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.
Haridas wrote:There was never a FOC Naval-LCA, IIRC they were all prototypes and after Navy rejected that path, all in standstill.
Now asking for FOC is moving the goal post on an already stretched HAL that is struggling with Tejas-Mk1A, Mk-2 and AMCA. Dont have time for NLCA FOC. Just take more of what Cdr Mao tested.
I don't know the empty weight of NLCA. But there are some forward movement. Will let you guys know. Currently, they are getting ready for some tests at INS Hansa.
NLCA on Vikrant in a few months for sure. With armaments.
Indranil wrote:I don't know the empty weight of NLCA. But there are some forward movement. Will let you guys know. Currently, they are getting ready for some tests at INS Hansa.
NLCA on Vikrant in a few months for sure. With armaments.
That is incredible news. Would be a real lungi dance moment if/when it happens. How many Naval prototypes exist currently? I don't think HAL has the bandwidth to build any more right now.
I think we should open up a lungi dance thread itself. There is a good reason for it:
1. Lungi dance for NLCA
2. Lungi dance for IAC1-Vikrant
3. Lungi dance for the DNA Covid Vaccine approval
4. Lungi dance on the way road infrastructure is progressing
5. Lungi dance on the way DFC is coming along
6. Lungi dance on the power sector
But yes, Jingoes must keep their Lungis ready. And keep on practicing their dance moves. You may be called to do a lungi dance anytime.
How will Jingoes react when NLCA lands on IAC-1? And then takes off?
Happy to hear that NLCA trails are planned on IAC-1
But I am 100% certain no NLCA (production) order will be given by the IN, no chance whatsoever.
The 404 engine analysis is asinine. 83 MK1A are on order but they will account for potential engine failures/write offs and will also want a few in reserve. More than accounted for in the 99 unit order, I’m also pretty sure HAL are going to make a few additional LCA airframes that’ll need the extra 404s.
yes, the current 99 numbers of F-404 may not be sufficient for anything else (16 more than 83 ordered) - NLCA or export to Malaysia or SPORT or anything - They are all reserves. Not to say that they cannot be used for anything else, but they are reserves. Even while buying Apaches/c17/c130 we have bought spare engines in the ratio of 10%-20%.
For NLCA we will need additional f404, hopefully more powerful versions.
Haridas wrote:There was never a FOC Naval-LCA, IIRC they were all prototypes and after Navy rejected that path, all in standstill.
Now asking for FOC is moving the goal post on an already stretched HAL that is struggling with Tejas-Mk1A, Mk-2 and AMCA. Dont have time for NLCA FOC. Just take more of what Cdr Mao tested.
V_Raman wrote:i dont understand why we cant make NLCA based off mk1A specs including the engine.
It's because the Mk1A does not have the hefty landing gear and spine required for a carrier-based fighter. The mechanical shock of arrested landings is too much for a normal (i.e. Air Force type) fighter to bear.
Can the refuelling probes be fitted into NLCA? If so, they can be refueled midair by IAF tankers, or IN could also purchase some refuelers which might not be a bad decision. USN also has refueling aircraft.
Plus if IAF mk-Is can be brought up to Mk-1A over time, even NLCA Mk-I can be upgraded slowly to Mk-IA over time
putnanja wrote:Can the refuelling probes be fitted into NLCA? If so, they can be refueled midair by IAF tankers, or IN could also purchase some refuelers which might not be a bad decision. USN also has refueling aircraft.
Plus if IAF mk-Is can be brought up to Mk-1A over time, even NLCA Mk-I can be upgraded slowly to Mk-IA over time
Yes absolutely... NP-5 is coming with refueling-probe.
putnanja wrote:Can the refuelling probes be fitted into NLCA? If so, they can be refueled midair by IAF tankers, or IN could also purchase some refuelers which might not be a bad decision. USN also has refueling aircraft.
Plus if IAF mk-Is can be brought up to Mk-1A over time, even NLCA Mk-I can be upgraded slowly to Mk-IA over time
What would be the reach of own refuellers in a contested air space away from Indian shores?
putnanja wrote:Can the refuelling probes be fitted into NLCA? If so, they can be refueled midair by IAF tankers, or IN could also purchase some refuelers which might not be a bad decision. USN also has refueling aircraft.
Plus if IAF mk-Is can be brought up to Mk-1A over time, even NLCA Mk-I can be upgraded slowly to Mk-IA over time
What would be the reach of own refuellers in a contested air space away from Indian shores?
I don't think IAF or IN would risk refuellers in contested air space. Refuelers are typically used in safe airspace. NLCA/LCA are fuel limited at max-payload. One probable scenario is that NLCAs take off with max weapons and limited fuel from the carrier and get refueled from refuelers in air before entering contested airspace.
The US Navy currently has its F/A-18 E/F's equipped to handle refueling needs. Because of the platform, amount of fuel required to keep it up, and how much they can transfer, this option is really only a recovery tanker capability. The US Navy lost the mission tanker (the ability to go hundreds of miles from the AC and hold orbit while being able to offload a tactically significant amount of fuel) when the stopped deploying the S-3B in that capacity. This capability will now come back with the MQ-25 unmanned tanker that can hold an orbit at 900+ km and offload nearly 7,000 kg of fuel to other platforms. This won't work for a STOBAR configuration. The best option for a non assisted carrier is probably the V-22 VARS that transfers about 5,000 kg of fuel (and it is also useful for other roles such as COD, or VIP) but it is a specialized role so I doubt that it would be considered given the expense. MiG-29K's as recovery tankers it will likely be for quite a while.
Last edited by brar_w on 21 Aug 2021 19:16, edited 1 time in total.
Is the NP5 made to Tejas FoC standard? I hope so. The radar, EW pod and other improvements of MK1A could also possiblly be carried over.
Depends on the number of NLCA that actually get ordered. If is 16-18 aircrafts, as os being speculated, then it might be possible, as HAL will need some time to start producing the NLCA. Also, as the fuselage and wings are different, I don't think the existing production line in the private sector for these parts, can cater to the NLCA production as well. This would have to be a largely HAL produced as aircraft, as per the production that was happening for the first 20 IOC version Tejas.
Though this would terrific it is really happens and 16-18 NLCA are ordered.
HAL should look to ramp up it production capacity.
ks_sachin wrote:
What would be the reach of own refuellers in a contested air space away from Indian shores?
I don't think IAF or IN would risk refuellers in contested air space. Refuelers are typically used in safe airspace. NLCA/LCA are fuel limited at max-payload. One probable scenario is that NLCAs take off with max weapons and limited fuel from the carrier and get refueled from refuelers in air before entering contested airspace.
So basically if the refuellers are not carrier based then the purpose of carrier deployment far from our shores is debatable. I don’t think an NLCA flying to provide top cover to refuellers makes sense.
mody wrote:Is the NP5 made to Tejas FoC standard? I hope so. The radar, EW pod and other improvements of MK1A could also possiblly be carried over.
Depends on the number of NLCA that actually get ordered. If is 16-18 aircrafts, as os being speculated, then it might be possible, as HAL will need some time to start producing the NLCA. Also, as the fuselage and wings are different, I don't think the existing production line in the private sector for these parts, can cater to the NLCA production as well. This would have to be a largely HAL produced as aircraft, as per the production that was happening for the first 20 IOC version Tejas.
Though this would terrific it is really happens and 16-18 NLCA are ordered.
HAL should look to ramp up it production capacity.
Sirji I don’t understand this hand wringing about FOC. The prototypes were for testing. Were they combat or trainer role ready?
The NPs have a lot of test equipment etc. To make them into trainers or carrier deployed ac you have to replace this with things and meet operational requirements one of which would be to have a functioning radar!!!
Haridas wrote:There was never a FOC Naval-LCA, IIRC they were all prototypes and after Navy rejected that path, all in stand still.
Now asking for FOC is moving teh goal post on an already stretched HAL that is struggling with Tejas-Mk1A, Mk-2 and AMCA. Dont have time for NLCA FOC. Just take more of what Cdr Mao tested.
Asking for FOC means operationalising an aircraft to meet operational requirements. What goal posts are being moved?
You want them to induct an ac with telemetry and other testing sensors?
If they are asking for FOC means they are happy with what they have seen or seen sense.
The NLCA trainer model from aeroindia 2021 shows I think two 1330 litres EFT and two derby aam for external payload of estimated 2.7T which must have been achieved.
Even if it is 1200 litres EFT the external payload is 2.4T which is sufficient for CAP.
KSingh wrote:Happy to hear that NLCA trails are planned on IAC-1
But I am 100% certain no NLCA (production) order will be given by the IN, no chance whatsoever.
The 404 engine analysis is asinine. 83 MK1A are on order but they will account for potential engine failures/write offs and will also want a few in reserve. More than accounted for in the 99 unit order, I’m also pretty sure HAL are going to make a few additional LCA airframes that’ll need the extra 404s.
20% extra engines are bought for use as spare so that operational availability of fleet is high. No extra airframes. Only what is sanctioned. Everything costs money.
sankum wrote:The NLCA trainer model from aeroindia 2021 shows I think two 1330 litres EFT and two derby aam for external payload of estimated 2.7T which must have been achieved.
Even if it is 1200 litres EFT the external payload is 2.4T which is sufficient for CAP.
If it could take off with 2+ton external load then we'd have huge orders for NLCA. Landing has been tested to 10ton net weight & takeoff upto 4AAMs with full internal fuel (roughly 10.5ton).
However the NP-5 is going to come with refueling-probe & thus IN can add to empty droptanks to it, & have them filled once up in the air... maybe even extra ordnance instead of full internal fuel.
If the NLCA takes of carrier with empty fuel tanks and has to be buddy refuelled from a mig 29k tanker than there is no benefit of NLCA on carrier . The mission can be very well be carried out by the Mig 29 k .
To be capable of carrier missions it should be capable of taking of with full fuel load including full EFTs. No need to tie a Mig 29 k down.
sankum wrote:If the NLCA takes of carrier with empty fuel tanks and has to be buddy refuelled from a mig 29k tanker than there is no benefit of NLCA on carrier . The mission can be very well be carried out by the Mig 29 k .
To be capable of carrier missions it should be capable of taking of with full fuel load including full EFTs. No need to tie a Mig 29 k down.
Oh, no no. I was taking with this following idea in mind. It'll benefit both our aircrafts... & frankly with AESA, Astra & Python-5 NLCA is a safer bet to be in while CAP, even more so if CATS is available soon.
Regarding that we could try using seaplanes as AWACS & refueling tankers. Even our comparatively small US-2 can carry 15ton liquid from sea (takeoff with that much water in firefighting flybys)... And can take off from rough sea with up to 3m high waves.
sankum wrote:If the NLCA takes of carrier with empty fuel tanks and has to be buddy refuelled from a mig 29k tanker than there is no benefit of NLCA on carrier . The mission can be very well be carried out by the Mig 29 k .
To be capable of carrier missions it should be capable of taking of with full fuel load including full EFTs. No need to tie a Mig 29 k down.
Have we seen the NLCA take off with full payload from the SBTF?
Pratyush wrote:Have we seen the NLCA take off with full payload from the SBTF?
Bit hard to tell from outside, but mostly likely yes. Look at the official statement, that sounded like payload with full-fuel (...as with only little less they'd have taken off with 6 AAMs instead)
...because earlier that year Saurav Jha's made this tweet;
A six AAM plus a centre line fuel tank is the same war load that a base model MiG 29 in the late 80s would have in Indian service.
A 10 ton landing load tells me that it can come back to the ship with 1 harpoon class missile and reserve fuel of about 500 liters from a mission. With an 7.8 ton empty weight. ( I take the Kartik provided information as more credible. As it comes from the development agency directly)
If it retains the flight range of the LSP Tejas. It will be quite a good aircraft for its purpose. It will not be in the same class as TEDBF or its global equivalents. But it will not be a no hoper that many think it will be.
The nose cone is optimized for better visibility and weight increased to accommodate carrier landing strength requirements. The range will be lesser than Tejas.
Maybe a noob-pooch But if Vik+NLCA is used against offensive against pakistan - what would be our missions ?
1. Destroy PNS assets; PNS naval assets have thin air defense. This would require an AShM - Will be heavier than BVR/WVR AAMs. So a more useful loadout should be be a AShM + CCM/BVR mix?
2. Bomb Karachi port - In which case also we will need heavier SaaW/Dumb Bombs + CCM/BVR.
basant wrote:The nose cone is optimized for better visibility and weight increased to accommodate carrier landing strength requirements. The range will be lesser than Tejas.
Let's see what the actual figures is going to be. Only the ADA can confirm this.
YashG wrote:Maybe a noob-pooch But if Vik+NLCA is used against offensive against pakistan - what would be our missions ?
It won't be... LCA has no ASM weapon as of now. I hate that Jf-17 has two.
basant wrote:The nose cone is optimized for better visibility and weight increased to accommodate carrier landing strength requirements. The range will be lesser than Tejas.
It's not more draggy that IAF Tejas.. Actually there's a graph on DFI that shows better L/D ratio with levcons (better STR too). NLCA is best used as a dogfighter.
YashG wrote:Maybe a noob-pooch But if Vik+NLCA is used against offensive against pakistan - what would be our missions ?
It won't be... LCA has no ASM weapon as of now. I hate that Jf-17 has two.
The best part abt lca - we can do anything with it - integrate anything. So if we have a AShM missile (maybe Barhmos NG) that we want to put on NLCA we will. I think limitation might be more from the point is that loadout possible - AshM + BVR/CCM.
