Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

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.
ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3047
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby ArjunPandit » 14 Nov 2019 23:49

I know it might be OT and perhaps very jugaad, but cant the experience of crashing this plane be used for landing at extremely short fields in eastern sector (through the use of cables would be required..but that ways project can be put to some active use) it could be our short take off fighter or cheaper harrier..not that we need it but there could be some niche needs it can help..pardon if it serves as a distraction to the informed discussion going on...i just wish the hard work of folks puts into some use...

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1894
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Kakarat » 14 Nov 2019 23:53

Indranil wrote:Not decided yet.


As you said I too feel the easiest way for TEDBF is Navy AMCA, but if they are redesigning the NLCA MK2 to twin engine then I think even 2XF404 would be a overkill

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby nachiket » 15 Nov 2019 03:14

Kakarat wrote:
Indranil wrote:Not decided yet.


As you said I too feel the easiest way for TEDBF is Navy AMCA,


Perhaps what the Navy wants is for ADA to start with 2 separate designs from the start, rather than trying to navalize their AF AMCA design, which as we know can be very difficult. Somewhat like how the AF MWF design and the Naval LCA Mk2 design were so different from each other. The Navy probably wants that for the AMCA too now that the single engines NLCA Mk2 is canceled.

but if they are redesigning the NLCA MK2 to twin engine then I think even 2XF404 would be a overkill

The aircraft would be around the size of a Rafale. 2 F404's would definitely not be overkill. If it is a true Stealth airframe on the lines of the AMCA it would be heavier and draggier. So 2 F404s would actually leave it very underpowered.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby ramana » 15 Nov 2019 06:36

I think.IN will get 57 Tejas in what ever Mark they want. They can get Mark1 for Naval Air stations. Need quite a few on Eastern Seaboard.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7221
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby disha » 15 Nov 2019 09:32

I want to quote Indranil & Nilesh's article http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/10/15/a-detailed-look-at-the-design-evolution-of-indias-naval-lca-mk1-fighter/

As of now, the IN has ordered a total of 8 NLCA Mk1 aircraft which includes 4 Trainers and 4 Fighters [5].


Given the above support from IN, here would be my wishlist:

1. Total 16+4 NLCA Mk1 -> this will be the lead in fighter trainer. It can also provide a good canopy of ECM. Already I think ELL-8222WB will be used for LCA-Mk1. Modifying it for NLCA should not be a problem. NLCA Mk1 can be a good ECM/ECCM platform while serving the LIFT role for a significant time.

Getting into service will also provide operational data.

2. NLCA Mk2 -> This is the single engine (r)evolution of Mk1.

We know that GE-F404 is underpowered. We know that the MLG is over-engineered. We know that the arrestor hook assembly is sub-optimal.

Hence the redesign around Mk1, even though impacts the CLAW, it can be suitably modified for a plane with a better engine, better area ruling, better MLG layout and optimized weight and integration into the overall airframe and appropriate changes to arrestor hooks.

Of course, this should be around 48+9

Reason is that we will have three (3) aircraft carriers by 2030. This can be dedicated CAP.

I am just disappointed with the news that the single engined NLCA Mk2 is cancelled. Is it confirmed?

3. NAMCA -> this is the twin engine version and a new design from ground up. Built around two F-414.

NLCA-Mk1 has been a game changer. It will be an immense matter of pride when an NLCA-Mk1 lands on INS Vikramaditya and then takes off from there.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1894
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Kakarat » 15 Nov 2019 14:17

nachiket wrote:
Kakarat wrote:
As you said I too feel the easiest way for TEDBF is Navy AMCA,


Perhaps what the Navy wants is for ADA to start with 2 separate designs from the start, rather than trying to navalize their AF AMCA design, which as we know can be very difficult. Somewhat like how the AF MWF design and the Naval LCA Mk2 design were so different from each other. The Navy probably wants that for the AMCA too now that the single engines NLCA Mk2 is canceled.

but if they are redesigning the NLCA MK2 to twin engine then I think even 2XF404 would be a overkill

The aircraft would be around the size of a Rafale. 2 F404's would definitely not be overkill. If it is a true Stealth airframe on the lines of the AMCA it would be heavier and draggier. So 2 F404s would actually leave it very underpowered.


My view is for the NLCA redesigned to be twin engine with minimum changes to Mk2 design with ~17T MTOW, if they do a ~20T MTOW design then 2 F404 would be a fit and anything heavier then it will need F414. But it will also need more money and time. And if they are going for a new design then it would be wise to go for a 5 gen design

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 679
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby sankum » 15 Nov 2019 16:49

The engines should be GE F414 for sure as for STOBAR carriers TEDBF with 20T thrust should be able to take off with full load from 144 m short runway of IAC1 for MTOW of 23 T as per my estimates.
I will give empty weight of 11 T + internal fuel of 4.7 T + 0.8 T misc. + 6.5T payload=23T.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20177
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Philip » 15 Nov 2019 18:18

Being single-engined, the reliability of the engine and on-board support and maintenance of the utmost importance.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4612
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 16 Nov 2019 05:59

Indranil wrote:ADA is pitching NLCA as a LIFT for carrier landings, in line with what the USN does with Goshawks. NLCA is certainly much more capable than a Goshawk. NAvy has not evinced any interest as of yet.

NLCA Mk2 is being completely redesigned. It won't be Naval AMCA, but a twin engined NLCA Mk2. Frankly, I am confused and so is everybody I have talked to. Navy is firmly behind a twin engine bird designed by ADA called the TEDBF. There will be some reorganization in lieu of Mk1 nearing completion, onset of MWF production and testing, onset of final design phase of AMCA, Ghatak and now TEDBF. THings will get more concrete after the reorganization.

To me the shortest path to TEDBF is through Naval AMCA. But I understand NAvy's predicament. For an AMCA sized bird, they would like the 110kN engines from day 1. With the 98 kN engines, they want something smaller and lighter.


Seems so damn logical that its a no-brainer. The Navy currently uses Hawk for AJT and then straight onto MiG-29KUB for conversion training and carrier landing training. And those same KUBs are used for currency training for existing squadron pilots as well. they'll be eating away at their hours, assuming the KUB's availability is ok.

Yet, my feeling is that the Navy leadership no longer supports the Naval LCA program except for some lip service. The IN has an opportunity to scale up its training for 4th and 5th gen platforms with a dedicated squadron of NLCA Mk1 twin seaters. But instead all they do is hanker around for a foreign import. The past couple of naval admirals at the top are disappointing in their approach to this entire thing.

A twin-engined N-LCA Mk2? While I can understand the reliability and safety of twin engine jets, how does it make sense to develop such a fighter to be bought in the kind of numbers that the IN can buy?? It throws all commonality out of the window, including the engine commonality with the Tejas. Because a twin engine type cannot be powered by 2 F-404s, else we'll get a F/A-18 C/D class medium fighter for the NLCA Mk2..is that what they want? or a smaller type powered by 2 F-125IN type engines?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4612
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 16 Nov 2019 06:17

John wrote:Based on what I pieced together Su-33 can barely carry any payload taking of from a Skijump and suffers from numerous issues including poor serviceability (both China and Russia have experienced that). Once of the reasons Russia moved to Mig-29k. It was our navy that turned down Su-33 it was not Russia forcing us to take Mig-29k.


I recall that there was an article by Admiral Arun Prakash on what went on during the evaluation for the fighter for the Gorshkov. Although both the Su-33 and MiG-29K met the IN's requirements, the Su-33 was found to be too large to fit the hangars of the Gorshkov and wing tip clearances were marginal from the island structure during deck launch..consequently it was rejected by the IN in favor of the MiG-29K. It wasn't the Russians that stuffed it down the IN's throat, since both were on offer.

link

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 16 Nov 2019 06:30

Kartik, the dread of a single engine failure is common to all navies, not just Indian Navy. My friends who have retired USN have yet to come to terms with the F-35. But F-35 has a lot of redundancy in the checks in place. In the USN, they used to mock the F-16 pilots to be flying on their "spare" engine.

Kartik wrote:A smaller type powered by 2 F-125IN type engines?

I don't think that is what they are thinking, but that is a great proposition. I did not think of this. The truth is that 90 kN won't cut it. But I like your thinking.

On a separate topic, I have been thinking of what should be the next AJT for IAF. Should be Hawk class? Should it be YAk-130 class? or FTC-2000 class? or LCA trainer class? Do we need an LCA class AJT? I think it should be Yak-130 aircraft class with a performance of a FTC-2000 class.

F5E Tiger II would be that kind of aircraft. It was regularly used to mimic the Mig-21. The thrust category is 32 kN dry and 44kN wet. A fighter version would have increased range and endurance. There is no plane of this class right now, while other classes have established players.

Thinking of writing an opinion piece on the same. I know I will be panned for suggesting a simple solution. But, I want to do it. IJT and HTT-40 design and testing phase are drawing to a close. The next logical step is an AJT. A simple plane which is easy to procure and manage. HAL can do it around an afterburning version of its HTFE25 engine, or the F-125IN engine.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4612
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 16 Nov 2019 06:36

nachiket wrote:
Kakarat wrote:
As you said I too feel the easiest way for TEDBF is Navy AMCA,


Perhaps what the Navy wants is for ADA to start with 2 separate designs from the start, rather than trying to navalize their AF AMCA design, which as we know can be very difficult. Somewhat like how the AF MWF design and the Naval LCA Mk2 design were so different from each other. The Navy probably wants that for the AMCA too now that the single engines NLCA Mk2 is canceled.

but if they are redesigning the NLCA MK2 to twin engine then I think even 2XF404 would be a overkill

The aircraft would be around the size of a Rafale. 2 F404's would definitely not be overkill. If it is a true Stealth airframe on the lines of the AMCA it would be heavier and draggier. So 2 F404s would actually leave it very underpowered.


Long ago, I recall reading an interview with Cmdr Theophilus (I believe) and he mentioned that the IN's ideal fighter at that time was the Rafale M. But that the IN would support the N-LCA as it was our first foray into a naval fighter and could not be abandoned for the experience it brought to the Navy and the local aerospace industry. That was probably the thought of the leadership then- the IN is now pushing the Naval LCA Mk2 to become a desi Rafale M by insisting on twin engines while being a 4th gen fighter.

But a brand new design with a new airframe and twin engines is going to be a lot of work. And all that for an order that isn't even 1/3rd of the IAF's commitment (200 MWF) which brings unit prices down to an affordable degree. I'm afraid if the TEDBF is not based on the MWF, then it will end up being even more expensive than Rafale M bought off-the-shelf.

Meanwhile, they display great hypocrisy by even entertaining the Sea Gripen for the MRCBF RFI. Why even waste Saab's time when the IN insists on a twin engine design? Why not eliminate it and make it a two horse contest?

IMO, this may just be a way to kill the program and get 57 imported MRCBF instead. Make the program unviable to a degree that imports seem like a better option.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4612
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 16 Nov 2019 06:42

sankum wrote:The engines should be GE F414 for sure as for STOBAR carriers TEDBF with 20T thrust should be able to take off with full load from 144 m short runway of IAC1 for MTOW of 23 T as per my estimates.
I will give empty weight of 11 T + internal fuel of 4.7 T + 0.8 T misc. + 6.5T payload=23T.


So you want ADA to develop a Super Hornet class naval fighter?

LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 119
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby LakshmanPST » 16 Nov 2019 11:24

MRCBF is being planned for IAC-2 only...
I don't think IAC-2 will be commissioned earlier than 2035... Also, 5-10 years after this, Vikramaditya will be up for retirement and we might be looking at IAC-3...
So for both IAC-2 and IAC-3, we would need around 120 jets... If twin engine fighter is what the Navy wants, then it is better to develop indigenous TEDBF, based on Tejas or AMCA, rather than going for a foreign Vendor...

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 679
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby sankum » 16 Nov 2019 13:32

Kartik, I am not thinking. I am just an observer.
Admiral lamba interview confused me a lot as well as a news report that a version of naval lca will be offerred to IAF for ground strike and Indranil repeated observation that naval lca mk2 is dead.
I am just guess estimating. IN is the master of what is the future way.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 679
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby sankum » 16 Nov 2019 13:44

Both INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant have standard load of 20 fighters and peak load of 24 fighters. If both carriers are at sea IN requirement will be 48 fighters plus 24 fighters a reserve/ atrition replacement. If IAC2 is also included the requirement is for 100 fighters on the persumption only 2 carriers are at sea.
Last edited by sankum on 16 Nov 2019 14:00, edited 1 time in total.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1894
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Kakarat » 16 Nov 2019 13:48

Kartik wrote:A twin-engined N-LCA Mk2? While I can understand the reliability and safety of twin engine jets, how does it make sense to develop such a fighter to be bought in the kind of numbers that the IN can buy?? It throws all commonality out of the window, including the engine commonality with the Tejas. Because a twin engine type cannot be powered by 2 F-404s, else we'll get a F/A-18 C/D class medium fighter for the NLCA Mk2..is that what they want? or a smaller type powered by 2 F-125IN type engines?


I also did think of alternative engine options and concepts, but to my understanding F-125IN might be underpowered with 40 to 44KN and F-125X with 56KN is only a on papers. another option would be the Japanese IHI Corporation XF5 with ~50KN that powers the Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin. I couldn't find any other engine at the 50 to 60 KN range

Can experts in this field calculate the thrust require for a 17T TEDBF assuming NLCA Mk2 is redesigned to be twin engine with minimal changes

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 679
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby sankum » 16 Nov 2019 13:51

The tender for MRCBF clearly states the requirement for operation from stobar carriers which are designed around mig 29k. TEDBF will be designed for both stobar carriers and IAC2 and should be available around 2030 and naval AMCA around 2040 to replace mig 29k.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 679
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby sankum » 16 Nov 2019 13:58

2 F 125 engine are grossly underpowerred for 10 thrust engine 17T NLCA mk2. Both Rafale and Superhornet cant go aboard present Stobar cariers without serious compromises.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 679
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby sankum » 16 Nov 2019 15:43

My preference would have been NAMCA mk1 by 2030. But as HVT in his tweet pointed out that NAMCA will require enlarged folding wing and LREX for carrier operations. I think given timeline required IN is taking best way forward by developing TEDBF according to its requirement better than Rafale and Superhornet.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4373
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby JayS » 16 Nov 2019 15:49

If the aim of Two engine is to provide redundancy, think how can an engine like F125XYZ would allow it to land on its meagre power or take off again in case of a bolter..? The landing config of NLCA is highly draggy.

Twin engine jet with min of 2xF404 is bottomline.

We can convert MWF or NLCA Mk2 in twin engine config. I have been drawing some sketches. MWF would be tricky to convert. NLCA Mk2 would be easier I think, with single VT, two HT, wings moved outboard further to make space for two engines and larger air intakes, wing folding, a bit fatter and longer fuselage for close to 5T internal fuel. But I think it should be AMCA - minus stealth (retain as much features as possible, use internal bays space for internal fuel if need be or to accomodate larger MLG, or reduce it for only 4xAAM, avionics from MWF, larger wings a la F35C). The config is already refined with all aerodynamical testing done. Any tinkering in MWF or NLCA MK2 would need fresh WT tests.

PS: I meant landing or bolter TO in case of one engine failure case.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 679
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby sankum » 16 Nov 2019 16:16

I second that. TEDBF better be a non stealthy naval version of AMCA mk1 with internal bay used to carry extra fuel and total internal fuel of 8.5T.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3882
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby chola » 16 Nov 2019 17:00

JayS wrote:If the aim of Two engine is to provide redundancy, think how can an engine like F125XYZ would allow it to land on its meagre power or take off again in case of a bolter..? The landing config of NLCA is highly draggy.

Twin engine jet with min of 2xF404 is bottomline.

We can convert MWF or NLCA Mk2 in twin engine config. I have been drawing some sketches. MWF would be tricky to convert. NLCA Mk2 would be easier I think, with single VT, two HT, wings moved outboard further to make space for two engines and larger air intakes, wing folding, a bit fatter and longer fuselage for close to 5T internal fuel. But I think it should be AMCA - minus stealth (retain as much features as possible, use internal bays space for internal fuel if need be or to accomodate larger MLG, or reduce it for only 4xAAM, avionics from MWF, larger wings a la F35C). The config is already refined with all aerodynamical testing done. Any tinkering in MWF or NLCA MK2 would need fresh WT tests.


Yes, I think it has to be a medium-sized engine of the F404/F414/RD-33/Kaveri class. The F125 is way too weak at 50kN to provide any useful redundancy.

Two F404-type engines is basically a F-18, MiG-29K or AMCA. The first won't fit our lifts and may not operate efficiently from a STOBAR anyways, the second we already operate. Making a naval variant of the third is the best path forward IMHO.

Anything else means we have to go clean slate. Can we afford another two-engine design with a lot of redundancies alongside the AMCA?

Here is another one, probably far-fetched:

Can we buy the MiG-29K design from Russia and fix it up on our own? We operate the majority of the type. Russia had only ordered one batch of 24 and with their one carrier laid up they might not buy another one for a long time.

An corrected maybe enhanced 29K should carry the IN over until we go stealth, most likely a variant of the AMCA.

Asking for a new twin-engine carrier fighter when we just bought the 29K seems a waste when there are so many projects (Tejas MK1, MK1A, MWF and AMCA) needing funding.

To be honest, I would say why not just finish up the NLCA and use that in the interim even if they are set on a new fighter. That program is going well with the tests and anything new unless bought off the shelf will take time.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1894
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Kakarat » 16 Nov 2019 17:02

JayS wrote:If the aim of Two engine is to provide redundancy, think how can an engine like F125XYZ would allow it to land on its meagre power or take off again in case of a bolter..? The landing config of NLCA is highly draggy.

Twin engine jet with min of 2xF404 is bottomline.

We can convert MWF or NLCA Mk2 in twin engine config. I have been drawing some sketches. MWF would be tricky to convert. NLCA Mk2 would be easier I think, with single VT, two HT, wings moved outboard further to make space for two engines and larger air intakes, wing folding, a bit fatter and longer fuselage for close to 5T internal fuel. But I think it should be AMCA - minus stealth (retain as much features as possible, use internal bays space for internal fuel if need be or to accomodate larger MLG, or reduce it for only 4xAAM, avionics from MWF, larger wings a la F35C). The config is already refined with all aerodynamical testing done. Any tinkering in MWF or NLCA MK2 would need fresh WT tests.


A NLCA mk2 converted to twin engine cannot happen with out wt increase so it wont be 17T after conversion, so 2Xf404 is the bottom line as you say. It was my mistake to consider both single engine and twin engine Mk2 would be of same wt. Engine Wt alone is about 1T for a F404IN20 along with modifications and increase in fuel for the additional engine will easily add another ~3-4T, So we can safely assume that TEDBF would be around 22-25T MTOW

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4373
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby JayS » 16 Nov 2019 17:16

Why are we limiting ourselves exactly to 17T MTOW..? Has the Navy put such a condition..??? How can even a twin engine Jet of any proper size fit in the same weight category as a single-engined one..??

It would make a lot of sense to make a stripped down AMCA based 4th gen twin jet and then gradually shift to NMACA by the time IAC 2 enters service.

The advantage with NLCA MK2 based twin engine design would be that its aerodynamics is already well understood in the Naval context. If they could convert it to twin jet with minimal tinkering to the aero config, then that could be the shortest path.

In fact, the Navy should be told to cancel the tender for those 57 imported jets and work with ADA for a proper twin engine medium weight jet. If we are at it, why not make it a proper fighter..? Navy cannot be operating all 4th Gen fighter fleet into 2040s. There is not point in having TEDBF and an imported fighter on top of it, later followed by NAMCA.

The Indian Navy has been in the loop since the starting. How can they ask for a Twin engine jet out of the blue at such late stage...? It was apparent way back in 2009 itself that NLCA MK1 is not sufficient. The preference for twin jet for any Navy is not a new thing. What stopped IN to ask for a Twin engine MK2 in 2009 or even in later few years..?? In my mind, question arises on the ad hoc thinking of the Indian Navy in this case. Either they are trying to subotage the NLCA program so import of 57 jets become inevitable, or they have no clue what they are doing. Can there be a third explanation..?? For all the criticism IAF has received for so many years, they sat down and sorted their differences and agreed on a steady growth path for LCA and AMCA. The Indian Navy just went the other way. I simply do not understand what went wrong with NLCA program.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1894
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Kakarat » 16 Nov 2019 17:34

It was my mistake to consider both single engine and twin engine Mk2 would be of same wt

But I think a stripped down AMCA based 4th gen twin jet or a 5th gen NAMCA would take the same amount of time to develop as it will be based on a new design. If they want to shorten the development time then only way is to redesign and adopting the NLCA Mk2 to be a twin engine medium weight jet with minimum modifications.

As you said Navy should be told to cancel the tender for those 57 imported jets and concentrate on the TEDBF with full force, actually TEDBF could come faster than imported fighters if you consider the MRCA saga

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3097
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby fanne » 16 Nov 2019 19:59

Since we are kite flying...our adversary namely TSP and Chicoms. They as of now and next 10 years fields plane that can be taken out by Mig 29 K. After 10 -15 years, Chinese will start fielding LO naval fighters (and TSP will get it 10 years after that, 20 years from now), Mig 29 K or 2 engine NLCA may not be adequate to take them on. I think we are making 2 engine LO NAMCA fighter (or that should be our goal). It will take us 15-20 years to make them, by the time chicom and TSP threat materialize. There is little sense in 2 engine non LO NLCA. It will take 10 years to build and then inadequate.
Till then, more Mig 29, solve its problem ourselves (not rely on Russians). Negotiate a different IP agreement where we can tinker without loosing the warranty (the moral/logical/business card is that the product is not upto par). Change it and if we ever reach a satisfactory level, have another 40-50 made (that will be Russian carrot) to tide over next 20 years till NAMCA comes online.
Our MIC are at the level currently that we can tinker with Mig 29, thanks to LCA

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20591
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby chetak » 16 Nov 2019 20:09

JayS wrote:Why are we limiting ourselves exactly to 17T MTOW..? Has the Navy put such a condition..??? How can even a twin engine Jet of any proper size fit in the same weight category as a single-engined one..??

It would make a lot of sense to make a stripped down AMCA based 4th gen twin jet and then gradually shift to NMACA by the time IAC 2 enters service.

The advantage with NLCA MK2 based twin engine design would be that its aerodynamics is already well understood in the Naval context. If they could convert it to twin jet with minimal tinkering to the aero config, then that could be the shortest path.

In fact, the Navy should be told to cancel the tender for those 57 imported jets and work with ADA for a proper twin engine medium weight jet. If we are at it, why not make it a proper fighter..? Navy cannot be operating all 4th Gen fighter fleet into 2040s. There is not point in having TEDBF and an imported fighter on top of it, later followed by NAMCA.

The Indian Navy has been in the loop since the starting. How can they ask for a Twin engine jet out of the blue at such late stage...? It was apparent way back in 2009 itself that NLCA MK1 is not sufficient. The preference for twin jet for any Navy is not a new thing. What stopped IN to ask for a Twin engine MK2 in 2009 or even in later few years..?? In my mind, question arises on the ad hoc thinking of the Indian Navy in this case. Either they are trying to subotage the NLCA program so import of 57 jets become inevitable, or they have no clue what they are doing. Can there be a third explanation..?? For all the criticism IAF has received for so many years, they sat down and sorted their differences and agreed on a steady growth path for LCA and AMCA. The Indian Navy just went the other way. I simply do not understand what went wrong with NLCA program.



Sirji,

pray do tell,

If not the IN, then who exactly, in your opinion, has a clue as to what is going on.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20591
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby chetak » 16 Nov 2019 20:16

fanne wrote:Since we are kite flying...our adversary namely TSP and Chicoms. They as of now and next 10 years fields plane that can be taken out by Mig 29 K. After 10 -15 years, Chinese will start fielding LO naval fighters (and TSP will get it 10 years after that, 20 years from now), Mig 29 K or 2 engine NLCA may not be adequate to take them on. I think we are making 2 engine LO NAMCA fighter (or that should be our goal). It will take us 15-20 years to make them, by the time chicom and TSP threat materialize. There is little sense in 2 engine non LO NLCA. It will take 10 years to build and then inadequate.
Till then, more Mig 29, solve its problem ourselves (not rely on Russians). Negotiate a different IP agreement where we can tinker without loosing the warranty (the moral/logical/business card is that the product is not upto par). Change it and if we ever reach a satisfactory level, have another 40-50 made (that will be Russian carrot) to tide over next 20 years till NAMCA comes online.
Our MIC are at the level currently that we can tinker with Mig 29, thanks to LCA



We may not have the requisite permissions from the russkies to tinker with the 29.

But that does not mean that such permissions cannot be obtained.

don't you think that we should have exercised such options with our russki transport fleet instead of sending them away to be upgraded.

a JV perhaps

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 16 Nov 2019 20:29

chetak wrote:
JayS wrote:The Indian Navy has been in the loop since the starting. How can they ask for a Twin engine jet out of the blue at such late stage...? It was apparent way back in 2009 itself that NLCA MK1 is not sufficient. The preference for twin jet for any Navy is not a new thing. What stopped IN to ask for a Twin engine MK2 in 2009 or even in later few years..?? In my mind, question arises on the ad hoc thinking of the Indian Navy in this case. Either they are trying to subotage the NLCA program so import of 57 jets become inevitable, or they have no clue what they are doing. Can there be a third explanation..?? For all the criticism IAF has received for so many years, they sat down and sorted their differences and agreed on a steady growth path for LCA and AMCA. The Indian Navy just went the other way. I simply do not understand what went wrong with NLCA program.



Sirji,

pray do tell,

If not the IN, then who exactly, in your opinion, has a clue as to what is going on.

Not the same people at the helm. The people leading the helm in 2009 were trained on the Harriers and so a single engined bird was okay. Arun Prakash ji is steadfast in his support towards NLCA to this day! The present crop is advised by people coming off the induction of Mig29k. The thinking is different.

To be fair, the Indian Navy has been pushing for twin engines for the last 3-4 years. ADA has been trying to say that they can redesign NLCA Mk2 in such a way that all operational needs are satisfied.

I am trying to see the bright side. This twin engined bird may be adapted as a shore based fighter with capabilities and price lying in between that of MWF and AMCA. 200 AMCAs, 200 TE-MWFs and 400 MWFs may be a very good force sans 2040. There's a need for IAF,IN.MoD and ADA to work closely on this.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4373
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby JayS » 16 Nov 2019 20:43

Some weekend timepass....

Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20591
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby chetak » 16 Nov 2019 22:34

Indranil wrote:
chetak wrote:


Sirji,

pray do tell,

If not the IN, then who exactly, in your opinion, has a clue as to what is going on.


Not the same people at the helm. The people leading the helm in 2009 were trained on the Harriers and so a single engined bird was okay. Arun Prakash ji is steadfast in his support towards NLCA to this day! The present crop is advised by people coming off the induction of Mig29k. The thinking is different.

To be fair, the Indian Navy has been pushing for twin engines for the last 3-4 years. ADA has been trying to say that they can redesign NLCA Mk2 in such a way that all operational needs are satisfied.

I am trying to see the bright side. This twin engined bird may be adapted as a shore based fighter with capabilities and price lying in between that of MWF and AMCA. 200 AMCAs, 200 TE-MWFs and 400 MWFs may be a very good force sans 2040. There's a need for IAF,IN.MoD and ADA to work closely on this.


Sirji,


The days of ap are long gone. Not that his tenure was in any way remarkable or even distinguishable from a lot of the others who, BTW, all of them did their jobs competently.

That said, the example of the harrier is disingenuous.

It is not even an apple orange comparison. it's like comparing an apple with a wildebeest.

Even the amerikis deployed it but they made sure that their harrier carried almost double the load of its UK counterpart apart from the much improved avionics.

If the kaveri/derivative is to power a single engined fighter, it has quite some ways to go yet. The way it is programmed to enter service, it may be apter in a dual engine role in an appropriate platform.

A single engine is mission critical, a dual engine may get you home in one piece.

An ameriki engined single engined carrier fighter is a risk in many more ways than one and it actually hamstrings an entire range of possible Indian responses to both our threats.

The enormous risk of using ameriki engines in both the IAF and the IN boggles the mind. It requires just one "campaign funded" rogue ameriki senator to ground your ameriki engined fleet. Pressler is a name well known to the pakis.

The IN will be entirely denuded while the IAF will be hamstrung depending on how many such platforms that they may have deployed at the time.

Yes, in its heydays, the IN did indeed use the single-engined seahawk, both the UK and as well as the german built ones.

But sea power has since evolved and single engines are not the direction in which carrier aircraft have consistently and inexorably progressed.

There is no looking back or even going back.

Every design engineer needs to know the entire history as well as the philosophy of the possible array of exploitation of the product that he/she is developing. This is in both a historic sense as well as the strategic sense. Customer requirements are only refined by the customer. The designer enters the equation only after being completely aware of the environment as well as the basic requirement of customer that he/she intends to work with at the time that the customer walks in.

The customer then refines his requirements as per the threat perception which is always in a state of evolution. The designer has to respond with a platform that can also be adapted in line with those evolving threats.

A customer who walked in during the 1920s, he would not even be understood by a customer who walks in, say, during the 2020s.
Ditto would be the case for the designers. They need to de risk by peering into the future, maybe 5-10 years hence. There are bound to be some hits and some misses. The misses may sometimes be partially compensated by the pilot but this may not always be possible leading to situations of unacceptable risk.

The design engineer or the design organisation that fails to do this may have a better future in the fast food industry.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7389
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Prasad » 16 Nov 2019 22:56

So who does take the final decision of what level of diversity is needed when a local option is unavailable? Defence Minister? I cannot believe it will be some lab head who does that. Or an AM or equivalent rank in the Navy. Strategic decisions aren't taken by underlings.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 16 Nov 2019 23:51

Chetak sir ji,

I was not pitting one navy chief against another. I was not comparing HArriers to Mig-29K either. I think I have made it clear over the years here that I am not that naive.

I was just saying that the thought process has changed. By the way, both the engines on a double-engined fighter are "mission critical" too. If either of them fail, the mission will be terminated and the pilot be vectored to favorably a nearby shore-based facility (if possible). Otherwise, drop everything and return to ship. Single fighter is worse. Most important thing ends up in the sea, namely the pilot. You can replace a plane in less time and money than a naval fighter pilot.

That said, modern aircraft engines are not as vulnerable as before. They have enormous self diagnostic and corrective measures. The F-35s engine has dual FADECs. The crash rate on a single-engined fighter is longer higher than their double engined counterparts.

Today, a Mig29k went down when one of its engines ingested a bird.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20591
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby chetak » 16 Nov 2019 23:52

Prasad wrote:So who does take the final decision of what level of diversity is needed when a local option is unavailable? Defence Minister? I cannot believe it will be some lab head who does that. Or an AM or equivalent rank in the Navy. Strategic decisions aren't taken by underlings.


at this stage, the Brahmastra is unsheathed, and (gasp!!) a committee is formed and THE baboo(n)s emerge into the light.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18667
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Karan M » 17 Nov 2019 00:40

That's 7 programs for ADA-HAL:
LCA Mk1, LCA Mk1A, LCA Sport, LCA MWF, dual engine NLCA and then AMCA, and Ghatak.

Of these, the first 3 should be the easiest to get out of the way with the key challenge being HAL able to ramp up production with the right QA/QC. SPORT is just a TD at this stage.

Theoretically, given resources this is doable. As 3 partially separate teams are working on LCA Mk1/Mk1A, MWF and AMCA. A huge amount of common subsystems can be leveraged as well.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20591
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby chetak » 17 Nov 2019 00:45

Indranil wrote:Chetak sir ji,

I was not pitting one navy chief against another. I was not comparing HArriers to Mig-29K either. I think I have made it clear over the years here that I am not that naive.

I was just saying that the thought process has changed. By the way, both the engines on a double-engined fighter are "mission critical" too. If either of them fail, the mission will be terminated and the pilot be vectored to favorably a nearby shore-based facility (if possible). Otherwise, drop everything and return to ship. Single fighter is worse. Most important thing ends up in the sea, namely the pilot. You can replace a plane in less time and money than a naval fighter pilot.

That said, modern aircraft engines are not as vulnerable as before. They have enormous self diagnostic and corrective measures. The F-35s engine has dual FADECs. The crash rate on a single-engined fighter is longer higher than their double engined counterparts.

Today, a Mig29k went down when one of its engines ingested a bird.


just playing the devil's advocate, saar.

I know where you are coming from and I do appreciate your position.

The design of a carrier fighter is an ab initio process or at the very least, a design that branched off very early in the AF fighter design process to evolve into a very different mutation.

they are not birds of the same feather. Ideally, they are not even brothers of the same mother.

however much of lipstick one may apply, a fully purpose built airforce fighter cannot so easily be walked back to re emerge in a true blue carrier-borne avatar.

Furthermore, NFTC is not the be all and end all of the IN LCA developmental work. There are other bigger contributors in the overall scheme of things who are doing seminal work.

The process, however, is an invaluable one in terms of lessons learned and some vital "how not to do things" insights.

The IN rightly calls this as a technology demonstrator. It is actually a huge compliment and appreciation for the work done.

I completely agree with you that we need our own carrier borne bird as well as the vital engines to go with such exotic creatures.

we need to make the big spends and also realize that this is a battle that we have to fight (and win) on our own.

Unfortunately, it is an idea whose time may not yet have arrived as other pressing national commitments and nation-building enterprises
take the forefront.

So, the powers that be are trundling along, and some imports, some indigenous efforts and capacity building is the chosen way forward at present.

Talk of sabotage, technical treachery, secret agendas is counterproductive in our limited little world.

However, you are intelligent enough to understand that all the above and more are actually happening, as we speak, but they are not happening in the domains that you are talking about.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1894
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Kakarat » 17 Nov 2019 01:18

Karan M wrote:That's 7 programs for ADA-HAL:
LCA Mk1, LCA Mk1A, LCA Sport, LCA MWF, dual engine NLCA and then AMCA, and Ghatak.

Of these, the first 3 should be the easiest to get out of the way with the key challenge being HAL able to ramp up production with the right QA/QC. SPORT is just a TD at this stage.

Theoretically, given resources this is doable. As 3 partially separate teams are working on LCA Mk1/Mk1A, MWF and AMCA. A huge amount of common subsystems can be leveraged as well.


small correction Ghatak is a ADE program now

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1194110463841329153
Anyway, @DRDO_India's Aeronautical Development Establishment has been made the lead laboratory for the Ghatak Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV) Programme.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20591
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby chetak » 17 Nov 2019 01:26

Indranil wrote:That said, modern aircraft engines are not as vulnerable as before. They have enormous self diagnostic and corrective measures. The F-35s engine has dual FADECs. The crash rate on a single-engined fighter is longer higher than their double engined counterparts.

Today, a Mig29k went down when one of its engines ingested a bird.


Indranil saar,

An ingested bird, a catastrophic uncontained engine event, resulting fragmentation, unforeseen and uncontrollable damage, the resulting fire, which should ideally not have taken place and finally all this culminating in an ejection leading to the total loss of the aircraft.

Is there any way that "self diagnostic and corrective measures and the engines having dual FADECs" would have helped in the least.

That's why the insurance industry has the rather prophetic and even poetic term:- "Act of God"

This was a rather unfortunate one off event.

But your point of modern engines being much safer is well taken and valid.

However, an engine specifically designed to power a single engine fighter has to be at the very top of its game in terms of reliability, performance, robustness and ruggedness as well as mishandling under battle conditions and that is never an easy ask.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 17 Nov 2019 05:12

Ghatak is ADE's project now, but ADA provides significant inputs.

Mk1A and SPORT are almost completely HAL projects. ADA and HAL dobt talk to each other as ideally desired on these two projects.

AMCA, MWF and the deck based fighter are in design phases and hence mostly handled by ADA.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ashokk, brar_w, sgrover, TKiran and 60 guests