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.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4322
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 17 Nov 2019 05:42

I don’t think MiG-29K with only one engine functional make a carrier landing safely. It won’t have sufficient power to take-off if hook up with assertor wires fail. No margin for error.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7763
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 17 Nov 2019 05:47

It is cleared for it. But, that will be a story. Mig 29k has a few stories already :wink:

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20517
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 17 Nov 2019 12:04

Indranil wrote:It is cleared for it. But, that will be a story. Mig 29k has a few stories already :wink:


and more to come, I am sure.

we wuz sold a pup. :mrgreen:

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20517
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 17 Nov 2019 12:22

srai wrote:I don’t think MiG-29K with only one engine functional make a carrier landing safely. It won’t have sufficient power to take-off if hook up with assertor wires fail. No margin for error.


Isn't the same true for all twins, military or commercial, with one engine out.

They have just one shot at a clear landing. No margin for error, and often, the result is either a hull saved or a hull lost.

It's like the britshits say

you pays your money and you takes your chance

(You are responsible for your decisions and cannot blame anyone else when what you have chosen is not successful).

quite unlike the dreaded 7 engine approach of a B-58, with one engine out, no :mrgreen:

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4598
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 17 Nov 2019 13:45

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.


My cynical side too believes that this is just a wild goose chase by the IN now. They'll make ADA do a bunch of studies, come up with a new configuration and then once the design progresses sufficiently, say that there is an absolutely urgent requirement for the 57 MRCBF.

And that way, they'll get the Rafale.

And if that doesn't work out and the MoD and GoI do force the Navy to stick to this program, they'll anyway get an indigenous Rafale M like fighter, with 2 X F-404 or M-88 engines. It just won't make economical sense to develop a brand new naval fighter, one that hasn't a lot of commonality with the land based variant (MWF) which is a single engine fighter. Many systems will need to be re-designed entirely for this TEDBF and cannot be ported over as is from the MWF.

The only way to justify such an indigenous naval fighter program would be to have the IN commit to adding at least 1 or 2 more squadrons.

OTOH, the fighter jingo in me is elated that there are literally 3 fighter programs (MWF, AMCA and TEDBF) and 1 fighter variant (Tejas Mk1A) that are in development. ADA and HAL have their hands fuller than every imagined and the only way to scale up is the involve the private sector in a big way.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2801
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 17 Nov 2019 15:03

Presently at Goa with the Naval Aviation folks. Will post an update once I return. Can't distract from my rum cola & lobsters right now :D

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4598
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 17 Nov 2019 15:13

Just a great pic that shows the team that participated in the latest trials at INS Hansa. Can see both NP-1 and NP-2.

Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20517
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 17 Nov 2019 21:53

whatsapp forward


Next stop for Naval LCA is Aircraft Carrier INS Vikramaditya

14 November 2019

In the coming months from now, one of India's most ambitious fighter aircraft development programmes will land on an actual Aircraft Carrier.

The government, which has already spent Rs. 3,500 crore to develop the Naval LCA fighter jet wants to complete the program and begin full-scale production. India is currently constructing its own Aircraft Carrier, the INS Vikrant which is scheduled to be inducted into the Navy within the next 2 years. Once ready it will be complemented with the latest Mig-29K Fighter Jets from Russia and hopefully the Naval LCA Jet.

Left with no choice but to speed up their development programme, a small core team of pilots, engineers and design-team members from the Indian Navy, the Aeronautical Design Agency (ADA) and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is fighting against time to clear key development goals - the biggest one, at the moment, is to ensure that the 10.5-tonne fighter, flying at a speed of just under 260 kmph (140 knots), can approach a moving Aircraft Carrier, descend rapidly, land, snare an arresting wire on the runway with a hook mounted in its fuselage and come to a violent halt in just 130 metres.

Please read @ :

http://www.defencenews.in/article/Next-stop-for-Naval-LCA-is-Aircraft-Carrier-INS-Vikramaditya-757966


If India achieves 'arrested landing' of the LCA on the deck of an aircraft carrier, it will join a handful of nations like the US, Russia, the UK, France and more recently, China that are capable of this feat.

Achieving arrested landing and take-off over and over again at the Shore Based Test Facility in Goa, will validate one of the most important design features on the LCA-N - its ability to handle the incredible stresses of making an 'arrested landing' on the deck of an aircraft carrier. It is only after the shore based tests are proved repititively successful, will the test pilots move on to the next phase of landing LCA-Navy onto the deck of INS Vikramaditya.

Apart from the Naval LCA, the Air Force is also seriously looking to acquire 57 Foreign Naval Fighter Jets either from the US or France and is looking closely at the Boeing F/A-18 E/F 'Hornet' and the Dassault Rafale-M, both of which are tried and tested fighters used extensively in combat.

The key question is, will the Govt have enough funds for both a Tejas-N acquisition and the acquisition of a Western ship-borne fighter?

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1604
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

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

Postby Khalsa » 18 Nov 2019 13:49

Kartik wrote:Just a great pic that shows the team that participated in the latest trials at INS Hansa. Can see both NP-1 and NP-2.

Now that is a beautiful photo, The team, the steeds.
Wah Maza Aa gaya.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3027
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

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

Postby ArjunPandit » 18 Nov 2019 15:38

now the real maza will be on sea VikA...anxiously looking for the day when Livefist shows a video of night landing of our own baby ...i still believe Mig29K and NLCA can work as a potent combo...

nash
BRFite
Posts: 842
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

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

Postby nash » 18 Nov 2019 21:57

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1196448705831817216

DRDO has begun work on a new carrier-based fighter aircraft under the aegis of the Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) project instead of the NLCA Mk2, for the Indian Navy. Here's @delhidefence
's piece on the same.

http://delhidefencereview.com/2019/11/1 ... ter-tedbf/

The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) controlled by the Defence Research & Development Organization has revealed to Delhi Defence Review (DDR) that it will now develop a Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) for the Indian Navy (IN) instead of persisting with the development of a Mk2 variant of the LCA-Navy (NLCA) design.



https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1196452053947576320

Saurav Jha
@SJha1618
To be clear, ADA's new Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) design will not be a navalized AMCA derivative. TEDBF will be a fourth generation plus fighter designed to be more effective than the MiG-29K.


This will change lot of things. what will happen to that 57 aircraft tender? Mig-29K possibly be the last imported fighter of Indian Navy
Last edited by nash on 18 Nov 2019 22:15, edited 1 time in total.


ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3027
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

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

Postby ArjunPandit » 18 Nov 2019 22:40

I do not see this plane production lines being set up before 10 years...even by byzantine stds of DPP if we start now we can procure planes...there's always that option....lot of things will change with the american embrace (if there is any such thing) and over a french wine...

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

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

Postby Rahul M » 18 Nov 2019 23:24

I am sure the boffins at DRDO and the Navy officers know much more than I do.

But, it makes no sense to launch a 4gen fighter project in the 2020's. It runs a serious chance of being obsolete by the time it's inducted in the 30's. This doesn't add much to the amca either. Much better to have done a naval amca with as much commonality as possible with the 2 projects feeding into each other.

From the article it seems that Ada didn't have confidence to make the NAMCA, which sounds surprising. I would love to have more details on what exactly they thought is beyond them that they are already not attempting in the NLCA or the AMCA.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4598
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 18 Nov 2019 23:29

Likely powered by 2 F-414 engines it seems from the DelhiDefenceReview article.

That's a Super Hornet class fighter.

AMCA related technologies like flush air data sensors, some degree of stealth like radar blockers could probably be implemented as well, given that the TEDBF is supposed to replace the MiG-29K in the 2030s..seems like the MiG-29K's airframe issues will hasten an early retirement, since they will be just about 20 years old and probably won't have run out of service life by 2030s.

Who knows, maybe an IAF variant of TEDBF may also emerge, to provide economies of scale.

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 » 18 Nov 2019 23:40

Just a refresher for members to read up on in internal structure of aircraft (and carrier aircrafts)

http://home.iitk.ac.in/~mohite/Basic_construction.pdf

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19820003140.pdf & https://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS1980/ICAS-80-13.5.pdf

I still think IN should go with 57 F-414 NLCA-Mk2 before going for TEBDF.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7220
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 19 Nov 2019 00:43

Rahul M wrote:I am sure the boffins at DRDO and the Navy officers know much more than I do.

But, it makes no sense to launch a 4gen fighter project in the 2020's. It runs a serious chance of being obsolete by the time it's inducted in the 30's. This doesn't add much to the amca either. Much better to have done a naval amca with as much commonality as possible with the 2 projects feeding into each other.

Exactly what I was about to post before seeing yours. This is basically a completely new aircraft project to be started now. Even if they go the "simplest" route of modifying the NLCA 2 design with 2 engines (like Jay's drawings posted earlier) it is impossible with the available funding and resources to get it operational before 2030 at the earliest. Even that is highly optimistic given that ADA is running 2 other programs at the same time - MWF and AMCA, both of which are highly capital and time intensive - the more likely date is closer to 2035. It makes no sense to induct a new 4th gen type at that point. I am 400% sure that long before then there will be calls for cancellation of the project due to obsolescence and all the time and money spent on it will be wasted.

From the article it seems that Ada didn't have confidence to make the NAMCA, which sounds surprising. I would love to have more details on what exactly they thought is beyond them that they are already not attempting in the NLCA or the AMCA.


Perhaps what they mean is that they are not confident of making the NAMCA in the timeframe that the IN is looking for, which is understandable. The AF AMCA is at design stage right now and there are several years of painstaking R&D left to realize all the necessary technologies and make the AMCA itself work. Naval AMCA even if worked on side by side will take even longer due to the additional navy specific requirements and testing required. IN cannot hope to induct a NAMCA prior to latter half of 2030's.

The IN has 2 options -
1. Let go of the 2-engine demand and let the NLCA Mk2 continue since a lot of time has already been spent designing it and the experience gained in developing and operationalizing it will help a lot in the NAMCA project and reduce the timelines for it.

2. Just buy some more Mig-29k's and make do with them till NAMCA arrives. Forget about buying 57 Rafales/F-18's since the country can clearly not afford them in present economic circumstances. They cannot make decisions in a vacuum without understanding economic realities. Besides, buying a different type will mean spending more money on modifying the lifts and aviation complex on Vikad and Vikrant, if that is even possible.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4598
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 19 Nov 2019 01:07

BTW, reading up on the Rafale roadmap article on AW&ST (which I posted in the Rafale thread), it becomes clear that anyone who says that 4.5th gen fighters will become obsolete in the 2030s doesn't know what other air forces and navies are planning for, including USAF, USN and a bunch of European forces and the French Navy. In fact, apart from the F-22, F-35 and some Chinese fighters of unknown quality (J-20, J-31 possibly), I doubt there'll be any other 5th gen fighters around in 2030 either.

France plans to keep the Rafale operational till 2070 with periodic upgrades that add new electronics, avionics and weapons. It underscores that the most important aspect remains the electronics and the weapons. And the most important fact that the article underscored- Not all operations or missions require the most sophisticated fighter to be used. The same will be true of the Indian Navy's requirements as well. In the French context, the NGF (Next Gen Fighter) will take on higher-end missions, while the Rafale will replace the Mirage-2000 in the mid to lower end roles.

In the IN's context, the most important mission is carrier battle group air defence- not allowing Paki or Chinese fighters or MPAs to approach the CBG and launch anti-ship missiles. Second important role is the ability to attack Paki and Chinese ships and shore based defences at a stand-off range. Both require excellent sensors to detect and engage targets at very long ranges and long range weapons and significant payload carrying and payload bring-back ability. Stealth as a feature may not be the most important on the list of requirements as a result, because for the most part, the IN may not intend to carry out missions that require very low RCS fighters with their design compromises. And using UCAVs as loyal wingmen from the cockpit may actually allow 4.5 gen fighters to loiter behind while using UCAVs to detect and even attack enemy airplanes and warships.

the TEDBF will allow the IN to retire the MiG-29K with a more modern 4.5 gen indigenous fighter that will see elements of AMCA, MWF and Mk1A all being implemented in it. I'm sure RAM coatings developed for the AMCA will be used on both the MWF and TEDBF.

And as I see it, the N-AMCA program will begin after the baseline AMCA is ready. Having the TEDBF in production by then will ease off pressure on getting the N-AMCA into service in a hurry. Because the fact is that 5th gen design compromises (such as the structural weight to carry all fuel internally) when added to the weight penalties of naval carrier aviation will mean that the payload capability of TEDBF will be better than the N-AMCA.

One thing I would like to ask those who talk about obsolescence- if it doesn't make sense to induct TEDBF into the IN the 2030s, how does it make sense to induct a Super Hornet or Rafale M into the IN in what will possibly be late 2020s? A few years difference will make one type (TEDBF) obsolete but not another (SH or Rafale M) that has been in service since a decade and a half already? What makes the Super Hornet and Rafale M operationally valid for the USN and French Navy and possibly IN, till 2050 and beyond? Why can't the TEDBF do that for the IN?

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

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

Postby sankum » 19 Nov 2019 02:00

The TEDBF will need to have wing folding so that folded width is less than 8m so that it can freely use the 8.6m width lift in INS Vikramaditya.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 19 Nov 2019 02:06

disha wrote:Just a refresher for members to read up on in internal structure of aircraft (and carrier aircrafts)

http://home.iitk.ac.in/~mohite/Basic_construction.pdf

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19820003140.pdf & https://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS1980/ICAS-80-13.5.pdf

I still think IN should go with 57 F-414 NLCA-Mk2 before going for TEBDF.


I concur. The 57 order will be for Naval LCA. No imports.


This twin engine bird can be for future carrier class.

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 » 19 Nov 2019 02:08

What does one (IN) do from 2020 to 2040? Rely solely on Mig-29K?

By any logic, between NAMCA and TEDBF - both will not come before 2040. So what will fill the gap for next 2 decades? If relying solely on Mig-29k is the answer - then best thing to do is just move the team to TEDBF - now. Just do one demo of NLCA-Mk1 on carrier and shutter the entire program. In the meantime, put in an order for some 57+ Mig-29k.

Saving the bird during an emergency by putting two engines is 60s thinking. That is old. Focus should be on saving the pilot behind the bird. The bird can be abandoned. In such situations one can open up new paradigms like monocoque pilot cabins that will save the pilot, it can even have winglets that can glide the pilot home or in case of a disaster over water, can act as a safe dinghy. Point is saving the bird is 60s thinking. Saving the pilot behind the bird should be the focus.

Recent accident with Mig-29k proves that twin engine is not a panacea. Fortunately the pilots survived. Who cares if a bird was lost other than the bean-counter in raksha-mantralaya? We can all send a 'oh-so-sorry on losing bird but pilot safe' to the bean counter at RM.

Coming back to NLCA, it is apparent that some of the issues involving carrier based operations is structural. That is over the top landing gear. Sub-optimal placement of landing gear. Optimizing the landing gear and seamless integration into the core structure should be the goal.

There is a clear path, use LCA-Mk1 for LIFT/EW bubbles, LCA-Mk2 for carrier operations and then go for twin-engined TEDBF which is LCA-Mk2 with twin engines.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7763
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 19 Nov 2019 02:25

Sriram, nice information on why they changed from levcon to vortex flaps. I was confused because the former can act as the latter like in NLCA Mk1.

Keep them coming.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20517
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 19 Nov 2019 02:26

disha wrote:What does one (IN) do from 2020 to 2040? Rely solely on Mig-29K?

By any logic, between NAMCA and TEDBF - both will not come before 2040. So what will fill the gap for next 2 decades? If relying solely on Mig-29k is the answer - then best thing to do is just move the team to TEDBF - now. Just do one demo of NLCA-Mk1 on carrier and shutter the entire program. In the meantime, put in an order for some 57+ Mig-29k.

Saving the bird during an emergency by putting two engines is 60s thinking. That is old. Focus should be on saving the pilot behind the bird. The bird can be abandoned. In such situations one can open up new paradigms like monocoque pilot cabins that will save the pilot, it can even have winglets that can glide the pilot home or in case of a disaster over water, can act as a safe dinghy. Point is saving the bird is 60s thinking. Saving the pilot behind the bird should be the focus.

Recent accident with Mig-29k proves that twin engine is not a panacea. Fortunately the pilots survived. Who cares if a bird was lost other than the bean-counter in raksha-mantralaya? We can all send a 'oh-so-sorry on losing bird but pilot safe' to the bean counter at RM.

Coming back to NLCA, it is apparent that some of the issues involving carrier based operations is structural. That is over the top landing gear. Sub-optimal placement of landing gear. Optimizing the landing gear and seamless integration into the core structure should be the goal.

There is a clear path, use LCA-Mk1 for LIFT/EW bubbles, LCA-Mk2 for carrier operations and then go for twin-engined TEDBF which is LCA-Mk2 with twin engines.


an isolated bird hit event does not in any way take away from the inherent advantages of a twin engine, carrier borne aircraft and such events are worldwide in occurrence and as long as humans continue to invade the space occupied by our avian friends, such mishaps are inevitable.

The point missed by most people is that the bird that went down is a 2 seat trainer version and that will impact training schedules as well as operational readiness quite significantly.

The best bet would be to replace it with one from the fatherland, either a new build or a low airframe hour trainer ex russki navy, modified to the IN standard.

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 » 19 Nov 2019 03:19

Chetak'ji, We are not talking about recovery of the plane. As my post above suggests, recovery of the plane is my least concern. Recovery of pilot safely is the only concern.

At the same time, my core argument is not one-engine vs. two-engine. My ask is simple, why abandon NLCA-Mk2 now?

The requirement for twin engine can be fulfilled in future. Of course design of it can start now. But putting all eggs in TBDEF (sounds like To Be Decided Engine & Fighter) is a recipe for disaster!

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4598
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 19 Nov 2019 03:43

disha wrote:What does one (IN) do from 2020 to 2040? Rely solely on Mig-29K?

By any logic, between NAMCA and TEDBF - both will not come before 2040.


I'd like to understand the logic behind why TEDBF will not come before 2040. The N-LCA Mk2 team was as it is different than the Tejas Mk2 MWF. They'll start working on the design soon and as the MWF design team work tapers off and the MWF enters production in 2026, TEDBF design and development goes into high gear. Prior to that ADA should be able to finish all the studies, wind tunnel testing to refine the design and even the inboards should be ready by then. Should allow it to be flying in prototype form by 2030 and in production in 2035 if all goes well.

The timeline can be compressed even further if there is adequate funding and the Navy is committed to the program and not using this as a means to delay having to buy an indigenous naval fighter and waiting it out till an imported MRCBF can be pushed as an urgent necessity. The good thing is that the N-LCA Mk1 has brought very valuable experience that will hold the team in good stead,

Saving the bird during an emergency by putting two engines is 60s thinking. That is old. Focus should be on saving the pilot behind the bird. The bird can be abandoned. In such situations one can open up new paradigms like monocoque pilot cabins that will save the pilot, it can even have winglets that can glide the pilot home or in case of a disaster over water, can act as a safe dinghy. Point is saving the bird is 60s thinking. Saving the pilot behind the bird should be the focus.


On the contrary, if you even have a pilot eject over open water, the chances of him never being recovered are quite high. There have been lots of instances of pilots having ejected over waters and SAR couldn't locate the pilot in time. A second engine allows for the pilot to divert to the nearest land base. So that logic is sound, even given the much higher reliability of turbofan engines nowadays. But failures still occur and twin engine jets have recovered to base with one engine out.

Coming to the second point you make- check out the ejection on a F-111. It had side by side seating and both pilots were ejected out TOGETHER inside a hermetically sealed cabin. And no one believes that such a design is safer for pilots, given the sophistication of today's ejection seats that can correct the attitude of the pilot upon ejection, something older seats weren't able to do.

Coming back to NLCA, it is apparent that some of the issues involving carrier based operations is structural. That is over the top landing gear. Sub-optimal placement of landing gear. Optimizing the landing gear and seamless integration into the core structure should be the goal.


The landing gear is placed in the ONLY possible location it can be placed. The problem is the narrow fuselage doesn't allow it any other way. And then, the landing gear impedes the attachment and jettisoning of any drop tanks or large weapons on the inboard pylon, which leads to sub-optimal payload carrying ability. The N-LCA Mk2 was designed to address this issue, but given the IN's staunch belief that twin engine was the way to go, there is nothing that can be done about it.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20148
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 19 Nov 2019 06:14

A whole new aircraft development with all the costs involved for just around 60 birds? Insane! It will by India dev. time ( IDT) two decades to achieve it and make a mockery of the AMCA project in the bargain.NNF (new naval fighter), LCA MK-1A/MK-2, AMCA......The ADA appears to have funds growing out of a magic money tree! Secondly for a handful of specialised naval aircraft, the unit costs will bd staggering.If HAL can't keep costs down for the vanilla LCA almost as expensive as an MKI, the NNF will cost even more than the F-35!

I agree with Nachi that the most sensible option is to buy more 29Ks , upgraded in the next lot, for the moment and develop an AMCA-N for the future, as if a large CV eventually gets approved by another act of insanity, it will arrive around the same time as AMCA, someting post 2030.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 19 Nov 2019 07:14

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.

I am very late to this party :)

Just a quick question....since the NLCA Mk2 has been cancelled, we can start a new thread when some more concrete info/pics come out on the TEDBF?

Also, can I edit the first post in page 1 (under the NLCA Mk2 sub-heading) stating that the project has been cancelled?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 19 Nov 2019 07:23

JayS wrote:Some weekend timepass....

Saar, you did this? Nice!

LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 118
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

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

Postby LakshmanPST » 19 Nov 2019 10:50

I think going ahead with TEDBF is a much better option...
-
I don't think it will be an obsolete design by 2030... All major Navies will be operating 4th Gen aircrafts (or a combo of 4th & 5th Gen) for many years to come... Except for F35 B/C, no other 5th Gen jet is in operation or is even being seriously developed by any Navy...
As discussed many times on this forum, 4++ Gen jets are here to stay for another 4-5 decades atleast... Infact, 2030 is when MWF will be in serial production...
If IN wants a 4++ Gen twin engine jet, an indigenous design is anyday better than buying some foreign stuff...
TEDBF can include lot of technologies from AMCA, except few things like geometric stealth...
-
When it comes to numbers, I guess these jets will not only replace MIG29Ks on Vikramaditya, but will also be used in IAC-1 and IAC-2... We are looking at an order of around 100+ jets...
A decent order to develop a new jet...

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20517
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 19 Nov 2019 11:29

disha wrote:Chetak'ji, We are not talking about recovery of the plane. As my post above suggests, recovery of the plane is my least concern. Recovery of pilot safely is the only concern.

At the same time, my core argument is not one-engine vs. two-engine. My ask is simple, why abandon NLCA-Mk2 now?

The requirement for twin engine can be fulfilled in future. Of course design of it can start now. But putting all eggs in TBDEF (sounds like To Be Decided Engine & Fighter) is a recipe for disaster!




at sea, both, the pilot and the plane are at risk and the recovery of either/both, at best, is chancy.

At sea, any ejection far away from a naval platform is almost like a death sentence. Moreover, high sea states and bad weather conditions may simply preclude the launch of and/or badly hamper rescue operations. Localized weather conditions in the operating areas do change, sometimes with unbelievable rapidity.

The twin is the best option of getting home or most often, close to home.

It is not OK to operate single engines for 2-3 decades just because of some perverse desire to develop a local MIC. What of the guys in those single engined cockpits and more importantly, what of their families. Aren't they also entitled to dreams and futures like the rest.

So go ahead and develop the twin, by all means but do not tinker with national security issues by shutting down all imports. It would be like knowingly and purposely shooting oneself in the foot.

and, pray tell, at the end of those 2-3 decades, what happens if the twin engine project simply goes the kaveri way.

Have you never asked where was the overarching need of countries like SL, indonesia, malaysia et al to develop excellent global standard manufacturing capabilities while we simply did not care to.

There is no govt support worth the name in these countries for the development of such excellent infrastructure and yet they exist.

When the pakis wanted to get their centrifuges/components made, it is to some of the private players in these very countries that they turned to.

we need to clearly understand the deep devastation that willful baboo(n)s and the license permit raj has caused to the nation, and this situation obtains even today. The PSUs are actively muzzling competition and entry barriers are often concealed, under the table financial walls, created purposely.

This is why even big private companies are bitching about "small" order quantities and the requirement of heavy govt subsidies to "help" them out and thus "even" out the "playing" field. Effectively, what they all want is the creation of a parallel privately owned, govt subsidised private PSUs

The same old story of capitalized profits and socialized losses but in the private space.

without offence, the sheer lack of skin in the game tends to cloud judgment and causes people to arrive at "IAS" type of conclusions.

and finally, :) from the song: invisible

I was not mad at you
I was not trying to tear you down
The words that I could've used
I was too scared to say out loud.
Last edited by chetak on 19 Nov 2019 11:53, edited 1 time in total.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

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

Postby Rahul M » 19 Nov 2019 11:46

Kartik wrote:
One thing I would like to ask those who talk about obsolescence- if it doesn't make sense to induct TEDBF into the IN the 2030s, how does it make sense to induct a Super Hornet or Rafale M into the IN in what will possibly be late 2020s? A few years difference will make one type (TEDBF) obsolete but not another (SH or Rafale M) that has been in service since a decade and a half already? What makes the Super Hornet and Rafale M operationally valid for the USN and French Navy and possibly IN, till 2050 and beyond? Why can't the TEDBF do that for the IN?

Kartik, that's precisely it. I am not sure the shornet or rafale m makes sense either. It might make sense for the USN or the aeronavale to have such an aircraft as the lo end of a Hi-Lo mix from 2030's onwards (2020's for the USN) when they have a high end option available.
Does it make sense for India to invest in yet another de novo project for just a handful of aircraft when even the world's richest nation with the largest MIC thought it prudent to have as much commonality across the service designs as possible?
We run the risk of being spread too thin, in terms of resources, skilled manpower and even manufacturing capacity. For all we know that might adversely affect the critical projects like MWF and AMCA.

As Nachiket noted above, ADA might not be confident of delivering NAMCA within Navy's time limits. Or it might be something else altogether. The point is we don't really know why ADA thinks so. Even the DDR article doesn't tell us the reason.
Otherwise, the best option would have been to create NAMCA lite for the Navy by focusing on the carrier capable 5gen airframe primarily and improve it in tranches with subsystems from the AMCA as and when they become available. Something like what the Korean KF-X program envisages, a limited 5gen aircraft that would be quicker to get off the blocks than a full fledged NAMCA while retaining enough commonality with the later to aid in its development.

Again, there might be a very good reason DRDO and Navy didn't go down this path but we don't see that yet. As things stand today, even if sanctioned, this project is likely to be scrapped unceremoniously 10 years in the future in favour of emergency imports.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7385
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Postby Prasad » 19 Nov 2019 12:40

Yeah we don't know the exact reasons yet. Might in future. Until then, let us also look at a few things. We have what 45 Mig-29Ks currently? Cost of replacing them will always be high. AND, compared to the IAF, IN numbers are miniscule - 200 MWF, 200 AMCA, 123 Mk1 & 1A( granted its hal but still involves work by ADA). So no matter what you build, a 4.5 gen or an AMCA lite, it will be expensive. And I think (strictly imo), the IN is done with the 29K. Early 2030s induction is practically tomorrow in fighter development timelines. Our IAC might be inducted by then. Even then we'll have 2 STOBAR carriers. And let us not forget, the Ghatak might start flying around mid 2030s and provide the next gen side of things. This sounds very practical of the IN.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4322
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 19 Nov 2019 13:12

All I can say is the timelines are very ambitious.

IMO, instead of TEDBF all effort should go towards N-AMCA for twin-engined aircraft. Induction post 2040+.

For an interim aircraft, current single-engined NLCA MK.2 Design seems like a less risky option to meet late 2020s induction timelines.

Limited orders and tight deadlines!

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1815
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

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

Postby srin » 19 Nov 2019 15:20

Reading up on the DDF article, I don't see much difference between NAMCA and TECBF. It seems like TECBF is the Mk1 variant of NAMCA.

That said, I don't understand the rhona-dhona regarding LCA Navy Mk2. Requirements change - IN thinks twin engine is a must - and that must be respected. We should appreciate that it funded LCA Navy Mk1 when it need not have. Learning doesn't go waste unless we stop development.
And Navy supporting TECBF despite the 57 fighter RFP means it is willing to fund indigenous fighter that addresses its requirements.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18650
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 19 Nov 2019 15:34

AMCA is a full-blown stealth fighter. The TEDBF (what an acronym) is basically a twin engine MWF in concept, but design wise it will be quite different. Reduced RCS, treatment of hotspots, selective use of RCS reduction technologies but not stealth optimized shaping + internal bays, the latter two is what AMCA is to have.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3876
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

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

Postby chola » 19 Nov 2019 15:37

srai wrote:All I can say is the timelines are very ambitious.

IMO, instead of TEDBF all effort should go towards N-AMCA for twin-engined aircraft. Induction post 2040+.

For an interim aircraft, current single-engined NLCA MK.2 Design seems like a less risky option to meet late 2020s induction timelines.

Limited orders and tight deadlines!


We have always been ambitious in our projects but right now the ambitions has become almost intoxicating in their number and scope.

Think about it: Tejas MK1, MK1A, NLCA, SPORT, MWF, AMCA and a 110kN medium engine that no one, not even the US and Russia, has today.

And now this TEDBF when the NLCA had made such progress. I'm sorry but this one feels like an intrusion, a sudden and last minute change that will impact funding and resources for everything else.

IMO, it makes little sense to build another twin-engine aircraft with the AMCA coming up. Why not finish up with the NLCA and use that as an interim while we wait for the NAMCA? The TEDBF won't come any faster when they are announcing the idea today.

I hope the Navy don't insist on the 57 too. All this troubles me when we can't even begin on the third carrier because of funding.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18650
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 19 Nov 2019 15:41

Prasad wrote:Yeah we don't know the exact reasons yet. Might in future. Until then, let us also look at a few things. We have what 45 Mig-29Ks currently? Cost of replacing them will always be high. AND, compared to the IAF, IN numbers are miniscule - 200 MWF, 200 AMCA, 123 Mk1 & 1A( granted its hal but still involves work by ADA). So no matter what you build, a 4.5 gen or an AMCA lite, it will be expensive. And I think (strictly imo), the IN is done with the 29K. Early 2030s induction is practically tomorrow in fighter development timelines. Our IAC might be inducted by then. Even then we'll have 2 STOBAR carriers. And let us not forget, the Ghatak might start flying around mid 2030s and provide the next gen side of things. This sounds very practical of the IN.


Lets assume 2 squadrons (bare minimum) of the TEDBF, replacing the MiG-29K.
That's 36 airframes, plus attrition replacements, again bare minimum, of 4 more.
40 aircraft, at a unit cost of $100 Mn (today's average figures), is $4Bn.
The thumbrule for lifecycle costs is 70:30 (lifecycle to upfront acquisition), so thats another $9 Bn for the lifecycle costs.
Add the expense for weapons integration etc - another $1 Bn, judging by usual metrics. We are at $14Bn.
Assume a LCA style local LRU count of around 60% and an even lower localization % by value for the entire airframe, say 40% of the overall cost can be ascribed to local components/items by value.
That's $ 6Bn of locally sourced items, for a design completely owned and operated by India.

That's what we get for our domestic program. As versus handing it over to MiG and hearing Nyet when you ask them to fix a broken plane or hearing Merci when handing over the bulk of your capex to France for adding two widgets and avionics upgrades to your gold plated Rafales which you can't even afford to replace if they crash.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18650
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 19 Nov 2019 15:46

chola wrote:
srai wrote:All I can say is the timelines are very ambitious.

IMO, instead of TEDBF all effort should go towards N-AMCA for twin-engined aircraft. Induction post 2040+.

For an interim aircraft, current single-engined NLCA MK.2 Design seems like a less risky option to meet late 2020s induction timelines.

Limited orders and tight deadlines!


We have always been ambitious in our projects but right now the ambitions has become almost intoxicating in their number and scope.

Think about it: Tejas MK1, MK1A, NLCA, SPORT, MWF, AMCA and a 110kN medium engine that no one, not even the US and Russia, has today.

And now this TEDBF when the NLCA had made such progress. I'm sorry but this one feels like an intrusion, a sudden and last minute change that will impact funding and resources for everything else.

IMO, it makes little sense to build another twin-engine aircraft with the AMCA coming up. Why not finish up with the NLCA and use that as an interim while we wait for the NAMCA? The TEDBF won't come any faster when they are announcing the idea today.

I hope the Navy don't insist on the 57 too. All this troubles me when we can't even begin on the third carrier because of funding.


You can't use the NLCA because it does not meet the Navy's requirements for x range, y payload which it wants while replacing the MiG-29K.

Its obvious at this point that the IN is not counting on the MiG-29Ks lasting beyond a point. They are clearly not airframes the IN thinks will last a while and can be flogged as extensively as the IAF birds.

The new 57 aircraft tender actually gives the IN breathing space for the MiG-29K drawdown, plus more aircraft for the 2nd carrier and also development of the TEDBF.

Of the aircraft programs you mention:

Tejas Mk1 is complete, with production focus shifting to Mk1A which is basically an avionics upgrade, SPORT is also nothing but an avionics upgrade and NLCA is now a TD program whose team will be "free" once it meets basic requirements for the TD. MWF and AMCA are where the focus is, but these programs will run in parallel, and the NLCA team will still be awaiting a program.

At the end of the day, its about resources, if the IN/IAF/MOD fund properly, and services give their program managers leeway, ADA doesn't screw up risk management and outsources responsibly, these programs are doable.

The money involved makes doing these programs a no-brainer.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7385
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

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

Postby Prasad » 19 Nov 2019 16:00

Karect. Right now I see it as only 3 programs. MWF, AMCA and this TEDBF with significant overlap and overflow back into the Tejas Mark1A and not 6 or 7 concurrent programs.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4322
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 19 Nov 2019 16:01

Can we get a comparison of NLCA MK.2 (latest 2019 design) vs MiG-29K? Range, payload, etc. what is lacking other than two-engines?

NLCA MK.2 was designed with IN requirements.
Image


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: srin and 114 guests