Naval LCA - News and Discussion

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 05 Nov 2016 22:13

JTull wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Still developing. No where close to flight testing.
C'mon Rakesh. Is it even in fabrication? I'd be very surprised, if it is.

My bad Saar...it has been conceived in the mind

Therefore the process from the mind to the drawing board has still not happened. If it was not for the Navy, there would be no Mk 2.

Rishi Verma · Post by **Rishi Verma** » 05 Nov 2016 22:56

Great video of night operations. Do they have shore-based landing arresters operationalized? Oh, they must be using those to train M-29KUB pilots. NLCA team probably has other things to test first. I am guessing that navy is waiting for weight reduction etc roadmap leading to mk2 before placing a signed purchase order on stamp paper in triplicates.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 05 Nov 2016 23:07

Arrested Landing test is next in line. They do not have to wait till LG is optimized. That LG design can be type certified later. Also Navy has already given 900Cr for development program. So orders are sure to come for NLCA too.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 06 Nov 2016 00:28

No point JayS. There will be a Naval F-16 which all the Amreeki lovers on the forum will fully endorse.

200 of them will be magically produced in a month. All thanks to TFTA style production. They have all the suppliers locked and loaded.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 06 Nov 2016 10:41

What is the naval Mk2 , Has the specifications been frozen for the design. What is it expected to do that a production MK1 will not be able to do.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 07 Nov 2016 01:02

^^ One of the most important thing being - Take off from a AC with decent load and have a decent bring back load too.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Nov 2016 04:24

NLCA Mk1 is supposed to get token orders. Asking the 404 to take meaningful loads off a small deck is difficult. As aerial defense platform, yes. As a strike platform, I am not so sure. I am told that IAF is extremely happy with LCA's take off and landing characteristics.

It seems that the IAF is now sold on the Mk2. They want them and are pushing for them. Right now, it is a go for Mk1A (HAL's idea) and Mk2 (ADA's idea). It is a sweet spot for a LCA fan like me. HAL will manufacture Mk1s till they can start manufacturing Mk1As. Most of Mk1s can be retrofitted to Mk1A standard. Meanwhile, ADA will go forward with Mk2, and HAL will switch to Mk2 manufacturing as soon as they are ready.

On the other hand, Navy is starting to push for a twin engined aircraft rather than the Mk2. None-the-less, in true IN spirit they will continue to support Mk2 as well. I love the IN. I wish it did not find itself at the short end of the stick so often for doing the right thing.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 07 Nov 2016 16:03

IIRC 6 NLCA MK1 were ordered.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 07 Nov 2016 16:49

Indranil wrote:NLCA Mk1 is supposed to get token orders. Asking the 404 to take meaningful loads off a small deck is difficult. As aerial defense platform, yes. As a strike platform, I am not so sure. I am told that IAF is extremely happy with LCA's take off and landing characteristics.

It seems that the IAF is now sold on the Mk2. They want them and are pushing for them. Right now, it is a go for Mk1A (HAL's idea) and Mk2 (ADA's idea). It is a sweet spot for a LCA fan like me. HAL will manufacture Mk1s till they can start manufacturing Mk1As. Most of Mk1s can be retrofitted to Mk1A standard. Meanwhile, ADA will go forward with Mk2, and HAL will switch to Mk2 manufacturing as soon as they are ready.

On the other hand, Navy is starting to push for a twin engined aircraft rather than the Mk2. None-the-less, in true IN spirit they will continue to support Mk2 as well. I love the IN. I wish it did not find itself at the short end of the stick so often for doing the right thing.

That's the way to go forward. Note HAL has already said all FOC MK1A to be upgraded to MK1A by default. But also 20 IOC config could also be upgraded to MK1A if IAF wish for it. As per CAG report the 20 FOC contract which was signed in 2010 is supposed to be revised (could have been already revised, but we don't know).

Navy should push for Naval AMCA and AMCA should start with naval version which can be stripped downed for IAF. Stripping down is always easier than adding stuff.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 07 Nov 2016 16:58

I know NLCA Mk1's are stop gap till Mk2's are developed, but how feasable that say 4 LCA MK1's on INS Vikram Aditya are assigned Fleet Air defence while the Mig 29K are kept for strike roles?

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 07 Nov 2016 20:52

Once they are carrier compatible they will be seen on Vik, we can be sure of that one. But its still a long way to go. Arguably Naval Jet needs far more extensive testing that a AF jet. But Navy unfortunately has only 2 prototypes so far. So things are little slow. If it NP1/2 pass arrested recovery tests which are soon to be commenced, we might see them heading for Vik as soon as next year end.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Nov 2016 22:52

Aditya_V wrote:I know NLCA Mk1's are stop gap till Mk2's are developed, but how feasable that say 4 LCA MK1's on INS Vikram Aditya are assigned Fleet Air defence while the Mig 29K are kept for strike roles?

You can rest assured that if there is any chance of putting LCA's in any role on Vikramaditya's deck, Indian Navy will do it.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 02 Dec 2016 22:44

Navy Chief Sunil Lanba says Tejas LCA not up to mark yet, search on for another fighter jet
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... aign=cppst

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Dec 2016 22:55

same here in this link
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 756350.cms

NLCA is screwed!

Navy rejects Tejas, says 'overweight' fighter does not meet its requirements

NEW DELHI: The Navy has rejected the naval version of the indigenous Tejas light combat aircraft+ , holding that the "overweight" fighter cannot optimally operate from aircraft carriers, and is now looking to induct an alternative fighter from abroad in the next five to six years.
"We will continue to support Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) and Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) but the naval LCA in its present form unfortunately does not meet our qualitative requirements for carrier capability," said Admiral Sunil Lanba on Friday.

The single-engine Tejas, which is "too heavy", does not meet the "thrust-to-weight requirement to take off with a full fuel and arms load" from an aircraft carrier's deck. At present, the Navy has inducted over 30 of the 45 MiG-29K fighters acquired from Russia for $2 billion.
Both the MiG-29Ks and the naval Tejas were supposed to operate from the 44,400-tonne carrier INS Vikramaditya as well as the under-construction 40,000-tonne INS Vikrant, which will be ready by 2019-2020.

"In addition to MiG-29Ks, we now need an alternative aircraft to operate from these two carriers. If you look around the world, there are not too many options available and we need this carrier-capable aircraft sooner than later. So, I am looking at next five to six years," said Admiral Lanba.

While the IAF is going to get at least 120 Tejas, under the LCA project which was cleared way back in 1983, while the Navy was supposed to get around 50 of the indigenous fighters. In August this year, IAF finally inducted the first two Tejas fighters in the 45 "Flying Daggers" Squadron, which will be fully constituted with 20 jets only by 2018.

IAF had earlier ordered 40 Tejas jets, with the defence ministry in November giving the initial approval for procurement of another 83 Tejas Mark-1A fighters from HAL for Rs 50,025 crore. The Mark-1A version, which is the one IAF really wants, will be ready only by 2020 or so. It will have an AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar and advanced electronic warfare (EW) suite, as also be capable of mid-air refuelling and firing advanced BVR (beyond visual range) missiles.

shravanp · Post by **shravanp** » 02 Dec 2016 23:02

This is a complete volte-face. I have read enough articles on NLCA on how IN was being very supportive about it, and how good it's performance was. Especially during the tests in Goa's shore facility. It had also mentioned that NLCA's engine was "over-powered" for it's weight. I smell bs.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 02 Dec 2016 23:04

"In addition to MiG-29Ks, we now need an alternative aircraft to operate from these two carriers. If you look around the world, there are not too many options available and we need this carrier-capable aircraft sooner than later. So, I am looking at next five to six years," said Admiral Lanba.

If Admira Lanba did indeed state the above, the Super Hornet is the likely choice.

disha · Post by **disha** » 02 Dec 2016 23:07

^^ TOILet headlines is idiotic. Misleading. #mediapimps

Nobody expected the NLCA in its current form to meet the qualitative requirements for carrier capability. That is, NLCA operational role in Indian Navy was never envisaged.

Hon' Admiral further mentions that he is looking for a carrier-capable aircraft alternative to Mig-29ks sooner than later and the time frame is next 5-6 years.

Of course TOILet puts 2+2 together to arrive at 72 and state "Navy rejects Tejas ...overweight ..." and here we go humanzee!

disha · Post by **disha** » 02 Dec 2016 23:08

Added later: Navy may indeed go for a different aircraft in the interim before it gets the NLCA-mkII or NLCA-mkIII.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Dec 2016 23:42

"In addition to MiG-29Ks, we now need an alternative aircraft to operate from these two carriers. If you look around the world, there are not too many options available and we need this carrier-capable aircraft sooner than later. So, I am looking at next five to six years," said Admiral Lanba.

If Admira Lanba says 5-6 years then by the time the file to procure move to mod it will be 10 years and by time mod approves it via global tender that would be 15 , that is the time we would see IAC-2 optimistically , even IAC-1 is delayed by decade if recent news is to be believed

It's a long time till then we would see a N Tejas up and running.

titash · Post by **titash** » 03 Dec 2016 00:07

Austin wrote:
"In addition to MiG-29Ks, we now need an alternative aircraft to operate from these two carriers. If you look around the world, there are not too many options available and we need this carrier-capable aircraft sooner than later. So, I am looking at next five to six years," said Admiral Lanba.
If Admira Lanba says 5-6 years then by the time the file to procure move to mod it will be 10 years and by time mod approves it via global tender that would be 15 , that is the time we would see IAC-2 optimistically , even IAC-1 is delayed by decade if recent news is to be believed

It's a long time till then we would see a N Tejas up and running.

Logically, the LCA was meant to operate in parallel with the mig-29k as a similar generation fighter. It wasn't meant to replace the mig-29k.
Now that the LCA mk1 has low thrust, and the mk2 will realistically operate only a decade later, it means we may need to replace the mig-29k and still continue the parallel LCA program (albeit delayed)
Nothing in existence or planned can replace the single engine LCA . The only alternative aircraft are hornet, super hornet, or Su-33 or Rafale. Good luck taking off from Vikramaditya or Vikrant in STOBAR configuration and maintain meaningful numbers inside the small hangar. If these are our alternative then why not simply double the mig-29k order?...unless aircraft availability sucks

The f35 is the only alternative...and how much is that going to cost?

The Tejas is coming...just 10 years later. The navy has no cheaper alternative. In fact the India Today report on the same day clearly said the navy will continue to support this program.

Relax folks.

raghava · Post by **raghava** » 03 Dec 2016 00:10

Indranil wrote:NLCA Mk1 is supposed to get token orders. Asking the 404 to take meaningful loads off a small deck is difficult. As aerial defense platform, yes. As a strike platform, I am not so sure. I am told that IAF is extremely happy with LCA's take off and landing characteristics.

It seems that the IAF is now sold on the Mk2. They want them and are pushing for them. Right now, it is a go for Mk1A (HAL's idea) and Mk2 (ADA's idea). It is a sweet spot for a LCA fan like me. HAL will manufacture Mk1s till they can start manufacturing Mk1As. Most of Mk1s can be retrofitted to Mk1A standard. Meanwhile, ADA will go forward with Mk2, and HAL will switch to Mk2 manufacturing as soon as they are ready.

On the other hand, Navy is starting to push for a twin engined aircraft rather than the Mk2. None-the-less, in true IN spirit they will continue to support Mk2 as well. I love the IN. I wish it did not find itself at the short end of the stick so often for doing the right thing.

you were absolutely spot on with your analysis a full month before today...

however, for the sake of a longtime lca fan like myself, please could you reassure me this decision was correct. After all the IN was always a true blue "indegenisation" supporter. They were the ones who always had the attitude that if it was an engineering problem, it could be solved. I have seen first hand in the Varunastra project. So why did this happen ?

Is it such a difficult problem to solve? Is the NLCA so far away from requirements, that there is no hope of solving it in "the next 5 - 6 years"..?

Indranil Roy saab, you have made innumerable contributions to the LCA thread. Please give your views comprehensively on this matter. I feel quite depressed...

titash · Post by **titash** » 03 Dec 2016 00:26

Perhaps the solution doesn't lie in re-engineering the Tejas.

Maybe we need to simply build a steam catapult that can launch much heavier aircraft irrespective of how ineffective their design or engine is.

Much simpler to do, and we already had a steam catapult on the old INS Vikrant that we maintained for decades. No need for EMALS. This old design works just as well on the Charles de Gaulle today.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Dec 2016 00:37

disha, think about if presstitution never happened! public would have no idea how to accept and read news. that is the challenge even for the informers. they better know how to deal with press.

the truth is, we are not up to speed on various things.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 03 Dec 2016 00:47

I remember IN rooting for a twin engined fighter as opposed to single-engined. I thought that was one of the points where NLCA (perhaps even Mk.2) was unappealing for Navy.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 03 Dec 2016 00:49

This was the fear that even I had, once it became apparent that the Tejas Mk1A had taken center-stage and the Mk2 had been pushed on the back-burner- that the Naval Mk2 variant was going to be the one to suffer as a result of the Tejas Mk1A taking up developmental resources instead of the Tejas Mk2.

We all knew that the N-LCA Mk1 with the F-404 engine was payload limited thanks to the structural beefing up that was required. The Navy wanted the Mk2, the higher thrust engine was their requirement first and foremost, the IAF only hopped onto the re-engineing bandwagon later. I remember reading an interview by an IN officer in Force magazine or somewhere (Austin posted quite a few of those) who had commented that the Naval LCA wasn't as capable as the Rafale M, but it was indigenous and they would support it. So they actively supported the development of a variant that would meet their needs.

But if one looks at the scope of the N-LCA Mk2, it was very ambitious. Even more so than the Tejas Mk2, even though some of the technologies were to be proven on the N-LCA Mk1, such as the modified FBW, arrested landing, the LEVCONS, etc. Some of this proving work has been on-going but it would need to be speeded up and then plenty of development and testing work needs to be done on the Mk2 variant. And the Naval LCA Mk2 would have had to be the front and center LCA variant as far as engineering resources available with ADA and HAL go, in order to be available anytime in the 5-6 years' timeframe. That isn't happening, and that had got me worried. Since the last Aero India where we saw the Naval LCA Mk2 model, we've heard very little on development related to it.

Right now, the priority is clearly Tejas Mk1 -> Tejas Mk1A -> N-LCA Mk1 with a very nebulous Mk2 variant after these 3. The effort for F-414 integration would have been split between the Tejas Mk2 and N-LCA Mk2, if the Mk2 variant was prioritized over the Mk1A. But since that hasn't happened, the Navy has taken a back seat to the IAF's requirements for a fighter.

There will still probably be a Naval LCA Mk2, given how supportive the IN is of indigenous programs, and given that the IAF may be backing a Tejas Mk2 - but this is not going to happen in the time frame that the IN needs it in.

IMO, strangely enough, 18-20 odd new MiG-29K/KUBs would have been the best bet for the Naval LCA Mk2 to see service on INS Vishal. They would have met the early requirement for a fighter onboard till the N-LCA Mk2 arrived. Lower costs for induction of a new type, commonality with existing type, lower training and spares costs. Whereas, if a costly Rafale M or Super Hornet takes its place, it'll lock up the IN's resources in both money terms and human resource terms, what with another new type and all that, and leave very little room to support the N-LCA Mk2.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Dec 2016 00:59

Going after Kaveri/Snecma deal for 90kN is not IN specific.. I think we need to stop to rethink what we really want to achieve?

This is not going anywhere without our own engines on top gear..

we have failed on a time-bound approach for completion.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 03 Dec 2016 03:17

I don't know what all this rona-dhona is all about. This reporter had no clue of what the plan of record was. He found out, and thought it was news! Then with his limited comprehension he sensationalized it. It doesn't change anything. People in the know (MoD, IN, ADA and HAL) are working diligently. Don't give this reporter the hype. Call out his nonsense if you want to.

We know that Mk1 is able to get off the ski-ramp with at least fuel internal fuel, centerline fuel tank and 2 WVRs. In the Mk2, the optimized LGs and more powerful engine will allow them to carry antiship missiles. Although such an aircraft can get the job done, it is not the ideal size for the medium-sized aircraft carriers that we are building. Pretty much how heavy fighters lie are not either. The navy always wanted a medium-weight. But such an aircraft will not fall out of the air. It has to be developed. So they are taking steps to get there. NLCA Mk1 will refine CLAW, develop and refine many subsystems like the LGs/arrrestor hook/fuel dump. We had no test-data prior to this. Mk2 will be operationalized in small numbers on aircraft carriers, but won't form the backbone. All these learnings will be folded into the development of the naval AMCA, which is what they have always been after. The then CNS said this all this way back when NLCA was being rolled out.

Will the Navy go with Rafale/F-18/Mig-29Ks. They all have their merits and demerits. But, in my mind, it is there for Dassault to lose; and Boeing and Mig to earn.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 03 Dec 2016 03:22

The total orders for Mig-29Ks at this point are 45. The Vikramaditya will carry not more than 18-24 of these at any given time. The Vikrant is not going to be ready for commissioning for a few more years. So what exactly is the need for more fighters at this point?

titash · Post by **titash** » 03 Dec 2016 03:59

nachiket wrote:The total orders for Mig-29Ks at this point are 45. The Vikramaditya will carry not more than 18-24 of these at any given time. The Vikrant is not going to be ready for commissioning for a few more years. So what exactly is the need for more fighters at this point?

More importantly, what is the need for a second imported fighter type?

CONFIGURATION:
Our carriers today are STOBAR. This configuration inherently limits the capabilities of onboard aircraft no matter how good they are.
With STOBAR, all aircraft e.g. rafale or hornet or super hornet or Su-33 will be as limited as a Mig-29K in terms of the payload they can carry. Only a steam catapult or EMALS will help aircraft realize their full potential.
With STOBAR, the Mig-29K is a multi-role aircraft that can perform superbly in the air defence role, while carrying lightweight anti-ship missiles and bombs in the strike role, and there is no need for a second fighter type, except as a Mig-29K replacement 20 years later.

SIZE:
The 40-45,000 ton VikAd and Vikrant are too small to carry 2 fighter types because they will carry 20-24 jets max with a more likely number being 16.
The Charles de Gaulle is a similar sized carrier that carries only the multi-role rafale today (with a steam catapult).
The old RN carriers Ark Royal & Eagle were the last 40-50,000 ton carriers to see service and deployed a mix of 12 air defence Phantoms and 12 strike Buccaneers as their final air wing (with steam catapults).

WHY A SECOND FIGHTER:
With a CATOBAR configuration, the Rafale with its higher payload capacity is far better than a Mig-29K and is a valid replacement.
If the IN's intent is to buy newer generation more capable fighters to operate off the 65,000 ton INS Vishal equipped with an EMALS, then we should buy 40 rafales or 40 F35s that can either deliver a very large payload (rafale) or bring stealth (F35) to the table, because neither the Mig-29K nor the LCA Tejas is designed to offer either capability.
The LCA Tejas is a valid second type because it helps our strategic capabilities to progress.

To reiterate - the CNS is not stating anything new or something that we didn't know before. The ToI reporter (Rajat Pandit I bet) simply has the statement repackaged with an intent to sensationalize.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Dec 2016 04:43

titash wrote:
nachiket wrote:The total orders for Mig-29Ks at this point are 45. The Vikramaditya will carry not more than 18-24 of these at any given time. The Vikrant is not going to be ready for commissioning for a few more years. So what exactly is the need for more fighters at this point?

If the IN's intent is to buy newer generation more capable fighters to operate off the 65,000 ton INS Vishal equipped with an EMALS, then we should buy 40 rafales or 40 F35s that can either deliver a very large payload (rafale) or bring stealth (F35) to the table, because neither the Mig-29K nor the LCA Tejas is designed to offer either capability.

The F-35 (A and C) can deliver both a decent payload in completely stealthy mode and a heavy payload when stealth is not required. It has 4 hard points (2 internal, and 2 external) rated at 1100 kg, 2 rated at 2200 kg all the while having 4 separate a2a weapon hard points including two external for short range self defense missiles. It carries 8900 kg of fuel internally. When looking at the maximum payload between an F-35 and a Rafale keep in mind that the F-35 carries quite a bit of more fuel internally..in fact it needs to meet its KPP [it gets 1166 km mission radius (radius not range) with 2 bombs and 2 internal missiles on internal fuel with the navy reserve fuel requirement] with internal fuel given stealth considerations.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 03 Dec 2016 04:47

titash wrote: WHY A SECOND FIGHTER:
With a CATOBAR configuration, the Rafale with its higher payload capacity is far better than a Mig-29K and is a valid replacement.
If the IN's intent is to buy newer generation more capable fighters to operate off the 65,000 ton INS Vishal equipped with an EMALS, then we should buy 40 rafales or 40 F35s that can either deliver a very large payload (rafale) or bring stealth (F35) to the table, because neither the Mig-29K nor the LCA Tejas is designed to offer either capability.
The LCA Tejas is a valid second type because it helps our strategic capabilities to progress.

It is too soon to be thinking about aircraft for the Vishal when even its design is at an initial stage. 2030 is an optimistic estimate for when the Vishal can be ready, if they are serious about it being a 65000 ton EMALS equipped ship. What's the point in saying that the NLCA is inadequate to operate off of a ship that won't be ready for another 14 years?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Dec 2016 05:09

The main rohna-dhona is coming from the fact of not getting into a tranche/block mode acceptance plan. IN and IAF must accept a lower capable aircraft, and come back with a redone requirement for block 2 for upthrusts, and newer specs. This is exactly was the case with Raha ji - and Parkikkar worked it out with him. Now we have LCA Mk1a with some accepted config.

It is not about AMCA, but it is all about maturing our capability model. Unless we deliver, the first baby steps will not happen how much ever precision we can achieve in the lab or non accepted solution.

It is very important to note that the main user can't openly drop a baby like this. Will you kick your kid out if he fails? you will always give him/her another chance to change and accept.

vina · Post by **vina** » 03 Dec 2016 12:19

Well, the only OTHER aircraft that can fly on the VikAd and Vikramaditya will be the F-35 SVTOL version. Not the F18, Not the Rafale,Not the F-35C and definitely not the SU-33 (Kakkoose) , over which the the Mig 29 (Kakkoose) is streets ahead.

I don't understand what Adm Lamba is saying. If I put the WSJ article together with what CNS is saying, I can only deduce that they "Unkil" has agreed to put the steam cats/ eMals on the new build Vikrant (EMals can be built into the ski jump (you can't do that with a steam cat) . The other new plane choices (F18/Rafale) makes sense ONLY then. Not otherwise. There is no OTHER option than the Mig 29(Kakkoose) . If they are buying ANOTHER plane, it means that the IN has finally decided to go the catapult way. But that realisation should have dawned right away and the choice should have been a CATOBAR right from the beginning for the Vikrant and the follow on ships.

Rishi Verma · Post by **Rishi Verma** » 03 Dec 2016 15:32

There goes the theory that IAF doesn't "support" the LCA as much as the Navy does.

What "support" is this if the new navy chief rules out N-LCA

navy chief rules out operating the Naval-LCA

The Naval Chief said its still urging the DRDO to develop the LCA

1. N-LCA is overweight
2. N-LCA won't be available on-time (next 5-6 years

Again it's the issue of a DRDO's science project that can't be manufactured.

SSharma · Post by **SSharma** » 03 Dec 2016 16:03

maybe the LCA is just not as good as we the jingoes believed it to be

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 03 Dec 2016 17:36

Or Navy that has a long history of supporting indigenous program used a simple logic - Lets make a navy plane, (more so when IAF is not so keen on Indian made plane), we surrender a big part of Navy budget (actually the defense budget) every year back because of non utilization, this effort will only cut some of that money (the money allocated but unutilized). In the bargain if we get a naval fighter great, if IAF gets a IAF fighter great, if nothing, that's fine....they are pragmatic, they have already ordered 48 MIG29K for Vik. If you look from this angle everything makes sense. They do threaten/make noise on ADA, HAL etc from time to time to refocus these agencies. They in fact have one of their lead the LCA/ADA. I wished IAF had taken this role.

Rishi Verma · Post by **Rishi Verma** » 03 Dec 2016 18:15

With the amount of issues the Mig-29K is having, it may not be a flying coffin but a ~~floating~~ sinking coffin. I hope next Navy bird is either Rafale or an F/A-18 E/F used by navy from shore based and carrier based platforms. Perhaps IAF opting for the F/A-18L version. Totalling in quantity 1000+.

vina · Post by **vina** » 03 Dec 2016 18:53

Rishi Verma wrote:With the amount of issues the Mig-29K is having, it may not be a flying coffin but a ~~floating~~ sinking coffin. I hope next Navy bird is either Rafale or an F/A-18 E/F used by navy from shore based and carrier based platforms. Perhaps IAF opting for the F/A-18L version. Totalling in quantity 1000+.

So fine. Buy the Rafale or the F A 18 EF. But pray WHICH carrier will the Navy fly those off ? Will it be Vikrant ? Will it be VikAd or both ? And if you do, will it they not face the "same problem" as LCA Navy Mk1 , which, can't take off with full load and fuel?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Dec 2016 19:15

The issue is going to be with one aircraft type for both a future CATOBAR carrier and a future STOBAR carrier. If that is the case then the Navy would have to justify simply not buying more Mig-29K's since I assume that is an option. Since the IN already has a second imported type while it's developing the LCA-N it is surprising to hear it talking about yet another type.

@Vina, if you want everything including STOBAR performance with a load in terms of stores and fuel, and combat range etc I don't think the Shornet or the Rafale are going to get you there (over and above the Mig-29K). You'd have to look at the F-35B or perhaps the Gripen E variant of the sea gripen which is probably going to take a long time, and may as well take as much time as the N-LCA based on the MK2 configuration with more powerful engines.

Recent L class ship testing saw the USMC clear full internal and full external stores for ship based STOVL ops including 6 bombs and 4 missiles. Remember, internal fuel on the F-35B is less than the other two variants but still as much as the F-18E/F and enough to get it a mission radius (USMC requirement) of more than 850 km with a full internal payload.

DT-III evaluated and validated the Short Take-off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) performance of the F-35B in high sea states, with full weapons loads (external & internal), with asymmetric loading (including taking off with a full load of externals, jettisoning one side and landing), live weapons and night operations.

http://www.sldinfo.com/f-35b-completes- ... s-america/

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 03 Dec 2016 19:28

As per Livefist

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/804582589877145600

Get ready for N-MMRCA saga!