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.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7761
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 21 Nov 2019 02:55

1. If MWF flies in 2021-22, it will very difficult for IAF to go for SEF, 2 more squadrons of Rafale etc. It will be MWFs.
2. AMCA is unchallenged at the moment.
3. Navy doesn't have the money to buy 57 Rafales today. If it has asked for a twin engine which takes flight in 2026 to replace the Mig29ks, I don't think it will go for Rafale Ms if ADA can stick to the schedule.

The question is whether we produce the development money and whether ADA can step up to manage everything that it has on its plate now.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 21 Nov 2019 05:24

JayS wrote:Someone needs to tell me what exactly is the technical issue with NAMCA that it cannot be done in 15yr timeline, but a fresh TEDBE is doable.

Let me say this categorically, if ADA did not design AMCA with a Naval vereion in mind, I am disppointed with them. What did they learn from LCA - NLCA saga if they could not design AMCA from outset for navalisation..? And before anyone says, that would have been suboptimal design for the IAF which they would have rejected, let me point out that ADA can always design AMCA in a modular approach that F35 took for Naval version with cousin parts and modular inserts for larger wing. AMCA is suposed to have more power with lower MTOW than F35. I just dont see why NAMCA could not TO from ski jump with TWR of 26/20 or even 27/20 (assuming F414 engine) when NLCA MK2 was supposed to TO with 17/10 TWR...? In the Air, Naval versions are almost always more restricted in terms of manoeuvreability compared to their AF counterparts. This is true for Rafale M as well.

Lets say, Navalised AMCA was still inadequate, if Navy is OK with a 4.5G fighter they should have no issue with a stripped down AMCA naval with relaxed stealth and suoercruise requirements. So what exactly ADA thinks it cannot do and they will need a 4.5G fighter compulsorily..?


Reminds me of my discussion with Maolankar Sir at AI-'13. He had talked about how the next gen Naval fighter should be designed before the Air Force fighter is designed so that they don't end up with a sub-optimal naval fighter derived from an Air Force fighter..and that the Navy had no such plans as of then for the N-AMCA. The N-LCA Mk1 program was still in its infancy back then. The whole talk of the N-LCA Mk2 with the single higher thrust F-414 was emerging around that time.

A few years on, it seems that the IAF went ahead and made its AMCA requirements clear, while the PAK-FA FGFA program was on. Whereas the Navy had its eyes set firmly on the MiG-29K induction issues and on working through the N-LCA Mk1 and then the Mk2. The Navy still wasn't yet thinking of a 5th gen program since it was so far out.

The twin engine requirement from the Navy isn't that old. I know for a fact that the Navy was the one that required a higher thrust engine (and a single engine at that) and they were the service that drove the Mk2 design and the IAF hopped onto that bandwagon. That is another long story about the evolution of the Mk2 requirement for the IAF.

ADA wouldn't design a fighter for naval requirements when the naval service hasn't even expressed a firm intention to not proceed with the single engine N-LCA Mk2 and hadn't expressed any serious commitment towards a N-AMCA. ADA was still working on the N-LCA Mk2, which would've served the Navy for 40 years had it gone through. That would've allowed plenty of time to work on a N-AMCA derived from the AMCA.

the Navy should have first asked for a 5th gen naval fighter post the N-LCA Mk2 to have had ADA design the AMCA keeping in mind the Navy's stringent requirements that would've penalised the IAF variant.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 21 Nov 2019 05:50

Indranil wrote:1. If MWF flies in 2021-22, it will very difficult for IAF to go for SEF, 2 more squadrons of Rafale etc. It will be MWFs.
2. AMCA is unchallenged at the moment.
3. Navy doesn't have the money to buy 57 Rafales today. If it has asked for a twin engine which takes flight in 2026 to replace the Mig29ks, I don't think it will go for Rafale Ms if ADA can stick to the schedule.

The question is whether we produce the development money and whether ADA can step up to manage everything that it has on its plate now.


how confident is ADA about MWF first flight in 2021-22? I know metal cutting was supposed to begin earlier this year itself, but there are no official updates on far they've progressed on the prototype build.

Navy's needs are really not as urgent as the IAF's either. They have 43 MiG-29K/KUBs that are barely a decade old and hardly even close to being obscolescent. It is the Navy's job alongwith MiG Corp to fix whatever issues the MiG-29K faces and use it as best as it can be used. The IN doesn't face a squadron shortage, doesn't base it's fighters at forward air bases and doesn't typically respond to any aerial threats along the entire western and eastern border. Naval fighter aviation is primarily dispositioned to provide air cover to the fleet and then to be able to take on enemy warships, port installations and radar sites. So why would the GoI provide money for a need that is not so urgent when there isn't that money available to plug urgent gaps in the IAF's squadron count?

Either the Navy waits it out and hopes to import Rafale or Super Hornets in the late 2020s or it pro-actively works towards a naval fighter that meets ITS needs. the timing of when the TEDBF enters service isn't so urgent, unlike in the IAF's case.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 21 Nov 2019 06:00

nam wrote:LCA-N MK2 should have been twin engine from day 1!

ADA has already designed a twin engine fighter in form of AMCA. Granted it is not flying yet.

They have the choice to modifying AMCA in to non-stealth version or updated LCA MK2- IN to twin engine. Probably easier to "downgrade" AMCA.

Also it is not just Mig29K that requires replacement. It will probably replace some of the older Su30 as well.

We cannot replace 260 Su30 costing 70M with 260 AMCA costing 120-150M. There will be a need for cheaper twin engine. So it is either Rafale or TE LCA.


N-LCA Mk2 arose around 2012 end- back then the IAF was still not fully onboard the Tejas program and all these media reports were floating around that it was underpowered and so on. the Tejas Mk2 program came AFTER the N-LCA Mk2 design was initiated at ADA.

the Navy already knew in 2012 that the N-LCA Mk1 was fuel constrained as it couldn't carry inboard drop tanks. It was also payload constrained as the empty weight had grown quite a bit. But, the Navy and ADA worked TOGETHER on the idea of re-engining of the N-LCA Mk1 with the F-414 as well as major modifications to the design to suit the Navy's needs. Had Navy leadership insisted on a twin engine design back then, ADA would've been forced to go back to the drawing board and come up with a comprehensively re-designed naval twin engine fighter. Instead, in consultation with the Navy, they came up with the single engine N-LCA Mk2. I know it because I had spoken to a Naval officer, Cmdr Sukesh that was deputed to the N-LCA program back then.

As has been pointed out, the Navy's insistence on a twin engine design is not that old. It started getting public with the previous Naval Chief's public statements. Otherwise ADA wouldn't have put in so much effort into the design and inboards of the single engine N-LCA Mk2 in the years prior.

I mean, the same Navy that is insisting on a twin engine TEDBF design is the one that invited the Sea Gripen to participate in the MRCBF tender. What does that tell you?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3836
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 21 Nov 2019 06:55

Which always made me wonder... What was the Navy thinking? If Aam Abdul can raise relevant questions, why are the experts arriving at the same conclusion years later and only after trial and error? Similar to Gorky purchase too.

All I hope is that the stakeholders learn from the LCA and don't try the same lightest, bestest sh*t again. Aim for something supernatural, which will only result in delays and never ending imports to meet operational demands.

But going by this desire to come up with a unique, one and only 110kn engine, things don't look too promising.

Brfites better be ready for another round of pakfa. Jsf etc. I really feel for poor Vivekji and other brfites too, gonna have an aneurysm!

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 596
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

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

Postby rajsunder » 21 Nov 2019 08:09

So gurus what plane will be flying from INS vikrant? Is IN planning to buy more Mig29K?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7916
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 21 Nov 2019 09:14

Picklu wrote:
Indranil wrote:Pickle sir,

I am sorry your information is very flawed.

1. Superhornets are the main stay of every naval and airforce that operates it.
2. TEDBF will not be a super hornet. The former has to take off with full MTOW from a STOBAR which the latter can't. So, the former will be more like a Mig29k powered by superhornet's engines.
3. There is only one situation where the Rafale is not as good as the EF in A2A. High altitude (>45,000) feet and high speed. No Rafale pilot will enter a fight in the horizontal plane at that altitude with an EF. Similarly, an EF pilot won't climb down unless he has to. In short, there are no generic ground rules for A2A. It depends on the aircrafts involved. A Rafale WILL lose to an AJT, if it enters a slow turning fight at low altitudes. The EF will do worse. If a F18 and F16 were fighting in a vertical plane, the F18 has an advantage at one point of the loop, and the F16 in the other. These are 101 to all pilots. They will smile at you if you just make blanket statements like Rafale is better than EF or vice versa!!!


No Sir for me please, Indranil.

Shornet are excellent Naval aircraft no doubt but please look into the airforces that operate it. Aus, Fin, Ca, Swiss, Spain, Malasia...... Their threat level and their other aircrafts. The answer would be obvious.


The SHORNET is not operated by those nations. The Hornet is. SH is operated by the USN and Australia. The reason others looked past the Hornet was that the F-16 was a more affordable program, in production at larger quantity, and had a secured joint program at inception which locked in many NATO users. Others wanted to piggy back on the USAF EOS and the advantages that came with it. The SH was not picked up by many nations because it came too late to make a lot of inroads. The F-16 and its MLU had already proliferated within the F-16 user community and other nations were lining up to join the F-35 program and Europe by then had three clean sheet 4th generation or 4+ generation programs. There are plenty of advantages of the Hornet over the F-16 if one was interested but that came at a higher cost to buy and sustain. Same with the F-18 SH compared to upgaded F-16's.

Karan, you are posting old information that we have a whole thread dedicated to (somewhere...). Most of those RAND commonality theories are practically useless as modern aerospace programs have demonstrated. The F-35 has gone through the most amount of structural lifetime testing during LRIP than any other fighter the US has ever built. This for all three variants. The assertion that structural commonality (or lack thereof) will lead to LCC savings (or lack thereof) is deeply flawed when one looks at what drives modern costs (in the US weapons systems). Stealth (RAM/RAS and EMCON), and Mission systems as well as upgrades (hardware and software) and training are your primary long term cost driver. A different Navy wing is not that a severe life cycle cost driver. The costs it drives is that to develop and test the wing - but then that cost was acceptable because of the total USN and USMC F-35C fleet strength would easily justify it. Yes the US Navy had the strictest RAM/RAS requirements because of naval operations. But everyone benefits from those as do future programs that get to apply the technology developed and the learning associated with fielding the first naval VLO aircraft.

And no, in hindsight the three US services could not have developed three clean sheet designs for the same price. That notion may sound really impressive but when one gets into programmatic data and financials the math simply does not add up hence why POGO, Sprey, and others have never tried to quantify this argument.

Fact is that the three F-35 variants cost (inflation adjusted) about 12% more to develop as the F-22 Raptor (just one program). This obviously ignores the fact that the three US services would not have been allowed to, or could not have squeezed out funding for three separate programs. This just the R&D cost. Procurement cost is also lowered because each service can lean on the other for demand aggregation and get production line churning at a very high rate. No one US service could have created a program that could have resulted in a production rate in excess of 150 aircraft, sustained at FRP. As a result, they would have had to compromise on requirements to spend the same unit cost yet get an aircraft that could meet those targets at a lower total production and annual production rate. Then they can flex production. This year the USMC has slowed down its F-35B buy rate and increased its F-35C buy rate to compensate because of fleet transition and architectural reasons. If this was a separate program they would have had to lower production rate and absorb higher cost or just not have the option of adjusting production rate. This flexibility is a result of a common production line, common components, negotiating common contracts and having common suppliers. If one year one service has other funding priorities that it wants to emphasize it can flex and someone else can fill in the demand...and in others you could divvy up those production slots differently.

There is no doubt that the three US services had to align and come close but there were sound combat-effectiveness, affordability and fleet-recapitalization needs dictating that shift and the US joint forces, which are now getting nearly 100 5GAF's a year and growing benefit in the aggregate as a result of it. Had it not been for this indeed they would have ended up with different aircraft. Better aircraft? Probably not because it is difficult to envision the USN or USMC completing a clean sheet program so likely more SH's for them. The USAF would have ended up with a smaller, lighter fighter..but one less capable...

This may not be the same equation for the IAF and the IN which is ok..but it works for the US especially so if one considers that the F-35 is a product of the post cold war era where spending declines and uncertainty forced the three services to come together and develop a joint modernization strategy as opposed to going separate ways like they were used to during the cold war...

The F-35 is an F-16 and F-18 replacement (for the most part). It is a "Mass/Quantity" fighter for the US services much like the F-16 was during its day. Quantity (overall production/acquisition and build rate) is an important metric for its success as it designed to proliferate into a much larger force structure than any VLO design before it. The quantity allows for higher capability and provides an opportunity for things like VLO and other 5g features to proliferate beyond "silver bullet" levels. For this, a 2 or 3 operator service approach was required absent the funding levels of the cold-war which would have allowed higher capability to be gotten without EOS (at a higher cost).

The US will never spend above 10-12% of its annual defense procurement dollars (which itself are about 20% of all defense $$) on its annual F-35 purchase (even when annual buy rates go from 90's to 130+ per year) which is at par or much below what many other peer air forces will spend over a similar level of purchase. In return each service gets a product that is much more capable than what it is replacing and is future proof when compared to upgraded 4+ generation aircraft that they also had the option of buying (more SH's, and F-16U for the USAF). In the net, a win-win but yes not without lots of challenges overcome much like the programs before it (like the F-16, F-15, F-22, F-18 etc etc).

ramana wrote:So to sum up different planes for different services is the best approach or else you end-up with a compromise no one is happy with.


That is the optimal way if you can afford it and if you can get the desired capability by pursuing that. This is not universally true. In the case of the JSF, the US services could not have gotten this level of capability had they pursued independent programs. There wasn't enough money to justify it for anyone except perhaps the USAF but even its prior got swatted away as being excessive (and it was not even as capable as the current F-35A is). Sometimes alignment works as it forces you to think, pick and choose and build a coalition of support that everyone benefits from. In other times its a drag..

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7218
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 21 Nov 2019 10:38

brar_w wrote:There are plenty of advantages of the Hornet over the F-16 if one was interested but that came at a higher cost to buy and sustain. Same with the F-18 SH compared to upgaded F-16's.

I'd be interested to know. Could you post them in the US Equipment thread?
Thanks

mahadevbhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 18
Joined: 28 Oct 2019 19:47

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

Postby mahadevbhu » 21 Nov 2019 10:56

brar_w wrote:
And no, in hindsight the three US services could not have developed three clean sheet designs for the same price. That notion may sound really impressive but when one gets into programmatic data and financials the math simply does not add up hence why POGO, Sprey, and others have never tried to quantify this argument.

There is no doubt that the three US services had to align and come close but there were sound combat-effectiveness, affordability and fleet-recapitalization needs dictating that shift and the US joint forces, which are now getting nearly 100 5GAF's a year and growing benefit in the aggregate as a result of it. Had it not been for this indeed they would have ended up with different aircraft. Better aircraft? Probably not because it is difficult to envision the USN or USMC completing a clean sheet program so likely more SH's for them. The USAF would have ended up with a smaller, lighter fighter..but one less capable...

This may not be the same equation for the IAF and the IN which is ok..but it works for the US especially so if one considers that the F-35 is a product of the post cold war era where spending declines and uncertainty forced the three services to come together and develop a joint modernization strategy as opposed to going separate ways like they were used to during the cold war...

The F-35 is an F-16 and F-18 replacement (for the most part). It is a "Mass/Quantity" fighter for the US services much like the F-16 was during its day.

That is the optimal way if you can afford it and if you can get the desired capability by pursuing that. This is not universally true. In the case of the JSF, the US services could not have gotten this level of capability had they pursued independent programs.


In fact in my view, even India cannot get the level of capability that is present in the JSF, by pursuing an independent program. I would pay some Indian tax rupees on co-developing / getting a JSF feeder into the AMCA. Call it the JSF-IN. Try to do an FGFA with the JSF rather than the Sukhoi 57. It will turn out to be screwdriver giri anyways, but go ahead and work with the Americans.
India and China are now strategic competitors. Accepting reality for what it is is better than hiding one's head under a bushel.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11305
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 21 Nov 2019 11:07

The F-35 purchase would be foolish, US will not part even 50% of tech Russia did on the SU-30MKI. Much better go with the path the Navy is taking, TEDBF will be a much better bet in the long term and will help in developing and deploying NAMCA faster as well.

Navy should go for

1) NLCA and LCA MK1/1A for carrier training and shore based fighter defense

2) TEDBF and NAMCA in future.

This will be the best decesion. Since we are aldready invested in MIg 29K, order a few attrition replacements.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 21 Nov 2019 11:12

US will part as much percentage as much as India wishes to scratch, at least under Trump sarkar. Don't ignore that, but it can be costly as well. But, then going for it is entirely a different matter. The fact being, it would be false to assume Russia gives more to India than US w/ doing an apples to apples comparison. I am not saying, we should, but it is a false projection that they will not share. [scratchback will be higher for higher share].

Russian scratchbacks are easier and stealthy. Many aspects are ignored under their false projections. It was India's initiatives that made the Sukhois different weapon platform. India can drive at it... funding to investment, efforts and the whole game is learning process. The point is, do we need a jumpstart for AMCA via JSF?

this US vs Russian thingie, makes us one clear beggar kind in terms of ToT or tech sharing. It is better we list those things out, and start working towards it. There is nothing wrong in imitations first, and then innovating on it. We should do this, wherever we feel, we lagged, or enough went in, but no outcomes [example Kaveri engine]...yadi yada

mahadevbhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 18
Joined: 28 Oct 2019 19:47

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

Postby mahadevbhu » 21 Nov 2019 11:21

deleted.
Last edited by mahadevbhu on 21 Nov 2019 11:24, edited 2 times in total.

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 » 21 Nov 2019 11:22

Please stop hijacking this thread. This is about the TEDBF.

IR or some other mod, please do the needful.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 21 Nov 2019 12:26

Kartik wrote:the Indian Navy is talking about retiring MiG-29Ks that are only 10 years old, in another 10-15 years and you talk about buying more MiG-29Ks as the best option? Have all their troubles been sorted out to even think of rewarding MiG Corp with another order?

Is it not obvious to even you that something is really wrong with how the MiG-29K seems to be able to handle the stress of carrier landings when it is going to see a shorter service life than even the disappointing MiG-23MF? the K's were supposed to have a TTL of 6000 hours, but I doubt the IN will come close to utilizing all of that. The IN doesn't even seem to be looking at the possibility of service life extension for the MiG-29K, which is troubling to me and indicates the possibility of problems with the structure and the IN looking at the best way to replace it instead.


Naval fighters wear out faster due to salt water corrosion exposure to avionics and aerostructures. Sea Harriers were inducted after Mirage 2000 and retired much earlier.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20147
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 21 Nov 2019 12:51

SHs for one reason because production had stopped and we missed the opportunity to scquire ex- RN Harriers when 70+ were stupidly retired early (deliberately?) Around 5/6 years ago, all snapped up lock, stock and barrel, by the USMC and are still in use expected to retire only in 2025.We had serviceable barely a dozen and I think for budgetary reasons apart from limited capability retd. them too.

There is no question that the IN can acquire a new large carrier not before 2030+, unless it buys a sevond- hand one.A few years ago, when the UK was facing severe military budget cuts and where wondering what to do with QE carrier no.2, scrapping it and even thinking of leasing it to the French, I said buy it immediately.It was then available for only $4- 5 billion or so. But we are so slow on the gun these days, not like the Rajiv G days when we snapped up the Hermes/ Viraat, bought the SU-30 etc., and miss great opportunities.

Therefore any new naval fighter for our future AND existing carriers should factor in the lift sizes of the 2 existing CVs , making the new hopefully stealth naval fighter operational on any of them possessing both STOBAR and CATOBAR capability.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 21 Nov 2019 13:33

JayS wrote:Someone needs to tell me what exactly is the technical issue with NAMCA that it cannot be done in 15yr timeline, but a fresh TEDBE is doable.

Its like transforming Usain Bolt to Ian Thorpe or Michael Phelps. I'm serious and no pun or sarcasm intended.

Its better training a new athlete from a scratch in his/her youth than taking an existing champion athlete and training him in another sport.

Usain Bolt can never become an Olympic swimmer.

This is precisely the reason why MiG-29K or Su-33 or NLCA has failed to meet expectations.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 21 Nov 2019 16:00

Kartik wrote:I mean, the same Navy that is insisting on a twin engine TEDBF design is the one that invited the Sea Gripen to participate in the MRCBF tender. What does that tell you?

The Navy issued an RFP and Gripen and F-16 responded. Gripen was never "invited". Both were disqualified.

Similar to a Turkish shipyard bidding for FSS and turning out L1 and we were desperate to find ways of throwing them out and finally Article 370 gave an escape route :D

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 21 Nov 2019 16:07

BTW IN is NOT insisting on stealth or VLO that would complicate design and extend testing timelines. Focus is on maneuverability and range/payload combination. It can actually become a Rafale competitor and as a bonus, IAF will have the option of single engined MWF, twin engine fighter and LO AMCA.

No options will remain to justify imports.

The Rafale folks must be sh!tting bricks and might offer comprehensive ToT and India Assembly line during 114 and 57 fighter RFP. Mark these words.

The ADA gentleman heading LCA Navy and appeared in Aero India 2019 video is a very dear friend and remarkable IC & TL. And Modi Sarkar is never short of funds for projects like this and 4.5 years to go. This is a very opportune moment for Indian Aviation R&D and Industry

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 » 21 Nov 2019 16:23

tsarkar wrote:BTW IN is NOT insisting on stealth or VLO that would complicate design and extend testing timelines. Focus is on maneuverability and range/payload combination. It can actually become a Rafale competitor and as a bonus, IAF will have the option of single engined MWF, twin engine fighter and LO AMCA.

No options will remain to justify imports.


The Rafale folks must be sh!tting bricks and might offer comprehensive ToT and India Assembly line during 114 and 57 fighter RFP. Mark these words.

The ADA gentleman heading LCA Navy and appeared in Aero India 2019 video is a very dear friend and remarkable IC & TL. And Modi Sarkar is never short of funds for projects like this and 4.5 years to go. This is a very opportune moment for Indian Aviation R&D and Industry


^^^ Heady times indeed! I can't wait to see where these projects end up. If I could only project myself 5 or 10 years into the future!

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2636
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 21 Nov 2019 16:43

tsarkar wrote:BTW IN is NOT insisting on stealth or VLO that would complicate design and extend testing timelines. Focus is on maneuverability and range/payload combination. It can actually become a Rafale competitor and as a bonus, IAF will have the option of single engined MWF, twin engine fighter and LO AMCA.

No options will remain to justify imports.

The Rafale folks must be sh!tting bricks and might offer comprehensive ToT and India Assembly line during 114 and 57 fighter RFP. Mark these words.


Similar to the points I made earlier. It is the IAF which will need twin engine LCA, more than IN.
42 sqd : 12 sqd Su30, 16 sqd LCA MK1 & MWF, 2 sqd Rafale: 30 sqd.

Remaining 12 sqd cannot be fully filled up with AMCA, costing 150M each. Nor can you replace Su30 with AMCA. There is no comparison on even load carrying capacity between the two.

These have to filled up with more Rafale or MMRCA2 or MWF. If twin engine LCA is available as mud mover, then bye bye to MMRCA 2.0 or Rafale.

SE LCA/MWF, TE MWF & Stealth AMCA covers the entire gambit of our aerospace needs.

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

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

Postby ArjunPandit » 21 Nov 2019 17:33

are we seeing LCA mk2 redux..i vaguely remember that IAF asked for a Mk2 version ....after it saw a naval version with F414...

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 21 Nov 2019 23:05

Kartik wrote:

N-LCA Mk2 arose around 2012 end- back then the IAF was still not fully onboard the Tejas program and all these media reports were floating around that it was underpowered and so on. the Tejas Mk2 program came AFTER the N-LCA Mk2 design was initiated at ADA.


Correction - Both, NLCA MK2 and LCA MK2 were approved in 2009 itself. Which means the thought process was initiated even before that. IAF had conveyed way back in 1989 itselft that MK1 wont fulfil all the parameters of the ASQR. LCA MK2 was the planned to be the definitive version to fulfil ASQR 1985.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 22 Nov 2019 00:42

rajsunder wrote:So gurus what plane will be flying from INS vikrant? Is IN planning to buy more Mig29K?


Why do they need more? They have 2 squadrons worth of MiG-29Ks.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7761
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 22 Nov 2019 01:03

Kartik,

You had asked me before what is the state of these projects. Well, my assessment is a moot point. What the Navy is asserting is that it does not have confidence in AMCA flying by 2025. It would rather have a bird build with all the lessons that have already been learned and technology already developed. I expect some cross breeding for sure. I can't see why the whole propulsion + intakes can't be ported from AMCA to TEDBF. Build the rest of the airframe around it.

I am with you on "What is wrong with 4.5 th generation birds fro deck based operations?" China is developing the J15 and J31 now. TEDBF will be the J31 equivalent.

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

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

Postby fanne » 22 Nov 2019 03:06

I would break down the problem in these ways -

Current and Future (need) -
1. Mig 29 is not up to mark (else Navy would not be so desperate). They will shoulder on with the current number till they can. But that is not optimum, and operationally who knows (that would be a secret we would never know, we would however see lots of FUD around it). Mig 29 may not be even salvageable with Indian inputs (at least this route should be tried, if we come up with the best landing gear on the earth that absorbs 100% of the impact, Mig 29 can be saved. Can it be done?)
2.NLCA and NLCA mk2 (with F414 engine) are perhaps good as TD, but inadequate as carrier fighter. IN, the most competent authority has come to that conclusion, now there is no pint speculating. We can ascribe reasons to it, maybe single engine makes it very risky, a loss of engine would mean loss of both the plane and the pilot (will be always very hard to find a pilot in sea)
3.IN in next 30-40 years will have 3 carriers, requiring something like 35*3 =105 + 25 (land based training, attrition reserves) 130/140 carrier fighters.

Cost consideration
4. Given the budget, we cannot perhaps acquire anything costlier than Mig 29 from a foreign partner
5.Development cost of TEDBF + acquisition cost + maintenance cost will be LESS that just the acquisition cost + Maintenance cost of SH(F-18) or Rafael M (numbers pulled from my musharraff)
6.The many downside of TEDBF are a) Risk - tech is too advanced for us, and thus it is not NAMCA but a double engine LCA (or there about) b)Delay in development - That will happen - you have to just look at LCA (IOC), LCA (foc - came several years later than promised and it was just a simple step up from IOC), LCA mk1 a (does not exist except on paper) and MWF c) Some tech that we are not able to develop (like a robust landing gear, so that what is happening to Mig 29, does not happen to TEDBF d)budget e)Personnel - MWF and MCA will have higher priority than this


Other consideration
7. If we have separate teams that can do LCA mk1 a, MWF, AMCA, and TEDBF and AUrora, it will help us many fold. The economy and country of our size should have it, in future we will need these many programs and each can cross pollinate the other. If this is just a dream, we will end up hurting all the programs and perhaps failing all of them.
8.TEDBF is right up our alley. Through NLCA we realized the concept, developed a Naval ecosystem and the confidence. We stopped at the right moment (NLCA-2), RECONSIDERED, dropped it and doing TEDBF. The same personnel/budget of NLCA-2 will now go towards TEDBF
9.Future, say after 30-40 years NAMCA will be complimenting and then replacing TEDBF
10. IAC-2 may have understrength carrier fighter if TEDBF is delayed (which is most likely. Most of the timelines are very optimistic)
11. There will be IAF versions of TEDBF, a true blood MMCRA (rather than MWF - which is poor man's MMCRA). It will really depend on how good we do with AMCA both time and budget wise.
12. The worst situation is we do not improve on Mig 29, fail in TEDBF after spending considerable time and money and then are forced to buy plane from offshore, that would suck and setback Navy big time.
13. If anyone can pull this off, it would be IN and the current set up. They should try it.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 22 Nov 2019 04:45

tsarkar wrote:
Kartik wrote:the Indian Navy is talking about retiring MiG-29Ks that are only 10 years old, in another 10-15 years and you talk about buying more MiG-29Ks as the best option? Have all their troubles been sorted out to even think of rewarding MiG Corp with another order?

Is it not obvious to even you that something is really wrong with how the MiG-29K seems to be able to handle the stress of carrier landings when it is going to see a shorter service life than even the disappointing MiG-23MF? the K's were supposed to have a TTL of 6000 hours, but I doubt the IN will come close to utilizing all of that. The IN doesn't even seem to be looking at the possibility of service life extension for the MiG-29K, which is troubling to me and indicates the possibility of problems with the structure and the IN looking at the best way to replace it instead.


Naval fighters wear out faster due to salt water corrosion exposure to avionics and aerostructures. Sea Harriers were inducted after Mirage 2000 and retired much earlier.


Corrison problems do not seem to have much to do with the issues that the MiG-29Ks are facing, which are supposedly related to the airframe and avionics not being able to withstand the stresses of carrier landing. All naval fighters are marinised, and corrosion checks are done regularly with coatings to prevent it applied whenever required.

Sea Harriers were not retired due to corrosion related issues but rather due to lack of spares and the fact that there were limited crews and most were transitioning to the MiG-29K. No new pilots were being trained to fly Sea Harriers, so it made sense to retire them and focus on the MiG-29K.

Look at French Navy Super Etendards. They survived well into the 35th year of their induction that began in the late 1970s and seeing service till mid 2016, a good 35 years for most airframes.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 22 Nov 2019 04:54

tsarkar wrote:
Kartik wrote:I mean, the same Navy that is insisting on a twin engine TEDBF design is the one that invited the Sea Gripen to participate in the MRCBF tender. What does that tell you?

The Navy issued an RFP and Gripen and F-16 responded. Gripen was never "invited". Both were disqualified.



Wrong.

Saab was invited to respond to a RFI for MRCBF with Sea Gripen. The Navy didn't issue any RFP and no, there is no F-16 naval variant for Lockheed Martin to be approached or to respond with. And neither was disqualified, as there was no competition.


Livefist link

Design work was completed in 2012, with Saab only really waiting for a fund tap from an interested customer to take the development forward. A single engine configuration works against it — the Indian Navy will be hard pressed to explain junking plans with the LCA Navy (and perhaps the up-engined Mk.2) for another albeit more capable single engine fighter.


or this article


The four carrier-based fighters being considered for this procurement are Boeing’s F-18 Super Hornet, Saab’s Sea Gripen, MiG-29K, and Dassault’s Rafale (naval version). These Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) are currently being considered for the upcoming Request for Proposal (RFP) that was supposed to be issued in 2018. While the RFI didn’t specify whether the navy wanted a single-engine or twin-engine MRCBF, given the expanded roles and capabilities required, it will most likely be a medium-to-heavy, twin-engine one.



Clearly, mid-2017, the Navy had NOT made up its mind that it absolutely wanted a twin engine fighter only. If they were dead sure of it, they wouldn't waste their time with the RFI response for the single engine Sea Gripen.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4596
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 22 Nov 2019 04:59

tsarkar wrote:BTW IN is NOT insisting on stealth or VLO that would complicate design and extend testing timelines. Focus is on maneuverability and range/payload combination. It can actually become a Rafale competitor and as a bonus, IAF will have the option of single engined MWF, twin engine fighter and LO AMCA.

No options will remain to justify imports.

The Rafale folks must be sh!tting bricks and might offer comprehensive ToT and India Assembly line during 114 and 57 fighter RFP. Mark these words.

The ADA gentleman heading LCA Navy and appeared in Aero India 2019 video is a very dear friend and remarkable IC & TL. And Modi Sarkar is never short of funds for projects like this and 4.5 years to go. This is a very opportune moment for Indian Aviation R&D and Industry


Agree, that the IN doesn't seem hung up on "super cruise" and stealth. They want a Rafale analog fighter to be developed indigenously and I believe that we can do that. And as a bonus, the IAF may be able to add an Air Force variant to its force structure, which would be great for the IAF to finally achieve the 42 squadrons it is authorised for.

I just wish this entire thing had happened 2 years earlier..would've made the 114 fighter MRCA contest redundant and all funding and development effort could've been instead targeted at getting the MWF and TEDBF into service, followed quickly by the AMCA.

Who's leading the ADA N-LCA project?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7761
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 22 Nov 2019 05:48

Shri P Thangavel is the PD of Navy MK I
Shri TV Vinod Kumar is the PD Navy MK II

Reorganization ahead.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20509
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 22 Nov 2019 07:56

this is the biased reporting of coupta


Shekhar Gupta Verified account @ShekharGupta

Navy ‘concerned’ as both engines of MiG 29K aircraft failed before Goa crash

Snehesh Alex Philip @sneheshphilip, who covers defence, reports for ThePrint



Navy ‘concerned’ as both engines of MiG 29K aircraft failed before Goa crash

New Delhi: The Indian Navy is “concerned” after last week’s MiG 29K crash as both engines of the fighter aircraft had failed following what is believed to be a “bird hit”.

There was no casualty as both pilots had safely ejected before the fighter aircraft crashed outside a village in Goa.

Navy sources told ThePrint their concern is over the fact that both the engines failed. The aircraft was a twin-engine model and the idea to have an aircraft like that is to ensure that the pilots can recover it even if one engine fails.

The Navy is awaiting report of the court of inquiry (CoI) instituted in the matter to investigate the cause of the accident.

“The CoI will establish the real cause of the failure of both the engines and whether both suffered due to bird hit,” said an officer.

According to the Navy, the twin-seater Russian aircraft, on a routine training sortie, encountered a “flock of birds” after take-off from the naval Air Base at Dabolim in Goa around noon on 16 November.

“The pilot observed that the left engine had flamed out and the right engine had caught fire. Attempts to recover the aircraft following the standard operating procedures were unsuccessful due to the nature of the emergency,” the Navy said in a statement.

The CoI was instituted by the Navy the same day.
Last edited by chetak on 22 Nov 2019 08:11, edited 1 time in total.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20509
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 22 Nov 2019 08:00

Both pilots of the recently crashed MiG-29K reported bird hits before the crash but for a anti national reporter and wannabe arms dealer supporter like coupta, that is not pertinent information.




Arun Prakash @arunp2810

Retweeted Shekhar Gupta

If both engines ingest large birds both WILL fail or catch fire. Exactly what happened 2 Airbus 320 force-landed by Capt Sullenberger in Hudson River. What should REALLY worry us is deadly hazard to aviation posed by domestic garbage piling up in all towns & attracting birds.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20147
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 22 Nov 2019 09:24

The attitude of civic authorities and lethargy by govt. agencies in enforcing a safe zone around air bases and airports, dumping of garbage, etc. is appalling. As cities expand we see settlements almost bursting into airport runways and security zones. An analysis of crashes and engine failures both mil. and civil will show a high % due to such strikes. The cost to the nation is huge and there should be a concerted effort to remove encroachments, abattoirs, garbage collection bins, etc. far away from civil aerodromes and air bases.

The failure of both engines at the same time is most unusual and one is sure that the investigation will discover the reason for the crash.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 22 Nov 2019 10:41

Kartik wrote:
tsarkar wrote:BTW IN is NOT insisting on stealth or VLO that would complicate design and extend testing timelines. Focus is on maneuverability and range/payload combination. It can actually become a Rafale competitor and as a bonus, IAF will have the option of single engined MWF, twin engine fighter and LO AMCA.

No options will remain to justify imports.

The Rafale folks must be sh!tting bricks and might offer comprehensive ToT and India Assembly line during 114 and 57 fighter RFP. Mark these words.

The ADA gentleman heading LCA Navy and appeared in Aero India 2019 video is a very dear friend and remarkable IC & TL. And Modi Sarkar is never short of funds for projects like this and 4.5 years to go. This is a very opportune moment for Indian Aviation R&D and Industry


Agree, that the IN doesn't seem hung up on "super cruise" and stealth. They want a Rafale analog fighter to be developed indigenously and I believe that we can do that. And as a bonus, the IAF may be able to add an Air Force variant to its force structure, which would be great for the IAF to finally achieve the 42 squadrons it is authorised for.

I just wish this entire thing had happened 2 years earlier..would've made the 114 fighter MRCA contest redundant and all funding and development effort could've been instead targeted at getting the MWF and TEDBF into service, followed quickly by the AMCA.

Who's leading the ADA N-LCA project?


Had this happened around the time when MP was hammering all the stake holders to sit and resolve their differences, during 2015 timeframe, MWF itself could have become twin engine with a naval and AF version. If IAF wanted SE fighter, LCA could have been off loaded to HAL completely for any and all future versions.

We could have asked Dassault's help for LCA based but bigger canard-delta twin jet for Naval plus land version a la Rafale as a part of offsets. May be even a InFra engine for this with M88 core and Indian LP system. Dassualt was involved with original LCA aero design. They would have been the best partner for delta-canard fighter given Rafale experience. With 72 Rafale order we would have more than enough offset available for entire deal. Of course this assuming France would have agreed to create alternate Rafale.

Lack of inter organisational coordination costs us a lot of money and time.

Of course hindsight is 20-20 and it costs us nothing to pontificate being Chair borne Worriers.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 22 Nov 2019 11:05

tsarkar wrote:
JayS wrote:Someone needs to tell me what exactly is the technical issue with NAMCA that it cannot be done in 15yr timeline, but a fresh TEDBE is doable.

Its like transforming Usain Bolt to Ian Thorpe or Michael Phelps. I'm serious and no pun or sarcasm intended.

Its better training a new athlete from a scratch in his/her youth than taking an existing champion athlete and training him in another sport.

Usain Bolt can never become an Olympic swimmer.

This is precisely the reason why MiG-29K or Su-33 or NLCA has failed to meet expectations.


Well, I was expecting a more technical answer, but anyway. Such analogies are useless, frankly speaking, as one can draw any anology to suite one's point but the would quickly fall apart with little poking at them. You say one athlete cannot be trained in another game with same level of competency. Could Michael Phelps become a 100m sprint champion..? I dont know. But there are examples of Naval Jets which are rather successful as Land based fighters. In fact, FA18 started as a land based fighter, became a naval one and then came back to land based application. Rafale has been successfully designed for Naval and Land based application with very high % of commonality. Likewise there are many examples of sportsmen who play two games at the international level.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20509
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 22 Nov 2019 20:15

In this day and age, if a new fighter is expected to come out without stealth and other features that are taken for granted as the default, what next, do we expect to see steam engines powering them.

why on earth would the IN be the only customer in the world to say, to hell with stealth and many other features.

missiles and radars are getting smarter by leaps and bounds and the retrograde IN is actually volunteering to make their jobs easier

BTW IN is NOT insisting on stealth or VLO that would complicate design and extend testing timelines. Focus is on maneuverability and range/payload combination.


If there actually some IN guy in the decision making chain who has voiced such an opinion, he should be cashiered forthwith.
Last edited by chetak on 22 Nov 2019 20:27, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7916
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 22 Nov 2019 20:25

chetak wrote:why on earth would the IN be the only customer in the world to say, to hell with stealth and many other features.


Because designing an advanced 5th generation land based fighter with stealth, integrated avionics, supercruise and a flexible IWB is complex enough that demanding the same for a ruggedized navalized fighter, that can operate from both STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers, comes with a truck full of technical and schedule risk especially when the learning curve for 5GFA has only started. If the IN wants a MiG-29K replacement, operational on a carrier deck within 15 years then it would have shed quite a bit of that risk and that is what it appears to have done. If the IN felt that the MiG-29K's were "30-year platforms" (like the recently retired F/A-18's for example) then it could have possible taken a little more risk and asked for more capability. But if the decision is driven by schedule and the need to get operational aircraft on the deck by so and so date then something has to be traded.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20509
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 22 Nov 2019 20:54

brar_w wrote:
chetak wrote:why on earth would the IN be the only customer in the world to say, to hell with stealth and many other features.


Because designing a advanced 5th generation land based fighter with stealth, integrated avionics, supercruise and a flexible IWB is complex enough that demanding the same for a ruggedized navalized fighter, that can operate from both STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers, comes with a truck full of technical and schedule risk especially when the learning curve for 5GFA has only started. If the IN wants a MiG-29K replacement, operational on a carrier deck within 15 years then it would have shed quite a bit of that risk and that is what it appears to have done.


when all the derisking and risk mitigating is done, there is still something called residual risk.

While it is fine for some detached and academic discussion, no one with even a modicum of operational expertise would actually sign off on such a deal

Yes, some disinterested baboo(n) who has never seen the backside of a fighter would certainly do so, just before he waddled off to his morning golf game.

and the press and SM would immediately reflect the very harsh reality of the foolishness of such a move and this would play out in the public domain in the only way that it possibly could.

The risk universe would primarily consider what kind of likely emerging threats could affect a platform coming out 15 years hence and the mitigation to counter that. That's hard enough to forecast without wilfully dialling back on minimal safety considerations and hamstring the platform in its ability to defend itself. Not to mention the heightened dangers of interception and destruction of a platform that has deliberately been under designed and as a consequence, it becomes visible at longer ranges.

In which design universe is this acceptable, a highly questionable tradeoff that brings a dangerous product to market, a product that puts already risky lives at even greater risk.

and what would be the chances of such platforms and what would it do to their core ability to complete missions and tasks assigned to them.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7916
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 22 Nov 2019 21:18

The Naval mission and the IN's responsibilities are different. It thinks that it can put a non stealthy 4.5 generation aircraft to good use in the post 2030 time-frame. And across a diverse mission set that actually may be the case. In that time-frame the IAF itself would still be predominantly a 4+ generation fleet. Competitor naval forces like China would still be operating 4th generation aircraft as would allies like the French, and the Russians. Roughly 50-60% of the USN's strike fighter fleet will comprise of 4+ generation aircraft in the 2032-2035 time-frame. Only the Royal Navy and the USMC will be a 5th gen. only force by that time frame. Their need appears to be to get fresh tails on AC decks in what appears to be a fairly inflexible schedule. The 57 Navalized fighter program, and now this program to design and produce 4.5 gen. naval fighter is a reflection on the MiG-29K (IMHO) and how the IN envisions it to be in its future fleet architecture. They want something within 15 years and they think this is the best balance of risk and performance that they can get.

While what the LCA-Navy has achieved so far is great, it takes a ton of work to fully develop and integrate a naval fighter into an aircraft carrier. This is compounded when you take a 5FGFA into the mix. Just look at the number of at sea development and operational sea trials the F-35B and F-35C has had to go through and the constant discovery -- fix -- verification loop that existed across its many design features. While this was the first foray into a carrier aircraft for Lockheed, NAVAIR has been doing this pretty much since the beginning of fast jet carrier aviation. A walk and then run approach is best. Develop a Rafale/SH analogous and take it through development and operational testing and put it into service in 15 years. Then based on lessons learnt pursue either an AMCA derivative or an AURA derivative and go for more complex and challenging projects from there.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20509
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 22 Nov 2019 21:37

brar_w wrote:
chetak wrote:why on earth would the IN be the only customer in the world to say, to hell with stealth and many other features.


Because designing an advanced 5th generation land based fighter with stealth, integrated avionics, supercruise and a flexible IWB is complex enough that demanding the same for a ruggedized navalized fighter, that can operate from both STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers, comes with a truck full of technical and schedule risk especially when the learning curve for 5GFA has only started. If the IN wants a MiG-29K replacement, operational on a carrier deck within 15 years then it would have shed quite a bit of that risk and that is what it appears to have done. If the IN felt that the MiG-29K's were "30-year platforms" (like the recently retired F/A-18's for example) then it could have possible taken a little more risk and asked for more capability. But if the decision is driven by schedule and the need to get operational aircraft on the deck by so and so date then something has to be traded.


The MiG-29K's were an inseparable part of the carrier deal and it was pitched as take it or leave it deal by a country which wanted to use blackmail to get Indian money to pay for their infrastructure and an aircraft it wanted to develop for its navy and the russkies very well knew that they had us by the short and curlies.

The IN went along because it had no choice. This deal was cleverly tied to other vital deals that were already in the pipeline.

We got thrown under the russian bus and the sooner one recognizes that ugly fact, the better off one will be. As for as the MiG 29K goes, we were sold a pup. So we got taken for a ride on the carrier as well as the carrier borne aircraft.

Today, the russkies just do not have the testimonials to play hardball, given their own economic constraints, their dwindling strategic status and their growing dependence of the arms markets just to sustain themselves in the face of chinese hegemony and amerilk sanctions.

Yes, indeed, you have marshaled an impressive array of alphabet soup acronyms to buttress your arguments

flexible IWB is complex enough that demanding the same for a ruggedized navalized fighter, that can operate from both STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers,


So, is the solution tied to a second bus, an Indian one this time.

One suspects that the EMALS tech is about as far away for us as the jet engine tech. We will be constrained to operate in the way that we now do for a long time to come.

We don't fully trust the amerikis just as they don't fully trust us and this mutual love fest is not going to change any time soon

There is ABSOLUTELY no guarantee that timelines will be met. The same guys who worked on the LCA would now move seamlessly to a naval fighter and leverage their experience is what is being pitched.

Who has said that the IN is not going to stretch out the 29K over a longer time line. An assumption is being made by interested parties is all. They have a lot of them in storage and there is no news out in the public domain as to what possible solutions are being worked out between the IN and the russkies.

The MiG 29K story is very bad news for the russians, their arms markets, their potential customers and future sales of russian arms.

So this is not a story of letting sleeping dogs lie.

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

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

Postby fanne » 22 Nov 2019 23:23

well the arguments really is based on the assumptions (assumptions not fact, because only few know it and are bound by OSA) about the current state and future scenario
1. If you think Mig 29K is a failure with no future and can at best last another x years (0<x<15 years), you need a replacement asap, whatever it is. If you make an assumption that Mig 29 K can be fixed (with or without Russian help), then your timeline stretches longer. In first scenario, just on domestic program, you cannot do LO, while in later you may.
2.Future, how many forces at sea around IOR (PLAN, TSPAF/TSPN mainly) will field LO platforms in next 30 years. For TSP, we have to also consider their land based aircraft that can be LO (and assigned for Naval role). This should be fairly easy to predict, none. PLAN will eventually have a LO platform, but it is at least few decades away from production.
3.A 4.5 ++ platform will do fine for IN. Both planes that we are considering (and cannot afford) - SH and Rafael M are 4.5 platform and viable for next 40-50 years.
4.The best way to guarantee that TEDBF never flies is ask for LO, super cruise etc. If Mig29k has to replaced fast, a twin engine LCA will do fine, it will have the requisite TWR and internal volume (thus range) to serve as a DBF.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sanju and 91 guests