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.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6882
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 24 Aug 2018 09:02

disha wrote:^ It takes time. At the same time I look forward to titanium/Al-lithium landing gears and carbon fibre wheels. For the later, progress on making carbon fibre production cheaper at a set quality is more important.

I don’t know how easy or difficult the projects you mentioned are. But given a project, NAL can easily develop a co-cured and co-bonded Tejas wing in a very short time. It already did it for Saras. Saras’s entire half-wing is just made of two parts. Same with its horizontal stabilizer. Even tejas’s vertical tail is a single part.

A cocured/cobonded wing for Tejas will not decrease assembly time, but it will surely save costs and close to a 100 kgs.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6882
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 24 Aug 2018 09:55

Actually, I take that back. For Saras’s wing the weight savings was over 125 kg. But that was over a metallic wing. I don’t know what the weight savings would have been if the benchmark was another composite wing which was not cocured.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1468
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Zynda » 24 Aug 2018 11:29

IR, can you post references where NAL have developed co-cured & co-bonded Wing for Saras?

Edit: I found one IIT presentation https://www.iitk.ac.in/tkic/workshop/sc ... osites.pdf

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35892
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 25 Aug 2018 08:47

When the NP-2 took to the skies on July 23, it was the 56th flight of the aircraft and as on August 21, the LCA Navy has done 78 flights


https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/ ... 521845.cms

The navy supports the programme 100 per cent. The aircraft has always been a requirement for the navy. By the end of 2019, the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC) INS Vikrant is expected to begin sea trials and will be commissioned a couple of years thereafter. We want aircraft on top of it and we want the LCA Navy to be there,” a source in the Indian Navy said.

LCA prototype at its present avatar does not meet the carrier capability requirements and that more work needs to be done before it is accepted by it.


Will NP3 be powered by F414 then?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7835
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 25 Aug 2018 10:34

The navy was concerned about the weight related issues with the nlca. What would be the implications for the program of the new process devised by CSIR that reduces weight by 20 %.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 477
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Trikaal » 25 Aug 2018 11:20

^I don't think weight of Tejas has gone down by 20%, rather only the weight of parts manufactured by CSIR has gone down by 20%. So the weight reduction in Tejas will be much less than 20% since parts manufactured by CSIR aren't that heavy to begin with.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2312
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby JTull » 25 Aug 2018 13:40

SaiK wrote:Mr Tull, why do we need a ski jump for VTOL jet?


Royal Navy has chosen this configuration. I suppose this is to improve the payload and avoid using cats/arrestor wires, which do have some disadvantages in cost and maintenance.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 26 Aug 2018 13:01

The MK-2 performance paramaters is what the IN hope the NLCA will bring with it, but a lot can be tested on the current prototypes saving time until the definitive version arrives.The essence of the matter is time.Development time and date of FOC.

However being single-engined and operating in a maritime environment, one does not envison a larger number acquired.Two reasons.First, cost.The current cost of an LCA is 463 crores, more than firang equivs incl. ouright MKI buys at 330 cr. Secondly , the greater performance of larger twin- engined birds which will be able to carry BMos- NG in the future will make them more attractive. A 3rd carrier, say sister ship of IAC-1 or using them aboard redesigned multi-role amphibs could increase numbers built. Basing some ashore in the ANC, etc. could increase demand.Both Ru and China also operate land based naval aviation assets in addition to carrier aircraft.This could lessen the burden of the IAF in maritimd ops allowing it to i crease numbers of heavy MKIs against China and Pak.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2693
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby chola » 26 Aug 2018 13:29

^^^ Price is an asinine argument. It is an indigenous plane, money goes from our right pocket (MOD) to our left pocket (HAL) building local capability and capacity along the way.

Single-engined carrier aircraft concerns are ho-hum when the US and its allies are going whole hog to a single-engine F-35 for the foreseeable future. The US (and friends) operated the A4 Skyhawk with a single turbojet for decades and in heavy combat over Vietnam.

The single F404/414 on the NLCA will be far more reliable than the two notorious RD-33s on the 29K. Let’s be honest here, Filipov.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 477
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Trikaal » 26 Aug 2018 15:51

Philip wrote:Basing some ashore in the ANC, etc. could increase demand.Both Ru and China also operate land based naval aviation assets in addition to carrier aircraft.This could lessen the burden of the IAF in maritimd ops allowing it to i crease numbers of heavy MKIs against China and Pak.

IAF would never allow Navy to creep into its operational domain. They have problems with Army operating helos and you think they will allow Navy to operate aircrafts? Dream on!!!

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 638
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 26 Aug 2018 16:12

chola wrote:^^^ Price is an asinine argument. It is an indigenous plane, money goes from our right pocket (MOD) to our left pocket (HAL) building local capability and capacity along the way.

Single-engined carrier aircraft concerns are ho-hum when the US and its allies are going whole hog to a single-engine F-35 for the foreseeable future. The US (and friends) operated the A4 Skyhawk with a single turbojet for decades and in heavy combat over Vietnam.

The single F404/414 on the NLCA will be far more reliable than the two notorious RD-33s on the 29K. Let’s be honest here, Filipov.

Not to mention the strategic nature of this investment!
Everything Russian is not gold P.
The only way perhaps the IAF or Navy would like more Mig 29s would be with western engines and avionics and complete tot so we can fix the damn thing...

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35892
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 26 Aug 2018 16:30

I guess it is more for dual/multi purpose use of the platform (ski jump) than for one type of jet.
______

Also note, the third NP might get F414. I think IN pushing for it makes a massive boost for Mk2 as well.

Kersi
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 31 May 2017 12:25

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Kersi » 26 Aug 2018 16:32

chola wrote:^^^ Price is an asinine argument. It is an indigenous plane, money goes from our right pocket (MOD) to our left pocket (HAL) building local capability and capacity along the way.

Single-engined carrier aircraft concerns are ho-hum when the US and its allies are going whole hog to a single-engine F-35 for the foreseeable future. The US (and friends) operated the A4 Skyhawk with a single turbojet for decades and in heavy combat over Vietnam.

The single F404/414 on the NLCA will be far more reliable than the two notorious RD-33s on the 29K. Let’s be honest here, Filipov.


F 8 Crusader, Etendard, A 7 Corsair, Alize are all single engined aircraft. I don't think IN has ever had a twin engined carrier borne aircraft. Of course two is better than one especially for carrier operations

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 477
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Trikaal » 26 Aug 2018 17:25

SaiK wrote:Also note, the third NP might get F414. I think IN pushing for it makes a massive boost for Mk2 as well.

Is it possible to fit F414 in the existing NP airframe?

Wikipedia says the dimensions are same so size shouldn't be an issue.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35892
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 26 Aug 2018 19:10

They have to rework on the airflow & thrusts for various /specified altitudes.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 27 Aug 2018 20:57

Price is precisely why the massive price of an LCA 463 cr., when compared with a 330 cr. MKI is why the issue is under investigation.Our DPSUs simply cannot charge what they want including inefficiency costs to the taxpayer.Moreover, a lot of the LCA is imported from engines to radar and much weaponry likd Derby AAMs, PGMs, etc.A significant portion of the cost goes abroad.

The MIG 29K is a twin-engined bird.The onus is on MIG to rectify any problems in the hope that the deal was properly drawn up by our MOD babus regarding defects, OEM liability, etc.The fact that the same 29K bird has been ordered by the RuN indicates that the problems have been resolved.MIG should replace IN birds if defective beyond repair, otherwise future orders will definitely evaporate !

Should problems be resolved, at its price of around $35M today and capable of carrying BMos- NG when it arrives, it woulx be the most cost- effective solution to increasing the number of IN carrier aircraft.

There is nothing preventing the IN from acquiring more naval fighters and LRMP birds including Backfires to increase our domination of the IOR's maritimd environment.Future increased maritime air requirements should be met solely by expanding IN aviation assets. The IAF should also expand its inventory to increase both numerical and qualitative assets to dominate the sub-continental airspace with principal enemies Pak and China in mind.A reduced responsibility in the maritime domain where we have lesser top- line aircraft positioned against us, with Chin CBGs still some years away from permaneng IOR patrols, the IN for the ensuing years with 29Ks and NLCAs should be able to do the biz. especially with tanker support for extended range. The money saved by the IAF could be used by it for acquiring superior aircraft and weaponry with which to confont the Sino- Paki axis of evil.NLCAs should be particularly useful when used in our island bases operating from smaller runways , etc. and coastal bases in the southern peninsula.

Incidentally there is a report of new TU-142 modernised and upgraded Bears being acquired by the RuAF with full glass cockpits, increased numbers of missiles carried, etc.These are supposedly the equiv. of new build aircraft.The Syrian experience where these aircraft ran bombing runs from their Russian bases shows the extraordinary range and endurance of the strategic / maritime strike/ ASW aircraft.Equipped with new extended range missiles, these birds could theoretically operating from the mainland even carry out strikes in the Pacific.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35892
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 09 Oct 2018 17:33

#PlaneMorning

Big big breaking regarding this system
According to some reports there is a possibility of an order of 46 N LCA Mk. II for #IndianNavy by 2025

Image: Livefist https://t.co/5f3DEv1Nj4

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3503
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby JayS » 09 Oct 2018 17:44

^^ So basically NLCA is going just as it was anyway going to go before 2017. Why was all that drama in 2017 then..? That simply wasted a whole year in NLCA's test program.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6882
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 09 Oct 2018 22:13

Certain people.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5719
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 09 Oct 2018 23:44

SaiK wrote:#PlaneMorning

Big big breaking regarding this system
According to some reports there is a possibility of an order of 46 N LCA Mk. II for #IndianNavy by 2025

Image: Livefist https://t.co/5f3DEv1Nj4

Yes! Fantastic news. I hope it is true.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35892
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 10 Oct 2018 02:33

most likely, IMHO, it could be that they have successfully mated F414-ins6. but just a WAG.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50428
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 10 Oct 2018 06:38

JTull wrote:
SaiK wrote:Mr Tull, why do we need a ski jump for VTOL jet?


Royal Navy has chosen this configuration. I suppose this is to improve the payload and avoid using cats/arrestor wires, which do have some disadvantages in cost and maintenance.



SaiK,
The VTOL consumes a lot of fuel for takeoff.
Even the Harrier was a gas guzzler.
So some RN pilot came up with idea of ski-jump to assist the take off.
This conserve some fuel to enable useful range.
Also Ski Jump avoids the catapult launcher.
But still needs the arrestor wires to land.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35892
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 10 Oct 2018 06:53

Interesting.. makes economic/operational sense even if one considers one-way ski takeoff and vert. landing.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17517
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby chetak » 10 Oct 2018 13:34

Trikaal wrote:
Philip wrote:Basing some ashore in the ANC, etc. could increase demand.Both Ru and China also operate land based naval aviation assets in addition to carrier aircraft.This could lessen the burden of the IAF in maritimd ops allowing it to i crease numbers of heavy MKIs against China and Pak.

IAF would never allow Navy to creep into its operational domain. They have problems with Army operating helos and you think they will allow Navy to operate aircrafts? Dream on!!!


This argument has been done and dusted a long time ago.

The IN has the predominance in all aspects of the maritime role, period.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35892
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby SaiK » 12 Oct 2018 02:06

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5719
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 12 Oct 2018 02:22

SaiK, please post Naval Tejas pictures and info only in this thread. Thank You.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 477
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Trikaal » 12 Oct 2018 10:51

SaiK wrote:Image

What is that being pointed at in the pic?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w, chiru, dnivas and 31 guests