Naval LCA - News and Discussion

vina · Post by **vina** » 18 Mar 2017 17:49

brar_w wrote:
Singha wrote:the 404 engine also clocks millions of hours on the F18A/B/C/D still in USMC service and retired from USN service. canadians and swiss use it too.

it was a engine designed for naval use from the outset for F18A hence might feature corrosion resistant design.
Long list of single and twin engine types operating the F-404..Gripen A/B/C/D, T/F/A-50 and unmanned aircraft. The next US Navy trainer that replaces the T-45 will also be a single engined aircraft fitted with the F/404.

The F414- INS6 , the single engine , upgrated version of the F414 would have have seen some development difficulties, failures in testing and the Navy got cold feet.

Dont worry. This will work itself out. With the horrors of the Mig 29 K (Kakoose) (structure, radar, engines etc) that entire fleet is soon going for quick retirement and is threatened. This is the usual Natashas doing the rounds of planting stories in the media , leaking selective info, etc (same story like Arjun), hoping to kill the product before it comes out. Too bad, aint going to happen. We should do our part in highlighting what sort of Kakoose the Mig 29K is , so that it can't be swept under the carpet.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Mar 2017 21:00

Vivek K wrote:Reminiscent of the torsion bars failing on the Arjun (sic) or the Renk Gearbox failing (later found to have been tampered with). So the true colors of the IN coming out.

SO I guess why don't we fire all these incompetent admirals and generals and hire foreigners? Gora good, SDRE bad!

Be very careful of how you address our armed forces here. You are very thin ice here. I have repeatedly reminded you about this here.

For your knowledge, nobody has shown more support to LCA than the NAVY. Even now Navy knows and continues to support the development of Naval LCA and Naval Mk2 with money, infrastructure and personnel. What the CNS said was taken out of context and blown out of proportion by the sensationalist media. LCA Navy Mk1 is underpowered. IN cannot afford to have it on Vikram or Vikrant. This has been known from 2005. And to be frank LCA Navy Mk2 will not be adequate as well. But Navy understands that these are stepping stones and has supported the program unabated since 2005 when it had no backers.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 18 Mar 2017 21:11

" And to be frank LCA Navy Mk2 will not be adequate as well" --- you need to now show some data to back that up!

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 18 Mar 2017 21:16

Though I respect your advice and perspective - do you give the same advice to certain posters that ad-infinitum criticize Indian products and unabashedly worship Russian junk?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 18 Mar 2017 21:23

Vivek: Onlee valued posters get rebuked. Useless posters get banned or are ignored. You are in the former. Take it as good advice from the admin and move on

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Mar 2017 22:16

Vivek K wrote:" And to be frank LCA Navy Mk2 will not be adequate as well" --- you need to now show some data to back that up!

What kind of data do you want?

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 19 Mar 2017 00:20

^why do you think NLCA-2 will be short on expectation, I agree on mk1 but for mk2 ... hmmm not sure. I know IN wants twin engine fighter but it was clear since 10 years, so why suddenly this heart change. Especially when mk1 performed better then expected during last year tests. Unless newer tests throw up some surprises, which are not in open source.

srai · Post by **srai** » 19 Mar 2017 06:29

Indranil wrote:
Vivek K wrote:" And to be frank LCA Navy Mk2 will not be adequate as well" --- you need to now show some data to back that up!
What kind of data do you want?

Part of the problem is how the communication is released to the media by the armed forces brass (or some unnamed officials). Some (on a podium with a larger-reach) in the media seem to amplify the negatives while disregarding the follow-on positive statements. Statements are too brief and seem pretty blunt. Then the forces don't correct all the mis-information that some section of the media keep blabbering on about. Who knows what sort of hidden agenda they have in their relationship with foreign vested interests. Public sector, like DRDO labs and HAL, who don't have official PR representatives remain mum muttering to themselves "our work will show for itself".

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Mar 2017 06:33

RKumar wrote:^why do you think NLCA-2 will be short on expectation, I agree on mk1 but for mk2 ... hmmm not sure. I know IN wants twin engine fighter but it was clear since 10 years, so why suddenly this heart change. Especially when mk1 performed better then expected during last year tests. Unless newer tests throw up some surprises, which are not in open source.

The speed of development is slow, because of a variety of reasons. But until now, all surprises have been good surprises. IN hasn't had a change of mind/heart. I have explained this before. NLCA Mk1 was never meant to be operationalized. NLCA Mk2 was to operationalized in conjunction with the Mig-29K. A single engine bird, launched by STOBAR will be impaired in reach and payload. There is no running around that point. But what they are learning with NLCA Mk1 and Mk2 is absolutely needed to develop a twin engine fighter, and nobody else will provide this knowledge. At the moment IN doesn't care for 5th generation AMCA. They would take a twin engine LCA++ happily.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 20 Mar 2017 02:27

What the IN actually wants for its carriers is a twin engine plane.
Unless they have a different role for the MK2 in mind, they should state the above clearly.
Otherwise a whole lot of time, energy & investments will be made in getting MK2 carrier worthy only to find yet another rejection from the navy awaits.

Carrier MK2's role should be CAP, Recon, ELINT, EW and Escort.

Strike can be left to Mig-29K which requires load carrying capasity.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 20 Mar 2017 02:45

Well if IN want only twin engine fighter then drop LCA mk2 and move the target directly to AMCA. As IAF is happy with mk1A, let's put all our energy to Naval AMCA and fine tune it for IAF. If LCA mk2 is not active duty deployed on vikrant then there is zero gain. We can learn whatever is required from NLCA mk1 with positive surprises and adjust our plans accordingly.

I think it's game over for Saab from all sides. Let's see what Rafael project can offer on top of NLCA experience.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 20 Mar 2017 10:52

The Navy understood that to get to the twin engined naval fighter, the lca navy is a stepping stone. Finis.

Rishi Verma · Post by **Rishi Verma** » 20 Mar 2017 11:32

vina wrote:....do our part in highlighting what sort of Kakoose the Mig 29K is , so that it can't be swept under the carpet.

+1008...but

Only reason I am not worried about Philip and other Russo-philes on BRF is that whatever they say here has no bearing in real world. And same applies to us, If we do our part in highlighting the russkies milking us with sub-standard crap... It won't matter much in the real world yet we should watch them and besides any tasty bites I get, I send it straight to the PMO office

)

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 20 Mar 2017 12:37

Prasad wrote:The Navy understood that to get to the twin engined naval fighter, the lca navy is a stepping stone. Finis.

+ 1.

IN should have asked for twin engine MK2 right from the starting, because its no brainer to prefer twin jet for Naval use. I wonder why they didn't do that. To me it doesn't look like Navy always wanted twin jet engine (just saying, not that you imply that). Else there was no logic in asking for MK2 version. All (or most of it at least) of the Carrier compatibility TD could have been done on MK1. To me IN was seriously interested in single engine NLCA until recently. In fact they might still buy MK2 and put it on our ACs. There is a possibility (Let's not forget IN is still paying 25% for the 2nd LCA line apart from a significant amount for NLCA MK1/2). But saying IN never really wanted single engine jet or IN thought single engine is not reliable enough for carrier operation is little indigestible to me. Neither is there any real visibility of IN on AMCA. So far I have seen only one mention in public domain that IN is interested. And there is no N-AMCA. If IN wants 5th Gen twin jet 20-30 yrs down the line they need to get on board right now. This particular emphasize on twin jet seems to be recent one and must have originated more from the failure of MiG-29 rather than timelines of NLCA.

vina · Post by **vina** » 20 Mar 2017 13:24

JayS wrote:This particular emphasize on twin jet seems to be recent one and must have originated more from the failure of MiG-29 rather than timelines of NLCA.

Yeah. Basically the Navy guys must be told that after paying what close to $3b for a "free" burned out hulk of a rust bucket (oops aircraft carrier called Admiral Gorshkov) with the catch being that with the "free carrier", we buy out the Mig 29 K(Kakkoose) , which got delivered a few years BEFORE the rust bucket, and if the Mig29K still aren't up to scratch , the Govt needs to level with the Navy and tell the following.

1. You bought that lump of useless turds called Mig29K. FIX them. Don't come around asking for money to buy substitutes
2. And NO. All you can get is the N-LCA. Make it work. That and the Mig29 K , if you manage to fix them is ALL you are going to get

So wake up and smell the coffee.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Mar 2017 14:08

Smell the coffee,the IN doesn't want the sub-std. NLCA which simply isn't good enough.In fact,any single-engined fighter will be inadequate for maritime warfare post 2020. The range of supersonic stand-off missiles has dramatically increased ,China is also developing 300KM+ anti-ship missiles apart from western efforts. China is also developing a V.LR AAM with a range of a few hundreds of Kms. Thus future carrier strike aircraft have to be larger to carry a greater load of munitions,more sophisticated missiles and deliver them at far greater ranges than that of the NLCA,underpowered which means a far lighter payload,range,endurance ,etc.

The Vik-A is a beautiful warship,well worth the cost ($2.3B) when compared with similar sized carriers costing twice as much,and far smaller warships today like the P_15B DDGs which cost over $!B apiece.. By no means is it a rust-bucket. It has been completely rebuilt as good as a new carrier.When the balloon next goes up,just watch it perform against the Pakis. The issue of the MIG-29Ks must be sorted out by the OEM,otherwise penalise it! Surely there are in the agreement clauses that protect the buyer.Here are detailsfrom the IN's own website.
https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/content/a ... ndian-navy

Some are quick to criticise the Vik-Acquisition for the well-known reasons of its transformation from a cruiser-carrier into a genuine AC,but why the deafening silence about our own IAC-1,delivery to have taken place in 2014,whose new timeframe for its induction has been shifted to 2023 (CAG),even though the yard says 2018 and the IN is hopeful of meeting that deadline.That will not include sea trials time,etc. CCS approval was given way back in 1999 and the keel was laid in Feb 2009,8 years ago.In comparison,the Gorshkov/Vik-A deal was signed in 2004 and the carrier inducted 9 years later.IAC-1 is also approx. 5000t lighter than the Vik-A.The final bill could be anywhere in the region of at least $4B+.carrier only,with the aircraft coming free,already delivered. We obtained the 29Ks at a v.resonable cost of only $32M a pop. Compare that cost with that of comparable naval strike birds today.The F-18EF costs a massive $98.3M! You can get 3 MIG_29Ks for the cost of just one F-18EF.

US carrier strike bird debate:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... wins-15670

But coming back to the req. for another naval strike aircraft. The req. is clearly meant for the second carrier,with enough lead time for establishing the aircraft in IN service well in advance,so that there is a seamless integration when the carrier arrives.The CNS has said around "7 years from now". If the aircraft is compatible with the lifts,hangar size,STOBAR launch of the two CVs that we would be operating by then, we could complement the 29Ks with them,The large number,around 60,indicates that they will be used primarily aboard one carrier,which will be IAC-2.Ideally,a stealth bird would be best,with the proven Rafale-M second.The success of the JSF aboard carriers will be known within the next 5 years.Costs of the aircraft will also play a major factor in the acquisition,as equipping a CV as large as planned,75K t,with 60 aircraft,EMALS,N-power possibly too,is going to cost an absolute bomb,anywhere upwards of at least $12B! Right now the priority is getting IAC-1 into service asap,and augmenting the sub fleet,which must be given the highest priority ,not a new naval combat aircraft when the second one is due to arrive at the earliest by 2020+,for which the aircraft are already available.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Mar 2017 14:12

give its rather austere air wing capacity and known issues with 1-engine Mig29k I doubt the vikky can proclaim itself as anything more than a seaward air defence ship for west coast to offload the IAF whose 1000km combat radius flankers would be on duty otherwise.

it is certainly not and never going to be a strike carrier able to push into contested seas and airspaces against the best that land based power can throw at it.

it can also protect the mumbai-aden sea route ships against harpoon attacks by TSPN P3. such attacks would impose costs in terms of insurance rates and having to take a more southernly loopy route.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Mar 2017 14:41

The Vik-A's MIG-29Ks carry a range of Ru KH ASMs,including the 100KM range KH-31.No idea about the newer 200KM KH-58/59,but BMos-M is destined for it.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 20 Mar 2017 14:44

Philip wrote:Smell the coffee,the IN doesn't want the sub-std. NLCA which simply isn't good enough.In .. blah blah blah

When did the NLCA become sub-standard ?

srai · Post by **srai** » 20 Mar 2017 16:30

Vikrant is called Air Defense Carrier (ADS) for a reason

NLCA Mk.2 would make a great carrier borne air defense fighter

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Mar 2017 18:03

The IN said so,doesn't meet the grade and dumped it.Officially.Weight issues,problems with the overweight undercarriage,etc. were raised sometime ago.But the fundamental issue with the LCA programme is overall weight,inadequate for the IAF itself,let alone for naval carrier ops.Even the MK-1A with a more powerful 414 engine requires some fuselage/intake redesign and no one is yet sure whether that will also increase proportionally the overall weight. I think that by making it a "multi-role" bird,jack of all ,has overburdened it with eqpt.In a pure combat fighter role with 2 BVR and 4 SRAAMs,2 underwing/fuselage tanks,plus its cannon,same as on the MIG-21,the aircraft could be a real winner. It's small,has a lot of composites and should be a real menace to incoming enemy aircraft.Other aircraft like Jags,armed advanced trainers,plus GA LCA variants,could take up the GA slack.It's what ahs been suggested for the LCA,to develop sev. variants,each dedicated for a specific role.

The problem with naval aircraft is that for light and med. sized carriers,which can't carry more than 40-50 aircraft and helos max wartime capacity,they truly have to be multi-role for the foll. tasks. Air defence of the fleet ,anti-shipping and strike against land targets.The munitions for each will also vary,plus,the aircraft will have to take off from the carrier with a decent load,even in a STOBAR launch. The little LCA won't meet the mark esp. post 2020,unless we possess a 100 aircraft behemoth,which can operate sev. types.It is also v. doubtful that we will operate more than 3 carriers due to the funding crunch,and therefore possessing a couple of doz. NLCAs is simply not worthwhile expending that much money in development costs,production,etc. If we can dev. and build around 200 LCAs for the IAF it will be a splendid achievement,with prospects of exports to smaller friendly nations who can't afford expensive toys.Bangladesh is looking at acquiring a small batch of MIG-35s since they already operate MIG-29s.

In the future,15-20 years from now,the exg. naval aircraft could be replaced by the AMCA if it is designed sizewise,able to operate from the two carriers we operate/fitting out,even in a STOBAR mode.The carriers can easily operate for another 30 years given our past experience with a second-hand carrier like the Hermes/Viraat,which was the world's longest serving warship!. If the supposed MIG-29K's problems can be sorted out asap,and the aircraft is in current production for the RUN as well,which should not be too difficult,then even upgraded versions of it upto MIG-35 std.-AESA radar,TVC,,etc.may suffice for another decade+. Our classified Ghatak UCAV's size isn't known,but a naval variant if possible would be a great achievement .Its arrival is eagerly awaited.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 21 Mar 2017 02:29

srai wrote:Vikrant is called Air Defense Carrier (ADS) for a reason

A nitpick - the Air Defense Ship (ADS) was one of the evolutionary steps in defining the IAC (Indigenous Aircraft Carrier-I). ADS was a much smaller concept(s) as small as 18,000 tons.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 21 Mar 2017 16:42

Philip wrote:The IN said so,doesn't meet the grade and dumped it. Officially.

They didn't dump NLCA. IN never said MK2 does not meet their requirement. I guess you have been on BRF for quite a long time. You should be able to see yourself easily through the cheap MSM sensationalization and paid media hit jobs if you apply your mind to it.

GhalibKabir · Post by **GhalibKabir** » 23 Mar 2017 07:24

JayS wrote:
Philip wrote:The IN said so,doesn't meet the grade and dumped it. Officially.
They didn't dump NLCA. IN never said MK2 does not meet their requirement. I guess you have been on BRF for quite a long time. You should be able to see yourself easily through the cheap MSM sensationalization and paid media hit jobs if you apply your mind to it.

1. Except for willfully blind & agenda driven presstitutes in the MSM, we all can agree that Mk2 was the product the IN had in mind all along. The AF needs and the developmental process gave us very good learnings and the Mk1A in the process ---> no mean achievement

Now,

2. If we accept IN pronouncements in the open fora in the recent times, why this twin engine link to the Mk2 all of a sudden? The IN seems to stand by the Mk.2 (would make a decent naval fighter imho..)

this 57 plane RFI is also not understandable despite 29K issues...is it not better to go full throttle on Mk2 and also parallely get second hand AV 8Bs for a Vikrant style IAC2 to ensure carrier availability and plane availability? (a harrier with EL2052 radar, BVRAAMs etc would still be a fantastic asset imho)

I think one of things Safran has agreed to work on with India is the adaptation of the Kaveri to a twin engine naval fighter in 10-15 years time

PS: Is it not possible to sue the pants off these presstitutes (the likes of the darkhas) to ensure they don't indulge egregious story fixing and slander of domestic defense production that is in many cases tantamount to treason?

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 26 Mar 2017 12:04

‘We back indigenisation, but Tejas didn’t fit the bill’

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/w ... 664569.ece

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 26 Mar 2017 13:15

JayS wrote: They didn't dump NLCA. IN never said MK2 does not meet their requirement. I guess you have been on BRF for quite a long time. You should be able to see yourself easily through the cheap MSM sensationalization and paid media hit jobs if you apply your mind to it.

Apparently they have dumped it regardless of what they claim. (See below)
They will come up with just about any justification to buy a foreign plane.
Hell they were even ready to accept a proposal from Saab for the single engine naval Gripen which does not even exists.

Its time to start inducting stuff the country makes into the armed forces.
Otherwise the endless addiction to imports of expensive foreign planes, tanks, artillery and just about everything is never going to end.
That is what weakens the country.

"What the Navy wants is a deck-based fighter, but the LCA Navy Mk1 doesn’t meet that requirement. Its power-to-weight ratio, the thrust the engine generates [are insufficient] and it’s under powered for the air frame. Unfortunately, even the Mk2 variant doesn’t qualify. That’s why we took this case up to the Defense Ministry."

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 27 Mar 2017 14:17

Neshant wrote:
JayS wrote: They didn't dump NLCA. IN never said MK2 does not meet their requirement. I guess you have been on BRF for quite a long time. You should be able to see yourself easily through the cheap MSM sensationalization and paid media hit jobs if you apply your mind to it.

Apparently they have dumped it regardless of what they claim. (See below)
They will come up with just about any justification to buy a foreign plane.
Hell they were even ready to accept a proposal from Saab for the single engine naval Gripen which does not even exists.

Its time to start inducting stuff the country makes into the armed forces.
Otherwise the endless addiction to imports of expensive foreign planes, tanks, artillery and just about everything is never going to end.
That is what weakens the country.

"What the Navy wants is a deck-based fighter, but the LCA Navy Mk1 doesn’t meet that requirement. Its power-to-weight ratio, the thrust the engine generates [are insufficient] and it’s under powered for the air frame. Unfortunately, even the Mk2 variant doesn’t qualify. That’s why we took this case up to the Defense Ministry."

Indeed sad if that what CNS said. ADA seems confident that NLCA MK2 will make the cut.

Considering the MTOW of 16.5ton and 98kN engine for MK2 and 24.5ton MTOW and 2x88kN engines for MiG29K, the T/W ratios of MK2 and MiG29k are 0.6 and 0.73 at TO with Max weight.

If we get F414 EE version for AMCA, it could also be used on MK2 as well, in which case its T/W becomes 0.7...!!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 27 Mar 2017 16:50

Neshant wrote:<SNIP> Its time to start inducting stuff the country makes into the armed forces. Otherwise the endless addiction to imports of expensive foreign planes, tanks, artillery and just about everything is never going to end. That is what weakens the country.<SNIP>

Or, may be it is time for R&D establishment to make realistic projections in terms of what can be met in acceptable timelines? Keeping in mind that ultimate worth of a weapon system is inducting the same in large quantities? That there is something known as operational requirement?

Otherwise, we will be forced to import weapons when original targets are not met and complicate the overall force modernization both in terms of time and money.

vina · Post by **vina** » 27 Mar 2017 17:24

Considering the MTOW of 16.5ton and 98kN engine for MK2 and 24.5ton MTOW and 2x88kN engines for MiG29K, the T/W ratios of MK2 and MiG29k are 0.6 and 0.73 at TO with Max weight.

If we get F414 EE version for AMCA, it could also be used on MK2 as well, in which case its T/W becomes 0.7...!!

The Navy isn't thinking straight. The STOBAR business makes sense ONLY if you don't have Cats. The result is you need a massively overpowered plane that compromises range and payload to take off from carrier. The 0.6 numbers are optimal for efficient normal operations.

1. We really DONT need EMals. The plain old steam cats would do fine.
2. The Vikrant and followup Vishal can be fixed with Cats.
3. There is sufficient heat that the gas turbines are exhausting into the atmosphere. The waste heat recover boiler driving cats (probably supplemented with oil firing if needed) is the way to go.

If you go STOBAR, other than the Mig 29 (Kakkoose), the only OTHER aircraft you can get is the F-35B to do a STOL jump take off. The IAF should simply bite the bullet and take a year or two longer and make the Vikrant a full CATOBAR carrier.

CATs are the way to go. The only sole source of Cats of any kind (steam or EMALS is Unkil). Even the French carriers use American cats. So there you are. Make THAT choice correctly and the aircrafts are already there. Make the NLCA a full Cat compatible aircraft. Put just 2 cats on the Vikrant and possibly 3 on the Vishal and get 4 EC2000s (2 each for Vikrant and Vishal) and we will have a capable force.

Yeah. The problem comes with the VikAd + Mig29K. That was always going to be a maintenance hog and a unique species with an evolutionary dead end. A terrible mistake. Give it a quick retirement - make it a pure air defence carrier . It can't support any major strike packages taking off with full load.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Mar 2017 18:20

Indeed sad if that what CNS said. ADA seems confident that NLCA MK2 will make the cut.

Parrikar, in a video nonetheless, during a press conference at AI 17, in on record. But ...........

Also, is there a URL for the IN looking into a naval Gripen? The only single engine craft, as far as I know, that the IN was serious about was the NLCA with the GE F414 INS6 engine.

I think the IN has a need to be a totally diff force. I have been on record that even the 65,000 ton ship would be inadequate. Seems to me a bare minimum would be a 75,000 ton ship. For the IN's need.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 27 Mar 2017 18:22

I think the 65,000 ton class is something that is quite firm. Even on the US published reports, the number has been showing up for a little over a year now. This from late 2015/early 2016

The Navy has initiated discussions with the Government of India under the DTTI through the JWGACTC about assistance
in the construction of an indigenous 65,000 ton aircraft carrier. The discussions are in the early stages and are
coordinated through USD(AT&L) International Cooperation and the NIPO. The Program is determining disclosure and other
exportability considerations that may impact cooperation/sales. A Critical Program Information assessment has been
completed and the Program Office is working with NIPO to develop the necessary documentation to complete a
Technology Transfer and Security Assistance Review Board in CY 2016

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Mar 2017 19:09

I would expect the 65,000 to be firm too, Just saying that, moving forward, IMHO, the IN would not be comfortable with that. At times I wonder what the IN thinks of the Vick. Not a bad decision when it was made, but with changes in circumstances, ......................

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 27 Mar 2017 19:25

NRao wrote:
Indeed sad if that what CNS said. ADA seems confident that NLCA MK2 will make the cut.
Parrikar, in a video nonetheless, during a press conference at AI 17, in on record. But ...........

Also, is there a URL for the IN looking into a naval Gripen? The only single engine craft, as far as I know, that the IN was serious about was the NLCA with the GE F414 INS6 engine.

I think the IN has a need to be a totally diff force. I have been on record that even the 65,000 ton ship would be inadequate. Seems to me a bare minimum would be a 75,000 ton ship. For the IN's need.

What Parrikar said was little hazy, regarding NLCA not going in production ever. Could have been for MK1, could have been for MK2. Big folks make casual mistakes and small folks keep fighting on word to word basis.

I don't think IN is thinking of Sea Gripen. Seems like the Gripen lobby is pushing hard for it and despite RM mentioning clearly that IN wants only twin engine jet, the babudom push RFI with no "twin" mentioned in it. I mean even Gripen NG doesn't make sense for IAF when its gonna be FOC-ed in 2026. We will have LCA MK2 with equal capability by then. If we push for it, even earlier is possible. Gripen lobby is strong. I see people are fully sold to SAAB's marketing gimmicks.

CD Balaji saar correctly said that SAAB is at the stage what ADA was in 2003 as far as Naval jet is concerned.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 27 Mar 2017 19:33

vina wrote:
Considering the MTOW of 16.5ton and 98kN engine for MK2 and 24.5ton MTOW and 2x88kN engines for MiG29K, the T/W ratios of MK2 and MiG29k are 0.6 and 0.73 at TO with Max weight.

If we get F414 EE version for AMCA, it could also be used on MK2 as well, in which case its T/W becomes 0.7...!!
The Navy isn't thinking straight. The STOBAR business makes sense ONLY if you don't have Cats. The result is you need a massively overpowered plane that compromises range and payload to take off from carrier. The 0.6 numbers are optimal for efficient normal operations.

1. We really DONT need EMals. The plain old steam cats would do fine.
2. The Vikrant and followup Vishal can be fixed with Cats.
3. There is sufficient heat that the gas turbines are exhausting into the atmosphere. The waste heat recover boiler driving cats (probably supplemented with oil firing if needed) is the way to go.

If you go STOBAR, other than the Mig 29 (Kakkoose), the only OTHER aircraft you can get is the F-35B to do a STOL jump take off. The IAF should simply bite the bullet and take a year or two longer and make the Vikrant a full CATOBAR carrier.

CATs are the way to go. The only sole source of Cats of any kind (steam or EMALS is Unkil). Even the French carriers use American cats. So there you are. Make THAT choice correctly and the aircrafts are already there. Make the NLCA a full Cat compatible aircraft. Put just 2 cats on the Vikrant and possibly 3 on the Vishal and get 4 EC2000s (2 each for Vikrant and Vishal) and we will have a capable force.

Yeah. The problem comes with the VikAd + Mig29K. That was always going to be a maintenance hog and a unique species with an evolutionary dead end. A terrible mistake. Give it a quick retirement - make it a pure air defence carrier . It can't support any major strike packages taking off with full load.

MY premonition is - EMALS is coming, and with F/A-18 as quid pro quo and perhaps some jet engine goodies (nothing serious in engines but some breadcrumbs thrown at begger SDREs. And SDRE's latching up like they got eternal supply of Lembas bread).

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 27 Mar 2017 19:43

Steam catapult would be highly unlikely given that the Indian MOD and the Pentagon have been discussing EMALS for nearly 2 years and the US Navy program office has been tasked with assisting the joint working group in doing the analysis and integration discussions. While the CAT or no CAT decision may still be up in the air, I think the size and the preferred CAT solution has been nailed down.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Mar 2017 23:02

What Parrikar said was little hazy, regarding NLCA not going in production ever. Could have been for MK1, could have been for MK2. Big folks make casual mistakes and small folks keep fighting on word to word basis.

I think MP was very clear in that vid. No? He said that the IN will fund the project (my understanding: NLCA MK2 to achieve FOC), but the naval MK2 will not be operational.

On "Sea Gripen". Have no idea, outside of SAAB, who is taking it seriously. Aside: have IN even taken a ride in the Gripen?

Steam catapult would be highly unlikely given that the Indian MOD and the Pentagon have been discussing EMALS for nearly 2 years and the US Navy program office has been tasked with assisting the joint working group in doing the analysis and integration discussions. While the CAT or no CAT decision may still be up in the air, I think the size and the preferred CAT solution has been nailed down.

The vid by the SAAB team in ND/B'luru is a great source for data points. They are the ones who spilt the beans on "90 meter EMALS" (which is what they intend designing the Sea Gripen to) (good luck).

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 28 Mar 2017 06:06

Russians built an EMALS prototype and promptly abandoned it as they did not like the idea.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 28 Mar 2017 10:17

NRao wrote:
On "Sea Gripen". Have no idea, outside of SAAB, who is taking it seriously. Aside: have IN even taken a ride in the Gripen.

Yup they have!! AI17 had quite a few naval pilots flying in it in customer evaluation flights..

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Mar 2017 14:21

Sea Gripen remains a fully digital platform. Quite literally in that it exists purely in the digital realm and is likely to remain so indefinitely. Designing a carrier variant, and qualifying one for Catapult launch and arrested recovery is not an easy task and is unlikely to ever be company funded unless there is a major (as in three figure) order.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Mar 2017 19:28

brar_w wrote:Sea Gripen remains a fully digital platform. Quite literally in that it exists purely in the digital realm and is likely to remain so indefinitely. Designing a carrier variant, and qualifying one for Catapult launch and arrested recovery is not an easy task and is unlikely to ever be company funded unless there is a major (as in three figure) order.

Their claim. Rather impressive. SAAB does have a long history in such matters and have done a very good job at that. So, push comes to shve I would not discount them. But, point taken. IN and Brazilian Navy may/would need to fund such a plane.

Also, Brazil seems to be on their radar too, along with the IN. However, where are they going to get a carrier to test their ware on? Dunno.

Bala Vignesh wrote:
NRao wrote:
On "Sea Gripen". Have no idea, outside of SAAB, who is taking it seriously. Aside: have IN even taken a ride in the Gripen.
Yup they have!! AI17 had quite a few naval pilots flying in it in customer evaluation flights..

Thanks.