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.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5767
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby vina » 18 Mar 2017 17:49

brar_w wrote:
Singha wrote:the 404 engine also clocks millions of hours on the F18A/B/C/D still in USMC service and retired from USN service. canadians and swiss use it too.

it was a engine designed for naval use from the outset for F18A hence might feature corrosion resistant design.


Long list of single and twin engine types operating the F-404..Gripen A/B/C/D, T/F/A-50 and unmanned aircraft. The next US Navy trainer that replaces the T-45 will also be a single engined aircraft fitted with the F/404.


The F414- INS6 , the single engine , upgrated version of the F414 would have have seen some development difficulties, failures in testing and the Navy got cold feet.

Dont worry. This will work itself out. With the horrors of the Mig 29 K (Kakoose) (structure, radar, engines etc) that entire fleet is soon going for quick retirement and is threatened. This is the usual Natashas doing the rounds of planting stories in the media , leaking selective info, etc (same story like Arjun), hoping to kill the product before it comes out. Too bad, aint going to happen. We should do our part in highlighting what sort of Kakoose the Mig 29K is , so that it can't be swept under the carpet.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5087
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 18 Mar 2017 21:00

Vivek K wrote:Reminiscent of the torsion bars failing on the Arjun (sic) or the Renk Gearbox failing (later found to have been tampered with). So the true colors of the IN coming out.

SO I guess why don't we fire all these incompetent admirals and generals and hire foreigners? Gora good, SDRE bad!

Be very careful of how you address our armed forces here. You are very thin ice here. I have repeatedly reminded you about this here.

For your knowledge, nobody has shown more support to LCA than the NAVY. Even now Navy knows and continues to support the development of Naval LCA and Naval Mk2 with money, infrastructure and personnel. What the CNS said was taken out of context and blown out of proportion by the sensationalist media. LCA Navy Mk1 is underpowered. IN cannot afford to have it on Vikram or Vikrant. This has been known from 2005. And to be frank LCA Navy Mk2 will not be adequate as well. But Navy understands that these are stepping stones and has supported the program unabated since 2005 when it had no backers.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1558
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 18 Mar 2017 21:11

" And to be frank LCA Navy Mk2 will not be adequate as well" --- you need to now show some data to back that up!

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1558
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 18 Mar 2017 21:16

Though I respect your advice and perspective - do you give the same advice to certain posters that ad-infinitum criticize Indian products and unabashedly worship Russian junk?

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2785
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 18 Mar 2017 21:23

Vivek: Onlee valued posters get rebuked. Useless posters get banned or are ignored. You are in the former. Take it as good advice from the admin and move on :)

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5087
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 18 Mar 2017 22:16

Vivek K wrote:" And to be frank LCA Navy Mk2 will not be adequate as well" --- you need to now show some data to back that up!

What kind of data do you want?

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 845
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby RKumar » 19 Mar 2017 00:20

^why do you think NLCA-2 will be short on expectation, I agree on mk1 but for mk2 ... hmmm not sure. I know IN wants twin engine fighter but it was clear since 10 years, so why suddenly this heart change. Especially when mk1 performed better then expected during last year tests. Unless newer tests throw up some surprises, which are not in open source.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2981
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby srai » 19 Mar 2017 06:29

Indranil wrote:
Vivek K wrote:" And to be frank LCA Navy Mk2 will not be adequate as well" --- you need to now show some data to back that up!

What kind of data do you want?


Part of the problem is how the communication is released to the media by the armed forces brass (or some unnamed officials). Some (on a podium with a larger-reach) in the media seem to amplify the negatives while disregarding the follow-on positive statements. Statements are too brief and seem pretty blunt. Then the forces don't correct all the mis-information that some section of the media keep blabbering on about. Who knows what sort of hidden agenda they have in their relationship with foreign vested interests. Public sector, like DRDO labs and HAL, who don't have official PR representatives remain mum muttering to themselves "our work will show for itself".

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5087
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 19 Mar 2017 06:33

RKumar wrote:^why do you think NLCA-2 will be short on expectation, I agree on mk1 but for mk2 ... hmmm not sure. I know IN wants twin engine fighter but it was clear since 10 years, so why suddenly this heart change. Especially when mk1 performed better then expected during last year tests. Unless newer tests throw up some surprises, which are not in open source.


The speed of development is slow, because of a variety of reasons. But until now, all surprises have been good surprises. IN hasn't had a change of mind/heart. I have explained this before. NLCA Mk1 was never meant to be operationalized. NLCA Mk2 was to operationalized in conjunction with the Mig-29K. A single engine bird, launched by STOBAR will be impaired in reach and payload. There is no running around that point. But what they are learning with NLCA Mk1 and Mk2 is absolutely needed to develop a twin engine fighter, and nobody else will provide this knowledge. At the moment IN doesn't care for 5th generation AMCA. They would take a twin engine LCA++ happily.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3927
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Neshant » 20 Mar 2017 02:27

What the IN actually wants for its carriers is a twin engine plane.
Unless they have a different role for the MK2 in mind, they should state the above clearly.
Otherwise a whole lot of time, energy & investments will be made in getting MK2 carrier worthy only to find yet another rejection from the navy awaits.

Carrier MK2's role should be CAP, Recon, ELINT, EW and Escort.

Strike can be left to Mig-29K which requires load carrying capasity.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 845
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby RKumar » 20 Mar 2017 02:45

Well if IN want only twin engine fighter then drop LCA mk2 and move the target directly to AMCA. As IAF is happy with mk1A, let's put all our energy to Naval AMCA and fine tune it for IAF. If LCA mk2 is not active duty deployed on vikrant then there is zero gain. We can learn whatever is required from NLCA mk1 with positive surprises and adjust our plans accordingly.

I think it's game over for Saab from all sides. Let's see what Rafael project can offer on top of NLCA experience.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6015
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Prasad » 20 Mar 2017 10:52

The Navy understood that to get to the twin engined naval fighter, the lca navy is a stepping stone. Finis.

Rishi Verma
BRFite
Posts: 893
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Rishi Verma » 20 Mar 2017 11:32

vina wrote:....do our part in highlighting what sort of Kakoose the Mig 29K is , so that it can't be swept under the carpet.


+1008...but

Only reason I am not worried about Philip and other Russo-philes on BRF is that whatever they say here has no bearing in real world. And same applies to us, If we do our part in highlighting the russkies milking us with sub-standard crap... It won't matter much in the real world yet we should watch them and besides any tasty bites I get, I send it straight to the PMO office :))

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1603
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby JayS » 20 Mar 2017 12:37

Prasad wrote:The Navy understood that to get to the twin engined naval fighter, the lca navy is a stepping stone. Finis.

+ 1.

IN should have asked for twin engine MK2 right from the starting, because its no brainer to prefer twin jet for Naval use. I wonder why they didn't do that. To me it doesn't look like Navy always wanted twin jet engine (just saying, not that you imply that). Else there was no logic in asking for MK2 version. All (or most of it at least) of the Carrier compatibility TD could have been done on MK1. To me IN was seriously interested in single engine NLCA until recently. In fact they might still buy MK2 and put it on our ACs. There is a possibility (Let's not forget IN is still paying 25% for the 2nd LCA line apart from a significant amount for NLCA MK1/2). But saying IN never really wanted single engine jet or IN thought single engine is not reliable enough for carrier operation is little indigestible to me. Neither is there any real visibility of IN on AMCA. So far I have seen only one mention in public domain that IN is interested. And there is no N-AMCA. If IN wants 5th Gen twin jet 20-30 yrs down the line they need to get on board right now. This particular emphasize on twin jet seems to be recent one and must have originated more from the failure of MiG-29 rather than timelines of NLCA.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5767
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby vina » 20 Mar 2017 13:24

JayS wrote:This particular emphasize on twin jet seems to be recent one and must have originated more from the failure of MiG-29 rather than timelines of NLCA.


Yeah. Basically the Navy guys must be told that after paying what close to $3b for a "free" burned out hulk of a rust bucket (oops aircraft carrier called Admiral Gorshkov) with the catch being that with the "free carrier", we buy out the Mig 29 K(Kakkoose) , which got delivered a few years BEFORE the rust bucket, and if the Mig29K still aren't up to scratch , the Govt needs to level with the Navy and tell the following.

1. You bought that lump of useless turds called Mig29K. FIX them. Don't come around asking for money to buy substitutes
2. And NO. All you can get is the N-LCA. Make it work. That and the Mig29 K , if you manage to fix them is ALL you are going to get

So wake up and smell the coffee.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15847
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 20 Mar 2017 14:08

Smell the coffee,the IN doesn't want the sub-std. NLCA which simply isn't good enough.In fact,any single-engined fighter will be inadequate for maritime warfare post 2020. The range of supersonic stand-off missiles has dramatically increased ,China is also developing 300KM+ anti-ship missiles apart from western efforts. China is also developing a V.LR AAM with a range of a few hundreds of Kms. Thus future carrier strike aircraft have to be larger to carry a greater load of munitions,more sophisticated missiles and deliver them at far greater ranges than that of the NLCA,underpowered which means a far lighter payload,range,endurance ,etc.

The Vik-A is a beautiful warship,well worth the cost ($2.3B) when compared with similar sized carriers costing twice as much,and far smaller warships today like the P_15B DDGs which cost over $!B apiece.. By no means is it a rust-bucket. It has been completely rebuilt as good as a new carrier.When the balloon next goes up,just watch it perform against the Pakis. The issue of the MIG-29Ks must be sorted out by the OEM,otherwise penalise it! Surely there are in the agreement clauses that protect the buyer.Here are detailsfrom the IN's own website.
https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/content/a ... ndian-navy

Some are quick to criticise the Vik-Acquisition for the well-known reasons of its transformation from a cruiser-carrier into a genuine AC,but why the deafening silence about our own IAC-1,delivery to have taken place in 2014,whose new timeframe for its induction has been shifted to 2023 (CAG),even though the yard says 2018 and the IN is hopeful of meeting that deadline.That will not include sea trials time,etc. CCS approval was given way back in 1999 and the keel was laid in Feb 2009,8 years ago.In comparison,the Gorshkov/Vik-A deal was signed in 2004 and the carrier inducted 9 years later.IAC-1 is also approx. 5000t lighter than the Vik-A.The final bill could be anywhere in the region of at least $4B+.carrier only,with the aircraft coming free,already delivered. We obtained the 29Ks at a v.resonable cost of only $32M a pop. Compare that cost with that of comparable naval strike birds today.The F-18EF costs a massive $98.3M! You can get 3 MIG_29Ks for the cost of just one F-18EF.

US carrier strike bird debate:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... wins-15670

But coming back to the req. for another naval strike aircraft. The req. is clearly meant for the second carrier,with enough lead time for establishing the aircraft in IN service well in advance,so that there is a seamless integration when the carrier arrives.The CNS has said around "7 years from now". If the aircraft is compatible with the lifts,hangar size,STOBAR launch of the two CVs that we would be operating by then, we could complement the 29Ks with them,The large number,around 60,indicates that they will be used primarily aboard one carrier,which will be IAC-2.Ideally,a stealth bird would be best,with the proven Rafale-M second.The success of the JSF aboard carriers will be known within the next 5 years.Costs of the aircraft will also play a major factor in the acquisition,as equipping a CV as large as planned,75K t,with 60 aircraft,EMALS,N-power possibly too,is going to cost an absolute bomb,anywhere upwards of at least $12B! Right now the priority is getting IAC-1 into service asap,and augmenting the sub fleet,which must be given the highest priority ,not a new naval combat aircraft when the second one is due to arrive at the earliest by 2020+,for which the aircraft are already available.
Last edited by Philip on 20 Mar 2017 14:32, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55620
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 » 20 Mar 2017 14:12

give its rather austere air wing capacity and known issues with 1-engine Mig29k I doubt the vikky can proclaim itself as anything more than a seaward air defence ship for west coast to offload the IAF whose 1000km combat radius flankers would be on duty otherwise.

it is certainly not and never going to be a strike carrier able to push into contested seas and airspaces against the best that land based power can throw at it.

it can also protect the mumbai-aden sea route ships against harpoon attacks by TSPN P3. such attacks would impose costs in terms of insurance rates and having to take a more southernly loopy route.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15847
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 20 Mar 2017 14:41

The Vik-A's MIG-29Ks carry a range of Ru KH ASMs,including the 100KM range KH-31.No idea about the newer 200KM KH-58/59,but BMos-M is destined for it.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6015
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Prasad » 20 Mar 2017 14:44

Philip wrote:Smell the coffee,the IN doesn't want the sub-std. NLCA which simply isn't good enough.In .. blah blah blah


When did the NLCA become sub-standard ? :roll:

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2981
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby srai » 20 Mar 2017 16:30

Vikrant is called Air Defense Carrier (ADS) for a reason ;) NLCA Mk.2 would make a great carrier borne air defense fighter :evil:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15847
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 20 Mar 2017 18:03

The IN said so,doesn't meet the grade and dumped it.Officially.Weight issues,problems with the overweight undercarriage,etc. were raised sometime ago.But the fundamental issue with the LCA programme is overall weight,inadequate for the IAF itself,let alone for naval carrier ops.Even the MK-1A with a more powerful 414 engine requires some fuselage/intake redesign and no one is yet sure whether that will also increase proportionally the overall weight. I think that by making it a "multi-role" bird,jack of all ,has overburdened it with eqpt.In a pure combat fighter role with 2 BVR and 4 SRAAMs,2 underwing/fuselage tanks,plus its cannon,same as on the MIG-21,the aircraft could be a real winner. It's small,has a lot of composites and should be a real menace to incoming enemy aircraft.Other aircraft like Jags,armed advanced trainers,plus GA LCA variants,could take up the GA slack.It's what ahs been suggested for the LCA,to develop sev. variants,each dedicated for a specific role.

The problem with naval aircraft is that for light and med. sized carriers,which can't carry more than 40-50 aircraft and helos max wartime capacity,they truly have to be multi-role for the foll. tasks. Air defence of the fleet ,anti-shipping and strike against land targets.The munitions for each will also vary,plus,the aircraft will have to take off from the carrier with a decent load,even in a STOBAR launch. The little LCA won't meet the mark esp. post 2020,unless we possess a 100 aircraft behemoth,which can operate sev. types.It is also v. doubtful that we will operate more than 3 carriers due to the funding crunch,and therefore possessing a couple of doz. NLCAs is simply not worthwhile expending that much money in development costs,production,etc. If we can dev. and build around 200 LCAs for the IAF it will be a splendid achievement,with prospects of exports to smaller friendly nations who can't afford expensive toys.Bangladesh is looking at acquiring a small batch of MIG-35s since they already operate MIG-29s.

In the future,15-20 years from now,the exg. naval aircraft could be replaced by the AMCA if it is designed sizewise,able to operate from the two carriers we operate/fitting out,even in a STOBAR mode.The carriers can easily operate for another 30 years given our past experience with a second-hand carrier like the Hermes/Viraat,which was the world's longest serving warship!. If the supposed MIG-29K's problems can be sorted out asap,and the aircraft is in current production for the RUN as well,which should not be too difficult,then even upgraded versions of it upto MIG-35 std.-AESA radar,TVC,,etc.may suffice for another decade+. Our classified Ghatak UCAV's size isn't known,but a naval variant if possible would be a great achievement .Its arrival is eagerly awaited.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3042
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 21 Mar 2017 02:29

srai wrote:Vikrant is called Air Defense Carrier (ADS) for a reason ;)


A nitpick - the Air Defense Ship (ADS) was one of the evolutionary steps in defining the IAC (Indigenous Aircraft Carrier-I). ADS was a much smaller concept(s) as small as 18,000 tons.

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1603
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby JayS » 21 Mar 2017 16:42

Philip wrote:The IN said so,doesn't meet the grade and dumped it. Officially.


They didn't dump NLCA. IN never said MK2 does not meet their requirement. I guess you have been on BRF for quite a long time. You should be able to see yourself easily through the cheap MSM sensationalization and paid media hit jobs if you apply your mind to it.

GhalibKabir
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 12 Jan 2017 09:13

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby GhalibKabir » 23 Mar 2017 07:24

JayS wrote:
Philip wrote:The IN said so,doesn't meet the grade and dumped it. Officially.


They didn't dump NLCA. IN never said MK2 does not meet their requirement. I guess you have been on BRF for quite a long time. You should be able to see yourself easily through the cheap MSM sensationalization and paid media hit jobs if you apply your mind to it.


1. Except for willfully blind & agenda driven presstitutes in the MSM, we all can agree that Mk2 was the product the IN had in mind all along. The AF needs and the developmental process gave us very good learnings and the Mk1A in the process ---> no mean achievement

Now,

2. If we accept IN pronouncements in the open fora in the recent times, why this twin engine link to the Mk2 all of a sudden? The IN seems to stand by the Mk.2 (would make a decent naval fighter imho..)

this 57 plane RFI is also not understandable despite 29K issues...is it not better to go full throttle on Mk2 and also parallely get second hand AV 8Bs for a Vikrant style IAC2 to ensure carrier availability and plane availability? (a harrier with EL2052 radar, BVRAAMs etc would still be a fantastic asset imho)

I think one of things Safran has agreed to work on with India is the adaptation of the Kaveri to a twin engine naval fighter in 10-15 years time

PS: Is it not possible to sue the pants off these presstitutes (the likes of the darkhas) to ensure they don't indulge egregious story fixing and slander of domestic defense production that is in many cases tantamount to treason?

ashishvikas
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 87
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby ashishvikas » 26 Mar 2017 12:04

‘We back indigenisation, but Tejas didn’t fit the bill’

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/w ... 664569.ece

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3927
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Neshant » 26 Mar 2017 13:15

JayS wrote:They didn't dump NLCA. IN never said MK2 does not meet their requirement. I guess you have been on BRF for quite a long time. You should be able to see yourself easily through the cheap MSM sensationalization and paid media hit jobs if you apply your mind to it.



Apparently they have dumped it regardless of what they claim. (See below)
They will come up with just about any justification to buy a foreign plane.
Hell they were even ready to accept a proposal from Saab for the single engine naval Gripen which does not even exists.

Its time to start inducting stuff the country makes into the armed forces.
Otherwise the endless addiction to imports of expensive foreign planes, tanks, artillery and just about everything is never going to end.
That is what weakens the country.

"What the Navy wants is a deck-based fighter, but the LCA Navy Mk1 doesn’t meet that requirement. Its power-to-weight ratio, the thrust the engine generates [are insufficient] and it’s under powered for the air frame. Unfortunately, even the Mk2 variant doesn’t qualify. That’s why we took this case up to the Defense Ministry."


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 19 guests