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

LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

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.
JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2651
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 12 Apr 2017 23:48

BTW NLCA prototypes are flying again after a long break. NP1 did 7 flights while NP2 did 1 flight in last 1.5 months or so.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6082
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby disha » 13 Apr 2017 00:02

There is far more commonality between NLCA Mk II and LCA Mk II than divergence.

Even on strengthened fuselage., it will help when LCA has to operate from diverse airbases in North or NE. But that is an "intangible" - difficult to quantify. What is tangible is by moving the wheels outboard and close into the wing roots additional pylons can be gained OR a larger drop tank can be attached.

Bhaskar_T
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 13 Feb 2011 19:09

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Bhaskar_T » 15 Apr 2017 05:59

Any update on SP-5 or SP-6? SP-4 had maiden flight I think some time ago, has it been handed over to IAF?

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 903
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Gyan » 15 Apr 2017 10:37

Will IAF MK-2 have additional hard points ? Or Can we fit in more hard points, on fuselage? Like Mirage 2000?

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 903
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Gyan » 15 Apr 2017 10:52

LCA is a small aircraft with huuuuuge delta wings. If IAF still wanted high sustained rate of turn then something really wrong with some one's common sense. In 1980s even in Kids Scientific Magzines, various articles were published comparing delta wing & F -16 wings ; which mathematically calculated higher STR for F-16s wing compared to Mirage 2000 delta. For its Size LCA delta wing is even bigger.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9667
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby sum » 15 Apr 2017 14:57

Now retd Cde Balaji vents out about IN rejection of LCA in IDR.

Unable to link the article since on mobile.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7516
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Pratyush » 15 Apr 2017 15:17

The NLCA. MK 1 was just a developmental project. It was never mentioned to enter service. Has the Navy also said no to NLCA Mk 2. If so when.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1862
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Bala Vignesh » 15 Apr 2017 16:25

There was a report by The Hindu of an interview with Admiral Lanba saying that the Navy is still not happy with the NLCA Mk2 but would continue supporting it's development.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6018
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby vina » 15 Apr 2017 16:40

Pratyush wrote:The NLCA. MK 1 was just a developmental project. It was never mentioned to enter service. Has the Navy also said no to NLCA Mk 2. If so when.

It seems from CMDe Balaji's write up.

1. The RFI floated by the navy reads as if the 57 new planes are meant for VikAd, Vikrant and the IAC II (which is meant to be STOBAR)
2. The RFIs floated for the new planes place far LESS stringent conditions for length of take off roll and also wind over deck , than what the Navy asks for the LCA MK1 ! (yeah, would be

No wonder they feel miffed. The Mk2 seems to be on track as it doesn't have any of the issues of trying to convert a fully developed Airforce fighter into a carrier based fighter.

The Navy frankly is wasting it's time with that Russian STOBAR concept Kakkoose. When the Vikrant is launched, take the VikAd in to the dry dock for a refit and use waste heat and supplemental heat boilers to drive 2 or 3 Until sourced Cats and make it a Catobar. Maybe, they could do that right away with Vikrant as it is not yet launched.

Frankly there are no planes other than the JSF-35B and the rubbish Mig29 K that will fit the Navy's STOBAR bill. Between the F35B and the Mig29 Kakkoose, you are better off opening the filed out to the F35C ,Rafale, and also the LCA MK2 and not to mention the ability to fly EC2 Hawkeyes.

suryag
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby suryag » 15 Apr 2017 16:47

Link to the article http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news ... -is-wrong/

The article has heightened my admiration for the HAL/ADA folks

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3577
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby srai » 15 Apr 2017 18:21

suryag wrote:Link to the article http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news ... -is-wrong/

The article has heightened my admiration for the HAL/ADA folks


Must read! There's a lot more than the sound-bites some media sensationalize upon.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2651
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 15 Apr 2017 20:32

Nice to see some one from the other side putting forth their side of the story. Quite an informative info and coming from the Chief.

The most important piece of info is that IN is ready to accept new jets with less stringent requirements. Did IN try to fit MK2 in the same matrix and then checked if it fits the bill..?? Well Thats a million dollar question. To be fair its not clear if there were some other parameters where MK2 was not fulfilling and the others like F/A18 might. But looking at CD Balaji's write up it seems a relatively remote possibility.

Of coarse IN has every right to say no to NLCA MK2 if they fill it wouldn't come in time for them. They should just say that. But dropping the ball like this by saying its not up to the mark when it actually might be (Particularly when IN is OK with relaxed performance mateix) is kinda humiliating for the NLCA team.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4978
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby ShauryaT » 15 Apr 2017 20:33

^I read the article yesterday but not convinced the reasons stated by CNS Arun Prakash have really been refuted. The admiral never asked for a future NLCA to be abandoned but has provided sound justification to NOT lock themselves in to the program, until proven.

At this time, I support the IN decision.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15834
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby NRao » 15 Apr 2017 22:17

I think, unfortunately, both are right, in their own ways.

The fact remains that ADA needs a sandbox machine to try (and fail) - which is reflected in Balaji saying first time we are doing this, collecting data that no one will give us, etc.

The end user cannot live based on a sandbox platform. They cannot care about all the good reasons that Balaji provides. They need something that is mature, where mature could mean a variety of things unrelated to what Balaji is rightly stating.

The Mk1A is a compromise between these two. The IN has no such thing (never mind the fact that even the 1A is not mature yet).

The Naval LCA MK2 is not a complete product by naval standards. Wait till IN says we need to work on engines on-board a carrier and test them, for which we need to remove an engine in 60 minutes, etc. These things are coming for sure.

The GOI needs to carry the risks associated with all these things - funds (the Mk1A is one such alternative). Neither should the ADA worry too much about the sale of a product, nor should the user be too sleepless about the product.

But, if a plane that the designer is using to still learn from and collect data is being suggested for a client to use, it will run into such problems. Very predictable.

Which is why I had said long back let the lca be a tech demo - which is what everyone seems to be calling it right now.

Need to delink the two LCA s.

Better still move to the AMCA and stop after the Mk1A

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6018
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby vina » 16 Apr 2017 07:15

ShauryaT wrote:^I read the article yesterday but not convinced the reasons stated by CNS Arun Prakash have really been refuted. The admiral never asked for a future NLCA to be abandoned but has provided sound justification to NOT lock themselves in to the program, until proven.

At this time, I support the IN decision.


Ah. But the good Admiral and his folks "justified and acquired" a "Proven" Mig 29 , which they now discard as worthless garbage and want to get new toys.
All good to support the Admiral. But someone should ask hime WHY DID YOU BUY THE MIG 29K and IS IT PROVEN ? WAS IT PROVEN WHEN YOU BOUGHT IT? ?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3577
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby srai » 16 Apr 2017 07:40

At this point in time, the IN has one STOBAR aircraft carrier. Second STOBAR carrier will join in another 5-years. The IN has 45 MiG-29K (ordered/in-service) for the STOBAR carriers. If the MiG-29Ks were good, one can question why is there a "haste" to acquire another twin-engined foreign carrier-based fighter? The IN STOBAR carriers can carry only around 20 fighter aircraft at most. 45 MiG-29K should have been enough for the time being.

CATOBAR carrier is 15-years away given technology challenges with nuclear propulsion and EMALS. Different fighters would be required for this type of carrier. But it's a long ways away. Things don't add up.

IMO, the IN wants F-35B!

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3577
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby srai » 16 Apr 2017 08:27

Karan M wrote:
Indranil wrote:They are not prioritizing multi-rack BVR carriage as it is difficult to envision a scenario where a light fighter has not entered close combat even after firing two BVRs.


That is a serious mistake (IMHO) on their part given the issues with per missile reliability for most worldclass missiles and the need to launch multiple missiles per target for decent Pk.

Just for perspective, until the recent upgrade of the IAF's Mirage-2000 they could carry only two BVR and two CCM.
Image

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33728
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby shiv » 16 Apr 2017 09:03

More missiles always means less range and/or time on station. Also some missiles have a finite "live carriage" life after which they have to be discarded. That is they can only be slung on a pylon, armed, and disarmed if unused for a limited number of times. If only one in 50 CAP or escort missions leads to missile firing, the 49 out of 50 where 6-8 missiles are carried will lead to far more missile wastage than if just 2-4 missiles are carried.

If we use clever expressions like modern wars and modern air combat we must also know how "modern" combat differs from "oldern" combat.

In World war 2 and Korea dozens of planes came up against each other. In most wars after that it has typically been 4 vs 2 or 4 vs 4 or 2 vs 2. Statistically the chances of expending 8 missiles is lower than expending 2 or 4 unless they are simply fired off in anger. At air combat speeds any engagement at say 50 km will rapidly either go out of range or become WVR depending on whether there is a decision to engage or escape. Manoeuvring, used of tight turns and afterburner will also burn off fuel rapidly. So the idea of carrying more and more missiles I believe must be looked at in the context of these limitations. For the IAF at least. Just my views.

vsunder
BRFite
Posts: 635
Joined: 06 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Ulan Bator, Mongolia

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby vsunder » 16 Apr 2017 10:25

Gyan wrote:LCA is a small aircraft with huuuuuge delta wings. If IAF still wanted high sustained rate of turn then something really wrong with some one's common sense. In 1980s even in Kids Scientific Magzines, various articles were published comparing delta wing & F -16 wings ; which mathematically calculated higher STR for F-16s wing compared to Mirage 2000 delta. For its Size LCA delta wing is even bigger.


Wow these must be very smart kids who read such magazines and mathematically "caliculate", so what do they do now, solve the Navier-Stokes equations with prescribed vorticity with optimal initial regularity?

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2651
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 16 Apr 2017 12:03

vsunder wrote:
Gyan wrote:LCA is a small aircraft with huuuuuge delta wings. If IAF still wanted high sustained rate of turn then something really wrong with some one's common sense. In 1980s even in Kids Scientific Magzines, various articles were published comparing delta wing & F -16 wings ; which mathematically calculated higher STR for F-16s wing compared to Mirage 2000 delta. For its Size LCA delta wing is even bigger.


Wow these must be very smart kids who read such magazines and mathematically "caliculate", so what do they do now, solve the Navier-Stokes equations with prescribed vorticity with optimal initial regularity?


Guess he refers to the simple formulae for ITR/STR in level and turning flight with n number of simplifications to the flight conditions - the formulae which you see in any "Intro to Aerodynamics" book and which does not need any Aerodynamics knowledge as such, but basic 10th level physics is sufficient to derive them.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby rohitvats » 16 Apr 2017 12:12

srai wrote:At this point in time, the IN has one STOBAR aircraft carrier. Second STOBAR carrier will join in another 5-years. The IN has 45 MiG-29K (ordered/in-service) for the STOBAR carriers. If the MiG-29Ks were good, one can question why is there a "haste" to acquire another twin-engined foreign carrier-based fighter? The IN STOBAR carriers can carry only around 20 fighter aircraft at most. 45 MiG-29K should have been enough for the time being.<SNIP>


How are navy fighter squadrons rotated between sea and land?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby rohitvats » 16 Apr 2017 13:24

ShauryaT wrote:^I read the article yesterday but not convinced the reasons stated by CNS Arun Prakash have really been refuted. The admiral never asked for a future NLCA to be abandoned but has provided sound justification to NOT lock themselves in to the program, until proven.

At this time, I support the IN decision.


Actually, the article is more about what the organization did than why the former Navy Chief was wrong in his assessment.

As in case of LCA project, sincere efforts on part of R&D folks but ultimately, those sincere efforts are worth nothing if they do not translate into a product.

Some of the points he has shared point to issues beyond the obvious or the over-simplification we tend to arrive at on BRF.

When the thrust shortfall was encountered, ADA went back to the Cabinet Committee on Security in Dec 2009, with Navy in the loop, to seek a configuration with a higher thrust engine. This was the genesis of the LCA Navy Mk2.


The above statement to me means that Navy was not looking at NLCA Mk1 as a stepping stone for Mk2. Navy was looking at NLCA Mk1 as a genuine carrier borne fighter. That it will not be the case, was something which was discovered during the project itself. One source of friction could've been the fact the DRDO under-estimated the problem in 2003 and by 2009, Navy was given a fait accompli. The IN could've closed the program there itself but to its credit went ahead with development of NLCA Mk1 = as a stepping stone/technology demonstrator - as well as agreed to NLCA Mk2.

Basis above, I don't buy the theory that IN is averse to a single engine fighter. This is a service which operated Sea Harrier as its main fighter aircraft for decades!

Also, he mentions few points which are symptomatic of why such programs lead to friction between the user and R&D folks. Take these for example:

At initiation, it was anticipated that the conversion of an Air Force version to a Naval version with specific attributes would entail about 15% change. However, as the detail design and development process unfolded, the teams involved realized that the changes were almost to the extent of 40% to 45%.


The areas of emphasis, as correctly brought out in Admiral Prakash’s article, are strong landing gear and the associated structural changes, such as increased nose droop to provide better over-the-nose vision, arrester hook integration, and a dedicated control law for ski jump take-off. However, the extent of thrust shortfall became evident only 4 to 5 years into the Programme, i.e., by 2007-08.


Both cases above point to under-estimation of the extent of the problem. And by a huge margin. When the program was launched, ADA would've given a certain timeline basis their understanding of the issues and how long it will take to solve them. The above two points would've contributed to significant delays.

Question that needs to be asked and answered in all honesty is this - we're in almost in mid-2017, about 14 years from when NLCA Mk1 was authorized. Has the program met its objective? If not, how long more it will take?

Also, what is the timeline for development of NLCA Mk2? When is it expected to make first flight? And how long to production?

Arun Prakash in his article gives one very important data-point:

The second reason arises from the navy’s desperate hurry to freeze the specifications of its second indigenous aircraft carrier (dubbed IAC-2). The choice of configuration, size and propulsion of a carrier has a direct linkage with the type of aircraft that will operate from it. This constitutes a ‘chicken and egg’ conundrum — should one freeze the carrier design first or choose the aircraft first? The IN has, obviously decided the latter.


To me, above is the indication that even LCA Mk2 will not be able to meet IN's requirement. And it is not about single or twin engine. It is simply about the ability to operate as a deck based fighter. IN might well have taken this feedback from NLCA Mk1 development itself.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12905
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby negi » 16 Apr 2017 15:57

Decision to fulfill IN's carrier borne requirement using the same platform as LCA has made things hard for us; basically while we struggle to get a platform ready for IAF instead of finishing that work we overburdened the team and 'platform' with requirements for carrier borne operations . Afaik aside from French Rafale no one has taken an AC platform and been able to get that to work for carrier borne operations. My memory fails me but iirc at least in Rafale's case Dassault knew about the need for a common platform in early stages of the program and the fact that they were not constrained by 'size' unlike the LCA it was easier to realize such a goal without making significant compromises in terms of capabilities of the platform for the Navy.

F-35 is a similar project which has come under severe criticism when it comes to trying to do a bit of everything with a single base platform ; the VTOL requirements which only marines and probably RN have has compromised the A-A capabilities of the even the F-35A as the need to have commonality in terms of the base platform meant even the CTOL versions ended up being bulkier than usual.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 903
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Gyan » 16 Apr 2017 16:19

The name of Magzine was Science Today and calculated turning rate for various altitudes also. Anyway after 30 years, turns out 10th class kids had more knowledge then IAF as LCA is still bound by laws of physics.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5920
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby brar_w » 16 Apr 2017 16:21

Decision to fulfill IN's carrier borne requirement using the same platform as LCA has made things hard for us; basically while we struggle to get a platform ready for IAF instead of finishing that work we overburdened the team and 'platform' with requirements for carrier borne operations . Afaik aside from French Rafale no one has taken an AC platform and been able to get that to work for carrier borne operations. My memory fails me but iirc at least in Rafale's case Dassault knew about the need for a common platform in early stages of the program and the fact that they were not constrained by 'size' unlike the LCA it was easier to realize such a goal without making significant compromises in terms of capabilities of the platform for the Navy.


There are a lot of aircraft that fly with their operator Air Forces and navy's and have been designed for this purpose. The YF-17 was a USAF competitor for the Light Weight Fighters program and eventually was taken up by the Navy and re-branded the F/A-18 Hornet. The MiG-29K is a naval variant used by the Indian and Russian Navies. The F-4 was used as both a naval and land based fighter. The list is quite extensive.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2764
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 16 Apr 2017 17:00

srai wrote:At this point in time, the IN has one STOBAR aircraft carrier. Second STOBAR carrier will join in another 5-years. The IN has 45 MiG-29K (ordered/in-service) for the STOBAR carriers. If the MiG-29Ks were good, one can question why is there a "haste" to acquire another twin-engined foreign carrier-based fighter? The IN STOBAR carriers can carry only around 20 fighter aircraft at most. 45 MiG-29K should have been enough for the time being.

CATOBAR carrier is 15-years away given technology challenges with nuclear propulsion and EMALS. Different fighters would be required for this type of carrier. But it's a long ways away. Things don't add up.

IMO, the IN wants F-35B!


But wasn't the IN talking of a next gen carrier based fighter for years now? The admiral is clarifying that this is a decision more to do with the third iac.. IAC 2, and not as a fighter for first two carriers.
Last edited by Cain Marko on 16 Apr 2017 17:08, edited 1 time in total.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby rohitvats » 16 Apr 2017 17:05

What was the end-game of NLCA Mk1 and when was it likely to be reached?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2764
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 16 Apr 2017 17:14

AFAIK, end game was to provide a carrier borne fighter operable from vikrant and Vikad. Time-line seemed to be associated with commissioning of vikrant. But I could be off here
In any case Iirc, the navy despite its initial enthusiasm was quite critical of the project for missed timelines earlier

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Marten » 16 Apr 2017 17:52

Since we gave decades of experience and data on building aircrafts for carriers, all of this makes so much sense. We don't need data or experience at all. An endgame statement will suffice.
/sarc

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12905
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby negi » 16 Apr 2017 18:16

brar your analysis is very superficial in fact the examples which you give point towards the contrary. First things first YF-17 lost the lightweight fighter program to F-16 for the very reasons being talked about in thread on top i.e. F-16 was more agile and lighter ; later YF-17 did form the basis for F-18 again why ? Because the very attributes that made it unsuitable for LWF program of the USAF actually became favorable when it came to USN's needs it had 2 engines , larger and hence could form the basis for a carrier based fighter now it's a different matter that since YF-17 was originally conceived for LWF it gave birth to a compromise i.e. F-18 it wasn't until the arrival of SHs that gap left by tomcat could be narrowed down (this is exactly what I am alluding to all such 'one size fits all' experiments yield half baked results). Coming to the Mig-29K yes it has technically made that transition however IN knows it better than everyone that it has a very limited capability as a carrier borne fighter versus it's land based version , it has a very very poor bring back load capability. F-4 phantom was a USN project from the start so in case of the Phantom it is a reverse transition hence not a valid comparison.

In fact if one indeed wants to draw parallels the data points to LCA being similar to LWF tender where need is to get a light and agile fighter . Coming to the IN their needs were simply to get a capable carrier based fighter , USN was operating under the constraint that new fighter had to be cheaper and economical than the Tomcat and hence YF-17 was a natural fit (remember USN dropped the YF-16 because of it had a single engine and deficiencies which come with a light fighter that LWF program mandated) . All in all light weight fighter for a land based operation did not meet light naval fighter needs of USN , I for one don't think one has to look up to the US always hence never felt the need to allude to this to make my point however I find it amusing how YF-17's journey is being used to misrepresent what we are doing with the LCA .

The closest parallel which we can draw is the Rafale and Rafale-M which I did mention in my post , however even there Rafale is a much larger , twin engine platform.

Mind you we will pull off the N Tejas however what my post was about is we have overburdened a single platform with all our fighter needs and in this case that platform started with mandate of being small and agile .
Last edited by negi on 16 Apr 2017 18:33, edited 4 times in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33728
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby shiv » 16 Apr 2017 18:18

Cain Marko wrote:
But wasn't the IN talking of a next gen carrier based fighter for years now?

What exactly is a "next gen" carrier based fighter?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5920
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby brar_w » 16 Apr 2017 18:38

brar your analysis is very superficial in fact the examples which you give point towards the contrary. First things first YF-17 lost the lightweight fighter program to F-16 for the very reasons being talked about in thread on top i.e. F-16 was more agile and lighter ; later YF-17 did form the basis for F-18 again why ? Coming to the Mig-29K yes it has technically made that transition however IN knows it better than everyone that it has a very limited capability as a carrier borne fighter versus it's land based version , it has a very very poor bring back load capability. F-4 phantom was a USN project from the start so in case of the Phantom it is a reverse transition hence not a valid comparison.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5098&p=2143593#p2143593

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15834
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby NRao » 16 Apr 2017 19:10

I find it very funny that the YF-17 -> F/A-18, etc are mentioned in context of the current predicament of the "LCA". To put the topic of "YF-17 or F/A-18" into perspective, ALL those efforts are from the 60-70s. And, we are comparing the "LCA" from 2017 to them.

May be it would be worth mentioning that the F/A-14 (Tomcat) was derived from the F-111 and one of the constraints placed on that plane was a penalty of $440,000 (I have no clue why that odd number) for every 100 pounds of excess weight per plane. And, not to mention delivery of a prototype within some 17 months and first production model in 51 months (all odd numbers). For a contract of (IIRC) $8 billion, those penalties, etc were very steep. Think of the "risk" I keep talking about.

Point being, WRT the "LCA", nothing is new. Seems to me that there were sufficient data points from the past that were not taken seriously. The "LCA" has made great strides, that is for sure, but it is not at a point where one can claim India has a leading edge MIC in this area. I am sure there are more skeletons in that closet, which IMHO, are normal - to be expected.

Our expectations need to be re-calibrated. And, nothing wrong with that.

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Marten » 16 Apr 2017 23:59

NRao, what data points? What do you mean nothing is new? Platform, wings, everything is new for us. Data from which naval platform? What closet and what skeletons? Your post is utter rubbish. Please substantiate or redact.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4071
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Neshant » 17 Apr 2017 01:52

rohitvats wrote:Basis above, I don't buy the theory that IN is averse to a single engine fighter. This is a service which operated Sea Harrier as its main fighter aircraft for decades!


That is old school now.

The age of small single engine carrier planes has passed us by.

Countries will only be deploying twin engine carrier based aircraft from here on end for strikes.

Nobody is going to be flying single engine Harrier as they lack range, weapon carrying capacity, speed, agility, BVR capability.. etc.

This is why I advocate changing the role of the nLCA to CAP, Recon, Escort rather than Strike (where it has no hope).

Changing its role will enable the MK2 to be inducted on the carrier until the nAMCA comes online.

Anything else is just not going to work.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2651
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby JayS » 17 Apr 2017 03:07

Neshant wrote:
The age of small single engine carrier planes has passed us by.

Countries will only be deploying twin engine carrier based aircraft from here on end for strikes.

.

:shock:

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14485
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Karan M » 17 Apr 2017 03:09

JayS wrote:
Neshant wrote:
The age of small single engine carrier planes has passed us by.

Countries will only be deploying twin engine carrier based aircraft from here on end for strikes.

.

:shock:


LOL

""This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." - Western Union internal memo, 1876"

As confident.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3577
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby srai » 17 Apr 2017 03:48

Single engine ;)
Image
Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5920
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby brar_w » 17 Apr 2017 03:58

The age of small single engine [GE F404 powered] carrier planes has passed us by :((

Image

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4071
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA: News & Discussions - October 2016

Postby Neshant » 17 Apr 2017 05:26

That is unmanned. And its not a fighter. As for F-35, you already know my opinion on its poor performance.

You are pitching a single engine carrier plane as a telephone in the 1876.

Its more like two soup cans attached with a string where one guy shouts in one can and another listens for a sound in another.

Its already obsolete.

Most of the major navies will only deploy twin engine aircraft on their carriers. The only exception has been F-35 and it carries a very powerful single engine. Even so its maneuverability is poor under load.

I'll make a prediction. Though a lot of effort will go into the nMK2, the navy will eventually decline to purchase it. This will be even if the carrier has EMALS to launch the plane off the deck with a full payload.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Eric Leiderman, gauravsharma, JayS, nash, shivatar and 53 guests