LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2078
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Manish_P » 09 Dec 2016 15:32

The Rafale being much larger,one will have to determine whether it is possible to fly from the VikA and new Vikrant


Genuine question - Are the aircraft/s decided first and the aircraft carrier built around it. Or is the carrier conceptualised first and then the aircraft/s decided ?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby NRao » 09 Dec 2016 16:11

So, so much for the fear of the death of the LCA. That ghost has been laid to rest. Once and for all. Good.

The best part of the 83 new orders, IMHO, is that the line will be kept open no matter what. I think that is perhaps the most critical part that ensures that the LCA will not die. I am not concerned as much about the MK-x. Technologies and threats will dictate what makes a MK-x.

Looks like the Rafale deal has brought along a few important techs that can and will be used to improve the LCA even further.

With a planned goal of Indian MIC contributing 25% to the Indian GDP in 6 years, a little concerned about the time-line to deliver. I would have liked the production to increase beyond 16 a year.

All in all, this seems to be a good feather in the MoD cap.

Now on to the AMCA.

ps: I had said, back in 2012ish, that the LCA should be treated as a tech demo. Good to hear the horse say that.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2909
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby tsarkar » 09 Dec 2016 16:18

Manish_P wrote:Genuine question - Are the aircraft/s decided first and the aircraft carrier built around it. Or is the carrier conceptualised first and then the aircraft/s decided ?

Very good question - it's designed around present and practically forseable future aircraft. Among the constraints are the takeoff and landing deck lengths, elevators, hanger heights, catapult & arrestor gear load capacity.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Austin » 09 Dec 2016 16:26

Indranil wrote: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.


I wont put much emphasis on NLCA Mk2 being operational on on Vikram or IAC-1 , Naval Planners cant depend of ADA good wishes ( and I dont mean in a adverse way ) no matter how good those intentions are but on capability that can be delivered. The question would be what if Mk2 still does not meet IN requirement then they will have to scramble in 2024-25.

It wont be an easy decision that MOD has to make , IN might wish that that decision is made within 5 years but its just their wish.

Having said that IN CBG are AD ships with good ASW asset as part of CBG even if they operate 18 Mig-29K each ( 9-10 spares ) on Vikram and IAC-1 they will still have around 20-24 SeaKing/Ka-28/<New Naval Chopper>/Ka-31 for ASW/SAR/AEW duties.

We wont really see an IAC or Vikram operating with 30 Fighter Aircraft and 20 ASW choopper ......i was told once when I was on Viraat that its fighter strength did not go beyond 8-12 SHAR rest were all chopper for different duties.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2078
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Manish_P » 09 Dec 2016 17:31

tsarkar wrote:
Manish_P wrote:Genuine question - Are the aircraft/s decided first and the aircraft carrier built around it. Or is the carrier conceptualised first and then the aircraft/s decided ?

Very good question - it's designed around present and practically forseable future aircraft. Among the constraints are the takeoff and landing deck lengths, elevators, hanger heights, catapult & arrestor gear load capacity.


Thank you, Tsarkar Ji. I was inclined to believe so myself.

Another genuine question, Sir - Is it not practical/feasable to design and build a different design of aircraft carrier, in the future, which will be able to support NCLA Mk2 (and future variants) being able to take off with full load/fuel. If not then what would the reasons be (larger size?)

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8151
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Pratyush » 09 Dec 2016 17:38

The dimensions of the aircraft carrier decide the dimensions and weight of the aircraft that can be deployed from it. That being the case, a carrier with a certain size of plane box will only allow planes of that size as a practical measure.

You can always put bigger planes but the carried numbers will reduce.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2909
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby tsarkar » 09 Dec 2016 19:11

Manish_P wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Is it not practical/feasable to design and build a different design of aircraft carrier, in the future, which will be able to support NCLA Mk2 (and future variants) being able to take off with full load/fuel. If not then what would the reasons be (larger size?)

Simply extending runway length won't enable a heavy & underpowered aircraft to take off from an aircraft carrier.

The U.S. Navy has the world's longest aircraft carriers, but that couldn't accommodate the F-111B. And while our NLCA Mk2 has a solution with a higher power engine, the F-111B didn't even have that option.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics–Grumman_F-111B

The weight goals for both F-111 versions proved to be overly optimistic. Excessive weight plagued the F-111B throughout its development. The prototypes were far over the requirement weight. Design efforts reduced airframe weight but were offset by the addition of the escape capsule. The additional weight made the aircraft underpowered. Lift was improved by changes to the wing control surfaces. A higher thrust version of the engine was planned. During the congressional hearings for the aircraft, Vice Admiral Thomas F. Connolly, then Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air Warfare, responded to a question from Senator John C. Stennis as to whether a more powerful engine would cure the aircraft's woes, saying, "There isn't enough power in all Christendom to make that airplane what we want!"


The NLCA Mk2 will be able to take off from INS Vikrant and INS Vikramaditya with proposed weight reduction and new engine.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2078
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Manish_P » 09 Dec 2016 19:18

Simply extending runway length won't enable a heavy & underpowered aircraft to take off from an aircraft carrier.


Now clear, sir. Thanks!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby NRao » 09 Dec 2016 20:15

Pratyush wrote:The dimensions of the aircraft carrier decide the dimensions and weight of the aircraft that can be deployed from it. That being the case, a carrier with a certain size of plane box will only allow planes of that size as a practical measure.

You can always put bigger planes but the carried numbers will reduce.


Some time back, I had posted a video, on what are the techs that drove the design of a carrier. With the IAC-II, IN is sitting at the very edge of nuclear power. Essentially, there are certain factors that determine the design and therefore the size. So, if you want simultaneous operations - cat + arrested landings or multiple cat (volley), etc - those things dictate your design, which determines your size. IIRC, there were 7 such factors.

In any design or size, the key - from that vid- was balance/stability of the vessel under extreme maneuvers. The next was safety of people (in groups) performing various roles on the deck. A busy deck is a nightmare for everyone, especially when launch and recover rate is very high.

Check out the Vik. Certainly no simultaneous launch and recovery. In addition, IIRC, there are situations when if an elevator is in operation, everything else stops. I guess it is the penalty of conversion from one type to another. And perhaps the pressing need for a carrier?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4481
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 09 Dec 2016 20:55

NRao wrote:
With a planned goal of Indian MIC contributing 25% to the Indian GDP in 6 years,


:shock:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby NRao » 09 Dec 2016 21:48

JayS wrote:
NRao wrote:
With a planned goal of Indian MIC contributing 25% to the Indian GDP in 6 years,


:shock:


That is one, and a valid, way to look at it.

However, given it is Modi, I expect he will give that a shot and I for one would jump with glee if he were to achieve even 5-10%.

The problem, as I see it, is the flip side. Are the various entities that need to execute this dream ready? So, where would the manufacturer of the LCA be in that time frame? Can they ramp up to X numbers a year as the situation could demand? Or are they going to be lagging in some respects and thus unable to keep up? Clearly exports have to play a huge role. The domestic market cannot sustain such a goal.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4074
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby chola » 09 Dec 2016 22:16

NRao wrote:
JayS wrote:
:shock:


That is one, and a valid, way to look at it.

However, given it is Modi, I expect he will give that a shot and I for one would jump with glee if he were to achieve even 5-10%.

The problem, as I see it, is the flip side. Are the various entities that need to execute this dream ready? So, where would the manufacturer of the LCA be in that time frame? Can they ramp up to X numbers a year as the situation could demand? Or are they going to be lagging in some respects and thus unable to keep up? Clearly exports have to play a huge role. The domestic market cannot sustain such a goal.


The truth of the matter is we have all the time in the world to allow an indigenous solution to work itself out. There is NO threat scenario for the next two decades at least that requires carrier aircraft as the principal weapon. There is nothing in the Indian Ocean that the IAF and the IN surface fleet can't handle. Carrier air power is nice to have but not essential to our ability to deal with the Pakis and whatever rump vessels the PLAN can spare for the Indian Ocean.

Yes, get better western aircraft to replace the Russian crap we're currently forced to use but let not that be an excuse to kill off the NLCA.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby NRao » 09 Dec 2016 22:42

There is NO threat scenario for the next two decades at least that requires carrier aircraft as the principal weapon.


Export. Export. And, more export.

MIC no longer is an entity that supports Indian armed services only. It has become an integral part, as a contributor, of the national economic growth. A growth engine.

The beauty is that now it is no longer a bunch of technical issues. Here on out it involves marketing, sales cycles (some were laughing at the F-16 sales projections - here we go), a highly dependable (and believable) support, a very highly reliable supply chain and a robust gov-pvt partnership.

And of course, research. Lest we forget that.

And profits for all.



BTW, apply all that to the LCA.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 707
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby sankum » 09 Dec 2016 23:22

The initial ADA specification of NLCA mk1 gave the MTOW from carrier ski jump at 12.5T which is 1 T less than IAF LCA mk1 MTOW of 13.5T.

If the empty weight is 1T higher than the air force version than it is 7.5T. The payload from carrier will come at 1.7 T which is enough for two 800 lt fuel tanks and two derby AAM and 2 Python CCM.

7.5T empty weight+ 2.5T internal fuel +0.5T( pilot,cannon ammo,pylons weight,chaff,flare)+ 0.3T (2 CCM python)+ 1.7T payload = 12.5T MTOW.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4912
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kartik » 10 Dec 2016 00:37

Indranil wrote: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.


I fervently hope that this is bit about the Mk2 for the IAF and IN is true..Aero India 2017 may shed a lot more light on what's going on with the Mk2 programs.

Rishi Verma
BRFite
Posts: 1019
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Rishi Verma » 10 Dec 2016 01:02

Kartik wrote:
Indranil wrote: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.


I fervently hope that this is bit about the Mk2 for the IAF and IN is true..Aero India 2017 may shed a lot more light on what's going on with the Mk2 programs.


Even if DRDO/HAL/MoD jointly announce that LCA-Mk2 project is funded and launched, the customers (IAF & Navy) will not believe that DRDO/HAL has the capability to do so or have credibility in the assumed timelines.

DRDO/HAL have lost all credibility as far as new complete system design and manufacture that meets the customer requirements and timelines.

Starting with the most basics, Armed Forces are at work 24/7 in service of the nation. If the manufacturers of weapons have 39 official holidays, then they will attend lectures on Foundation Day, xyz-memorial Day, stay home on Bangaluru Bandh day, swachh HAL Day, attend IISc Dean retirement function, etc is will not inspire confidence with customers.

As long as there is no team in mission mode 24/7 from HAL/DRDO India can not design and manufacture "stuff"

Exception is ISRO, after launch speeches give an insight into how hard each team was at work in mission-mode. And results are there to see.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7982
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 10 Dec 2016 01:52

Rishi Verma wrote:Even if DRDO/HAL/MoD jointly announce that LCA-Mk2 project is funded and launched, the customers (IAF & Navy) will not believe that DRDO/HAL has the capability to do so or have credibility in the assumed timelines.

Who do you think is asking for the Mk2? Who do you think is funding it? MOD, HAL, ADA?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7982
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 10 Dec 2016 02:02

Actually, the level of criticism in the mainstream media and now in BR is so low that one can't even go into the discussion of real problems plaguing the current plane, the overpromise of Mk1A, or the manufacturer/designer divide of Mk2. I really wanted to start a discussion on the same, if there was break from this nonsense.

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3633
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Neela » 10 Dec 2016 02:16

NRao wrote:
There is NO threat scenario for the next two decades at least that requires carrier aircraft as the principal weapon.



Export. Export. And, more export.
MIC no longer is an entity that supports Indian armed services only. It has become an integral part, as a contributor, of the national economic growth. A growth engine.

The beauty is that now it is no longer a bunch of technical issues. Here on out it involves marketing, sales cycles (some were laughing at the F-16 sales projections - here we go), a highly dependable (and believable) support, a very highly reliable supply chain and a robust gov-pvt partnership.

And of course, research. Lest we forget that.

And profits for all.

BTW, apply all that to the LCA.


This simple post expresses our current state so well.
We were customers only for a long time.
Then we put in research and started investing in IP development.
The products came and are being inducted locally.
We now stand at the next threshold:Export.
And we are found wanting.
Compare this to the ways and methods the Amreekis and Swedes understand the target market, customize their campaigns, employ the media, find sepoys who'll do their bidding and make their presence felt in Airshows ( and in South block too through middle men) .

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7982
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 10 Dec 2016 02:47

Many here have kept saying that private industry should come in. Everybody agrees on the need for privatization. Everybody understands the need to break the monopoly of DPSUs. HAL knows this very well too. If it can't climb up the ladder of being integrator, it will not survive past a couple of decades. Already, some part of it is getting divested. I say MOD should go the Brazilian way with HAL: almost completely privatize HAL. Finally, change Indian labour laws. These two actions needs enormous political will. And if there was ever a govt. which could do it, it is Modi sarkaar. Hence, I have faith.

However privatization is not as easy. IAF is even going for an artificial need for a F-16 kind of fighter. IAF is not a fool. It knows that by screwdrivering a F-16 here is not going to develop an aircraft designer. Far from it would not even develop an integrator of COTS products. The hopes of great F-16 export offers or manufacturing of service parts are all chimeras. IAF stays quite about those marketing ploys of LM and Boeing, because it has to. I support their studies quietness. They are trying to kick off a private player. Hopefully, such a player can be design house in 15-20 years. Similarly, ADA is interested in privatization because their designs gets marred by many deficiencies of HAL's execution. Additionally, HAL is constantly competing with HAL for turf and has undermined ADA's efforts multiple times.

However, in spite of all this, the private players are not hoarding up like many of you think. In this forum and others, people underestimate the enormous capital investments required. Prime land in developed cities, extremely expensive tools, development of human skills. 100-200 fighters does not justify it. That's why nobody came forward for 56 Avro replacements. These investments have to be strategic investments. Such a company must already have existing infrastructure to amortize the cost, current orders to sustain during ramp up and a diversified port-folio of future products to mitigate risks. That is why TASL, Mahindra are front runners. Not every private endeavour is going to be national interests. Given our limited budgets, we should careful on which ones to incentivize. Finally, the country should not think that the private sector will come in and bear fruits within 5-6 years. In this industry, the horizon is 15-20 years.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7982
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 10 Dec 2016 03:12

Philip wrote: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

Isn't it ironical that you say that the "Statements aren't enough" and then post a news link to prove your point :wink: .

By the way, what I posted was not statements but official records that IAF submitted.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Viv S » 10 Dec 2016 06:01

chola wrote:The truth of the matter is we have all the time in the world to allow an indigenous solution to work itself out. There is NO threat scenario for the next two decades at least that requires carrier aircraft as the principal weapon.

All conventional threat scenarios over the next two decades will have the carriers playing a crucial role. The naval response to a conflict with Pakistan or China will come into the form of 'policing' of SLOCs running to Gwadar/Karachi or past Malacca.

There is nothing in the Indian Ocean that the IAF and the IN surface fleet can't handle. Carrier air power is nice to have but not essential to our ability to deal with the Pakis and whatever rump vessels the PLAN can spare for the Indian Ocean.

Any naval blockade of the Pakistani ports will involve positioning a fleet in or near the Gulf of Oman, which places it within strike range of shore-based PAF aircraft.

As for China, the PLAN is inducting 3 x Type 52D destroyers annually. That's a rate of deliveries that is 6 times higher than ours (the P-15B program is scheduled for biennial deliveries). 12 times higher if you include capital ships; 3 x Type 054A annually vs first P-17A in 2023.

So yes, unless the Americans exert adequate pressure in the East, the 'rump' that the PLAN can spare may actually be larger than the whole IN by 2025. And if the Type 001A project remains on schedule, that expeditionary battle group may be centred around an operational aircraft carrier.

Yes, get better western aircraft to replace the Russian crap we're currently forced to use but let not that be an excuse to kill off the NLCA.

It should absolutely not be an excuse to kill off the N-LCA. At its price point, the acquisition of the N-LCA make sense even if its held in reserve (for attrition replacements) and for training.

That still doesn't change the fact that it'll be available no earlier than 2026 (best case), a good half decade after the Vikrant comes online. And that we have only enough fighters to equip one carrier, and even that type (MiG-29K) is of middling technology, that can at hold its own against PLANAF J-15As & PAF F-16s, but no more.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 490
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ashishvikas » 11 Dec 2016 00:14

When asked about the depleting strength of jets, he said besides Rafale, India is going to produce Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas in large numbers.

"The effort is on to increase production lines. The more the number of aircraft we produce, the faster we ramp up the capacity to close the gap created by obsolete and old aircraft," Raha said.

http://www.ptinews.com/news/8173762_Ind ... chief.html

Does it mean approval for 2nd line has been given or on its way ?

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4846
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Neshant » 11 Dec 2016 06:08

Why India is replacing Russian R-73 Close combat air-to-air missile with Israeli Python-5 (and Derby) on LCA-Tejas

Highly reliable sources close to idrw.org have confirmed to us that lack of cooperation from Russia in providing access to its source code and high price demanded in certifying it with Indo-Israeli Multi-Mode Fire control Radar (FCR) was one of the factors in the deal-breaker . IAF and DRDO were also convinced that Israeli Python-5 CCM offered superior performance to R-73 and could provide better integration with LCA-Tejas.

Python-5 offered the off-boresight capability of greater than 90 degrees as compared to 60 degrees on the R-73 . Python-5 features both Lock-on After Launch (LOAL) and Lock on before Launch (LOBL) capability when compared to R-73 which only offered LOBL capabilities . Python-5 also offered improved IRCCM (Infrared counter-countermeasures) as a result of its dual-band Imaging Infra-red seeker.

Image

The Python-5 is currently the most capable AAM in Israel's inventory and one of the most advanced AAMs in the world. As a beyond-visual-range missile, it is capable of "lock-on after launch" (LOAL), and has all-aspect/all-direction (including rearward) attack ability. The missile features an advanced electro-optical imaging infrared seeker (IIR or ImIR) which scans the target area for hostile aircraft, then locks-on for terminal chase. With a total of eighteen control surfaces and careful design, the resulting missile is supposed to be as maneuverable as any other air-to-air missiles with thrust vectoring nozzles.

Length: 310 cm
Span: 64 cm
Diameter: 16 cm
Weight: 105 kg
Guidance: IR + electro-optical imaging
Warhead: 11 kg
Range: >20 km
Speed: Mach 4

Read it all on :
http://idrw.org/india-replacing-russian ... lca-tejas/

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1281
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Gyan » 11 Dec 2016 18:53

As LCA is slowly inducted into service, I had a question for the resident experts of our forum here like Vina, Indra, Maitya about the Payload/MTOW capacity of LCA.

LCA has a wing area of around 413 sq feet and engine power of 52kn/84kn which supposedly gives MTOW of only 13.5 tons. Jaguar on the other hand has wing area of only 260 sq feet, engine power of 45kn/65kn but still has MTOW is 15.7 tons.

Comparing, LCAwith Jaguar as a layperson, I would have thought that LCA would have MTOW of 18-20tons? I am off course assuming that larger wing area and more engine power increases the MTOW. Or does the larger wing area decreases the MTOW? LCA does seem to have extraordinary large wing compared to all other fighter aircraft and did we overdo it?

For instance F-16 has wing area of only 270 sq feet! F-15E with 608 sq feet wing, 140kn/250kn engine power has MTOW of 37-38tons which is 3 times more than LCA. So is the MTOW of LCA under-stated? As far as I know Delta wings are one of the strongest wings and its strength should not be an impediment to higher MTOW???

I know that Jaguar has high wing loading, long take off - landing run but was wondering if LCA can have higher MTOW for ground strike role or buddy buddy refueling role?

Similarly, how come F-16's are supposed to have almost 3 times the combat radius of LCA even though the fuel fraction is poorer than LCA? It seems that supposedly longer range of other combat aircraft is based on their capacity to carry higher external fuel load, hence if LCA MTOW Increases then evidently its relative range compared to other aircraft would also be higher???
Last edited by Gyan on 11 Dec 2016 19:13, edited 3 times in total.

rohiths
BRFite
Posts: 399
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 21:51

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby rohiths » 11 Dec 2016 19:08

Gyan wrote:As LCA is slowly inducted into service, I had a question for the resident experts of our forum here like Vina, Indra, Maitya about the Payload/MTOW capacity of LCA.

LCA has a wing area of around 413 sq feet and engine power of 52kn/84kn which supposedly gives MTOW of only 13.5 tons. Jaguar on the other hand has wing area of only 260 sq feet, engine power of 45kn/65kn but still has MTOW is 15.7 tons. Comparing with Jaguar as a layperson, I would have thought that LCA would have MTOW of 18-20tons? I am off course assuming that larger wing area and more engine power increases the MTOW. Or does the larger wing area decreases the MTOW? LCA does seem to have extraordinary large wing compared to all other fighter aircraft and did we overdo it? For instance F-16 has wing area of only 270 sq feet!

I know that Jaguar has high wing loading, long take off - landing run but was wondering if LCA can have higher MTOW for ground strike role or buddy buddy refueling role?


LCA specs IMHO are underballed when you compare against comparable aircraft. HAL/ADE should come out with standardized specs what everyone reports as opposed to the most conservative specs.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4074
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby chola » 11 Dec 2016 19:11

Viv S wrote:
chola wrote:The truth of the matter is we have all the time in the world to allow an indigenous solution to work itself out. There is NO threat scenario for the next two decades at least that requires carrier aircraft as the principal weapon.

All conventional threat scenarios over the next two decades will have the carriers playing a crucial role. The naval response to a conflict with Pakistan or China will come into the form of 'policing' of SLOCs running to Gwadar/Karachi or past Malacca.

There is nothing in the Indian Ocean that the IAF and the IN surface fleet can't handle. Carrier air power is nice to have but not essential to our ability to deal with the Pakis and whatever rump vessels the PLAN can spare for the Indian Ocean.

Any naval blockade of the Pakistani ports will involve positioning a fleet in or near the Gulf of Oman, which places it within strike range of shore-based PAF aircraft.

As for China, the PLAN is inducting 3 x Type 52D destroyers annually. That's a rate of deliveries that is 6 times higher than ours (the P-15B program is scheduled for biennial deliveries). 12 times higher if you include capital ships; 3 x Type 054A annually vs first P-17A in 2023.

So yes, unless the Americans exert adequate pressure in the East, the 'rump' that the PLAN can spare may actually be larger than the whole IN by 2025. And if the Type 001A project remains on schedule, that expeditionary battle group may be centred around an operational aircraft carrier.

Yes, get better western aircraft to replace the Russian crap we're currently forced to use but let not that be an excuse to kill off the NLCA.

It should absolutely not be an excuse to kill off the N-LCA. At its price point, the acquisition of the N-LCA make sense even if its held in reserve (for attrition replacements) and for training.

That still doesn't change the fact that it'll be available no earlier than 2026 (best case), a good half decade after the Vikrant comes online. And that we have only enough fighters to equip one carrier, and even that type (MiG-29K) is of middling technology, that can at hold its own against PLANAF J-15As & PAF F-16s, but no more.


In a war with the Pakis, the IAF should and need to annihilate the PAF. Using an aircraft carrier against the porkis, who have no chance at all, would provide us no extra advantage but instead provide the pork with an opportunity for a "moral" victory if they can get in a lucky shot.

As for cheen, I understand full well the speed of chini ship construction. (This is a direct result of their rise in the commercial space.) But in comparison to US naval and air assets in BOTH the Western Pacific AND the Indian Ocean, this is barely a dent. The US has SEVENTY 12000-ton CG/DDG's. I was actually being generous to them in saying 20 years. I don't think they will ever place more than a handful of ships in the Indian Ocean to be perfectly honest. Aside from that, it'll take them 20 years to develop a reasonable carrier force and build enough carriers and escorts for a spare carrier strike force to risk in the IOR, again not just against India but also the US forces prepositioned there. The truth is the chini military hasn't fought a war since going state capitalist and a military full of spoiled little emperors from a single-child society makes for pretty shitty warriors.

Now, one thing I commend the chinis on is their persistence in their indigenous programs like the J-10 and WS-10 even though they are inferior by a wide margin to the US, Japanese and South Korean equipment arrayed against them. Some time in the 1990s, they calculated that their chances of war against 1st tier adversaries like Japan and the US are low enough to warrant equipping their armed forces with local items that can be changed and improved internally. The J-10 is in its 4th mark and the WS-10 in its 3rd.

If we had went through a similar exercise in strategic planning in the 1990s (no war with any serious power, only Kargil against a failed terrorist state where practically anything homegrown would gave sufficed), I dare say we would be in our 3rd or 4th marks for the LCA and Kaveri which would be in IAF and IN in the hundreds.

But instead Delhi's penchant for the firangi and the "best" being sold on the market -- just in case we end up fighting with a first-rate military opponent (which incidentally we do NOT have in the TSP and the PRC) -- meant we have spent hard-earn treasure on supporting someone else's industrial base instead of our own.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2197
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Vivek K » 11 Dec 2016 20:44

Well said Chola!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby NRao » 11 Dec 2016 22:04

f we had went through a similar exercise in strategic planning in the 1990s (no war with any serious power, only Kargil against a failed terrorist state where practically anything homegrown would gave sufficed), I dare say we would be in our 3rd or 4th marks for the LCA and Kaveri which would be in IAF and IN in the hundreds.

But instead Delhi's penchant for the firangi and the "best" being sold on the market -- just in case we end up fighting with a first-rate military opponent (which incidentally we do NOT have in the TSP and the PRC) -- meant we have spent hard-earn treasure on supporting someone else's industrial base instead of our own.


I do not think so.

I had said this some time back, as an observation, not based on any data. Now I see a better picture.

A MIC , unless during a running war, especially a long one, cannot be sustained by its own nation. In peace time a MIC needs sustained finance from sources other than its own nation or natural client. Exports are a absolute must.

Also, I doubt a solid effort started on the 90s would have done much for the Kaveri - as a contributory product. Such efforts should have started and been continoud since thf 50s. No break.

Imports are a more complex topic. To some extent they were needed.

All said and done, Modi is doing what should have been done in the 50s. Problem is he is trying to compress the time frame. Too much to expect.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cosmo_R » 11 Dec 2016 22:49

^^^"MOD should go the Brazilian way with HAL: almost completely privatize HAL. Finally, change Indian labour laws. These two actions needs enormous political will. And if there was ever a govt. which could do it, it is Modi sarkaar. ..."


Won't work. Privatization of HAL will be fought tooth and nail by the unions, the retired IAF chappies who see a sinecure disappearing and by the opposition in parliament. Same with the banks.

Once you nationalize, it's Hotel California: you can check out but you can never leave. Forget changing labor laws. Too much political capital to be wasted.

Better to let parts of HAL atrophy and bring in new (greenfield) private venture to take over major requirements. That is what the LM/Boeing/MII initiative is all about. HAL can focus on helicopters and compete with private sector players.

Also, keep AMCA out of HAL

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4481
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 12 Dec 2016 15:56

NRao wrote:
JayS wrote:
:shock:


That is one, and a valid, way to look at it.

However, given it is Modi, I expect he will give that a shot and I for one would jump with glee if he were to achieve even 5-10%.


In next 6yrs we would be $3T economy in absolute numbers. 25% of that is $750B. How on Earth our MIC will have that kind of turnover in next 6yrs..?? Even 5% of GDP would be equal to $150B whereas our entire Defense budget would be at max doubled to $80B in next 6yrs in very optimistic estimates and only a part (aprx 1/3rd I suppose) of which is spent on procurement of new equipment.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7982
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Indranil » 12 Dec 2016 22:40

Cosmo_R wrote:
^^^"MOD should go the Brazilian way with HAL: almost completely privatize HAL. Finally, change Indian labour laws. These two actions needs enormous political will. And if there was ever a govt. which could do it, it is Modi sarkaar. ..."


Won't work. Privatization of HAL will be fought tooth and nail by the unions, the retired IAF chappies who see a sinecure disappearing and by the opposition in parliament. Same with the banks.

Cosmo, so was Embraer before privatization.

tushar_m

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby tushar_m » 13 Dec 2016 09:18

.
India to ask US, Israeli and European companies to bid for AESA Radar tender for LCA Mk 1A

Image

India is set to initiate a major international competition to acquire new age radars for its indigenous combat planes in the coming weeks, the winner of which is likely to gain a strong foothold for future domestic projects.

Sources have told ET that an expression of interest for a new set of AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Mk 1A is set to be floated shortly, with top global aviation firms expected to participate. The government had recently cleared an order for 83 of the LCA Mk 1A jets. The competition would be the largest international contract for AESA radars that are the heart of modern combat jets.

These new radars give much more range and engagement potential to fighters, enabling them to engage targets from a distance without getting detected. AESA radars can track and direct weapons to multiple air and ground targets simultaneously. With India working on an indigenous next generation plane under the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), it is likely that the winning company will have a much larger order book, with the potential number going upwards of 200.

The first Indian Air Force aircraft with AESA radars will be the Jaguar fighter that is being upgraded to the DARIN 3 version. The first Jaguar with the new radar is expected to fly in January. The contract to equip 58 Jaguars with AESA radars had gone to Israel’s ELTA, making it the frontrunner for the LCA Mk 1A project as well. There could, however, also be surprise entries into the Indian competition from the US, with Raytheon, which manufactures the AESA radar for the F/A 18 Super Hornet and the F 16 also showing interest.

While in the past, US firms had limited options to offer to New Delhi, with India now gaining Major Defence Partner status, transfer of sensitive technology and licences have been made easier. The integration of an AESA radar was a key parameter for the Air Force to clear the order for 83 LCA Mk 1A fighters, after years of blocking the indigenous fighter on concerns that it would not be combat worthy. The AESA will give the LCA an edge over similar fighter operating in the region that are equipped with conventional radars.

The LCA project took a minor hit earlier this month when Navy Chief Admiral Sunil Lanbaannounced that the naval version of the fighter is not suitable for aircraft carrier operations, necessitating an international competition for a new range of combat aircraft.


Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4912
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Kartik » 13 Dec 2016 09:46

A new tender !!? At this stage, when the Mk1A design configuration should have been frozen? That's it, we won't see the Mk1A enter service on time either. :x

Soon the Indian media will call this the "mother of all radar deals" and we'll lose 2 years or more in deciding which radar to integrate.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9990
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby sum » 13 Dec 2016 10:17

^^ This should mean that the Uttam will remain a TD project for its lifetime?

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9687
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Yagnasri » 13 Dec 2016 10:30

What the is happening to MII ? Babuoons ensuring it fails only.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20444
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Philip » 13 Dec 2016 10:49

On the subject of babudom,I was discussing the same with a veteran corporate exec,who has had decades of dealing with the MOD/babudom as their co. supplied sev. items to the DRDO,etc. I was discussing the fiasco of "lack of translators" being the reason for a 6 yr. delay in T-90 production.Since his co. once supplied some AV items,he laughed and said,"you and I are worried about timeframes,etc. It doesn't exist in the minds of the establishment and DPSUs.Their prim concern is how much can be levraged out of the big tkt. for themselves..."

The asinine need for a second line,dumping the LCA into oblivion effectively,is the inability of anyone in India top produce the 50 yr. old Yanqui hags (with an overdose of makeup) at the stunning rate of 16-24/yr! When the (55%+) indigenous LCA can't be built by the principal aerospace co. in India faster than 6-12/yr as of now,how will this second line help the IAF? The obvious solution is to acquire more of types already flying and support the LCA to the hilt,setting up a second prod. line of this desi designed fighter.That is the most objective and practical solution,but in the desire to be a ":world player",certain interests are plumping for a marriage with the US and as O'Bomber said."to prise open the Indian market"!

prashanth
BRFite
Posts: 519
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Location: Barad- dyr

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby prashanth » 13 Dec 2016 11:02

sum wrote:^^ This should mean that the Uttam will remain a TD project for its lifetime?


Sum avare, this is my (layman's) interpretation.
China is getting aggressive across the border in Tibet and GOI has to reply back with same posturing. This cannot happen unless you have fully equipped and well oiled military. As it is, IAF is straining with depleting squadron strength. Raflale deal is downsized. MMR is not performing up to IAF's expectations and uttam is nowhere in sight. This might have led to quick decision by GOI to use imported AESA radars. Probably GOI now thinks that HAL should make multiple copies of the latest SP configuration, with imported AESA and get LCA inducted to IAF in large numbers. Cant fault them. Same reasoning for M777 howitzer deal. We jingoes might yearn for 100% Indian LCA, but the MOD/GOI have to take realities into account.

A Deshmukh
BRFite
Posts: 288
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:24

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby A Deshmukh » 13 Dec 2016 11:15

AESA tender for Mk 1A is disturbing.
Wasnt the design and configuration a done deal?
What is the timeframe now for bidding, evaluating, contracting and supplying the AESA radars... will it disturb the Mk1A timelines.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9990
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby sum » 13 Dec 2016 11:24

prashanth wrote:
sum wrote:^^ This should mean that the Uttam will remain a TD project for its lifetime?


Sum avare, this is my (layman's) interpretation.
China is getting aggressive across the border in Tibet and GOI has to reply back with same posturing. This cannot happen unless you have fully equipped and well oiled military. As it is, IAF is straining with depleting squadron strength. Raflale deal is downsized. MMR is not performing up to IAF's expectations and uttam is nowhere in sight. This might have led to quick decision by GOI to use imported AESA radars. Probably GOI now thinks that HAL should make multiple copies of the latest SP configuration, with imported AESA and get LCA inducted to IAF in large numbers. Cant fault them. Same reasoning for M777 howitzer deal. We jingoes might yearn for 100% Indian LCA, but the MOD/GOI have to take realities into account.

Agree and definitely do not believe that it should be held up since by all reports, the Uttam/MMR are in deep doo-doo and nowehere close to coming online anytime soon


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests