LCA News and Discussions

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 31 May 2012 16:55

Phillip, did you flip on a ddm-banana peel? that is not a catch, but a fall for Philip. Everyone knows at the first prototype/TD stage, how much of deployed features can be expected. Engine issue is already known. Now, that is an example to be careful when you walk on ddm st.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 31 May 2012 17:14

N-LCA MK-1 in its current stage is not sea worthy it has been reported repeatedly in Vayu and other defence magazines , and N-LCA NP-1 and 2 are TD for Navy and real deal will be N-LCA MK-2

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 31 May 2012 20:20

Flight Test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 1867 Test Flights[/b] successfully. (31-May-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-347,LSP1-74,LSP2-208,PV5-36,LSP3-53,LSP4-56,LSP5-86,LSP7-3,NP1-2)

from

LCA-Tejas has completed 1864 Test Flights successfully. (28-May-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-347,LSP1-74,LSP2-207,PV5-36,LSP3-52,LSP4-55,LSP5-86,LSP7-3,NP1-2)

I too am thankful for suryag's regular updates on # of test flights by Tejas.

vina · Post by **vina** » 31 May 2012 21:00

Karan_MC wrote:N-LCA MK-1 in its current stage is not sea worthy it has been reported repeatedly in Vayu and other defence magazines , and N-LCA NP-1 and 2 are TD for Navy and real deal will be N-LCA MK-2

I am not sure what "sea worthy " really means here. If they mean, taking it on board ship, being able to launch and recover with a reduced payload, yes. If they mean full combat capability /specs the Navy would like to have, the no.

But anyways, that AWST in addition to the "twin engined" F-35C, also mentions Gripen in the same breath. Now, tell me quick who will the "twin engined" Gripen

, also carry do anything at all better than an MK2, when it has exactly the same engine and has comprable empty weight and MTOW ? That article sounds like so much garbage, that it is not even worth a mention.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 01 Jun 2012 03:34

vina wrote: But anyways, that AWST in addition to the "twin engined" F-35C, also mentions Gripen in the same breath. Now, tell me quick who will the "twin engined" Gripen , also carry do anything at all better than an MK2, when it has exactly the same engine and has comparable empty weight and MTOW ? That article sounds like so much garbage, that it is not even worth a mention.

Not to mention that a naval Gripen doesn't even exist yet. Even the Gripen NG is still far from being a mature fighter based on reports from the Swiss evaluations.

Can't believe AW&ST would print such crap. Is that line directly from AW&ST?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Jun 2012 06:16

Where did I say that the JSF would be twin-engined? I mentioned the JSF F-35 C in my post as one option along with the other twin-engined aircraft,which is not my opinion but in the article! Unfortunately,in recent times,many in BR tend to "shoot the messenger" and not study the contents of the message and where it emanated from.I was merely condensing the key points of the article in AWST, supposedly based upon input from unnamed IN sources (a commodore,etc.).The title "Unseaworthy" is AWST's.It also says that the IN has almost decided to use the first LSP NLCAs only on land,based at Goa.Until MK-2 arrives with a more powerful engine-and the prototype is expected to fly only in two years from now,there is little chance of the first NLCAs flying off the carrier decks of either the Gorky/Vik or IAC-1 expected from 2015 or thereabouts.It is only when IAC-2 arrives and hopefully a perfected NLCA too by then,that we may see it finally fly off an Indian carrier.

The list of aircraft that could be considered for the IAC-2 /IN in the future is also AWSTs,not mine.I included the Gripen by mistake though-apologies.However,a naval version of the Gripen has been touted for the IN from time to time,esp. when the Gripen was in the Running for the MMRCA. The cost of cats-see the para below,is why I advocate a STOVL version of the FGFA 5th-gen stealth aircraft (twin-engined!) being developed with Russia for the IAF.There would be considerable synergy of the same and reports indicate that the Russians will develop a naval version for their navy.

About IAC-2 and the issue of cats.The RN/UK has officially ditched cats for their two new large carriers under construction because the est. cost per carrier per cat is upwards of $2 billion per cat! It also requires extra power and extra manpower,which are additional cost killers.EMALS has been ditched because of the costs involved and its long experience if using Harriers with their far easier and safer recovery aboard,has made them reverse their decision and plump for the JSF-B.

PS:Secret Scorpene evaluation docs. Leaked to the French.How DCNS allegedly operates to get orders.

Secret documents sold to French company
May 31, 2012

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/catego ... h-company/

Xcpt:

This was among the major aspects that the French investigative judge probing the case lodged by Suaram against Paris-owned shipmaker DCNS for alleged corruption are looking at.

According to French lawyer acting for Suaram, Joseph Breham, the French judge had inquired what those payments were and had demanded reports of financial transactions.

The lawyer had said it was even possible that Thales, a subsidiary of DCN, decided to pay the money to obtain the classified document so that it could better its bid for the project.

Directors of the Hong Kong-based Terasasi include Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s close ally Abdul Razak Baginda and the latter’s father Abdul Malim Baginda.

The secret document was allegedly sold to Thales International, also known as Thint Asia, which is a subsidiary of DCN (later known as DCNS).

DCNS is the company central in the legal suit filed by Suaram in 2009 in the French courts, which recently commenced a judicial inquiry at the Tribunal De Grande Instance in Paris.

The inquiry revolves around the RM7.3 billion deal to purchase two Scorpene submarines with DCNS and Spainish Navantia in 2002, when Najib was defence minister. Suaram’s complaint was based on the claim of corruption for a payment amounting to 114 million euros from DCNS to Perimekar.

Perimekar is also directly linked to Abdul Razak who was acquitted of abetting in the murder of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu; while two of Najib’s former bodyguards were convicted for the murder.

Speaking to FMT from Bangkok, Suaram director Cynthia Gabriel said that the selling of the secret document for 36 million euro amounted to an act of treason, on top of it being most probably a corrupt act.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Jun 2012 06:32

nachiket wrote:
Can't believe AW&ST would print such crap. Is that line directly from AW&ST?

A huge part of the problem is that we are in the internet era - get that story out FIRST. No need to run it by an editor (who is that any ways?)

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 01 Jun 2012 06:45

This was the article..as usual, spouts negativity. They completely ignore how this is India's first ever naval aircraft designed from the ground up in India. They don't offer any insight into the challenges of developing a naval fighter or the testing phase that lies ahead. Pretty much stuff that an average BRFite could've written up in half an hour and even that BRFite would've been chastised by others. Very disappointing for a magazine that sells for $10 per issue or thereabouts. They don't forget to mention a statement by an IN official made long ago on the N-LCA being a modest platform (because he said that the IN would ideally want a Rafale-sque aircraft) but forget to mention the next statement he'd made- that still the N-LCA is our own baby. We can develop it, upgrade it as much as we want and since we own the technology and the software is ours, it will be easier.

Aviation Week article on N-LCA's first flight

ASIA-PACIFIC STAFF/NEW DELHI

The debut flight of the Indian navy's first indigenous aircraft carrier-borne fighter may have finally come and gone relatively smoothly, but the program itself seems to be facing more turbulence.

Sixteen months after it was supposed to make its first flight, the prototype of India's first fighter for carrier-deck operations, the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA)-Navy, finally took off April 27 from Bengaluru. The 22-min. flight, conducted by two senior test pilots, was officially deemed a success. But relief over the beleaguered prototype finally lifting off will be fleeting. LCA-N Mk.1, ironically, may never actually see service on a carrier deck.

In February, the defense ministry's acquisition office approved the manufacture of eight limited-series LCA-N airframes, but the navy has all-but-officially decided to fly the Mk.1 only from land. The proposed Mk.2, which is set to have the more powerful F414 engine and is still at least two years away from even prototyping, is likely to be a variant that the navy buys in larger numbers and flies off its future short-takeoff-but-arrested-recovery (Stobar) carriers.

Apart from being underpowered (it flies on a single F404 engine) and therefore unsuitable for Stobar operations, according to navy officials, the Mk.1 has also emerged heavier than the service wanted. Worse still, the fundamental structural hurdles that had delayed the program for so long have not been fully resolved. These include the modified, strengthened landing gear, certain airframe modifications and optimal sink-rate parameters, all of which are being addressed with EADS. With the first flight done, the program team intends to bolster efforts to get the aircraft to meet navy specifications, which the prototype does not.

“Flying the prototype without working out the airframe problems was something we were not comfortable with,” admits a commodore with the navy headquarters group tasked with monitoring trials of the LCA-N. “But with the flight safety board clearing it, we took it under consideration with assurances that the team would work out the problems within the year. We're hoping they do that.”

The commodore also confirmed that certain minor airframe modifications remained to be done and tested. The navy has received assurance that the aircraft will meet all basic specifications by year-end and look to initial operational clearance by early 2014.

The prototype that flew last month was a twin-seat trainer, and it did not have the arrestor-hook assembly. The naval prototype's airframe is virtually identical to the primary LCA air force trainer, except for a leading edge vortex control surface that is operated by a concealed rotary actuator for safe landing speeds and improved controllability.

Just weeks after he had chastised the team for the many delays to the program, the Indian navy chief's tone became more conciliatory. Adm. Nirmal Verma said, “We must ensure that today's accomplishment leads to the timely [generation] of the operational requirements for carrier-borne operations.” In December 2010, around the time the LCA-N was first supposed to fly, the navy's flag officer in charge of aviation, Rear Adm. Sudhir Pillai, said, “LCA Navy will remain a modest platform. With an up-rated engine, [the Mk.2] will give us adequate capability at sea.”

The refurbished Russian INS Vikramaditya aircraft carrier is set to join the Indian navy in December and will host a squadron of the navy's MiG-29K fighters. But the Mk.1 will continue to be tested at a shore-based ski-jump and arrestor-hook facility in Goa, which is used specifically to train Stobar pilots before they begin ship operations. The Mk.2 could conceivably fly off the Vikramaditya and India's indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vikrant, set to enter service in 2014-15.

The navy's future fighter requirement will be shaped by the launch mechanism on its second indigenous aircraft carrier. Top navy sources suggest that the service is nearly convinced that a catapult-assisted takeoff, barrier-arrested recovery (Catobar) carrier is the way to go.

Executives with Eurofighter and Gripen, both of which have Stobar concept variants of Typhoon and Gripen fighters, respectively, said that while their fighters theoretically could be modified for catapult launch, the costs involved compared with a potential order would not justify the effort. Should the navy decide to develop its second indigenous flattop as a Catobar carrier, a three-way battle could ensue between the Lockheed Martin F-35C, Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Dassault Rafale.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Jun 2012 07:49

In the same issue there is another report,very relevant,about the perilous state of affairs reg. the IJT and training aircraft,given the retirement of Kirans and the delay in the IJT (Sitara),plus the time that will be taken for the first Pilatus trainers to arrive.A gap will occur of about a minimum period of a year (that is if our IJT arrives on time according to the latest schedules),within which we will have no IJTs at all,unless we import a stop gap IJT as an alternative.Putting our rookie pilots straight into the cockpits of a Hawk is also not on.There were also some earlier (local media) reports that the training time for rookie pilots was being cut because of the shortage of aircraft.The report says that a decision must be taken very soon on the issue if we are to salvage the situ.

Both the NLCA (was expected to fly according to the report in Dec. 2010) and IJT have been delayed ,apart from the trainers fiasco.Unless the MOD/HAL/IAF unitedly get their act together,focus on the task involved and push vital programmes in a timebound manner,the country will keep on importing to infinity ,especially at a time when the rupee is falling,def. budget is rising and we have the dubious distinction of being the world's largest importer of weaponry! Whether the delays are genuinely because we are establishing our own tech after being denied it by others,and the learning curve is painful and slow,or by intent-so that we keep on importing to keep vested interests happy,is a moot point.Even if it is the more of the former,realistic time schedules must be given to the services,so that they can properly plan ahead and not have to resort to knee-jerk imports every time a shortage crisis occurs.

PS:An earlier article in AWST on the first flight was a more positive report.This latest one -though typical of the firang style of downsizing the achievement of a "turd world" nation,has given us some useful info if the sources were accurate.In AWST's annual review of the aviation industry with its forecasts,a glaring omission is generally comments on India's missile developments like B'Mos,Agni series ,etc. and its induction into the branches of the services.One only finds it in the tables if at all.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 01 Jun 2012 08:51

Philip, who was shooting the messenger? Vina and I both assumed that the errors (twin-engined JSF, naval Gripen) were made by AW&ST and you were only posting an excerpt from the article. That the errors came from you actually makes a lot more sense.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 01 Jun 2012 10:20

Flight test update - intra day update?

LCA-Tejas has completed 1868 Test Flights successfully. (31-May-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-347,LSP1-74,LSP2-208,PV5-36,LSP3-53,LSP4-56,LSP5-87,LSP7-3,NP1-2)

from

LCA-Tejas has completed 1867 Test Flights successfully. (31-May-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-347,LSP1-74,LSP2-208,PV5-36,LSP3-53,LSP4-56,LSP5-86,LSP7-3,NP1-2)

It is June, LSP-aath was supposed to fly

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 01 Jun 2012 10:21

vina wrote:
Karan_MC wrote:N-LCA MK-1 in its current stage is not sea worthy it has been reported repeatedly in Vayu and other defence magazines , and N-LCA NP-1 and 2 are TD for Navy and real deal will be N-LCA MK-2
I am not sure what "sea worthy " really means here. If they mean, taking it on board ship, being able to launch and recover with a reduced payload, yes. If they mean full combat capability /specs the Navy would like to have, the no.

But anyways, that AWST in addition to the "twin engined" F-35C, also mentions Gripen in the same breath. Now, tell me quick who will the "twin engined" Gripen , also carry do anything at all better than an MK2, when it has exactly the same engine and has comprable empty weight and MTOW ? That article sounds like so much garbage, that it is not even worth a mention.

According to the article i read in vayu , Current Naval-LCA will struggle to take off from Ac , with decent payload and fuel and it also mentioned that it will require favorable wind condition for every take off ,i am not sure what that means , but this is what was mentioned in the article , i have to believe it , since Navy has shown no interest in acquiring N-LCA MK-1 and have stood firm with N-LCA-MK-2

vina · Post by **vina** » 01 Jun 2012 10:41

According to the article i read in vayu , Current Naval-LCA will struggle to take off from Ac , with decent payload and fuel and it also mentioned that it will require favorable wind condition for every take off ,i am not sure what that means , but this is what was mentioned in the article , i have to believe it , since Navy has shown no interest in acquiring N-LCA MK-1 and have stood firm with N-LCA-MK-

See, this is the kind of misinformation / FUD or plain ignorance that is the hall mark of much of our DDM. For instance, every time a plane has to take off from a carrier, whether cat equipped nor not,the ship turns into the wind and picks up a fair bit of speed to say at least 20 knots (approx 20*1.815= 36 kmph), and that is for a still wind conditions. If wind is blowing at 5 to 6 knots, the wind over deck when the ship turns into the wind will be something like say 25/26 knots. Carriers do that during take off and landing, so that there is sufficient wind over deck and hence enough relative wind for safe take off and landing well within the safety margins.

Yeah, probably for a full load take off on a hot day, the wind needs to be favorably blowing (given the 20 odd knots and not 30 odd unlike the US supercarriers for VikAd and ADS1) for a Stobar launch in MK1. I can buy that.

But then it was not a game killer either. For eg, before jets power came on board carriers, there were no need for cats. That was how it was on carrier aviation, right until the jet age in the early 50s! Because the jet planes were much heavier and early jets had a poor t:w ratio, cats became essential (and still is a brilliant idea). As t:w ratios of jet engines improved one could go back to the WW-II like launching planes without cats . If they could do it back then, you can do it today as well. Just because the Russians coined an acronym such as "STOBAR" and Vayu and others drink the Russian cool aid, it doesn't mean it is earth shatteringly new. It is just a repacked thing with a new name.

As far as going CAT way or not, it makes eminent sense to go the CAT way. You really can launch and safely recover planes like EC-2000 Hawkeyes and also, basically do away with all restrictions on aircraft pay load etc on fighters and can have optimum take off t:w ratios in fighters and not have it insanely high , so that it needs to take off under own power.

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 01 Jun 2012 10:46

karan_mc wrote: According to the article i read in vayu , Current Naval-LCA will struggle to take off from Ac , with decent payload and fuel and it also mentioned that it will require favorable wind condition for every take off ,i am not sure what that means , but this is what was mentioned in the article , i have to believe it , since Navy has shown no interest in acquiring N-LCA MK-1 and have stood firm with N-LCA-MK-2

Nor can Mig-29k or Su-33 take off with full payload and fuel from a STOBAR carrier. Thats the trade off when going with a ski-jump config.

We need CATs for MTOW carrier take-offs.

koti · Post by **koti** » 01 Jun 2012 10:54

Does USN use V-22's as Md air refuellers?
Will this work for Vik?

SidSom · Post by **SidSom** » 01 Jun 2012 11:41

ketan.sojitra wrote:
suryag wrote:flight test updates on ADA website have dried up, wonder whats cooking there.

Btw June is here and monsoons might start hope ada are well prepared this time to not waste time during the monsoons
Since last 3 or 4 days i am seeing LCA at least 4 or 5 flights daily. Also they fly at much higher speed then usual.

Even though there are reports of multiple flights every day, we are still seeing the count increasing one per day. Either the spotting is wrong, or some flights are not being counted as test flights.

Gurus... any Ideas.??

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 01 Jun 2012 11:46

koti wrote:Does USN use V-22's as Md air refuellers?
Will this work for Vik?

AFAIK, refueling capability has been suggested for V-22s but they are purely transport config as of now.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 01 Jun 2012 12:17

koti wrote:Does USN use V-22's as Md air refuellers?
Will this work for Vik?

USN used to use Grumman A-6 Intruder and Lockheed S-3 Viking in this role until very recently. Now, they use F/A-18 E and F Super Hornets in the refueling role (as well as its other roles as fighter, ground attack, recon etc.)

V-22 is an USMC aircraft mainly and the USAF also operates a few of them. USN is not interested in V-22 for various reasons of their own.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 01 Jun 2012 13:24

ketan.sojitra wrote:
suryag wrote:flight test updates on ADA website have dried up, wonder whats cooking there.

Btw June is here and monsoons might start hope ada are well prepared this time to not waste time during the monsoons
Since last 3 or 4 days i am seeing LCA at least 4 or 5 flights daily. Also they fly at much higher speed then usual.
Even though there are reports of multiple flights every day, we are still seeing the count increasing one per day. Either the spotting is wrong, or some flights are not being counted as test flights.

Gurus... any Ideas.??

Yes very strange, may be the Airforce ones are not test flights

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Jun 2012 13:49

the V22 seems to be a expensive failure. great on paper, not so essential or useful in practice.
resupply and retrooping the remote firebases in afghanistan was what the PPTs said it could do - directly from ships offshore. but chinooks and other helis are doing it.
they said it could lead lightning JSOC raids a lot further than existing assets like MH53/MH60 and we see what got used in abbotabad and elsewhere
MH53 helis are still lifting huge payloads off ships to the shore and MH53K is inbound in big nos for USMC

clearly it has some unique capabilities but those dont seem to be any killer apps.

koti · Post by **koti** » 01 Jun 2012 13:58

It seems so saab.

My only interest in the platform is the possibility that it can operate like an EC-2 Hawkeye and also as a refueller based on Vik.

ArmenT wrote: Now, they use F/A-18 E and F Super Hornets in the refueling role

True, but we can't idealize that as our aircraft can not takeoff from Vik with all the extra fuel.
I think V-22 as a refueller makes sense to us then it does for USMC/USN when we can refuel N-LCA, Mig29K's after they take off with a decent weapon load.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Jun 2012 14:19

question is can it operate from Vik. I recall they had some issues operating it off LHDs due to its very large footprint when rotors were unfolded.
theoritical internal cargo is 9T, which is likely when carrying a compact dense payload like iron rods.....aviation fuel is light so volume plays a part...maybe 4-5 tons of aviation fuel given its fuselage is that of a smallish truck. subtract some volume to seat a operator and panel in the rear , plus hose and drogue assembly.

it looks like can refuel only 2-3 planes max. ie quite useless. and its transit speed being a lot lower than planes, either it has to leave early before the planes to the refueling point thus breaking surprise or the planes have to fly slow at 50% their usual attack speed to escort it to refuel point on the outbound leg....

IN might as well invest in a small fleet of A330/Midas to fly from maldives, madagascar,seychelles, djibouti, indian mainland and A&N to provide support in the IOR.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Jun 2012 14:25

Sorry guys if I misled some I apologised.Cats are too costly for our medium sized IAC-2 which will not be larger than 65000t+,around the same size as the new Brit/RN carriers.I've given the stats .There is another school of thought that carriers are becoming too vulnerable to BMs and should be supported in their strike role by a new version of the old arsenal ship.Even the JSF variants have a limited radius of action,around 450+km for the cat version.New anti-ship missiles can hit the carrier out of range of its air cover.So why put all one's eggs in the "carrier" ? This is a debate to be explored further.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Jun 2012 16:25

Instead of V22s, I would concentrate on augmenting sea harriers and improve on the core engine technology. may be a ToT would be cheap since it is old tech.. the only VTOL a/c that we can improve. it has some design flaws which where deeply analyzed and documented by JSF team for their naval version, that could be also obtained.

koti · Post by **koti** » 01 Jun 2012 17:00

True Saab.
But it in now way addresses the payload fuel problems of our Mig29Ks.

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 01 Jun 2012 20:13

vina wrote:
Yeah, probably for a full load take off on a hot day, the wind needs to be favorably blowing (given the 20 odd knots and not 30 odd unlike the US supercarriers for VikAd and ADS1) for a Stobar launch in MK1. I can buy that.

Correct and we should be buying that argument. Don't want a Falkland like situation where the Argentinian Navy A/C could not launch a single aircraft due to those rare conditions. We all know how air power could have changed the outcome of that war.

Mk-II it is for the Navy and we'll see it on the IAC-I by 2015.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Jun 2012 20:32

silently, our NP1 had done the second flight. any more updates here?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 01 Jun 2012 23:20

Anurag wrote:
Correct and we should be buying that argument. Don't want a Falkland like situation where the Argentinian Navy A/C could not launch a single aircraft due to those rare conditions. We all know how air power could have changed the outcome of that war.

Mk-II it is for the Navy and we'll see it on the IAC-I by 2015.

You may want to change that date that you've mentioned. the N-LCA MkII prototype won't be ready till 2015, so seeing it onboard IAC-1 is very very unlikely.

srai · Post by **srai** » 02 Jun 2012 05:44

Anurag wrote:...

Correct and we should be buying that argument. Don't want a Falkland like situation where the Argentinian Navy A/C could not launch a single aircraft due to those rare conditions. We all know how air power could have changed the outcome of that war.

Mk-II it is for the Navy and we'll see it on the IAC-I by 2015.

It was actually the fear of RN's nuclear submarines that the Argentinian Navy decided against deploying it's aircraft carrier.

Sinking of ARA General Belgrano

Two separate British naval task forces (one of surface vessels and one of submarines) and the Argentine fleet were operating in the neighbourhood of the Falklands, and soon came into conflict. The first naval loss was the World War II-vintage Argentine light cruiser ARA General Belgrano. The nuclear-powered submarine HMS Conqueror sank the Belgrano on 2 May. Three hundred and twenty-three members of Belgrano's crew died in the incident. Over 700 men were rescued from the open ocean despite cold seas and stormy weather. The losses from Belgrano totalled nearly half of the Argentine deaths in the Falklands conflict and the loss of the ARA General Belgrano hardened the stance of the Argentine government.

Regardless of controversies over the sinking, it had a crucial strategic effect: the elimination of the Argentine naval threat. After her loss, the entire Argentine fleet, with the exception of the conventional submarine ARA San Luis,[49] returned to port and did not leave again for the duration of hostilities. The two escorting destroyers and the battle group centred on the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo both withdrew from the area, ending the direct threat to the British fleet that their pincer movement had represented.
...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Jun 2012 09:58

how credible was the Argentine Navy threat to the RN during Falklands?

I think it was blown out of proportion to justify the use of a nuke submarine against a non nuclear navy.

If the Argentines and fixed the time fuses on their bombs it would have been a different outcome.

negi · Post by **negi** » 03 Jun 2012 10:14

^ They had a few (I guess not more than 3/4) AM39 Exocets , that's pretty much about it.

srai · Post by **srai** » 03 Jun 2012 13:17

^^^
http://www.malvinasonline.com.ar/index. ... arget.html

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Jun 2012 16:37

the argentine's did they even scope out what it would take to deal with a british task force there in terms of planes, range, weapons - apparrently not else they would have stocked up and done some serious practice. the political leadership likely expected the british to cave in and not show up, and the AF as usual was left holding the bag by not being taken into confidence.

MH: When did you see the war with the Argentine air forces intensifying?

Woodward: On 21 May we put the land force ashore at Carlos Water. During the next five days, Carlos Water became known as "Bomb Alley" to us and "Death Valley" to the Argentines, and in those five days, their air force was defeated by attrition, at a rate of about 40 to 50 percent, of those aircraft that got over their target. No air force can take an attrition rate like that.

MH: Why were the Argentine losses so great?

Woodward: They didn't take on our Harriers for quite good reason. They knew about our Sea Dart medium- range, surface-to-air missile system. They bought it from us. They knew that in the middle and upper air Sea Dart would shoot them down, so they flew low. This had three effects. One, there was no top cover of fighters for them. Two, their range was limited because they burned more fuel. Three, many of their bombs didn't go off because the fusing was wrong for low-level bombing. This is the amazing thing, and it was totally unpredictable. We had sold them the weapons system in the mid-'70s, which made them operate the way they did. This made the Sea Harrier the master of the air, because from 15,000 feet they (the Harriers) would come down on the (Argentine) bombers after they came out of their runs and cut them to pieces.

very strange tactics . why could not divertionary A2A forces be arranged to deal with the sea harriers ? I guess the argentines didnt have any such fighter at all!
all in all, quite paki type tactics to start the war and then discover they dont have enough to stay the course. no ARMs either to shut down the ship radars.

a couple squadrons of foxhounds would have been ideal imo

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 03 Jun 2012 21:47

CLAW-ING AHEAD: Tejas clan who overcame tech denials turns 20

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Jun 2012 07:09

I see how we can get motivated and perform: we now need some extreme tech denials for core engine tech.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 05 Jun 2012 00:20

Quoting from the CLAW article in tarmak

In the process, the CLAW team also mastered Wake Encounter Simulation – a critical area for the Tejas programme. “Wake simulation is a very complicated and challenging modelling control problem. Aerodynamics is simulated by splitting the aircraft into seven components and computing forces and moments on each component,” said NAL sources

So wake penetration test schedule should be shorter for Tejas may be involving validation of models with inflight data and then exercising different wake configurations on these models with CLAW SW?

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Jun 2012 07:32

Kartik wrote:
SaiK wrote:yes.

also, what is that white glue strip on the glass from WSO cam?
my guess is that its embedded explosive cord to shatter the canopy if the pilot needs to eject.

indranilroy wrote:
shiv wrote:I just wonder if it is merely a "reference strip" for the onboard cockpit camera to be used along with video footage to assess control inputs during takeoff and landing? For example that yaw (possibly due to crosswind) when the nosewheel touched the ground can be measured using deviation from centre line of runway and compared with any control inputs that were initiated at the time? Just a guess
No Shivji, you can see it in all LCAs (even single seaters) and IJTs. In this picture, you can see the explosive cord clearly. Notice that it is not at the center. Also notice that it is not at the center. It is slightly to the right side. When the canop would be closed it would line up nicely on top of the "shell tooth" on top the pilot seat to break the glass. Looks like HAL birds are going to use the Through-Canopy Penetration like on the A-10 Thunderbolt II.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/100 ... rcraft.jpg

http://www.aviationspectator.com/files/ ... og-166.jpg

I had not noticed this feature before. But it makes sense now.

Even Rafale has that explosive cord in the middle:

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Jun 2012 20:42

so, polycarbonate can be shredded to pieces by explosion. can we infer that?

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 05 Jun 2012 22:27

Flight test update

LCA-Tejas has completed 1870 Test Flights successfully. (04-June-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-347,LSP1-74,LSP2-210,PV5-36,LSP3-53,LSP4-56,LSP5-87,LSP7-3,NP1-2)

from

LCA-Tejas has completed 1868 Test Flights successfully. (31-May-2012).
(TD1-233,TD2-305,PV1-242,PV2-222,PV3-347,LSP1-74,LSP2-208,PV5-36,LSP3-53,LSP4-56,LSP5-87,LSP7-3,NP1-2)

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Jun 2012 23:51

The more I read about the wing design of the F-16XL ... the more I understand LCA's wing design (it is actually sad that I have do it this way. There is just too little analysis of the LCA wing in the public domain)

Given that LCA is a tailless delta, a wing with reflexed camber was an obvious choice. The front part with higher incidence creating almost all of the lift while the back part working as a tailplane is understandable. I always used to be amazed by the huge washout of the LCA wing too. This again turns out to be an obvious design adaptation for a tailless delta. Notice the same adaptations on the F-16 XL

What's more, once these design options are exercised, the requirement for the huge hydraulics fairings (in LCA) and the carrots (in the F-16 XL) seem to be necessitated for a smooth area curve.