luxury of choosing the time of the fight

What I'm saying is that if there is no intent to purchase a single engine plane for the carriers (LCA or not), there is no point continuing the naval LCA program.

For the AF, the LCA makes sense since it is low cost and can be deployed in very large numbers to overwhelm any enemy with a mass attack/defence. That logic cannot be applied to the navy.

For the navy, they cannot have infinite number of aircraft on an aircraft carrier. They can only have a fixed number of aircraft because that is all an aircraft carrier can fit in its decks.

Given that logic, it would suggest the navy should only field the best 2 engine fighter planes even if it has to be purchased from abroad. That automatically excludes all single engine planes including the naval LCA. Its not likely the naval LCA is going to be fitted with an engine as powerful as that which is used on the JSF.

Is there thus any purpose to creating a single engine naval LCA? Was there any rational to starting this naval LCA program in the first place?

Correct me if I"m wrong anyone - A single engine plane (aside from JSF) for attack/defence on an aircraft carrier makes no sense for India.

Anyone disagree with that statement?

Sumair · Post by **Sumair** » 08 Dec 2016 14:53

If one were to extrapolate from the recent statements of our Navel Chief and the Defence Minister regarding LCA, then Grippen seems to be the obvious choice for the second line. LCA production too would benefit from many common sub systems. NGrippen and NLCA will probably be rolled into one. We should leverage this deal to cooperate with Sweden all across their potent defence manufacturing industry. It would be a win-win situation for both countries.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 08 Dec 2016 15:09

Neshant wrote: Is there thus any purpose to creating a single engine naval LCA? Was there any rational to starting this naval LCA program in the first place?

To learn how to make a Naval plane.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Dec 2016 15:15

Neshant wrote: A single engine plane (aside from JSF) for attack/defence on an aircraft carrier makes no sense for India.

The statement without an explanation makes no sense to me.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 08 Dec 2016 15:25

Neshant Ji

if there is no intent to purchase a single engine plane for the carriers (LCA or not), there is no point continuing the naval LCA program.

Fair Point.

However the intent (if it has changed) might have perhaps come about only recently ?

The Navy was operating the Rolls Royce single engined 95 kN Sea Harriers when the NLCA (with General Electric F414 around 98 kN, or Kaveri engine around 95 kN with afterburner) was being conceptualised. Maybe that had some influence on the Navy thought process at that time..

Just my humble pooch

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 08 Dec 2016 15:50

Neshant wrote:if there is no intent to purchase a single engine plane for the carriers (LCA or not), there is no point continuing the naval LCA program.

And who will provide the knowledge base and technology for naval AMCA or any other naval carrier based aricraft in future? The reason why India took so long to make tejas is because some short-sighted a$$013s with same logic closed down the Marut program and blew away the knowledge base and expertise gained with it.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 08 Dec 2016 15:51

May be the mk2 with a more powerful 414 will do the trick.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Dec 2016 16:34

Indigenous advanced Navy LCA will meet operational requirements: Aircraft developer

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 08 Dec 2016 16:37

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2009/09/n ... crore.html

In 2009

Business Standard has learnt that the navy has okayed the placement of an order for six Naval LCAs. At an approximate cost of Rs 150 crores per aircraft, that will provide a Rs 900 crores infusion into the Naval LCA programme.

NLCA is still on track. Apart from the two prototypes flying, six more will fly. They will validate the control laws and certify the performance. NLCA Mk2 will be the definitive production variants until the 6 prototypes open up the carrier operations envelope.

The 45 MiG-29 will suffice only the training & operations for INS Vikramaditya. Naval aircraft have heavy maintenance requirement due to salt water corrosion and the aircraft slamming down the deck at full throttle (for go around incase wires are missed) that decreases airframe life.

INS Vikrant will need aircraft until NLCA Mk2 enters service.

Let us please stop this misreading of CNS statement.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Dec 2016 16:39

Indranil Said

I have nothing to accept sir. If you did not know Navy's plans then you are late to wake up. Nothing has changed with respect to the IN and the NLCA. India bought 45 Mig-29s enough for Vikramaditya and IAC-II. They are going for aircraft over and above the Mig-29s. Why? I don't know.

The new aircraft was for 2nd Aircraft Carrier which was suppose to be larger 65KT and perhaps Nuclear Powered but that is still 15 years away atleast.

IAC-1/Viram was suppose to have Mig-29K and Naval Tejas but with Naval Tejas gone atleast for now , IN will have to buy more 29K for its fleet strength or prepone the purchase of new aircraft that can fly on both types of carrier we have plus IAC-2

BTW can a Rafale take off from Vikramaditya & IAC-1 if it can then it might be a stopgap solution to buy 1 squadron of Rafale

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 08 Dec 2016 16:39

From Austin's link

"It is expected that the first prototype would commence flight testing by end 2020. The second prototype is expected a year later. It is expected that flight-testing would take about four years," Balaji said, adding: "It is expected that Mk-2 can be available from 2024-25 onwards."

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Dec 2016 16:50

What then went wrong with the Mk-1?

Balaji said it was intended to be a technology demonstrators (TD) that provide inputs for the final development of an aircraft.

"When the programme was envisaged at the time of its sanction in 2003, it was expected that the naval version could be derived from the air force version, already flying, by introduction of a stronger landing gear and arrester hook. However, as detailed design progressed, there was a need for significant changes to the structure, a much more complex landing gear to be housed in the centre fuselage, and an externally mounted arrester hook on a dedicated platform.

"Further, the major constraint of design space due to the conversion of the existing LCA platform resulted in a sub-optimal design and compromises leading to the Navy Mk-1 variant being heavier than anticipated. A naval aircraft is typically 500-700 kg heavier than its air force variant due to the need of strengthened structure, heavier landing gear and arrester hook. However, the navy Mk-1, being a first-time development with associated conservatism in design and constraints of the air force configuration, led to an aircraft weight of around 900-1,000 kg heavier than the air force Mk-1.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Dec 2016 16:55

Stand of IN with respect to NLCA is perfectly in sync with their approach to other DRDO projects - we will support the R&D effort but at the same time not jeopardize the operational capability.

And the million dollar question is this - if the IN goes for new navala aircraft which is bound to be a twin engine aircraft, what role is left for NLCA MK-2 to serve? Which aircraft carrier will it operate from and what role does it serve?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Dec 2016 16:56

1 T heavier compared to IAF Mk1 version , IAF Mk1 version carries 3.5 T of ammo max , I am assuming that is with Normal Fuel load and full take off run.

If IN version got ~ 1T heavier then it would have carriex Max 2.5 T of weapons load assuming normal fuel but since Carrier has smaller takeoff run that may not apply to IN version.

No one really takes up with full weapons load in real world nor is the fuel tank/drop tanks full , its always a combination that does not stress the airframe and neither does it make it a flying brick

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Dec 2016 18:28

seems to me that the navy is thinking more about power projection, and in that model bigger carriers with more capable swing role aircraft will be the more appropriate answer. NLCA will remain a point defence and limited strike option and will not offer a big leap in capability even if operating from a catapult carrier

the mission is changing

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 08 Dec 2016 19:13

Austin wrote:Indigenous advanced Navy LCA will meet operational requirements: Aircraft developer

NEW DELHI: A more powerful engine, albeit imported, will enable the Mark-2 naval version of the indigenous light combat aircraft (LCA) meet the requirements of the Indian Navy, its developer says, even as the navy chief has said that the Mark-1 version has not delivered.

"I would think that it is the Indian Navy's prerogative on their operational needs. We are trying to develop an indigenous carrier-borne aircraft from scratch and it is certainly a challenging proposition," Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) Director C.D. Balaji told IANS, responding to a recent statement by the navy chief, Admiral Sunil Lanba.

Speaking about the upgraded version of the aircraft, he said: "A new programme with a higher thrust engine was sanctioned and termed LCA Navy Mk2. This programme is envisaged to minimise the constraints of Navy LCA Mk-1.

As for the new power plant, Balaji said: "The GE 414 engine has adequate thrust for a heavier take-off and this would permit the mission performance to be met as indicated at the time of sanctioning the Navy LCA Navy Mk-2 (in 2009)."

The GE F 404 powers the Mk-1 version.

"It is expected that the first prototype would commence flight testing by end 2020. The second prototype is expected a year later. It is expected that flight-testing would take about four years," ..
Balaji said, adding: "It is expected that Mk-2 can be available from 2024-25 onwards."

As part of its development, a dedicated Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF) has been set up to replicate to a large extent a short take-off but with arrested recovery (STOBAR) carrier.

India's sole aircraft carrier, INS Vikramaditya, has this capability, as does the first indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC), INS Vikrant, now under construction at the Cochin Shipyard. The next generation IAC, INS Vishal, is also likely to have this capability or the even more advanced EMALS (ele ..

"The next big proving capability is for arrested recovery, for which a number of activities like handling quality evaluation, higher sink rate landing, structural testing, arrester hook integration on aircraft and the like have been carried out. The phase of actual taxi-in engagement and flight engagement is progressively planned during the course of 2017."

What then went wrong with the Mk-1?

Balaji said it was intended to be a technology demonstrators (TD) that provide inputs for the final development of an aircraft.

"When the programme was envisaged at the time of its sanction in 2003, it was expected that the naval version could be derived from the air force version, already flying, by introduction of a stronger landing gear and arrester hook. However, as detailed design progressed, there was a need for significant changes to the structure, a much more complex landing gear to be housed in the centre fuselage, and an externally mounted arrester hook on a dedicated platform.

"Further, the major constraint of design space due to the conversion of the existing LCA platform resulted in a sub-optimal design and compromises leading to the Navy Mk-1 variant being heavier than anticipated. A naval aircraft is typically 500-700 heavier than its air force variant due to the need of strengthened structure, heavier landing gear and arrester hook. However, the navy Mk-1, being a first-time development with associated conservatism in design and constraints of the air force configuration, led to an aircraft weight of around 900-1,000 kg heavier than the air force Mk-1.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 08 Dec 2016 20:10

^^Either Navy Chief is not abreast with NLCA program or DRDO is ignorant about Navy needs. There seems to be giant gap in understanding.

If they don't want it, scrap and get grants for what they have in mind instead of continuing for next 10 years before realising Navy wanted a Super Hornet class plane.

Operational requirement changes, maybe they are getting pushed due to induction of Su-33s by PLAN. One thing we don't know is how to close a program with dignity.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Dec 2016 20:32

if the fear is of a deep water battle against a PLAN fleet with Su33's then the choices come back to Su33's, Mig29K's, S-Hornets and Rafale-N
plus AWACS
plus tankers
plus ELINT
plus JSTARS
plus...

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 08 Dec 2016 20:38

Our Su-30 induction was also connected to procurement of Su 27 by PLAAF back in 90s. There was a good article in Vayu lamenting why all our purchases are reactive then proactive/planned.

So there should be no surprise if PLAN Su-33s are influencing our choice of future naval combat platforms.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 08 Dec 2016 20:43

Sid wrote:Our Su-30 induction was also connected to procurement of Su 27 by PLAAF back in 90s. There was a good article in Vayu lamenting why all our purchases are reactive then proactive/planned.

So there should be no surprise if PLAN Su-33s are influencing our choice of future naval combat platforms.

Our forces suffer from brochuritis until they have more painful jealousitis.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Dec 2016 20:59

personally I think they should commit to 1-2 sqds of NLCA's and use them to build up the crew pool, experience base and operate out of the smaller carriers which will be around for 20-30 years still

they will serve more than one strategic need

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 08 Dec 2016 21:56

Neshant, how do you propose that indian designers learn how to design an indigenous naval fighter. Wheee will they get the test data to plug into AMCA? The navy knows this and that is why they are funding mk2.

Austin, if this requirement of new aircraft is dor IAC-2, then why the urgency to get it in the next 4-5 years. That ship is not arriving before 15. If these airplanes are not for IAC-2, then what are we going to do 45 migs, when vikramaditya and vikrant can carry only 18 each.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Dec 2016 22:05

Austin wrote:What then went wrong with the Mk-1?

Balaji said it was intended to be a technology demonstrators (TD) that provide inputs for the final development of an aircraft.

"When the programme was envisaged at the time of its sanction in 2003, it was expected that the naval version could be derived from the air force version, already flying, by introduction of a stronger landing gear and arrester hook. However, as detailed design progressed, there was a need for significant changes to the structure, a much more complex landing gear to be housed in the centre fuselage, and an externally mounted arrester hook on a dedicated platform.

"Further, the major constraint of design space due to the conversion of the existing LCA platform resulted in a sub-optimal design and compromises leading to the Navy Mk-1 variant being heavier than anticipated. A naval aircraft is typically 500-700 kg heavier than its air force variant due to the need of strengthened structure, heavier landing gear and arrester hook. However, the navy Mk-1, being a first-time development with associated conservatism in design and constraints of the air force configuration, led to an aircraft weight of around 900-1,000 kg heavier than the air force Mk-1.

So NLCA is 400-300 kg over expected weights. Not bad for a first naval aircraft design. This is commendable and not to be sneezed at.
Most likely the original LCA never had the stronger fuselage to accommodate the carrier landing loads.

I think ADA should continue the NLAC development. Who knows what will emerge.

Folks whats a good Indian name for a seabird ? Not those gulls etc. some thing like a hawk family.

chola · Post by **chola** » 08 Dec 2016 22:08

I think the good Admiral is looking at something better than the MiG-29K and the NLCA is not ready now. I don't think there is definitive rejection of the naval Tejas.

That said, I hope to god we are not going for the SU-33. It performs no better than the 29. The Kutz lost one each off of Syria to prove it.

The Rafael is the best bet for a proper STOBAR replacement (as much as I would love to see the F-18.)

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 08 Dec 2016 22:55

Indranil wrote:Neshant, how do you propose that indian designers learn how to design an indigenous naval fighter. Wheee will they get the test data to plug into AMCA? The navy knows this and that is why they are funding mk2.

Austin, if this requirement of new aircraft is dor IAC-2, then why the urgency to get it in the next 4-5 years. That ship is not arriving before 15. If these airplanes are not for IAC-2, then what are we going to do 45 migs, when vikramaditya and vikrant can carry only 18 each.

iirc the initial plan was the migs + nlca on VikAd and Vikrant.
There wasnt much clarity on another carrier borne fighter requirement from the navy when it was floated, but in hindsight it looks as if they intend to use the new aircraft in place of nlca..

If the "strategic" tilt does happen wrt the US, the Stovl F35s for the interim and emals launched F35s for future bada carrier makes most sense.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Dec 2016 22:56

depends if F35 will be released to us, and that too ahead of others
not clear where unkil's strategic priorities now lie

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Dec 2016 23:33

Indranil wrote:Austin, if this requirement of new aircraft is dor IAC-2, then why the urgency to get it in the next 4-5 years. That ship is not arriving before 15. If these airplanes are not for IAC-2, then what are we going to do 45 migs, when vikramaditya and vikrant can carry only 18 each.

How long have you been on BRF and saw things just getting dragged , If He says he needs in 4-5 years doesnt mean by the time it crossed MOD and reaches CCSA it will be like 10-12 year may be 15 , file are pushed around and around that would be 10-12 years optimistically.

Its possible they might just go for more Mig-29K to keep logistical simple or Rafale for the same reason if they need better capability over 29K , its still early days lets see when IAC-1 hits the water and gets commisioned then we can think about IAC-2 and its fleet.

Probably there is good chance we might just see Tejas Mk2 come into play , I still feel IN should have inducted a dozen N-LCA in Mk1 version even if that means it takes off with not more than 1000 Kg payload and 90 % fuel , atleast it can do a decent A2A and A2G and antiship role with some payload configuration while ADA would have gained practical experience operating/maintaining Tejas in Sea Salty water environment which is a challange in itself , other things like routine maintenance ,spares , training , ground crew , small/big fixes and other similar dozen unknown things would have been taken care as well.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Dec 2016 00:13

I really hope that these planes are for IAC-II. Because if they are for Vicky and IAC-I, it is really quite damning for the Mig-29Ks.

I don't think that IN should and would induct NLCA Mk1. You will see them on board Vicky in a year or two for testing purposes. NLCA Mk2 would be able to take off with some decent loads. You might see a squadron or two of it operationalized. That decision has not been taken yet.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 09 Dec 2016 00:23

Philip sir,

I give up. You asked me how accident prone is HPT-32. I came back with official data which showed it having accident rates of less than one tenth of other airplanes in IAF inventory. It's accident rate is around half that of the USAF Texans. And you repeat your sentence, "HPT-32 was a disaster".

You then say an Astra missile blasted while testing. Are you kidding? Operational S-300s have plunged straight back on their launchers!

IJT was a disaster and direct manifestation of what happens when you let a design team wither away. HAL continued designing systems and manufacturing aircrafts during the 80s and 90s, and hence the systems onboard the IJT-36 and its build quality were top notch. Aerodynamics, not so much. Look at what the continued design and development has done. The HTT-40 incorporated all the lessons learnt from the IJT.

Everybody wants the private companies to come forward. It will not happen overnight. And unions are not a legacy of PSUs only. Boeings and Airbuses of the world have large union bodies.

Anyways, I don't think you would let facts change your opinions. I rest my case with you.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 09 Dec 2016 01:55

Much as I'm anxious about the N-LCA's future (which the IN is still committed to, in principle) its quite clear that the Navy cannot defer the induction of another batch of fighters.

The 45 MiG-29Ks in service are ONLY adequate for the INS Vikramaditya. Just to put that in perspective, the French Navy with a grand total of one 40,000 ton carrier (CdG) has a fighter fleet consisting of 45 Rafale Ms. That's three fighter squadrons with two ready for combat deployment and the third remaining shore based in a training role.

The IN needs another 45 naval fighters, with at least the first 15 delivered in time for the Vikrant's induction. Now the Vikrant will be delivered somewhere around 2021-22, though 'officially' the IN hasn't changed its deadline of 2018.

Meanwhile the F414 powered Tejas Mk2 will only be available for delivery by 2026, at the earliest. Could be later still. In which case, they might want to consider making it CATOBAR-capable for compatibility with the IAC-2.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 09 Dec 2016 09:50

^ just order some raffles and be done with it..

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Dec 2016 14:30

Statements aren't enough,delivering the goods is. If statements were true,we'd be having 200+ LCAs flying today!

http://www.news18.com/news/india/naval- ... 20721.html

Naval Version of Indigenous LCA Will Meet Operational Requirements: Developer
IANS

First published: December 8, 2016,
Naval Version of Indigenous LCA Will Meet Operational Requirements: Developer
The GE F 404 powers the Mk-1 version. (File photo)

New Delhi: A more powerful engine, albeit imported, will enable the Mark-2 naval version of the indigenous light combat aircraft (LCA) meet the requirements of the Indian Navy, its developer says, even as the navy chief has said that the Mark-1 version has not delivered.

"I would think that it is the Indian Navy's prerogative on their operational needs. We are trying to develop an indigenous carrier-borne aircraft from scratch and it is certainly a challenging proposition," Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) Director C.D. Balaji said, responding to a recent statement by the navy chief, Admiral Sunil Lanba.

Speaking about the upgraded version of the aircraft, he said: "A new programme with a higher thrust engine was sanctioned and termed LCA Navy Mk2. This programme is envisaged to minimise the constraints of Navy LCA Mk-1.

As for the new power plant, Balaji said: "The GE 414 engine has adequate thrust for a heavier take-off and this would permit the mission performance to be met as indicated at the time of sanctioning the Navy LCA Navy Mk-2 (in 2009)."

The GE F 404 powers the Mk-1 version.

"It is expected that the first prototype would commence flight testing by end 2020. The second prototype is expected a year later. It is expected that flight-testing would take about four years," Balaji said, adding: "It is expected that Mk-2 can be available from 2024-25 onwards."

(*So for the next 10 years,until hopefully the MK-2 arrives, what will the IN operate? Apart from MIG-29Ks there are only two options.The naval Rafale and the Sea Gripen,proposed by SAAB even for the Viraat a few years ago. The Rafale being much larger,one will have to determine whether it is possible to fly from the VikA and new Vikrant.)

As part of its development, a dedicated Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF) has been set up to replicate to a large extent a short take-off but with arrested recovery (STOBAR) carrier.

India's sole aircraft carrier, INS Vikramaditya, has this capability, as does the first indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC), INS Vikrant, now under construction at the Cochin Shipyard. The next generation IAC, INS Vishal, is also likely to have this capability or the even more advanced EMALS (electromagnetic aircraft launch system).

"The next big proving capability is for arrested recovery, for which a number of activities like handling quality evaluation, higher sink rate landing, structural testing, arrester hook integration on aircraft and the like have been carried out. The phase of actual taxi-in engagement and flight engagement is progressively planned during the course of 2017."

What then went wrong with the Mk-1?

Balaji said it was intended to be a technology demonstrators (TD) that provide inputs for the final development of an aircraft.

"When the programme was envisaged at the time of its sanction in 2003, it was expected that the naval version could be derived from the air force version, already flying, by introduction of a stronger landing gear and arrester hook. However, as detailed design progressed, there was a need for significant changes to the structure, a much more complex landing gear to be housed in the centre fuselage, and an externally mounted arrester hook on a dedicated platform.

"Further, the major constraint of design space due to the conversion of the existing LCA platform resulted in a sub-optimal design and compromises leading to the Navy Mk-1 variant being heavier than anticipated. A naval aircraft is typically 500-700 kg heavier than its air force variant due to the need of strengthened structure, heavier landing gear and arrester hook. However, the navy Mk-1, being a first-time development with associated conservatism in design and constraints of the air force configuration, led to an aircraft weight of around 900-1,000 kg heavier than the air force Mk-1.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 09 Dec 2016 15:00

Which vessel do you want these new planes for? Please specify the carrier and its availability for commissioning.

Or, if things are dire at the moment despite 45 29Ks, and If we need ONLY a twin, we must go with the Rafales and dump the Russian junk altogether.