Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Naval LCA - News and Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17799
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 15 Dec 2016 07:22

From what the report is stating , IN is keen to acquire a twin engine fighter.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4716
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 15 Dec 2016 08:13

Philip wrote:The US is steadily testing naval UCAVs and even the plagued JSF ,now threatened by the Donald,will be in some degree of service with the USN/USMC.

The naval UCAV program (UCLASS) has been deferred until further notice. Its not entering service before 2030. The 'plagued' F-35 is in the final lap to naval IOC and isn't going to be affected by the change in administration. Trump & Mattis will receive proper (i.e non-tabloid) briefings when they take office.

barring the naval Rafale and Chinese clones of the SU-33,MIG-29K production for the RuN and maybe a few more for the IN,there are no new naval fighters on the horizon.

Super Hornet, MiG-29K, Rafale M, F-35B, F-35C available right now. Plus Sea Gripen by 2025 (currently in dev. for Brazil). That's plenty I'd say.

Any naval version of the T-50/FGFA will likely arrive only by 2025 after the first T-50 sqds start arriving sometime around 2020.

First FGFA squadrons will come around 2025-26. Naval version will come no earlier than 2030 (and even that'll need Indian funding).

The single-engined JSF is going to be a leap of faith into the future.Why additional late model SHs are still being acquired by those who operate them.

To keep the factory line at St. Louis from shutting down and consequent job losses. (Same reason why the Su-30M2, Su-30SM & MiG-35 have been ordered despite the more capable Su-35 being available.)

The 2017 US defence budget passed last week includes funding for 22 naval fighters; 16 x F-35B + 4 x F-35C + 2 x SH.

For a long time I've asked the Q why a "stealth" version of the LCA cannot be developed since we've made much progress with the tech developed for it. A stealth LCA with a TVC engine such as the EJ or even an Ru one, could be a winner both for the IAF and IN. It would have much enhanced capability than the Mk-1 ,be a cost-effective acquisition built at home ,and also save us much development time and costs before we embark upon the AMCA ,which should have extra features than the FGFA/T-50 that the IAF is likely to start operating post 2020+

Your question has been asked and answered before. No 'stealth' version of any fighter jet is possible; stealth has to designed in at inception. A 'silent' F-15SE type modification is possible but not on a small aircraft like the Tejas. There isn't enough space for a conformal weapons pod and even if there was it would result in too much drag anyway. Nor can a canted twin-tail be integrated without at total redesign of the airframe. Long story short, its not possible. Period.

Rishi Verma
BRFite
Posts: 702
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Rishi Verma » 15 Dec 2016 08:23

Title of the thread is irrelevant and discussions are anything but... when Philip mindlessly starts promoting Russian maal because it was designed during his fav era of communism it's time to ib4tl

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2998
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 15 Dec 2016 22:01

"Navy should take N-LCA even if it can take off with 1.5-2 T load from Aircraft carrier ( the airforce variant can take with max 3.5T ).

Even with 2 T payload it can carry all the A2A missile or a combination of A2A missile and Antiship missile like Harpooon/Kh-35U

Even if IN accepts 12 aircraft of Naval Tejas , it will give the ADA designer to work out pre and post production deployment issue , maintenance routine , effect on aircraft operating on salty humid sea environment , these are experiences and fixes that can only happen once Tejas enters navy"

Makes sense but rationally Lanba would/should argue that the funds not come out of its opex/capex budget. He's got too many fires to put out to invest scarce resources in a science project. Give him extra R&D money and he'll be glad to help the NLCA along.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4932
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 14 Feb 2017 13:11

Feast your eyes:

Image

Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17799
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 14 Feb 2017 13:14

I can see Derby and R-73

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby JayS » 14 Feb 2017 14:31

Livefist ‏@livefist · 13m13 minutes ago
The LCA Navy may not be a commercially produced plane, says @ManoharParrikar. #AeroIndia2017


Hope he is wrong. But with MiG29K, new jet coming, even NAMCA would find it hard to fit in, let alone NLCA. It doesn't matter now if NLCA is not commercially produced. But I hope its operationalized nonetheless.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 738
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Khalsa » 14 Feb 2017 14:36

What a gorgeous aircraft.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4932
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 15 Feb 2017 00:25

Interesting canopy and chin on LCA Navy Mk2.
Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3209
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 15 Feb 2017 00:28

Wow, this rendering is quite different from the one we saw at the last Aero India..I hope we get to see a better CAD model and a display model as well..

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 836
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Zynda » 15 Feb 2017 01:14

Has the landing gear strut length increased in Mk.2 or is it a bad illustration?

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13541
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Karan M » 15 Feb 2017 01:19

A bad illustration made off of some wireframe or CAD image given to the brochure guys would be my guess..

ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 222
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby ragupta » 15 Feb 2017 22:07

JayS wrote:Livefist ‏@livefist · 13m13 minutes ago
The LCA Navy may not be a commercially produced plane, says @ManoharParrikar. #AeroIndia2017


Hope he is wrong. But with MiG29K, new jet coming, even NAMCA would find it hard to fit in, let alone NLCA. It doesn't matter now if NLCA is not commercially produced. But I hope its operationalized nonetheless.


Why not make it a trainer aircraft for navy?

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5926
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Prasad » 15 Feb 2017 23:54

A quick add to other stuff about the LCAN. Cmd Balaji also brought up something interesting. LCAN takeoff is automated after pilot sets the thrust and takes over only after clearing the ramp. Guess where this will be used afterward.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 836
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Zynda » 16 Feb 2017 00:28

Any kind of carrier assisted take off. Dunno if F-14 used it, but F-18 has automated take off from carrier catapult as well.

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1548
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby nirav » 16 Feb 2017 04:25

He means UCAVs.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 836
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Zynda » 16 Feb 2017 07:19

Saar, this is used currently in F-18 Hornet. The pilot doesn't need to touch the throttle until the aircraft clears the carrier deck. Please watch some videos on Youtube. There is a handle kind of thing on upper right of the cockpit where the pilot can hold...like Prasad said, he just puts the thrust on AB or Mil and sits back and enjoys the ride until airborne. The technology could come useful for UCAVs as well...no doubt about it.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15695
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 16 Feb 2017 12:43

Stealth LCA for MK-2+ stage,since there was supposed to be some serious redesigning of the bird for MK-2. Not that it could be a completely steralth bird like the others under dev. flying now,but it could incorporate sev. improvements.

The NLCA may 'look good",but doe sit perform as expected? the answer from the IN is a categorical NO. Latest news about the PLAN CVs. Its next CV will be launched later this yr. ,almost identical to the Lioning,but with a modified flight deck. larger future CVs are in the offing. On land,two launching systems are under dev. Std. cats plus a PRC EMALS too.

In the light of this future "factor" from the PLAN,which the IN will have to counter apart from the exg. PLAN fighters (Flankers clones),underperforming NLCAs will be vastly outclassed. In making up numbers for the IAF it however has much greater relevance in replacing at v.affordable cost over 200 retiring MIG types.It was admitted in a video report that the aircraft was "designed in the 90s" and does not match other naval aircraft flying. Therefore, I seriously doubt that the NLCA in current or even with a slightly more powerful engine,will do the biz. of the IN's future expectations.as a naval strike fighter for the IN's regular carriers. If the amphib design does incorporate a ski-jump as in the Spanish ones,then the 4 amphibs could carry NLCAs for support of amphib ops as well as fleet defence. Since the amphibs/amphib ops will be supported by the larger Vik-A and new Vikrant operating 29Ks,the IN could field about 40+ NLCAs along with heavy assault/attack helos like KA-52s for the amphibs. Building the amphibs will also take around a decade,so by then the NLCA should've also materialised post 2020,able to operate from the first two amphibs. If the money is there,development and production stabilised, and the JSF-B costs come down as is being touted,the outside operating JSFs from the amphibs should be seriously looked at.

That's why the IN has opened the doors for more capable twin-engined birds for the larger CVs These could range from Rafales, F-18s,JSFs,upgraded MIG-29/35s,naval Flankers too(the IAF is upgrading almost all MKIs with AESA radars and new engines) and the naval FGFA. Our future large CV whose design hasn't even been finished,still on the drawing board,will take a min. of at least a decade + before it enters service perhaps around 2030. The powerplant too is under debate,GT or nuclear.Therefore,if it appears around 2030,by which time the naval FGFA should have been in service with the RuN,it may be a good option especially if the FGFA is also ins ervice with the IAF,making prod.,support,training,etc. common.Russia frankly does not need Indian money to develop the naval variant,as it has plans for larger carriers for its own navy with stealth birds ,after the top priority of the day,the current nuclear sub programmes are in their final stages.

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54678
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 16 Feb 2017 13:54

at any cost the NLCA must be developed until atleast the flight and structural characteristics are refined and data bank built up how to build naval planes. later when we build naval fighters and UCAVs in volume this data bank will be priceless. keep a couple of them on our carriers always a test vehicles to try new things, qualify equipment and test reliability.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5926
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Prasad » 16 Feb 2017 14:02

Balaji sir was very confident yesterday. They're building towards the Mk2 steadily. Including developing changes for CATOBAR operations for IAC2 in parallel to STOBAR. And they've got raw materials for next set of prototypes to save time. Doesn't look like a program running short of gas IMO.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 372
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Gyan » 16 Feb 2017 14:37

I think that 6 Naval LCA Mark-1 should still be procured, in twin seater version and can be used as trainers till Mk-2 Single seaters start rolling out.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2113
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby arshyam » 16 Feb 2017 20:13

Prasad wrote:Including developing changes for CATOBAR operations for IAC2 in parallel to STOBAR.

Yes - I heard this from the ADA guy manning the aircraft carrier display. I asked him about modifications to the NLCA structure for CATOBAR and he said it would mostly be minimal to support the catapult attachment in the wheel. He said the bigger issue was that of landing and arrestor hook, but they are already doing that for the STOBAR version anyway. Overall, without appearing to be too nosy, I got the impression that NLCA (Mk 1/2) is definitely on.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 836
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Zynda » 16 Feb 2017 20:17

Nirav saar, please check out this Youtube video of F-18 Taking off. Note that pilot has his right arm on a handle until take-off.


Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1410
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Sid » 16 Feb 2017 20:33

Since MK2 is still in its infancy, is it not possible to completely go for a new design (twin engine, heavy weight)?

Any new aircraft induction will anyway take 7-8 years ( 3-4 years selection + 3 yrs for first delivery after contract signing) if Navy is lucky.

Given the maturity level of HAL, new program should be headed by Navy, with HAL being the prime designer/contractor + ADA working on proving critical new technologies on NLCA.

If we reorient ourself now, then IAF will also jump in on this new opportunity.

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1548
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby nirav » 16 Feb 2017 21:00

Zynda ji,
Thanks for posting the vid.Glad NLCA features a similar capability.

@Sid,

I agree.
The rationale for LCA in the 80s was primarily for the Air force looking to replace it's MiG21s with a 4th generation light fighter.

In the combat mix for AF, LCA will fit the light role admirably and with the mk2, start getting some medium capabilities too.

The navy meanwhile doesn't necessarily have to be on the light bandwagon.
The NLCA mk2 which hasn't flown yet would take a decade at the minimum to equip INs carriers.
It's area of operations might be curtailed and restricted to the Arabian sea @ what the pakis can send over the sea.

Its capability to establish air superiority over Chinese carrier borne flankers in the bay of Bengal or farther@ Malacca straits would be suspect.

I think a twin engine NLCA might be better suited to deal with the threats it will go up against in the timelines the jet is expected to be operational.
The project is already delayed, a further delay might not be that bad if it brings a class altering capability to the navy.

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby JayS » 16 Feb 2017 21:07

Sid wrote:Since MK2 is still in its infancy, is it not possible to completely go for a new design (twin engine, heavy weight)?

Any new aircraft induction will anyway take 7-8 years ( 3-4 years selection + 3 yrs for first delivery after contract signing) if Navy is lucky.

Given the maturity level of HAL, new program should be headed by Navy, with HAL being the prime designer/contractor + ADA working on proving critical new technologies on NLCA.

If we reorient ourself now, then IAF will also jump in on this new opportunity.


one thing at a time sir. Besides we will have N-AMCA if you add 2-3yrs to the dev effort of new twin engine Naval LCA.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5926
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Prasad » 16 Feb 2017 21:11

arshyam wrote:
Prasad wrote:Including developing changes for CATOBAR operations for IAC2 in parallel to STOBAR.

Yes - I heard this from the ADA guy manning the aircraft carrier display. I asked him about modifications to the NLCA structure for CATOBAR and he said it would mostly be minimal to support the catapult attachment in the wheel. He said the bigger issue was that of landing and arrestor hook, but they are already doing that for the STOBAR version anyway. Overall, without appearing to be too nosy, I got the impression that NLCA (Mk 1/2) is definitely on.

Cmde Balaji said that like the tail-hook necessitates strengthening in the rear to decelerate the plane, the front will also have to see a similar strengthening for the catapult. Didn't mention how much though. Nobrainer really but degree (and complexity+testing) of change will of course dictate timelines.

With the changes leading to the Mk2, doesn't it already come just below the lower end of medium weight?

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1410
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Sid » 16 Feb 2017 21:51

JayS ji, I am not advocating a NLCA with two engines. There is a precedence of similar decisions taken by USN, which changed programs midway when they realize that thing is not gonna workout in long term. Navy always looks for platforms with long endurance.

HAL in the past 5 years have demonstrate that they have the skillsets to move a system from concept to prototype in a very short timespan. They are as good as SAAB when it comes to being a system integrator.

Give them the lead position in AMCA/new-design, let them produce mockups and prototypes which they are already familiar with.

I think we have all the right pieces in this puzzle, just a matter of placing them correctly.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5394
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby disha » 17 Feb 2017 01:57

NLCA Mk2 should be compared with Sea Harrier and Mig 29k. Mig29k is a twin engined and a combat radius of 500 NM (on internal fuel)* multi-role fighter, while the Sea Harrier was of similar combat radius but subsonic and primarily for reconnaissance and attack.

Given that., what role NLCA Mk2 will fit in?

*All numbers rounded off.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4932
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 17 Feb 2017 04:23

Some false canard being spread that LCA Mk2 is being dumped because IAC2 is going to be CATOBAR. That's idiotic because CATs compensate for the lack of thrust of an aircraft to accelarate to take off speeds at MTOW on its own power.

The real questions are:
1. Does the Navy deem that LCA's Mk2's payload and hangtime at MTOW is adequate, or not?
2. What does IN intend to do with its Mig-29Ks?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4651
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 17 Feb 2017 04:43

Indranil wrote:Some false canard being spread that LCA Mk2 is being dumped because IAC2 is going to be CATOBAR. That's idiotic because CATs compensate for the lack of thrust of an aircraft to accelarate to take off speeds at MTOW on its own power.

The real questions are:
1. Does the Navy deem that LCA's Mk2's payload and hangtime at MTOW is adequate, or not?
2. What does IN intend to do with its Mig-29Ks?
I think this is what has happened.

The IN expected some progress on NLCA MK1 PT towards key things like arrested recovery, lighter landing gear and some other improvements around aerodynamics specifically for carrier operations based on the Mk1 PT. It did not see the urgency in ADA to address IN issues. It saw the IN addressing IAF priorities, which in all fairness will help the IN frame also. It specifically did not see urgency to build the IN Mk2, the higher thurst version IN would need for operations. It is a classic case of a vendor (ADA) over promising and under deliver.

The mig29K's issues are well documented. They cannot rely on a purely Russian craft, even if they do see eventual progress in its downtime numbers. My information and analysis is there has been a strategic decision made in the forces across the board to NOT buy Russian and diversify, wherever they can as a first choice. ADA has somewhat lost credibility as far as the IN is concerned, recoverable but lost for now. The IN is also hedging its bets on IAC2 being a possible CATOBAR. So, combine all these things together now. Low availability rates of Mig29K, high breakdown rates to any carrier craft, poor visibility into future of NLCA, possible future CATOBAR carrier and last but not the least there is some speculation that there is a way to carry more AC on the two envisioned carriers to be in ops for next decade and the result is a new RFP. Most likely a western AC. F18 or Rafale. IMO.

DrRatnadip
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 9
Joined: 31 Dec 2016 00:40

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby DrRatnadip » 17 Feb 2017 23:48

JayS wrote:Livefist ‏@livefist · 13m13 minutes ago
The LCA Navy may not be a commercially produced plane, says @ManoharParrikar. #AeroIndia2017


Hope he is wrong. But with MiG29K, new jet coming, even NAMCA would find it hard to fit in, let alone NLCA. It doesn't matter now if NLCA is not commercially produced. But I hope its operationalized nonetheless.

This kind of statements will demoralise guys working hard on this beauty..Is it possible that navy buys at least 50 of NLCA base them on land and use them for point defence of important naval instalations. Ability to land on carriers will be a plus point . Buying NLCA in respectable numbers will boost confidence of our reserchers and it will help rectifying snags. Producing only few prototypes of NLCA may not be sufficient to gain useful experience required to produce naval AMCA.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby srin » 18 Feb 2017 10:29

JayS wrote:Livefist ‏@livefist · 13m13 minutes ago
The LCA Navy may not be a commercially produced plane, says @ManoharParrikar. #AeroIndia2017


Hope he is wrong. But with MiG29K, new jet coming, even NAMCA would find it hard to fit in, let alone NLCA. It doesn't matter now if NLCA is not commercially produced. But I hope its operationalized nonetheless.


Not what MP said. LCA Navy Mk1 won't be commercially produced is what he said. Navy really wants 2-engine plane and this is a step towards that. Navy is financing LCA production. But LCA with more powerful engine - it appeared he didn't dismiss it out of hand.
Please watch the press conf below from 13:22 onwards.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8516
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 18 Feb 2017 11:13

Gyan wrote:I think that 6 Naval LCA Mark-1 should still be procured, in twin seater version and can be used as trainers till Mk-2 Single seaters start rolling out.


On the other why not use them as Land based Fighters, afterall somedy the Jaguar-IM aircraft have to retired, with Navalised LCA MK-1A with AESA radar and drop tanks and 1 ASM missile, 2 squadrons will be useful based out of Gujarat etc., Mig29K can be dedicated for INS Vikram Aditya.

The LCA navy team can also learn how to design Naval fighters, they can have limited payload for Aircraft carrier use but primarily kept as a Land based fighters.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15082
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 18 Feb 2017 11:40

Aditya_V wrote:
Gyan wrote:I think that 6 Naval LCA Mark-1 should still be procured, in twin seater version and can be used as trainers till Mk-2 Single seaters start rolling out.


On the other why not use them as Land based Fighters, afterall somedy the Jaguar-IM aircraft have to retired, with Navalised LCA MK-1A with AESA radar and drop tanks and 1 ASM missile, 2 squadrons will be useful based out of Gujarat etc., Mig29K can be dedicated for INS Vikram Aditya.

The LCA navy team can also learn how to design Naval fighters, they can have limited payload for Aircraft carrier use but primarily kept as a Land based fighters.


I thought I just heard Parrikar state that the navy will fund the MK2, but not commercialize it. He went on to state that the process would provide a good data set. Guess for the next naval air craft venture. Perhaps the AMCA, which the navy joined in 2009 or so (not funded).

Marten
BRFite
Posts: 851
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Marten » 19 Feb 2017 13:59

What is really tragic is that the Saab folks are more than happy to bid for the upcoming Naval carrier aircraft program while we sit around criticizing the bird on hand. Remember this, the Swedes do NOT have either an aircraft carrier or any experience flying a navalized version even of a wooden biplane. However, this doesn't stop them from bidding -- do you know where this optimism stems from? From the lack of Indian commitment to its own program. The IN is doing its very best, and regardless of whether Mk1 LCAN was due or not, one must acknowledge the outstanding, stellar, and simply awesome efforts of Mao Sir. Take a bow Sir.
PS: There will be further chaos introduced to the system once Cmde Balaji retires. Would be a blow to many if they do not offer an extension to him. I seriously hope Saraswat has his say and ensures the extension is offered, and on time.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3828
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Neshant » 19 Feb 2017 14:06

Marten wrote:What is really tragic is that the Saab folks are more than happy to bid for the upcoming Naval carrier aircraft program while we sit around criticizing the bird on hand. Remember this, the Swedes do NOT have either an aircraft carrier or any experience flying a navalized version even of a wooden biplane. However, this doesn't stop them from bidding -- do you know where this optimism stems from? From the lack of Indian commitment to its own program.


More & more it looks like a glorified overseas shopping spree.

Just about any reasoning is given to spend billions of dollars to buy foreign planes.

Personally i think its an opportunity for an overseas holiday & junketting trip for a lot of these babuz pushing to buy foreign planes.

The Chairman of HAL raised a good point. Why is the navy eagerly rushing out for the Gripen when its even further behind the nLCA in proving itself as a carrier based platform.
Last edited by Neshant on 19 Feb 2017 15:21, edited 1 time in total.

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby JayS » 19 Feb 2017 14:51

So as per ADA folks,

- NLCA MK1 LG is overweight by 800kg as compared to the IAF version.
- the current NLCA MK1 has MTOW of 12 ton. Which means its weapons load is 12-(9.8+0.8) = 1.4 tons.
- not all 800kg gonna be shaved off from overweight LG in one step, but in two steps. First step is NP-3 and second step is MK2 prototype (NP4 may be)
- 3rd NLCA prototype is in making and we should see it fly in some time (can't remember what they said, but 1-1.5yr I think).
- A guy who was working in program mgmt team of LCA MK1, said HAL is quite confident on 800kg weight saving and its very much possible. He said, this is totally HAL's initiative.
- NLCA MK2 will have MTOW = 16-16.5 tons. So if we take into account 0.8 ton weight saving on LG, Some more saving through HAL's optimization on airframe, (lets consider half of what is claimed as possible =) 0.4 ton, and weight increase due to bigger airframe and higher internal fuel ~1 ton, we are looking at the fully loaded weight of ((9.8 + 0.8 ) - 0.8 - 0.4 + 1.0) = 10.4, lets say 11 ton to be on the conservative side. Still NLCA MK2 will have about 5tons of weapons load at MTOW. That's equal to what MiG-29K can carry as per wiki. We are seeing at a very potent bird here, if ADA/HAL can actually achieve their claims.
- The design G load for arrested hook it 4.5G.
- As one can easily guess, CATO load are around 2.5-3G, I am told ADA don't really see it as a big challenge per se. But they need catapult data to start working on CATO design.

In general I saw that ADA folks were quite aware of overall situation and are pragmatic. Zero marketing BS. I can;t imagine how many times they would have been asked this one question "Why Navy rejected LCA?" :roll:

PS: What I realised is sometimes what you are being told at those booths in AI can be opinions, half-baked truth or even utter bullshit sometimes. So take all this with pinch of salt. No need to fight over it. I am pretty sure some other visitors were told something else on the same booth by some other ADA person.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3828
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Neshant » 19 Feb 2017 15:30

Still NLCA MK2 will have about 5tons of weapons load at MTOW. That's equal to what MiG-29K can carry as per wiki.


Is it realistic for a single engine plane to do a short take off with a 5 ton load?
I would think not just take off but landing with such a heavy load would be an issue.

The navy should slightly adjust the intended role for the nLCA keeping in mind single engine aircraft have advantages & disadvantages vis-a-vis twin engine aircraft.

Give the role of CAP and recon to the nLCA, the role of fighter and attack can be assigned more so to the Mig-29K. Both can do each other's mission if need be but use the strategy which maximizes advantages of each plane. Accordingly, relax the payload requirement for the nLCA a little.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15082
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 19 Feb 2017 15:41

As one can easily guess, CATO load are around 2.5-3G, I am told ADA don't really see it as a big challenge per se. But they need catapult data to start working on CATO design.


Q:

First were any dates mentioned? When do they think the weight would be reduced. All 800 lbs.

Second, the NLCA was meant for ski jumps. Any idea if it can be used on a CAT? I did notice you alluded to it, but I have never heard of the NLCA being associated with a CAT, thus the question.

Third, just an observation, a lot still is TBD. Is that your observation too, having actually talked to them?

Very interesting you mention ADA and HAL in the same post.

Thx.
Last edited by NRao on 19 Feb 2017 15:59, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JayS, Neela, prasannasimha, Sagrawal, srinebula and 48 guests