Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
souravB
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby souravB » 12 Jun 2019 16:31

^^Arrestor gears on Amphibs will take up valuable space and to counter that size would increase. That increases the cost. And ultimately it will be a Amphib which can neither carry significant number of air assets nor significant number of soldiers.
Although Tejas on an Amphib is an interesting idea, even I have thought something along the lines but would be interesting to see what IN thinks.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4076
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby JayS » 12 Jun 2019 16:39

Please no discussions on impractical ideas like flying NLCA from Amphibs here. Use Newbie thread for such discussion or Design you own Aircraft thread.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby brar_w » 12 Jun 2019 19:58

JayS wrote:Please no discussions on impractical ideas like flying NLCA from Amphibs here. Use Newbie thread for such discussion or Design you own Aircraft thread.


Thanks for the sanity check :). NLCA off of yet to be designed Ambhibs sounds like a seriously bad idea. MK2 based Naval Tejas off of a CATOBAR may work best given it could take off with plenty of external fuel.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 12 Jun 2019 21:00

+1. I would add wing folding to the list.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2926
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby fanne » 13 Jun 2019 04:39

For IAF, NLCA is an absolute investment, even if the current format is not optimal. The next generation, or one after that will see mass production (mainly because we may not have much alternatives, plus our own plane will be good).

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52583
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby ramana » 13 Jun 2019 06:15

MeshaVishwas wrote:MOD NOTE: Please place your comments, link of article, etc at the *TOP* of your post. Please see below.

=====================

Good Report.

Landing Tejas Jet On An Aircraft Carrier: Small Team Fights Big Deadline-Vishnu NDTV
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/landing ... ai-rum=off

New Delhi: In six months from now, one of India's most ambitious fighter aircraft development programmes may encounter an existential dilemma.
In December, the Defence Ministry is likely to take a call on whether to shut down or continue investing in the project to develop an aircraft carrier-based variant of the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft Tejas.

The government, which has already committed Rs 3,500 crore to develop the fighter, needs a straight answer. Will the prototypes of the Tejas-N (Naval), now being tested, eventually result in a multi-role carrier-borne fighter good enough to hold its own against emerging threats in the Indian Ocean region? And can advanced variants of the prototypes, called the LCA-N Mk-2, be developed, manufactured and deployed within a finite period of five to seven years?

{Looks like the MoD has chosen to do a power play on the two new minsters by setting deadlines. Basically they say 1) having spent 3500 crores (~$500M) what does DRDO have to show? Next 20 they want to know if these prototypes will lead to a multi-role carrier borne fighter plane against emerging threats in Indian Ocean? Next 3)they want to know if NLCA Mk2 will be developed in five to 7 years later? Look at this idiotic question. They want a new generation aircraft to follow within in 7 years of first version!!! Which naval force does such a replacement before its time?}



Left with no choice but to speed up their development programme, a small core team of pilots, engineers and design-team members from the Indian Navy, the Aeronautical Design Agency (ADA) and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is fighting against time to clear key development goals - the biggest one, at the moment, is to ensure that the 10.5-tonne fighter, flying at a speed of just under 260 kms (140 knots), can approach a shore-based replica of the deck of an aircraft carrier, descend rapidly, land, snare an arresting wire on the runway with a hook mounted in its fuselage and come to a violent halt in just 130 metres. That's what it takes to make an 'arrested landing' on the deck of an aircraft carrier, a feat achieved by a handful of fighter jets developed in the US, Russia, the UK, France and, more recently, China.

Achieving this successfully, over and over again at the Shore Based Test Facility in Goa, will validate one of the most important design features on the LCA-N - its ability to handle the incredible stresses of making an 'arrested landing' on the deck of an aircraft carrier. It is only once the shore tests are successful that naval test pilots leading the development effort on the LCA-N prototypes can graduate to the next step - making an actual landing on India's only operational aircraft carrier, INS Vikramaditya.

Key members of the LCA-N development team whom NDTV has spoken to say they have flown 60 sorties in approximately the last one month at the Goa test facility and are ready to commence the key landing trials once monsoon is over. To eventually make an approach onto the deck of INS Vikramaditya, LCA-N engineers and pilots need to be confident that the fighter can slam down onto the deck of a carrier at a 'sink rate' (rate of descent) of approximately 7.5 metres per second (1,500 feet per minute) without being damaged. Though they may not test the fighter to this limit immediately, they need to successfully prove that they can land with a sink rate of 5.6 metres per second to be qualified for carrier trials. At the moment, the jet has been tested with a sink rate of 5.1 metres per second. Engineers and pilots in the project are certain that they are on track to meet their landing certification target.

{So once they clear the arrested landing on the shore facility they have resonable chance to be ready for a carrier landing at 5.6m/s and gradually increase the velocity to 7.5m/sec. At 10.6 tonne this 2m/sec is quite a lot of energy to be absorbed by the landing gear and the hook and then the fuselage.}


Assuming, the LCA-N is qualified to make an approach onto the deck of the INS Vikramaditya, there are still two key hurdles that need to be overcome. Test pilots operating the fighter will need to experience, first hand, the impact of displaced air over the deck of the aircraft carrier moments before it touches down. For a safe arrested landing, the LCA-N will need to hold a near-constant air speed of between 240-260 km (130-140 knots) as it makes its final approach, something which can easily be impacted by variable wind conditions over the deck of the ship. To experience these conditions, test pilots will perform several touch-and- goes on the deck of the Vikramaditya, where they land on the ship but immediately take off without coming to a full stop. A full-fledged arrested landing on the aircraft carrier will only happen once test pilots are certain of the stability of the fighter in making its landing approach and their ability to hold a constant speed as they come in to land.

{JayS this explains all those videos you were tweeting of the touch and go landings on the shore facility.}


There is another, major technical concern which could impact the development of the LCA-N. The arrestor gear on INS Vikramaditya, the mechanical system used to rapidly slow down an aircraft as it lands, has key design differences from the gear installed at the Shore Based Test Facility where the LCA-N is now being tested. Key members of the LCA-N project team are hopeful that this does not impact the project but they will not be certain until they actually land on the ship.

Why was this happened? No co-ordination between the shore facility design and the carrier landing arrestor gear? Were those in charge IN officers or somebody else?}

Finally, the biggest X factor of them all - what a key member of the Tejas-N team describes as the "Acquisition versus Development debate." Though the Navy continues to back the LCA-N project for now, it is also keen to procure 57 fully developed fighters from the US or France and is looking closely at the Boeing F/A-18 E/F 'Hornet' and the Dassault Rafale-M, both of which are tried and tested fighters used extensively in combat. The key question - Will funds be available for both a Tejas-N acquisition and the acquisition of a Western ship-borne fighter?

{They key member should not be distracted as that not his problem. He should worry about the upcoming milestones only. As for the other two a/c those are to fulfill IN requirements. And its for the admirals to worry about if those can even fit the carrier lifts on Vikramaditya and the IAC. The team has not answered the two other questions on will this prototype lead to a multi-role fighter and can a follow on be developed in 5-7 years?

Coming back to the Rs 3500 crores spent on NLCA. When you take a shore based aircraft and seek to deploy on an aircraft carrier you essentially redesign it. You need to structurally modify it for new loads and since LCA is unstable you need to also change the FCS and add the aero-controls. So for $500M Indian got a new design aircraft which is a great bargain by any means. Those pushing those unrealistic goals should be ashamed of it. They suffer from Parkinson Second law of Triviality. They understand 3500 crores but not 1 lakh crores. So will balk at the small number and agree to the larger number!
When Robert McNamara decreed the USN will use the USAF developed F-4 Phantom, they had to re-design the whole aircraft and it cost much more than what DRDO is getting.



Members of the Team Tejas-N told NDTV they are often asked, "Why do you need to rebuild something that has been built?" The answer to this basic question may go a long way in determining the government's commitment to Make in India, its flagship defence production model besides providing a future to India's most challenging and promising fighter aircraft project currently under development.


Vidur if you are reading this socialize among your friends.

NLCA and Mk2 will be the future of the IN naval aviation.
Better to invest than go buy junk.

Technology
F-18 is a 1970s plane with lipstick on it.
its the loser of the F-16 light weight fighter and was called F-17.
The USN decided they will take it and navalize it. And became the F-18.

Costs

With great difficulty the IAF was able to get 36 Rafale for a ton of money.
Do you think India can afford to spend money for 57 Rafale with the bad economic news coming around?
And the emphasis is on jobs in India not to keep foreign factories humming.

General comment
Anyway how did IN come up with 57 aircraft?
Cant find any rationale.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 1340
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby yensoy » 13 Jun 2019 08:08

3 carriers
1 squadron (16) per carrier
2 trainers per squadron
1 spare per squadron
16+2+1 = 19
19 x 3 = 57

uskumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 88
Joined: 24 Aug 2009 23:41

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby uskumar » 13 Jun 2019 08:20

Sir,
how many carriers does Navy actually have and why are we not considering MIG 29N in this calculation.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 1340
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby yensoy » 13 Jun 2019 08:41

Each carrier will have about 2 squadrons of fighter aircraft (plus some ELINT, helos, UAVs). Presumably second squadron will be Naval Tejas/Mig-29K.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4118
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby srai » 13 Jun 2019 08:55

yensoy wrote:3 carriers
1 squadron (16) per carrier
2 trainers per squadron
1 spare per squadron
16+2+1 = 19
19 x 3 = 57


There are only 2 squadrons for 45 MiG-29K/KU in the IN. Some twin-seaters may get allocated to the training squadrons as well. Fleet-wide reserves may be assigned more airframes too.

Article below gives an idea of how many airframes will be in fleetwide “reserves” undergoing overhaul (or waiting for one). (b) &(c) below would be in that bucket while (a) would be at squadron level. A typical squadron has 2 combat flights (each with 6 aircraft) and 1 technical support flight (will be in possession of 4 extra airframes undergoing first-line/second-line inspection/maintenance).
...
According to figures presented in those meeting (a) 20 per cent of the fleet, i.e. some 39 Su-30MKIs, are undergoing “first line” and “second line” maintenance or inspections at any time, which is the IAF’s responsibility; (b) Another 11-12 per cent of the fleet is undergoing major repair and overhaul by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL); and (c) 13-14 per cent of the fleet is grounded, awaiting major systems or repairs --- the technical terms is: “aircraft on ground”.
...

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2014/10/ ... r.html?m=1

Barath
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 39
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Barath » 15 Jun 2019 20:04

ramana wrote:[
Technology
F-18 is a 1970s plane with lipstick on it.
its the loser of the F-16 light weight fighter and was called F-17.
The USN decided they will take it and navalize it. And became the F-18.



Ramana, some corrections to factual inaccuracies.

The current 'F18' aka superhornet is a 2001 plane. Growler is a later variant.

The US Navy pushed not to have a NATF (navalized ATF = F22), and managed to initiate a Stealth A12, "Flying Doritos". It was a disaster of a program, and was cancelled

Since they needed a plane urgently and the US Congress to pay for it, they pushed through a new, low risk, larger superhornet design and pretended it was just an upgrade/evolution of the Hornet, to the point of giving it the same F18 moniker.

The planes even have different names on a carrier. : Rhino vs Bug.

Btw, The F18 was a bit more than a relabeled YF17, though it was definitively a derivative. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/pl ... 145a.shtml

As a newish multi-role it was good enough to replace the F14 of Top Gun fame and a couple of others.

Besides, it's not always the airframe that matters most; it is the avionics, missile etc that drive up the cost and capability,

The F18 SH may not be the fastest/snazziest plane out there , but it is still good , mature technology and effective, with a good radar and missiles, etc.

Re : cost and logic of 57, some similar sentiments to yours

But why not apply that logic also to the number of carriers itself, by extension ?

Surely, if you spend umpteen billions on extra carriers, you want to have it armed commensurately with offensive and defensive arms (aka planes). Disagree or agree, wouldnt that be part of the logic ..

In my experience, there isn't really much justification publicly as to extra carriers or the number and type of new planes on them.

Objecting to one kind of plane misses these larger arguments..

But there's certainly an argument to have a big segment invested in long term growth and evolution of indian fighter aircraft..

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby JTull » 17 Jun 2019 15:31

MeshaVishwas wrote:Landing Tejas Jet On An Aircraft Carrier: Small Team Fights Big Deadline-Vishnu NDTV
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/landing ... ai-rum=off

...they have flown 60 sorties in approximately the last one month at the Goa test facility and are ready to commence the key landing trials once monsoon is over



Code: Select all

No. of flights successfully completed by LCA - Tejas :

4483th flight on 11th Jun
TD1: 233    PV1: 245    PV3: 387    LSP1: 74    LSP3: 451    LSP5: 465
TD2: 305    PV2: 222    PV5: 250    LSP2: 321   LSP4: 450    LSP7: 356
NP1: 78     LSP8: 282   PV6: 231    NP2: 80     SP6:8

4413th flight on 28th Feb
TD1: 233    PV1: 245    PV3: 387    LSP1: 74    LSP3: 488    LSP5: 459
TD2: 305    PV2: 222    PV5: 246    LSP2: 319   LSP4: 422    LSP7: 352
NP1: 74     LSP8: 282   PV6: 219    NP2: 78     SP6:8


Doesn't seem like NP1 has flown 60 sorties since AI-19.

gaurav.p
BRFite
Posts: 225
Joined: 04 May 2018 23:02

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby gaurav.p » 17 Jun 2019 15:48

ironical but LSP3 number of flights have reduced...Somebody blundered in putting the new nos I guess

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7405
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby Indranil » 18 Jun 2019 02:29

Vishnu is right on the 60 sortie part. In fact, if you leave aside the dramatization*, he has got most of it right.

* I don't blame him, 24 hours news channels have to compete with reality TV.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7479
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1/Mk2: News & Discussion - 23 February 2019

Postby brar_w » 18 Jun 2019 10:03

Barath wrote:As a newish multi-role it was good enough to replace the F14 of Top Gun fame and a couple of others.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7625&p=2361750#p2361750


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests