LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 12 Feb 2015 19:26

srai wrote:
putnanja wrote:Video of NLCA-NP2 first flight, posted on Tejas FB...

In hindsight, this should have been LCA's first design. This would have allowed 1 airframe design to cater to all needs with minor mods for the IAF, IN and trainer variants.

Agreed - and honestly the droop nose looks better too and has better visibility

titash · Post by **titash** » 13 Feb 2015 00:46

Raveen wrote:
Agreed - and honestly the droop nose looks better too and has better visibility

But poor rear visibility due to the painted over canopy/fuel tank where the WSO/Instructor would sit. Everything is a compromise...

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Feb 2015 03:27

You mean they took the extra pain of painting it over because it will hinder visibility?

titash · Post by **titash** » 13 Feb 2015 04:07

indranilroy wrote:You mean they took the extra pain of painting it over because it will hinder visibility?

No. The IAF fighter and trainer versions have differing canopy shapes/sizes. The IAF fighter doesn't quite have a bubble canopy, but rear visibility ain't that bad.

The Navy fighter and trainer have the same dimensions...the navy fighter is just the navy trainer with the WSO/Instructor seat replaced with a fuel tank + avionics; and the glass is simply painted over...it ain't a "IAF fighter" canopy. In fact the pilot in the front seat is relatively lower. So while he can see down very well, he can't quite see back very well.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Feb 2015 04:44

titash wrote:
indranilroy wrote:You mean they took the extra pain of painting it over because it will hinder visibility?
No. The IAF fighter and trainer versions have differing canopy shapes/sizes. The IAF fighter doesn't quite have a bubble canopy, but rear visibility ain't that bad.

The canopy of the IAF trainer and the Naval trainer are photocopies of one another.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 13 Feb 2015 04:58

titash wrote:...

In fact the pilot in the front seat is relatively lower. So while he can see down very well, he can't quite see back very well.

Neither can the front-seat MKI jockey, that's not much to go by.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 13 Feb 2015 07:01

I remember viewing Cdr Mao's video.

So here is what I understood... will the gurus please add

IAF Fighter is a type of its own
IAF Trainer is a type of its own
IN Trainer is twin brother/ real brother / very close match to the IAF trainer. This is the germination craft for IN.
IN Fighter is an evolution of the IN trainer.

The part that I understand really well is the IAF crafts.

My questions are

1 What are the key differences between IAF and IN trainer except for landing gear and carrier landing related stuff.
i.e. is the nose more stooped etc etc.

2 What are the combat differences between IN trainer and IN Fighter.
I already understand that the IN fighter has a fuel tank and avionics replacing the rear seat in the fighter version.
Anything else ?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 13 Feb 2015 07:16

Regarding this canopy business - we are still talking about prototypes; there is a possibility that the painted canopy section might change somehow ala MiG-29K. IIRC, the canopy for the single seater is similar to the twin seater, only the rear has an additional fuel tank, and AFAIK, no painted canopy - can't see why they can't/won't do the same for the Tejas.

member_28932 · Post by **member_28932** » 13 Feb 2015 08:36

shiv wrote:
putnanja wrote:From Shiv Aroor's blog PART 2: The Four 'Fixes' After LCA Navy's Ski-Jump Flight
3. Another lesson learned, according to team sources, is that design teams will need to be "even more pragmatic in keeping margins as excess reserves get compounded and could lead to load exceedence."

...

Conversation with Maolankar in Aero India 2011: The landing gear was made to withstand descent rates far greater than necessary and was therefore heavier. Because it was heavier and designed for heavier bangs the actual fuselage frame to which it was attached was also thicker and heavier than and the actuators etc were also bigger and heavier. That is how excess safety margins get compounded. If they could find out exactly how much strength is "just enough" they could cut down landing gear weight and that would lead on do decreasing the weight/strength of all the things associated with the landing gear.

At that time they did not know exactly how much was optimal, and how much was too much[/quote]

In this kind of situation companion can be very useful. We have a heavier Mig 29 k. Bottom line should be lighter in weight compare to Mig 29. How much lighter can be worked out later.

member_28932 · Post by **member_28932** » 13 Feb 2015 08:58

We are missing out some very important discussion here in light of Excellent performance of Naval tejas in terms of climb rate.

1) What is the reason of this excellent performance of climb rate. Was the expected climb rate calculation erroneous? Or Some change in Aerodynamics or better engine integration would have played a key role?
2) If this performance is only Naval tejas specific, can this success be replicated in Air-force Tejas? Can we expect a better STR in light of improved performance or may be higher top speed or acceleration or better payload?

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 13 Feb 2015 10:09

1. Clean configuration. Its not out of the world performance, just a little on the positive side.
2. No. This has to do with short take off, ski jump, etc. Nothing the air force already doesnt have.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 13 Feb 2015 10:29

Mods, please to add these two links to the first page of this thread perhaps? These are the engine specs (size/weight/thrust/air consumption etc.) for F404 and F414 straight from the manufacturer's website, in both English and SI units:

http://www.geaviation.com/engines/docs/ ... Family.pdf
http://www.geaviation.com/engines/docs/ ... Family.pdf

Interestingly, according to the tejas web page here: http://tejas.gov.in/specifications/powerplant.html
it quotes the Tejas engine as the F404-GE-IN20, but gives the weight as 1035 kg. (which is the weight of the F404-GE-402 in the GE brochure). Also, the thrust is quoted as 20,200 lbf or 89.8 kN, whereas GE's brochure says that F404-GE-IN20 has a thrust of 19000 lbf or 84 kN. Any ideas why the thrust is listed about 5% higher than what the manufacturer says? Difference in measurement process or local weather conditions perhaps? Also would be interesting to note which one is the correct figure.

Merril · Post by **Merril** » 13 Feb 2015 10:36

The LCA doing lazy acrobatics in the skies above HAL Bangalore right now in preparations for aero india. Jingoes around that area may want to step out for a moment and peer skyward

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Feb 2015 12:57

It looks like the NLCA is making better progress than LCA for the IAF,but of course a lot of the testing for the first prototypes would've made the task easier for the NLCA. Even 12-16 NLCAs built within the next 2-3 years will serve us well aboard the Vik-A and IAC-1 when it arrives.Weapons testing of weaponry unique to the naval variant needs to be done,like anti-ship missiles,naval BVR missiles.One presumes that the IN will use the Derby missiles already being used on the Sea Harrriers. The real problem is LCA production in general,when HAL says that it can only build 6+ aircraft a year! This may necessitate more MIG-29Ks being ordered when prices are low,perhaps in a rupee-rouble deal for Ru eqpt. The GOI/MOD must see how LCA production can be ramped up right from the start with at least 16 aircraft /yr built to meet IAF/IN needs. Even for exports,nations wanting new light multi-role aircraft will not wait indefinitely as alternatives are readily available .

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 13 Feb 2015 14:26

Phillip,

There are enough 29ks for both Vik and IAC-1. The LCA ought to get a place in the mix, I openly advocate it,

In 2004 India ordered 12 MiG-29K single-seat and 4 MiG-29KUB two-seat fighters.[12] The MiG-29K is to provide both airborne fleet air defense and surface attack capabilities. Deliveries began in December 2009.[37][38] Prior to their delivery to India, the MiG-29Ks underwent testing on board the Admiral Kuznetsov.[39][40] In January 2010, India and Russia signed a deal worth US$1.2 billion for the Indian Navy to receive an additional 29 MiG-29Ks.

It is too early to forecast the fortunes of NLCA. They are only building 3 prototypes. As far as air arm goes, Navy is not really any less import happy than army or air force (see helicopters, missiles, aircraft).

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 13 Feb 2015 14:52

titash wrote:
indranilroy wrote:You mean they took the extra pain of painting it over because it will hinder visibility?
No. The IAF fighter and trainer versions have differing canopy shapes/sizes. The IAF fighter doesn't quite have a bubble canopy, but rear visibility ain't that bad.

The Navy fighter and trainer have the same dimensions...the navy fighter is just the navy trainer with the WSO/Instructor seat replaced with a fuel tank + avionics; and the glass is simply painted over...it ain't a "IAF fighter" canopy. In fact the pilot in the front seat is relatively lower. So while he can see down very well, he can't quite see back very well.

nit pick- its not "painted over". its "faired over". Its a fairing.

By the way, this is a temporary solution, just so that additional effort is not wasted in designing a N-LCA Mk1 fighter variant that will eventually not even enter service. the Navy is clear- it wants the Mk2 single seat fighter variant and the Preliminary Design review will be over by end of 2016 for the N-LCA Mk2.

The trainer variant for the Navy will however be based on the NP1 trainer. Or at least as of now there is no known plan for a F-414 powered Mk2 trainer.
the

member_28788 · Post by **member_28788** » 13 Feb 2015 17:36

Sort of FUD.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... nt-408270/

Retired AM M Matheshwaran, who stepped down as deputy chief of integrated defence staff in 2014 and is now strategy advisor to HAL’s chairman, says “the LCA has become an avenue for technology development. At the end of the day, the weapon system as envisaged by the air force is nowhere in sight.”

Looking beyond the Tejas Mk1, Matheshwaran says that “for the Tejas Mk2 to become a major frontline fighter for the IAF, there would have to be major aerodynamic changes.”

Some of the stuff we're already discussing:

The Navy Mk2 design will be optimised to reduce supersonic and subsonic drag and have bigger intakes. A new centre fuselage will “provide additional volume to accommodate the landing gear from the start and free up space in centre fuselage and increase internal fuel volume significantly”, an official closely associated with the programme tells Flightglobal.

Both the air force and navy plan to use the General Electric F414 to power their Mk2 aircraft, helping to reduce landing gear weight by 300-350kgs (660-770lbs) – all existing Tejas aircraft use the less powerful F404. An increased fuselage length will also allow for better maintainability and improved distribution of equipment.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Feb 2015 19:57

This gentleman when he was in AF did his level best to scuttle the LCA. Picking him as strategic adviser to HAL was a big mistake. He now has the reach to actively work against the program from within. Also, given his last responsibility, he was clearly pushed for by the IAF to streamline the Rafale @ HAL. That will clearly continue to be his focus. Its one thing to push for changes (iterative or otherwise as the Navy has) see:

The Navy Mk2 design will be optimised to reduce supersonic and subsonic drag and have bigger intakes. A new centre fuselage will “provide additional volume to accommodate the landing gear from the start and free up space in centre fuselage and increase internal fuel volume significantly”, an official closely associated with the programme tells Flightglobal.

which all manufacturers et al do, see transition from Su-27 to other variants.

Another thing entirely to constantly disparage the program in public, whilst ostensibly acting as an adviser to the very firm that is critical to ensuring the LCA's success, which is HAL.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Feb 2015 20:05

The article says:

Since the last Aero India two years ago, the torturous development of the Tejas fighter for the Indian air force (IAF) and Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) for the navy has continued. But while the outlook for the future Tejas Mk2 remains uncertain, the navy’s pragmatic approach towards the LCA programme could see India’s future carrier fleet operating a capable light fighter.

The Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) has been bullish about the LCA while the air force has treated the programme with benign neglect, understanding that it will have to look abroad for war-winning capability. Meanwhile there has been a studious "we have to make this work" approach from the navy team.

Say it all really.
The uncertainty has been in large part due to attempts to cancel the light fighter requirement, while pushing for more and more expensive platforms. At some time, the reality has to sink in for AM Matheswaran & co. What percentage of funds does India currently spend on defence as versus its other spending heads? Where is India's infrastructure, its healthcare? How much can it afford to sink on these gold plated aircraft (literally) while the vast bulk of our troops continue to be without basic BPJs, helmets, NVGs, and personal aids? How many Su-30 MKIs, upgrades, spares stockpile improvements, LCAs likewise could India procure for even $10Bn, half of the proposed $20Bn for the Rafale as versus spending it all on one platform?

Unfortunately, the attitude has been import, import, import for "war winning capability" whereas that aforesaid capability will last as long as Dassault deigns to give us spares & the French Govt can call the Indian ambassador to badger him about not allowing conversions in India. Our then PM mumbled something as a response. Why would he have to but for our over reliance on such items from France, because some items continue to regard imports as the only solution and are egged on by babus/politicos who want to feather their nests.

This sort of complete lack of strategic vision is what doomed the Marut, and thankfully the Navy is not letting the LCA head down the same rabbit hole

Judging by the reaction of several TPs and the fact that Mk2 got cleared (and AF is funding part of it), its also clear that not all in the establishment believe as AM Matheswaran rtd does. The program got cleared as well. So there is clear indication the program will go ahead. One only wishes that the new folks in IAF who are coming up understand the larger issues at play and support the program to the hilt as versus looking abroad for every short term fix. That will never give us what we really need.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 13 Feb 2015 20:40

Karan M wrote:...
One only wishes that the new folks in IAF who are coming up understand the larger issues at play and support the program to the hilt as versus looking abroad for every short term fix. That will never give us what we really need.

Well Said there Karan. A special prayer for the last line. Hope this happens.

negi · Post by **negi** » 13 Feb 2015 21:04

AM Matheswaran sir would have been correct had he been flying in USAF colours , I mean how can an air-force which has Mig-21s, jags and floggers as major constituents of it's fleet afford to keep an AC as capable as Tejas warming the bench claiming that latter does not make a cut.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Feb 2015 22:35

80 floggers, of which half are non upgraded. some 100+ jaguars out of which more than half are non upgraded and verging on obsolete. around 200 mig-21s all of which are struggling to cope with the modern AD environment.
all these fighters behind the LCA in terms of basic performance.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 13 Feb 2015 22:44

The number of jaguars are 123 nos in service in 6sq and will remain in service till 2035 with engine and avionics upgrade to all in 60 nos and 68 nos lot when last reported.

168 nos were inducted of which 45 nos have been lost.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 13 Feb 2015 22:57

we had built 200 floggers. I doubt 120 were lost. I think most were mothballed or used as spares. It remains our best CAS airplane (with pilot sitting in a titanium bath tub, which also protects vital avionics. IAF would need a CAS in the future and LCA/Mirage2000 or any multirole can only do so much close support and take enemy fire and survive. One another type, whose need will be 'felt' a year before all 27s are number plated and we will scramble to buy something from abroad or cite change in doctrine (where CAS is done by Heli/artillery or IA takes hit) and pretend IAF is very forward looking.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 13 Feb 2015 23:23

fanne wrote:we had built 200 floggers. I doubt 120 were lost. I think most were mothballed or used as spares. It remains our best CAS airplane (with pilot sitting in a titanium bath tub, which also protects vital avionics.

The Su-25 pilot sits in a titanium bath tub. The MiG-27 pilot has more conventional steel armor plates around the cockpit.

From an earlier post of mine on the MiG-23/MiG-27's control redundancy -

Flight controls are hydraulically powered and have an automatic flight control system that provides boost, damping, trimming, and stabilization. This flight control system has no redundant components; all components are critical. Loss of one hydraulic system results in complete loss of aircraft control.
.
.
Case in point, in many military aircraft like the MiG-23, the loss of hydraulic power (not uncommon) can lead to a severe if not a total
loss of control. (FAA)

IAF would need a CAS in the future and LCA/Mirage2000 or any multirole can only do so much close support and take enemy fire and survive. One another type, whose need will be 'felt' a year before all 27s are number plated and we will scramble to buy something from abroad or cite change in doctrine (where CAS is done by Heli/artillery or IA takes hit) and pretend IAF is very forward looking.

There are two ways to do CAS - 1. with a gun and 2. with PGMs.

With regard to the MiG-27's gun -

- The constant recoil impacts, despite the brief firing bursts, caused structural damage and punished the plane's equipment.
- Acoustic loadings from muzzle gases and the associated high-frequency vibrations literally loosened the fuselage, adding fatigue cracks to the fuel tanks.
- There was the risk of the doors of the forward landing gear being jammed.
- The fuel pump failed because of breakages in the power supply circuit.
- The avionics systems often became turned off because the electrical commutating switches became disconnected.
- It frequently happened that the recoil force of firing broke the reflector sight.
- Landing headlights broke so frequently, that before flights involving gun firing, they were removed and replaced with caps.

- Even given this background, the case which occurred in the 24th Division on 29th March 1989 appears to have been unique. On recovery from a dive after gun shooting, the instrument panel fell onto the pilot's legs: the panel fastenings had been sheared by the recoil force. The pilot reached an airbase holding the panel, which was hanging via electric cables, by one hand. (link)

In light of those facts, if modern air forces prefer to use PGMs instead (which they do), fact remains the Tejas is superior to both the Jaguar and MiG-27 at the CAS role by virtue of retaining greater reserve power while operating at (relatively safer) medium altitudes. The Jaguar's lack of power in that flight regime that is the primary reason for the IAF to pursue a re-enging program for its Jag fleet.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Feb 2015 23:42

fanne, mig-27 CAS and all is old school BRF love of an era gone by. fact is in modern milieu, its PGMs all the way.

One pass is all you get.

In 2010 Vayu Shakti, Su-30 MKI dropped a LGB which was designated by UAV , shown on DD1 (same capability was demonstrated in 2004 by MiG-27 Upg with Searcher 2 - press release on MOD website).

last, flogger fleet is not exactly in the best of shape. word from press stuff picked up here and there is, that the floggers are next in line to be retired with only 40 UPG to be retained. spares sourcing from OEMs is getting harder & India is indigenizing more and more of the basic spares, but they can't make everything locally.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Feb 2015 23:45

sankum wrote:The number of jaguars are 123 nos in service in 6sq and will remain in service till 2035 with engine and avionics upgrade to all in 60 nos and 68 nos lot when last reported.

168 nos were inducted of which 45 nos have been lost.

it would be useful to do a range versus payload compare of the LCA, because frankly in everything else, the LCA Mk1 beats the Jags hands down, features wise. the jaguar even with DARIN-3 wont have BVR capability. no derbys are stated to be acquired. in terms of A2A airframe performance, the bison would beat it (jag is high wingloaded, low level striker) and LCA is far ahead of the bison. maintenability, seriously on what grounds would a LCA be as hard to maintain as a MiG-27 f.e. which we procured so many of. at the end of the day, numbers matter. one to one replacements with rafale are a rich mans dream.
IAF better talk to IN about Mk2 as well and figure out the fuel increase stuff per their needs.

member_28840 · Post by **member_28840** » 14 Feb 2015 00:56

Karan M wrote: it would be useful to do a range versus payload compare of the LCA, because frankly in everything else, the LCA Mk1 beats the Jags hands down, features wise. the jaguar even with DARIN-3 wont have BVR capability. no derbys are stated to be acquired.

OT but ...

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/b ... 845340.ece "Plus our missiles business, they also just got a contract for Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) for Jaguar aircraft"

Back to topic

I am also in favor of getting rid of the MiG 27 and ordering more LCA. I have hated that aircraft since Nachiketa had to bail out of his while making a gun pass, and i have hated that aircraft still even more when i saw Oswald de Abreu's burst into flames on takeoff roll. Besides the MiG 21, the 27 has the next highest crash rate in IAF service if i am not mistaken.

I really don't understand the reluctance shown in procuring the LCA, so what if the Mk 1 is not exactly what you wanted, it will still be able to do a far better job than a vast number of your aircraft in service. They probably wont crash as much either due to being newer air frames with a better local spares situation. And when you finally get sufficient numbers of MK 2 in service, you can always relegate the MK 1 to pure CAS or LIFT or maybe even sell "only slightly used" aircraft at friendship prices to a third world country to expand your foreign policy.

I bet it will cost almost as much just upgrading and keeping the obsolete jets in service as it would to order new built MK1 right now.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Feb 2015 01:01

xave wrote:
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/b ... 845340.ece "Plus our missiles business, they also just got a contract for Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) for Jaguar aircraft"

That should be ASRAAM (technically an MBDA product, rather than BAE one).

I am also in favor of getting rid of the MiG 27 and ordering more LCA. I have hated that aircraft since Nachiketa had to bail out of his while making a gun pass, and i have hated that aircraft still even more when i saw Oswald de Abreu's burst into flames on takeoff roll. Besides the MiG 21, the 27 has the next highest crash rate in IAF service if i am not mistaken.

The MiG-21's safety record is i]better[/i] than the MiG-27's in IAF service.

The accident came a month after the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament gave the MiG-21 a clean chit. The report stated that the MiG-21s have a better safety record than the MiG-23s and the MiG-27s with the IAF. (link)

member_28840 · Post by **member_28840** » 14 Feb 2015 01:08

^^
ASRAAM... That makes so much more sense now.

How are you calculating the MiG 21 vs 27 record ? Total procured to total crashed? I admit the MiG 21 might have a better rate due to the sheer numbers we procured.

Edit: thanks for the link Viv. But both of the aircraft should have been retired sooner. I don't think even the media makes as much as fuss about flying coffins these days, its almost like they are saying "Another MiG crashed, totally saw that coming. Now lets take you back to latest gossip about celebrities"

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Feb 2015 01:09

xave, thats a typo. BAE doesnt make AMRAAMS. they make ASRAAMs. the latter are ordered for jaguar. so no BVR capability in the true sense.
http://www.janes.com/article/40520/indi ... sraam-deal
though one may well point out that asraam is a long range wvr missile and falls into bvr capability.
no hms has been mentioned yet though,
In February 2013 an MBDA official told IHS Jane's that, when used in conjunction with the Jaguar's Elta EL/M-2032 multimode fire-control radar and a helmet-mounted sighting system, ASRAAM would be a "phenomenal capability" for the IAF.

Re: MiG-27, to be honest i always had a soft spot for that massive beast thanks to its mig-23 lineage (what a beast), but you are right, its just too primitive and not pilot friendly at all.

reluctance to buy the LCA is just folks making a case for imports and unobtainium. after a certain while, it just gets too bizarre.

member_28840 · Post by **member_28840** » 14 Feb 2015 02:09

^
Thanks Karan, i was a bit confused by that article as well, i thought us ordering AMRAAMs would have made a bigger splash. Well that clears that up.

I really liked the 21 better for its clean lines, the 25 for its brute strength and the 29 for its looks and its agility . I somehow never really grew fond of the 23, perhaps the appalling combat losses in the Arab wars may have tainted my opinion (but to be fair, considering they were arab, was there ever going to be any other outcome? )

Bizarre might just be the right word for the LCA and i guess pretty much every other import vs local product we have right now. But in an changing India where egotism and settling personal scores seems to be the color of the day, i am not even going to be surprised anymore.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 14 Feb 2015 06:20

https://twitter.com/vkthakur/status/565890819714842624

^^ Can anyone confirm ? Sounds like a biggy for naval tejas.

member_24684 · Post by **member_24684** » 14 Feb 2015 08:05

Thakur_B wrote:https://twitter.com/vkthakur/status/565890819714842624

^^ Can anyone confirm ? Sounds like a biggy for naval tejas.

The MoD is now all set to clear the third and fourth prototypes, NP3 & NP4, both to be single-seat fighter prototypes of the LCA Navy Mk.2

from Shiv Aroor

Thakur sir says

Next NP 3 and NP 4 will be MK I Standard

later three Prototypes are MK II Standard

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 14 Feb 2015 09:30

the more i read about the development of LCA , the more i am convinced , IN will lead this programme to its logical conclusion and IAF will merrily piggyback on it while clamoring for imports. Thankfully we have a peculiar situation, where we Indians are more than happy that MOD doesn't have the required money for imports !!!

Is it possible to add podded gun with LCA ??

member_28840 · Post by **member_28840** » 14 Feb 2015 10:29

^ I agree, the Navy seems far ahead on the indigenization path than the other services combined.

Gun pod should be possible, its self contained so no problem with ammo feeds and such. Vibration tests may need to be done to validate but that should happen as part of clearance anyway.

But since the LCA already contains an Internal Gun, why add gun pods? remove internal gun to save weight and add more fuel?

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 14 Feb 2015 12:31

FOC requires , LCA firing guns , the last report was about Gun firing demonstrated from ground to user for all necessary parameters. Airborne testing in Jamnagar , no updates yet. Which platform have been integrated with 23 mm GSH gun ??

Even in this era of missiles , guns are an absolute necessary , in the Indo-porki context more , because of the proximity of bases . Is there any podded gun available in the range of 23 mm GSH and whether it is easier to certify podded gun over internal guns??

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 14 Feb 2015 12:54

SajeevJino wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:https://twitter.com/vkthakur/status/565890819714842624

^^ Can anyone confirm ? Sounds like a biggy for naval tejas.

The MoD is now all set to clear the third and fourth prototypes, NP3 & NP4, both to be single-seat fighter prototypes of the LCA Navy Mk.2
from Shiv Aroor

Thakur sir says

Next NP 3 and NP 4 will be MK I Standard

later three Prototypes are MK II Standard

The twitter post seems to suggest 5 prototypes for Naval Mark-1 and 5 prototypes for Naval Mark-2. Current orders:-

LCA MK 1 TD-2
LCA MK1 PV-5
LCA MK1 LSP 7
LCA MK1 Naval PV 3+2
LCA MK1 Naval SP 8
LCA MK1 IAF SP 40
LCA MK2 IAF PV 2
LCA MK2 Naval PV 2+3

TOTAL LCA orders 74

member_28840 · Post by **member_28840** » 14 Feb 2015 18:58

Shaun wrote:FOC requires , LCA firing guns , the last report was about Gun firing demonstrated from ground to user for all necessary parameters. Airborne testing in Jamnagar , no updates yet. Which platform have been integrated with 23 mm GSH gun ??

Even in this era of missiles , guns are an absolute necessary , in the Indo-porki context more , because of the proximity of bases . Is there any podded gun available in the range of 23 mm GSH and whether it is easier to certify podded gun over internal guns??

The external gun pods will not pose a technical challenge but will take a longer time to integrate than the Internal gun, since so much work has gone into it already. I believe I have seen SPPU series gun pods displayed in IAF service and we can probably expect them to be certified on the LCA at some point.

I think the internal gun has been around since PV-4 (AFAIK), they certainly have been flying around for long enough now, and should be close to certification now as part of the upcoming FOC. External gun pods have an inherent inaccuracy compared to internal guns. They are meant more for strafing attacks rather than air combat, but better than no gun (as the F-4 phantom found out over Vietnam). So the only point arguing in favor of optional external pod over internal is marginal weight saving measure for longer range for strike operations where gun pod / gun is not attached. Lugging around a gun pod will further reduce range due to parasitic drag and will limit the aircraft to close range operations, which might be OK for CAS role when operating from forward airbases, but will be ineffective in most other roles.

Coming to the case of close proximity of enemy bases. If we have advance warning any CAP birds will be armed with a mixed of BVR and WVR missiles. But all the ready alert ORP birds on the ground at our forward bases will be armed with a full load of Dogfight Missiles (6 Python 5 or 6 R-73 ), This is what the Mig-21 was and is used for in those bases. Forward Bases will rely on bases located further back which host the Heavies to provide long range BVR support.

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 14 Feb 2015 18:59

NLCA mk2 has enhanced dimensions of L=14.56m W=8.9m and H=4.64m as compared to

LCA mk2 dimensions of L=13.7m W=8.2m and H=4.4m.

as given in brochures of AI15.

Previous reports have given estimated empty weight of LCA mk2 as 6.21T with target of 6.06T and that of NLCA mk2 as 6.91T to 6.96T.

Based on above reports I estimate MTOW of NLCA mk2 have increased to minimum 15T from ski jump of carrier as compared to NLCA mk1 MTPW of 12.5T from carrier due to estimated increase in wing area by 20%.

Thus it will be comparable to Mig 29k in performance and can be a good replacement.