Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 24 Apr 2017 08:19

Is it practical to jettison a million dollar anti-ship missile or bombs & missiles every time a single engine plane wants to make a carrier landing.

Single engine aircraft have been largely retired from navies for a reason.

The trend keeps moving in the direction of heavier loads, longer ranges, more time in the air.

The naval Tejas will be slow and poorly maneuverable with a load, will have takeoff thrust/weight issues despite its 414 engine, limited loiter time for CAP, difficulty keeping up with fast moving twin engine strike aircraft.. etc.

I'm not saying the program should be scrapped. But I doubt the navy will buy it despite what they say now.

The fact is that a carrier should have top of the line aircraft because only a limited number of planes can be carried on board. This is the one place to get the best because the entire fleet's security depends on it.

srai · Post by **srai** » 24 Apr 2017 08:33

^^^

Nothing to do with single-engine vs twin-engine. What your are talking about is bring-back load capacity of an aircraft. That will vary depending on an aircraft type and mission profile.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Apr 2017 08:44

Neshant wrote:Is it practical to jettison a million dollar anti-ship missile or bombs & missiles every time a single engine plane wants to make a carrier landing.

I think you are making guesses. You want "heavy loads" but planes (whether single or twin engined) cannot land with "heavy loads" on a flight deck and practical or not million dollar missiles may have to be jettisoned before landing. That is why they are not sent off heavily armed on those patrols that you claim are needed. Of course all attempts will be made to retain the missile including dumping most of the fuel but missiles will have to be dumped. Heavier fighters and loaded fighters hit the deck harder and bringing bombs back is hazardous apart from being stressful on the wings that will bend down with weight when the plane hits the deck.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Apr 2017 08:48

Neshant wrote:Is it practical to jettison a million dollar anti-ship missile or bombs & missiles every time a single engine plane wants to make a carrier landing.

What limits bring back weight? Engine power?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Apr 2017 08:49

Indranil wrote:
Neshant wrote:Is it practical to jettison a million dollar anti-ship missile or bombs & missiles every time a single engine plane wants to make a carrier landing.
What limits bring back weight? Engine power?

Thought power. Imagination.

srai · Post by **srai** » 24 Apr 2017 09:17

How To Land A Fighter On An Aircraft Carrier On A Stormy Night

...
There are four arresting wires on Nimitz class ships. An arresting hook from the respective aircraft catches one of the four wires, bringing the plane from 150 mph to a complete stop in about 1.5 seconds. Naval Aviators call it a "controlled crash." Most civilians would agree. The Air Force has no clue.

The most aft wire on the ship is #1 wire. The most forward wire is #4. The target wire is #3. You always try to avoid #1 because it is uncomfortably close the back end of the ship. Truthfully, catching any of them is considered a success. While each pilot is graded on each pass at the ship, this business is difficult enough that pretty much any arrested landing is a welcome return.

When an aircraft hits the landing area of the deck, the pilot sets the throttles to full military power (full power without afterburner). We do this so that, should the aircraft misses the wires, it will still have enough power to get airborne again. Failing to catch a wire and subsequently getting airborne again is referred to as a bolter. Failing to catch a wire and not getting airborne again results in an ejection. Taxpayers get tired of paying for jets with severe saltwater damage, therefore it is in a pilot’s best interest to touch down at full military power.
...

Try doing that with full-weapons load

vina · Post by **vina** » 24 Apr 2017 10:05

Dileep wrote:Nice calculations Vina. So, between 203m and 213m is 0.8 ton, so 0.08ton per metre at this range.

Now, the question is.. how do you determine the effective TO run length? Is it nose to nose, or tail to tail?

That is actually very easy.Assume it is a "point", maybe the CG . You KNOW that the plane should have 100 KCAS at the ramp exit. Now ignore for a moment that the plane does expend some work in climbing the ramp, (not that is difficult to calculate , all you need to know for that is the hight of the ramp at exit above the deck) and calculate backwards.

So you have final velocity as 100 KCAS, the initial velocity is what the carrier imparts (assume carrier traveling at 25kts ,so roughly 23.5kCAS), you know the thrust of the engine , and for a given MTOW, the acceleration is MTOW /engine thrust. The rest is pretty simple basic high school stuff. Given final velocity , initial velocity and acceleration, what is the distance traveled. That is v^2 - u^2 = 2*a*S ..Plug in the numbers and you get the required take off run (including the ramp length) . This is not 100% accurate , put a pretty good approximate (as it assumes that the entire thing is flat). If you have the ramp height, it is trivial to calculate it to a far higher precision.

If anyone knows the ramp height in VikAd/ Vikrant let me know, I will put it into my calculations and can give more accurate numbers.

In other words, when do we want pitch authority? The moment the nose wheel leaves the ramp? Or, the moment MLG leaves the ramp? Or a couple of seconds later? You are moving at 50m/s at the end of the TO run, which means an extra second gives you 50M extra effective TO length, which actually solves the MTOW problem.

The point is.. cutting such fine levels by guesstimating wouldn't work.

That is a different problem altogether . Once this part of control and flight dynamics stuff is worked out (what should be the min speed that I need at launch so that it can be controlled and how?), working the T.O length and the relation between load and take off length is trivial as I wrote in the earlier part. Sure, you can put in higher fidelity about estimates of drag and friction losses in take off run etc , which you will do in a real world engineering estimate, but then , that is just refining the basic stuff for higher accuracy. But as a broad sanity check, it will work.

Now talking of Sanity Check.. None of the recent posts of a particular poster (Neshant) makes any sense, other than "I think, and hence it must be" kind of make believe trolling, without any scientific or factual basis. So lets get back to facts and basics folks. If you "think" something happens, lets hear WHY with logic, instead of "English". This after all is not a fiction writing/ creative writing thread and board.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Apr 2017 10:10

SriJoy wrote: As noted earlier, there is a reason why most carrier jets in the past 20 years + has been twin engined.

And in spite of this obvious reason, the most numerous carrier jets to be inducted in the next decade is going to be the F-35. Can you believe it? How can none of these navies and LM not get it?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Apr 2017 10:30

SriJoy wrote: As noted earlier, there is a reason why most carrier jets in the past 20 years + has been twin engined. Harrier is the only true jet that isn't twin-engined is the Harrier, correct ?

What would be your excuse for leaving out the F-35?

In fact in the last 40years the only jets designed for carriers have been

1.the YF-17 (that lost out to YF-16) but got made into F-18
2. Rafale
3. LCA Navy
4. F-35

Two are single engined. Two are twin engined. Why do people (not you personally) have this tendency to set aside Indian attempts separaately as a "poor cousin" of the west and pick holes in the LCA Navy based on what we think the west is doing? There was a post above that excluded the single engine F-35 on the most flimsy grounds

And now the Swedes want to make Sea Gripen. Just because India has looked at the Gripen

I am excluding the MiG 29 and Su-27 family here because the designs came out in the late 70s and the USSR had no carrier let alone carrier based fighter, and all these recent attempts are hack jobs. I still don;t think the Su-30 is a good carrier based fighter and the Mig 29 - well..

srai · Post by **srai** » 24 Apr 2017 10:56

SriJoy wrote:...

As noted earlier, there is a reason why most carrier jets in the past 20 years + has been twin engined. Harrier is the only true jet that isn't twin-engined is the Harrier, correct ?

And in the next 20-years, we will see mostly single-engined carrier jets in F-35 B/C, UCAVs and NLCA Mk.1/2

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Apr 2017 12:00

shiv wrote:
SriJoy wrote: As noted earlier, there is a reason why most carrier jets in the past 20 years + has been twin engined. Harrier is the only true jet that isn't twin-engined is the Harrier, correct ?
What would be your excuse for leaving out the F-35?

In fact in the last 40years the only jets designed for carriers have been

1.the YF-17 (that lost out to YF-16) but got made into F-18
2. Rafale
3. LCA Navy
4. F-35

Slow day.

* The YF-17 was a twin engine proposal for the USAF, that sort of stumbled into the F-18. There is an hour long YT on this subject matter. Talk of prarabhdha
* Another similar effort was the attempt to provide the USN a twin engined plane: the F-111. Found to be too heavy, morphed into the supurb F/A-14. Perhaps the best naval plane that everyone misses.

* On the F-35, IIRC the USN had to be pushed into the ring, they were not happy campers at the start. For the 6th gen they have moved to a twin engine. That does not take away anything from the Charlie. The navy seems OK so far.

On the flip side the Marines seem to be thrilled with the Bravo. May have missed it, but have not seen any talk of them going for a 6th gen yet.
* The Eurofighter went through a few years of studies. No idea why whatever happened

Two are single engined. Two are twin engined. Why do people (not you personally) have this tendency to set aside Indian attempts separaately as a "poor cousin" of the west and pick holes in the LCA Navy based on what we think the west is doing? There was a post above that excluded the single engine F-35 on the most flimsy grounds

No idea why NLCA was dropped - especially after so much valued support. But at least they are funding an invaluable asset to completion. The ADA annual report does mention a naval AMCA. Hope they tackle that up front along with the AMCA.

And now the Swedes want to make Sea Gripen. Just because India has looked at the Gripen

I am excluding the MiG 29 and Su-27 family here because the designs came out in the late 70s and the USSR had no carrier let alone carrier based fighter, and all these recent attempts are hack jobs. I still don;t think the Su-30 is a good carrier based fighter and the Mig 29 - well..

My understanding is that the USSR tried both. Steam CAT and an EMALS - yes, the Soviets were the first, in 70s, to think of this option (EMALS).

They built a land based steam, in Crimea, which did not do too well. Then BOTH Sukhoi and MiG told the upper management that they can produce naval variants that do not need CATs. So the steam died a natural death.

Their EMALS, do not know why it never progressed. I suspect the ski jump was a much, much cheaper option based on the promise made by the two major design houses?

BTW, there are a few really neat articles/blogs by Russians, out there on this topic of Ski jum vs. Cats.

vina · Post by **vina** » 24 Apr 2017 12:28

NRao wrote: - yes, the Soviets were the first, in 70s, to think of this option.

You heard wrong. Check out this collection of Papers about these matters. This ski jump business was first implemented by the Brits and studies on this have existed since the 40s. For it to become practical, 1) Active controls in SVTOL planes made allowed it in practice first 2) T:W ratios of jet engines improved to the extent the it became practical (late 80s).

Scroll down to the part "US Navy Ski Jump Experience and Future Applications with the Harrier and the Spanish Carrier and right below that an evaluation of the F-18 A from a Ski Jump. Interestingly , they too have calculated the take off run as V^2 = 2*a*s (in the Harrier section) . Their calculations assume a 30 knot wind on deck, not far from the 25Knot we have (the USN carriers can do 32 knots +) and the diff between ramp and identical flat deck cases is 1Kt in exit speed per their estimate.

Check out the min take off speeds for the F18 (it will be lower than the Mig 29. The Mig has higher sweep in it's wings. The F18 has a carrier optimised wing anyways, while the Mig 29 is optimised differently)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Apr 2017 12:33

^^^^^

True, any thing to do with a carrier, is essentially a British thought. They were the originators of the angled deck too.

I was talking of EMALS. As far as I know the Soviets thought of it before the Americans.

But, Thx for that paper. Will check it out.

srai · Post by **srai** » 24 Apr 2017 13:14

SriJoy wrote:...
I had honestly forgotten about the F-35. Thank you for the reminder. I think there are two issues at stake here- takeoff capacity from the carrier and reliability of 1 engine system. IMO, from CATOBAR carriers, the issue never was take-off capacity once hardened airframes were perfected, it was always about reliability of the engine. Because Catapult can overcome thrust to weight ratios. Maybe they feel the new F-35 engine is quantum leap in engine reliability, so they don't feel they need it. Plus it is a VSTOL aircraft, which puts a different spin on the issue : yes, we can go for VSTOL aircrafts too. But it doesn't lead to addressing the 1/2 engine issue for a STOBAR carrier.

...

F-35C is not V/STOL. There are three F-35 variants. The one you are referring to is F-35B V/STOL, which is for USM. F-35C is for USN.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Apr 2017 13:27

SriJoy,

Where are you getting all your information my friend? You are all over the place.

Favouritism/factual errors: You are walking straight into hakeem's lair where he is waiting with hammer and tongs to widen your teeth.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Apr 2017 13:39

shiv wrote:
Indranil wrote: What limits bring back weight? Engine power?
Thought power. Imagination.

The way this thread is going, I am starting to imadjinn as well. I am imadjinning an aircraft with three engines. Imadjinn the TWR. There will be no requirement for ski-jump or catapults. Imadjinn the bring back weight by virtue of this thrust. And Vina and I have been scratching our butts on the wrong tree. Three eendjinns with TVC. The one in the middle for pitch control and the two the side for roll and yaw. Even the Americans have not gone where my imadjin-nation is going.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Apr 2017 14:38

1. TWR ratio has got nothing to do with the number of engines. It is a simple ratio where numerator is thrust and the denominator is weight.
2. TWR is one of many design parameters
3. GE414 comes from as established a design and assembly stable as the F135. If anything, it has more operational hours. By the way, if you think that SDRE's can't even assemble an engine like a true blue yankee: hatsoff!
4. There is no kryptonite in the F135, the reliability of all aviation engines have gone up significantly in the last couple of decades.
5. In the past two-three months a few Mig-29Ks, Su-33 and F-18 have gone down in spite of being twin-engined.

Truth is operations of compressing an entire airfield into a ship's worth of space pushes every man and machine to its edge. Blanket statements like what you and Neshant are belting out really expose how little you know about these challenges. Funny thing is how assertively you put them out too!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Apr 2017 15:02

SriJoy wrote: However, LCA is not comparable to the Superhornet or any such 'proven' aircraft. The west has and still continues to hold the absolute top-notch excellence in Engineering war-machines. This isn't pro-west or anti-Indian or any such thing, this simply is, based on objective empirical evidence. Hence they are the standard/benchmark. I will have no problems using Indian development as a benchmark, such as for example in our ballistic systems.

With respect evidence is either objective or empirical - not both.

But I digress.

You are asking if single engined aircraft are good enough, but you don't even know how many single engined carriers based fighters have been used in the last 50 years and their reliability how many exist today. You "forgot" the F-35 and you exclude the LCA navy on "objective empirical" evidence that the west is best. Recall that west will remain best as long as you and I are alive because they have been ahead for many decades before either of us was born. However excluding Indian attempts in this regard as being invalid based on reasons extraneous to the LCA (eg:West is best) are wrong

You have asked:

But am i wrong in saying that a catapult gives more assist to a jet than nose attitude adjustment plus ramp ?

You are an engineer and you should know some of these things especially if you have an interest in aviation. It is neither about nose up nor catapult. It is about lift to support an aircraft in the air.

That lift can be generated either by thrust from a single engine alone as occurs with the Harrier and the F-35B. Currently no twin engined jet can do this
Or
That lift can be generated by wings, provided there is sufficient forward speed of the aircraft. Even civil aircraft with thrust to weight ratios of less than 0.5 can take off if you make the runway long enough. If naval engineers could make aircraft carrier runways long enough then neither STOBAR nor CATOBAR would be necessary

But for all the engineering skills of the west no one has managed to make a carrier runway long enough. So they resort to jugaad like STOBAR and CATOBAR. Whatever you use, STOBAR, CATOBAR or long runway - if the plane can generate enough lift to fly when it comes off - that is all you require. So the engineering problem here is NOT the number of aircraft engines, It is the design of the ship itself. The design of the ship is limited by the size of your berths, the depth of your waterways and the construction capacity of your shipbuilder and the aircraft available to you to fly off that ship, the funding available, engineering skills available and perceived national needs versus national technical capability. That is why the HMS Qyoon Elijabeth - the future flagship of the Bilayati Navy is a STOBAR ship despite being a "western" ship flying the F-35

I am speculating/thinking out aloud: a carrier based fighter has two major reasons for wanting 2 engines : great thrust to weight ratio and improved reliability in staying airborne (due to having 2 engines).

With respect again. Let us get this straight. Carrier based fighters do not "want" anything. This is about what you believe they must have. This depends on the reliability of your engines. This is where I will echo your statement:

west has and still continues to hold the absolute top-notch excellence

. In engines

Regarding thrust to weight ratio I have not understood why you believe 2 engines will have more T/W than one. Vertical take off demands a T/W ratio of >1 and only 2 aircraft do that - Harrier and F-35B. Both single engined.

Now, my question is, CAN a single-engine fighter get enough T2W ratio to carry a meaningful A2A/A2G load for a STOBAR carrier ?

Unfortunately "meaningful load" is an example of empirical objectivity. It has no meaning. Even 2 AAMS or two unguided rocket pods are meaningful if placed on a target. Do you believe the Harrier and F-35 do not carry meaningful loads?

You may not think so. But that is your prerogative.

I also would be mindful of being absolutely reliant on 3rd party produced engines/very new engine program indigenously to rely 100% of being airborne on one engine. I can accept the notion that American jet engine manufacturers have solved the airborne dependency 100% on 1 engine in terms of reliability. I cannot accept that Indian assembled or developed engines can achieve that reliability 100% of the time or something practically close to it. Thats just the reality,based on how young and inexperienced our expertese in Jet engines are compared to the Yankees.

The third party engines on the LCA are Yankee engines. They are perfectly reliable. It is the Yankees who may be unreliable in supply of engines and spares.

But do you think Indian engines will simply fail? I put it to you that that is not how engines are employed. New engines say "Indian made" will be tested and proven to run under full loads for X number of hours. So they will be used only for less than X hours and then taken down for inspection. So while a given engine is on a plane you can expect it to be as near damn 100% reliable as anything can get. It's just that western engines have better fuel consumption, better power to weight ratios an longer engine run times before they need to be taken down for inspection. The Chinese were running their WS 10 at a time when it could be flown for barely 10 hours before servicing. The Russian engine for the IJT was not cleared for more the 100 hours initially. But you never see a Chinese or Russian come and question Chinese/Russian developments and remind people of American greatness and tell everyone how America sets the standard as if others have not heard. That is an Indian speciality.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 24 Apr 2017 15:36

SriJoy wrote: It simply is. Indian attempts like the LCA are, as of now, paper-tigers. Sure, they may be promising and no one is arguing against the potential long-term benefits to the Indian military-aviation complex by investing in the LCA. However, LCA is not comparable to the Superhornet or any such 'proven' aircraft. The west has and still continues to hold the absolute top-notch excellence in Engineering war-machines.

hornet was 'proven' when usn inducted it the first day? Because 'west and its top notch excellence' ?

I heard 'excellent - proven - top notch' hornet crashed while preparing to attack NoKo

BEFORE THE WAR BEGINS ...

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Apr 2017 15:45

NRao wrote:
shiv wrote:
* On the F-35, IIRC the USN had to be pushed into the ring, they were not happy campers at the start. For the 6th gen they have moved to a twin engine. That does not take away anything from the Charlie. The navy seems OK so far.

On the flip side the Marines seem to be thrilled with the Bravo. May have missed it, but have not seen any talk of them going for a 6th gen yet.
* The Eurofighter went through a few years of studies. No idea why whatever happened

The Navy had to be pushed to the F-35C because they still had weird fantasies of actually self-funding (and getting Congress to go along) a yet another clean sheet after two earlier failed attempts (N-ATF (which became essentially a new aircraft) and the A-12). Navy had history of operating single engine types prior to the F-35 and once their needs (such as higher capability in mission systems particularly EOTS on every aircraft and larger radar aperture, plus a 2000 lb bomb sized carriage) were accommodated they were willing to buy a limited number of F-35Cs. Once you exclude the USMC's F-35Cs the USN's purchase is quite small but that is dictated by money and how they size their fleet. Once the cold war threat faded away the Navy willingly accepted risk and lowered NAVAIR investment putting money towards other mission areas particularly the ship building portfolio, networks, and AEGIS IAMD.

The USN's twin engine plans for the Super Hornet/Growler replacement are dictated by mission needs. The Super Hornet is underserving the F-14 requirement that was set aside post-cold war so you are talking about range/payload and performance that will be significantly better than the F-35 which would stress single engine development unless one wants to really explore 50,000 lb + thrust class engines. For the Marines, there is no need for 6th generation. Their focus is CAS and support of USN in their missions. None of this requires a new type for decades. I see the Marines buying some FA-XX to recapitalize and revive the Prowler capability that they are willingly letting atrophy for now, at a future date.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Apr 2017 16:14

SriJoy wrote:
shiv wrote: You "forgot" the F-35 and you exclude the LCA navy on "objective empirical" evidence that the west is best. Recall that west will remain best as long as you and I are alive because they have been ahead for many decades before either of us was born. However excluding Indian attempts in this regard as being invalid based on reasons extraneous to the LCA (eg:West is best) are wrong
No, i am discounting the naval LCA because it is a paper-tiger. It hasn't been inducted by the navy, let alone go through a few years of existence to deem it satisfactory. I am simply drawing a line between a concept yet to materialize and what is here and now.

Thank you for the information relating to the rest.

The Naval LCA is not a paper tiger. They are at the very moment testing actual naval variant and will be building on that for the MK2. There is tangible hardware both aircraft and support infrastructure. A true paper tiger would be the Sea-Gripen, or the Naval-ATF, or EuroFighter Typhoon's Carrier variant. Same on the F-35C. It will not be operational till Q4 of 2018 and won't go on its first carrier deployment till late 2019/early 2020 but it is being tested and certified, and is in hot production.

SriJoy wrote:Now, my question is, CAN a single-engine fighter get enough T2W ratio to carry a meaningful A2A/A2G load for a STOBAR carrier ?
I am not convinced it can.

Single vs Twin Engine is not important. Overall Thrust and Thrust to Weight Ratio is. A single engined F-35C produces more thrust than a twin engined Rafale M. Similarly an F-414 EPE equipped LCA-MK2 (hypothetically speaking since the engine is not developed) can generate nearly 75% of the total thrust of the Rafale M on a potentially much lighter aircraft.

vina · Post by **vina** » 24 Apr 2017 17:00

OMG. This thread has been "elevated " to the deaf n' dumb level. Can someone clean up the incoherent mess by this latest SriJoy troll here. Sounds like a 50center with a new handle.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Apr 2017 17:34

SriJoy wrote: Ok. The NLCA is not a 'paper tiger'. but its damn close. As you mentioned, its just undergoing testing. It cannot be billed as 'better' than whats out there right now, just on the basis of 'testing'. It needs to be inducted, flown for a couple of years atleast, before we can deliver on that verdict.
Maybe just a different perspective on how we see it.

We have come a long way from empirical objectivity. Your perspective is your subjective feeling and it is your prerogative to hold opinions.

Don't forget the statement you have made. The NLCA is as much a paper tiger as the Chinese J-20.

In terms of development national technical capability for India it counts for a lot - even at the testing phase.

srai · Post by **srai** » 24 Apr 2017 18:03

SriJoy,

Let it go. So what if the NLCA is a "paper tiger" or whatever in your viewpoint. How does that add value to the ongoing discussion?

We all know where India is at in technological capacity vs others. Anyone who has followed would know. Not much value to the discussion trying to rehash a high-level argument of someone else is "superior" or whatever. Bring in the details if you want to take discussion to the next level.

vina · Post by **vina** » 24 Apr 2017 20:00

Admins - pls clear out all that SriJoy related clutter (either delete it or move it to a Naval Fighter conteplation contest thread..) . It added no value and frankly simply off the wall.

Anyway, back to regular programming . So what do we have for J-15 "Feisha" Flying Shark -

At the conditions we evaluated the LCA & Mig 29 (i.e. 25deg above standard temp and 5% engine derating) and a take off run of 200m and given the J-15 a 3 knot higher ramp exit speed over the Mig 29 (much heavier fighter) and increasing the carrier speed to 27kts (an equivalent increase of 3 knots over the Mig 29 case) since the Kuzetsov/Varyag can do 30 knots, the MTOW is 32.04 tons. The loaded weight is 30 tons, payload is 2 tons , which is less than what the N-LCA MK1 takes to the air from a 195m , it takes 3 tons to the air.

For a strike config, the N-LCA will be carrying 750Kg anti ship missile, 2 drop tanks, and 2 CCM missiles. The J-15 Ding Dong will be carrying 2 * 750 Kg anti ship missiles t best and 2 CCM missiles or 1 anti ship missile, 3 Radar guided missiles and 2 CCM.

So a far bigger plane taking off from a bigger carrier with a longer take off run, carries effectively the similar payload in terms of what it delivers on target. From the Vikrant, allowing for 2 drop tanks, the N-LCA will carry exactly similar weapon capability of 2 tons to target.

The J-15 of course doesnt need external tanks due to it's huge fuel load.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Apr 2017 21:12

While single engine vs twin is not really a criterion to judge power, the question does remain, will the nlca mk2 have enough thrust to take off with a decent load? Not with current version f414 methinks. I'm not convinced that a fighter with clean configuration of 12 tons and max engine power of 10 tons will cut it for STOBAR ops.... Navy will again bail out, we are just setting ourselves up for more rnd. The mig 29 and rafale in same configuration have twr greater than or very close to 1.0. They need to get the 414epe engine for the nlca.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Apr 2017 21:29

Most flights off a carrier are peacetime flights at least for India. Even in wartime - unless there is some target to attack there will simply be some armed flights checking out suspected targets. Such flights will not be "heavily loaded" flights carrying every single kg of munitions that the plane can carry. Each time a plane takes off it has to use up pretty much all its fuel and dump any extra. For a small to medium sized carrier per sortie fuel efficiency of the aircraft will translate to more potential sorties before the carrier has to pull away to a non combat zone to rendezvous with a tanker.

I don't think the Su-30/J-15 is a good choice at all for carrier aircraft.

Once again American hawa with the US having the biggest carrier fleet and the widest variety of aircraft and keeping those carriers in war zones almost continuously since WW2 (save for a short post Vietnam gap) has given us English educated English press followers a weird idea about carrier operations. If it does not look like what the Americans do it's no good is the takeaway lesson.

I have read, somewhere on the forum in the last 1-2 days - high praise for the F-14. Once again it is American pride like Liu's Chinese pride that placed the F-14 as a pinnacle of greatness. But it did not have a good safety record. Twin engine mind you. And huge and heavy. I recall reading an article about a man who was captain (or something senior) on a carrier with F-14s. he wrote that it was sad to note that at least one of the pilots who got on at the start of the cruise might not be coming back.

On the forum we wear blinkers and say "Wow - just look at the F-14" but that is not the whole truth. There is more to carrier flying than size and what can hang off pylons.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Apr 2017 21:36

Cain Marko wrote:While single engine vs twin is not really a criterion to judge power, the question does remain, will the nlca mk2 have enough thrust to take off with a decent load?

I am reading terms like "decent load". "respectable load", "significant load" etc. These are the types of expressions that I would expect with regard to a goods train or a civilian or transport aicraft.

'Decent load' could be just one recce pod for a patrol. Two antiship missiles is a good load. Two WVRAAMS and two rocket pods and a gun would do fine against many lightly defended maritime and coastal targets. So our idea of "decent load has to be defined by what role is envisaged and what payload is required for that role.

Technically if we could have a 4000 meter long, 1 million ton aircraft carrier we could operate Tu-142 Bears from that. No one would complain about load or range then. But someone needs to do a cost and engineering feasibility calculation for that.

As a digression I must say that I phoned Air Marshal Rajkumar to ask him about 5 km long Chinese airfields in Tibet situated at 4500 meters altitude and asked him what could land. He said that if it is 5 km long almost anything can land except that if a transport is heavily loaded and its landing speed has to be high - the tyres could overheat and burst.

I asked him what load a Mig 21 could take off with at those altitudes. He said Two AAMs"

Now any Chinese MiG 21/F-7 with 2 AAMS would be a threat to Indian fighters over Tibet. Who is going to say that "Naah - two AAMs is not a decent load?"

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 24 Apr 2017 22:00

^Decent load == something Indian Navy will be happy with. According to vinas calculations, assuming they are correct, nlca mk1 should take off with 2.5 tons, which unfortunately falls into indecent load category for Indian Navy, which categorically rejected it.

So assuming that mk1 can actually do 2.5 tons and that is not enough... Where does that take us with much heavier mk2 with 414 engine, which may find itself carrying another similar 2.5 tons? Empty weight 9 tons, 12.5 tons with fuel. Mtow 15 tons and Max thrust of 10 tons.

And if payload is not the issue, then something else related to TWR surely is, based on multiple CNS statements. Plane is too heavy... They say. And I don't see that changing for mk2 nlca unless they get more powerful engines than 10 ton f414s.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Apr 2017 06:38

Cain Marko wrote:^Decent load == something Indian Navy will be happy with. According to vinas calculations, assuming they are correct, nlca mk1 should take off with 2.5 tons, which unfortunately falls into indecent load category for Indian Navy, which categorically rejected it.

I would take a deep breath and look back. It is worth distinguishing individual statements from the forces from what finally happens. The armed forces too are beset by the same contempt for our own developments and "*respect*" for gold standard west as you and me.

People from the air force have called the LCA "Latest Confusion in Aeronautics", "Khadi Gramodyog" "Three legged Cheetah" etc . But persistence has helped. Just because a few critical statements come out it should not be passed off as "the official. permanent viewpoint of the Indian navy". Navy and Airforce chiefs stay for just 2 years after which they fade out of the news. In the 12 years since you joined BRF you have seen more than 10 air and naval chiefs come and go. You pick a statement from one of them and take it as the truth. That man will be gone in 2 years. You will still be here

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 25 Apr 2017 10:05

One positive aspect of a locally developed nLCA will be its up-time.

The parts of the system will be known in greater detail than black box" Russian aircraft where manufacturer support is minimal and sketchy.

Problems with the aircraft will be investigated on-site by Indian engineering teams rather than at arms length from Count Dracula sitting in Russia.

For a carrier with just 20 warplanes, high up-time is a force multiplier.

If the IN can accomplish this, its worth the trade off for a foreign high end plane.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 25 Apr 2017 10:10

shiv wrote:I would take a deep breath and look back. It is worth distinguishing individual statements from the forces from what finally happens. The armed forces too are beset by the same contempt for our own developments and "*respect*" for gold standard west as you and me.

People from the air force have called the LCA "Latest Confusion in Aeronautics", "Khadi Gramodyog" "Three legged Cheetah" etc . But persistence has helped. Just because a few critical statements come out it should not be passed off as "the official. permanent viewpoint of the Indian navy". Navy and Airforce chiefs stay for just 2 years after which they fade out of the news. In the 12 years since you joined BRF you have seen more than 10 air and naval chiefs come and go. You pick a statement from one of them and take it as the truth. That man will be gone in 2 years. You will still be here

It's not just one navy chief... But two, both the present one and Shri Arun Prakash. Nirmal Verna too, Iirc. This is the same navy which backed a number of home grown products including the lca and was praised extensively on the forum as an example to the other ahem, import pasand services.

Also, these are not mere statements and prejudiced criticisms, the last one is an out right rejection.

There is only so much one can pass off as import pssandi.....

Frankly I'm a little doubtful that the mk2 is going to make the navy for reasons already explained. Nothing to do with awe for phoren, just my limited take. I felt similarly about the mk1 too and this misgiving was unfortunately borne out. I hope I'm proved wrong... Truly.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Apr 2017 10:33

Cain Marko wrote:
Frankly I'm a little doubtful that the mk2 is going to make the navy for reasons already explained. Nothing to do with awe for phoren, just my limited take. I felt similarly about the mk1 too and this misgiving was unfortunately borne out. I hope I'm proved wrong... Truly.

Fair enough - so your view is that the LCA Navy is going nowhere and you cite the statements of a current and some ex Navy chiefs.

As I see it the Navy, like the Air Force may have no other option. My view is that if make in India means a single engined fighter as planned there will be no alternative other than LCA or "Sea Gripen" or "F-35" in the medium term for the navy.

I don't see the F-35 coming in for various reasons - not least because of the huge deck and other mods that the new Indian carriers will need for the F-35. Sea Gripen? What's that.

Navy chiefs may have to eat their words. The naval LCA has to be made to work.

That said I recall Mao saying at an Aero India that they were getting somewhat anxious that the LCA would not be ready before the Vikrant. So that has been known for at least 5 years now. But Mk 2 will come and it will fly Navy. Just my guess.

vina · Post by **vina** » 25 Apr 2017 11:16

Cain Marko wrote:will the nlca mk2 have enough thrust to take off with a decent load? Not with current version f414 methinks. I'm not convinced that a fighter with clean configuration of 12 tons and max engine power of 10 tons will cut it for STOBAR ops....

Look up the LCA AF thread on "self effacing " and "understating - truth telling" SDRE post and look up the LCA MK1 AF versions "TRUE" max. MTOW (not the one published in the ADA brochures) and how it is different from what we get to see with what the "Furriners" post /boast.

Once you do that , you can rework the MK2 MTOW increase from the "current" numbers you post and increase the engine thrust from the current level by some 15KN and see if it will work , given the payload the current one takes off from the Vikrant and what the increase the Mk2 can take up from the same take off run and ramp end speed.

As always, it makes sense to put numbers first before "thinking" and "feeling". Math and truth are your Friends your intuition and your "thinking and feeling" might not be.

vina · Post by **vina** » 25 Apr 2017 15:21

Ok. NLCA MK2 - Off Vikrant & VikAd
Assumptions - 8.0 tons empty wt. Internal fuel 3.5 tons, Installed thrust @ IS+20 - 95KN , take off run 213 m

MTOW under the above conditions is 16.2 Tons (the Gripen NG has an MTOW of 16.5 tons for comparison) .
Payload - 4.68 tons.

The NLCA Mk2 is a clear replacement for the Mig 29K . Single engine, similar payload and range on the Vikrant class.
On the VikAd , with a 195 m t.o run, the payload is 3.32 tons, (fully useable for air defence .. 2*ccm,2*BVR, 2 drop tanks ..approx 2.8t).

The key bottleneck is the lack of runway length in VikAd. The IN Naval Arch corps should seriously look at doing something on this.

Fiddling with the VikAD is the EASIEST thing to do to fix the entire mess. Some structural mods /overhangs on the angled runway side further towards the stern, allowing a 20 m extra runway length will fix ALL problems , both in NLCA Mk1 and will allow NLCA Mk2 to fully replace the Mig29 in BOTH the Vikrant class and VikAd class.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 25 Apr 2017 15:32

NLCA MK2 to have 16.5T MTOW, per ADA guys in Aero India. Considering that ADA already has good amount of Ramp TO data, they must be sure of achieving this MTOW for given max TO roll off INS Vikrant.

There are some uncertainties however, such as final airframe weight, F414's thrust on worst day, actual airframe aero performance etc. These will be resolved only after prototype is built and flown.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 Apr 2017 20:52

By the way, I want to know more about the "shelf" flap and ventral air brake on the NLCA Mk2.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 26 Apr 2017 06:07

How practical would it be to modify Vikramaditiya and install a catapult take off. (EMALS or steam)

I know it will delay the program further, but by how long.

I'm talking about buying the turn-key system from the US and installing it. Not doing a 10 year R&D on how to build an indigenous catapult.

The deck would have to be ripped up. But once completed, the added benefit is VikA could launch planes with heavier payloads. e.g Hawkeye sized planes.

Unfortunately it does not have very much space to store these larger planes on board.

Russians took 10 years to modify the Gorshkov into a plane carrier.

vina · Post by **vina** » 26 Apr 2017 10:45

Now, the problem with the VikAd is the limited take off roll length of 195m. It is short by roughly 20m . Get 20 m in and you have solved the "issues" like you have on the Vikrant.

VikAd Schematic

VIkrant Schematic

Early Vikrant Concept Study

The problem with VikAd is where the take off location is positioned just in front of the landing trap cables .

They should either move that location back further in between the cables like has been done for Vikrant, or better, fill out the "rear" overhang, aft of the long take off position seen in the VIkAd schematic, like we see in the Vikrant concept study , so that to launching position in the VikAd can be moved further back along the same line to the overhang and you get a good 25 to 30 m.

These kind of carrier fixes are FAR easier and simpler to do, rather than fix the airplane and demand more off performance and make it grossly overpowered. Also, the greater t.o runway length also opens the possibility of putting stuff like Hawkeye AEW on the carrier and also supply and aerial refuelling assets and they could operate from both the VikAd and the Vikrant with full capability.

These will put two fully functional carriers with superb capability in IN hands and can truly project power.

I do wish that the Navy gets it DND arm to do a full study on what is possible with the VikAd in terms of these kind of tweaks and fixes.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Apr 2017 10:49

vina wrote:
These kind of carrier fixes are FAR easier and simpler to do, rather than fix the airplane and demand more off performance and make it grossly overpowered. Also, the greater t.o runway length also opens the possibility of putting stuff like Hawkeye AEW on the carrier and also supply and aerial refuelling assets and they could operate from both the VikAd and the Vikrant with full capability.

These will put two fully functional carriers with superb capability in IN hands and can truly project power.

Also easier & cheaper than building 4000 meter long 1 million ton carrier for Tu 142 - just sayin