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.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 16 Oct 2019 05:39

No worries. I have added the above on the first page as well. Thanks.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

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

Postby Rahul M » 16 Oct 2019 07:33

Great job guys, waiting for part2 with bated breath.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 16 Oct 2019 13:05

Indranil wrote:Hope you guys like it.

A Detailed Look At The Design Evolution Of India’s Naval-LCA Mk1 Fighter

Warning: Technical details like loss of range by 500% due to Indian design and environmental conditions have been left out. Reader discretion is advised.

You guys have raised the bar for sure! Very well written. IMO, you guys have written the three best articles (LCA, MWF and NLCA) on indigenous platforms by far :!:

One question on this bit, which SPJ?
Integration of the Derby missile beyond visual range air to air missile (BVRAAM) and a self-protection jammer (SPJ pod) were accomplished and the ECFM systems were updated.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1886
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

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

Postby Kakarat » 16 Oct 2019 14:06

I think Indian Navy should order 20-25 trainers & reactivate INAS 552 Training Squadron and use it as carrier capable Lead in Fighter Trainer (LIFT). Indian Navy showing even a intent to buy LCA Trainers than calling it a Technology Demonstrator will be a major moral booster to people behind the project. I suggest INAS 552 because it was our carrier capable trainer squadron with Sea Harriers

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

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

Postby JTull » 16 Oct 2019 15:26

If SPJ is integrated with NLCA then why is it not available with LCA AF Mk1?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7769
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 16 Oct 2019 23:41

Everything on Mk1A will be ported back to Mk1.

An interesting and cool video on LCA official FB page.

https://www.facebook.com/tejas.lca/videos/2772694809409501/?sfnsn=mo&d=n&vh=e

Shows the violent expansion of the oleo just as the plane exits the ramp.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4602
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 17 Oct 2019 05:51

Indranil, JayS, kudos to you guys. What an article!!

I really am hoping to see this in print in a reputed magazine as well.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4602
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 17 Oct 2019 05:53

Indranil wrote:Everything is very fluid on the NLCA front (regarding funding). So, nobody is sure.


Really keeping my fingers crossed although I don't have a very good feeling about it.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3610
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

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

Postby Kashi » 17 Oct 2019 07:23

Kartik wrote:Indranil, JayS, kudos to you guys. What an article!!

I really am hoping to see this in print in a reputed magazine as well.


They should consider Swarajya.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7769
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 17 Oct 2019 09:11

I am happy with DDR. They have my permission to use it wherever.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1886
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

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

Postby Kakarat » 18 Oct 2019 02:57

From LCA Tejas FB

Image

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20533
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 18 Oct 2019 17:27

Kartik wrote:
Indranil wrote:Everything is very fluid on the NLCA front (regarding funding). So, nobody is sure.


Really keeping my fingers crossed although I don't have a very good feeling about it.



Indranil sirji,

you may indeed be right about not having a good feeling.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 18 Oct 2019 22:07

Kartik wrote:Indranil, JayS, kudos to you guys. What an article!!

I really am hoping to see this in print in a reputed magazine as well.


Share it across as much as possible. If it achieves good reach, who cares about a shiny magzine...? But I'll take it as a compliment. :D

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4602
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 18 Oct 2019 23:17

You both should take it as a compliment. I have read umpteen articles written in aerospace magazines and have always felt the big gap in domain and engineering knowledge when it came to articles written by Indians. Most lacked any real depth and only touched the surface. You both have written a series of articles that any aerospace publication would be ready to publish if you approached them.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Cybaru » 18 Oct 2019 23:20

Plus it puts things in perspective, creates solid credibility and your voices will be the ones that are heard louder than all the dalals put together.

dkhare
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 03:30

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

Postby dkhare » 19 Oct 2019 00:25

Indranil & JayS - an excellent article again! This is required reading - provides a good background on the evolution of the NLCA highlighting the differences between the LCA and NLCA while explaining the reasons behind them.

Looking forward to the next one...

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3028
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

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

Postby ArjunPandit » 19 Oct 2019 01:19

JayS wrote:
Kartik wrote:Indranil, JayS, kudos to you guys. What an article!!

I really am hoping to see this in print in a reputed magazine as well.


Share it across as much as possible. If it achieves good reach, who cares about a shiny magzine...? But I'll take it as a compliment. :D

Guys we care..not because you're our own..but because the glossy magazines and the TOIlet style papers create a narrative. Mango people (including those with Aeronautical eng degrees) do not take time to look into details and the narrative gets set. I had hard time in my circle defending tejas but BRF points helped me. People would repeat cliche like "late", "not meeting ASQRs", "Low STR", "low range", "hardly indigeneous" etc. over time through the flag, i was able to convince (or rather they dont counter me.. and just nod). So it is important that your article finds space in Swarajya, or other MSM.
SM might be your fort, but please come down and conquer the low lands

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4225
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Postby Manish_Sharma » 19 Oct 2019 15:12

Straight from Pradhan Sevak:
https://twitter.com/BJP4India/status/11 ... 49280?s=20


BJP
@BJP4India
भारत की शान, लड़ाकू विमान तेजस को पहले की सरकार डिब्बे में बंद करने जा रही थी।

आज वही विमान वायुसेना और नौसेना में सेवा देने के लिए तैयार है: पीएम #BJPWinningHaryana

Translation:
The pride of India, the fighter government Tejas, was going to be canned. Today the same aircraft is ready to serve in the Air Force and Navy: PM #BJPWinningHaryana


I take it as confirmation that navy gets ONLY TEJAS no 57 Rafale or Hornet

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 19 Oct 2019 15:25

^^^
The IN has fairly new 45 MiG-29K for one aircraft carrier. The second carrier will join in 2023. Given one aircraft carrier to be available while the other undergoes routine maintenance/refit, two squadrons of MiG-29Ks are more than sufficient; even for two carriers operational at the same time.

The third carrier is at an early design phase. Not going to be commissioned anytime before 2030.

Don’t see the need to acquire 57 Rafale or F-18E/F for a carrier that is more than a decade from realization.

Plenty of time and opportunity for NLCA Mk1 and Mk2 to make inroads by then and it will be followed by N-AMCA.

If there is an urgency in procuring more naval fighters over the next five years, it would be more economical to buy 10 more MiG-29K to top up its existing squadrons.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18656
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 19 Oct 2019 15:57

The MiG-29K is insufficiently navalized. Every time it lands, more issues crop up.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3610
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

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

Postby Kashi » 19 Oct 2019 17:29

Karan M wrote:The MiG-29K is insufficiently navalized. Every time it lands, more issues crop up.


But haven't some of the posters here been claiming that all the issues with Mig 29K have been sorted out?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20533
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 19 Oct 2019 17:58

Kashi wrote:
Karan M wrote:The MiG-29K is insufficiently navalized. Every time it lands, more issues crop up.


But haven't some of the posters here been claiming that all the issues with Mig 29K have been sorted out?


quite true, Kashi ji.

every time the MiG-29K lands on the deck, they have to sort out the issues all over again.

until the next time she lands again on deck. :)

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 20 Oct 2019 03:34

Too bad for the IN about the MiG-29K issues. They are going to have to live with it for the foreseeable future. No funds to replace them outright. Most of the airframes are less than 8-years old.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2138
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

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

Postby John » 20 Oct 2019 04:11

srai wrote:Too bad for the IN about the MiG-29K issues. They are going to have to live with it for the foreseeable future. No funds to replace them outright. Most of the airframes are less than 8-years old.

As per navy chief Serviceability has improved from 16%-40% to 80% it’s nowhere as bad as before (far better than Chinese flankers which takeoff may be once a week). Some of the people pushing the old serviceability #s are from Rafale lobby or NLCA fans. Not sure what point it serves spewing incorrect figures just promote their own product. Sure it’s not great but that’s what you get operating from a ski jump.

Mig-29k should be replaced not because of serviceability but because it’s simply inferior in terms of avionics and payload operating from “catobar” compared to Rafale, Su-33 , F-18E and perhaps NLCA Mk2.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3097
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 20 Oct 2019 04:34

John wrote:
srai wrote:..

Mig-29k should be replaced not because of serviceability but because it’s simply inferior in terms of avionics and payload operating from “catobar” compared to Rafale, Su-33 , F-18E and perhaps NLCA Mk2.


We only came to know recently that the humped back Mig 29 has ranges (with required load) similar to Rafale (at least 1000 Km, very good for ship based fighter). Avionics is better than any that it will face in combat - TSPN's JF-17 s and Mirage V (perhaps some F-16 if TSP can spare it) and one of the easiest to be upgraded - Perhaps to a future variant of UTTAM and one derived from Tejasmk2.
It's biggest problem remains serviceability. If it is doing 80% (in spite of things getting bad while landing), it is a damn good Naval plane. I guess slowly many systems developed for NLCA will go into it, making it a better plane each year. (In has put a new landing aid...the quest continues)

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2138
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

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

Postby John » 20 Oct 2019 06:45

One correction serviceability (in 2018) was 60% not 80% and they are working to get it up to 80%.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 20 Oct 2019 07:13

fanne,

Your post makes John’s comment as mine. Please edit. Thanks

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3610
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

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

Postby Kashi » 20 Oct 2019 08:45

John wrote:
srai wrote:Some of the people pushing the old serviceability #s are from Rafale lobby or NLCA fans. Not sure what point it serves spewing incorrect figures just promote their own product. Sure it’s not great but that’s what you get operating from a ski jump.


What's wrong with being an NLCA fan?

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2138
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

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

Postby John » 20 Oct 2019 09:03

Kashi wrote:
John wrote:


What's wrong with being an NLCA fan?

Nothing wrong but one shouldn’t be bashing other platforms with incorrect data which has already been rebuked by the navy chief.


TSPN's JF-17 s and Mirage V (perhaps some F-16 if TSP can spare it) and one of the easiest to be upgraded - Perhaps to a future variant of UTTAM and one derived from Tejasmk2.


In that case just as well operate SHAR. Sarcasm aside the main counter is against China not Pakistan which is not going risk it’s ACs in Anti shipping roles. Keep in mind I said catobar we are decade for any carrier with catapults that can provide that capability. By that time the threat faced will be far different and IMO Mig-29k won’t be counter that adequately.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3842
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 20 Oct 2019 22:44

fanne wrote:
John wrote:


We only came to know recently that the humped back Mig 29 has ranges (with required load) similar to Rafale (at least 1000 Km, very good for ship based fighter). Avionics is better than any that it will face in combat - TSPN's JF-17 s and Mirage V (perhaps some F-16 if TSP can spare it) and one of the easiest to be upgraded - Perhaps to a future variant of UTTAM and one derived from Tejasmk2.
It's biggest problem remains serviceability. If it is doing 80% (in spite of things getting bad while landing), it is a damn good Naval plane. I guess slowly many systems developed for NLCA will go into it, making it a better plane each year. (In has put a new landing aid...the quest continues)

To add to this - note that the naval fulcrum is a notch above the UPG in terms of airframe, internal fuel, hps and engines. Of course the requirements of stobar ops make it heavier empty but overall, the UPG/SMT is always a little lesser than the K/M models, which are a better airframe from scratch.

It did have issues but the CNS is on record that these have been fixed. The uptimes are significantly better now.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7769
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 21 Oct 2019 01:19

CM sahab,

How have these been fixed. Structural weakness for deck landing stands as is. What they have "fixed" is how quickly they can diagnose the aircraft after landing. Another thing that they have fixed is the line up of spares. Mig29k is not sufficiently ruggedized and nobody is working to fix it. There is no money and no political will.

It may appear that I am speaking through both ends of my mouth, extolling the virtues of Mig29k on one thread and disparaging it on another. But actually, I am trying to fight misinformation on both fronts. I must say, on either side the misinformation is ludicrous.

Rafale is made to look like a Godsend of engineering, which it is not. The laws of physics stay the same for the Mig29k and Rafale. When either of them is in the air, the Mig29k is as good as the Rafale in most respects. If there is sufficient will, Mig29ks shortfalls can be engineered away in 10 years. But it is not glossy. It makes no money or headlines. And no political party is a saint. Every party puts party first, country second except for the Vajpayee govt. which was a class of its own.

And I don't buy the great advantage that Rafale has in avionics crap. People do not realize that the generational lifetime of airframes is about 30 years. The generational lifetime of avionics is less than 10 years. The Russians, Indians and Israelis were behind on avionics by two generations or so at the turn of the century. But they have been hard at work while the French have been going more slowly. I can tell with some degree of confidence that what is marketed as great advantages in aircraft avionics today is well within the grasp of Indians and Israelis and even Russians today.

I want to finish the write up on NLCA. In that I want to speak about the automation in the flight computers. It's handsoff for takeoff, control of only one parameter by pilot during landing, auto recoveries from low height, low speed, you name it. For cockpit displays, they have all the information. From specification of any display layout to its testing is about a year. Certification is within another year. And I am not speaking of MWF/Mk2. I am speaking of Mk1 and Mk1A. Also HAL has many vices, but it is a champion systems integrator now. Look at the upgrades it is doing for Mig27, Darin III, LCA Mk1A and Su-30. Nothing to scoff at! FRom radars, EW suites, jammers, cockpits, WVR and BVR missiles. So when people extort the virtues of Rafale vis-a-vis avionics take it with a pinch of (gora-sahib) salt.

India doesn't know how to build stealth airframes, forget how to mass produce it. But, neither does FRance. US (specifically LM) is the only one who have demonstrated this capability. Russia and China are catching up. We are an absolute novice. I like how the South Koreans are going about it. They are first building a plane which is not truly 5th generation, but has most of the ingredients. I believe we should go the same way by making the MRCA and AMCA as a two step process. Manufacturing the MMRCA should give us the integration and production technology.

So, I will cancel the MMRCA program today. I will sit down today with Mig and say "Look, you virtually have no buyers for the Mig-35. We don't like it either in the current form. We are going to buy the design license from you. We are going to improve it. You can be a collaborator if you like or just less us the license and blueprints. How much will it take? " Back in India, the Airforce should come up with a plan to make the Mig35 a true 4++ aircraft. They manage the program, identify the shortfalls, and come up with the SQRs with respect to radar, weapons, avionics and manufacturing standards. The same players that will manufacture the Mk1A, will manufacture the Mig-35 MKI. I will guarantee you that this project will take less time and money than another non-ending competition MMRCA competition which is either dissolved or results in the procurement of more RAfales (at unit prices larger than the F-35) 7 years from today (with deliveries starting 3 years from then on).

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby JayS » 22 Oct 2019 01:24

The MiG-29 fanboys (me included), like it or not MiG29K is a half baked product. Period. Band aid solution will not solve the key design issues. It was sold to us without proper Navalisation. If MiG29K as so good and all its problems solved now, why at all IN is asking for another Fighter now..??? It's far easier to repeat the order in DPP than start a new competitive bid from scratch. The delays are so much that the opportunity cost compensates for some operational shortcomings if any. And if one wants to argue that IN wants CATOBAR AC and hence demand for CATOBAR Fighter, then please keep in mind that there is nothing stoping us from making a larger, even N-powered STOBAR for MiG-29K which will have equal effectiveness in Air power deployment. If MiG-29K was fundamentally good in every respect, it would be a colossal level of stpidity to go for a CATOBAR AC and then a new Jet to suit it, rather than just building a big STOBAR carrier for more MiG-29K. We can even have a N-powered larger STOBAR AC with double the number of Aircrafts on it and very high endurance. Plus the MiG-29K would be able to operate with more weight from larger STOBAR AC. So fundamentally there is nothing that should stop us from going for a 65000 or even 100000T STOBAR ship with lots of MiG-29K. Its technologically, cost wise and delay wise much lower risk solution.

The only advantage with CATOBAR is it could deploy aircrafts like Hawkeye. But with a larger STOBAR boat and longer take off roll perhaps we could deploy similar aircraft or go with a MiG-29K based mini-AWACS version (a la Growler) or fill the capability gap using shore-based large AWACS. Given we don't have immediate global ambitions, there are options to cater for this kind of capability in IOR region with bases like A&N and large range/endurance or bigger land-based AWACS.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

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

Postby JTull » 22 Oct 2019 22:46

JayS wrote:The MiG-29 fanboys (me included), like it or not MiG29K is a half baked product. Period. Band aid solution will not solve the key design issues. It was sold to us without proper Navalisation. If MiG29K as so good and all its problems solved now, why at all IN is asking for another Fighter now..??? It's far easier to repeat the order in DPP than start a new competitive bid from scratch. The delays are so much that the opportunity cost compensates for some operational shortcomings if any. And if one wants to argue that IN wants CATOBAR AC and hence demand for CATOBAR Fighter, then please keep in mind that there is nothing stoping us from making a larger, even N-powered STOBAR for MiG-29K which will have equal effectiveness in Air power deployment. If MiG-29K was fundamentally good in every respect, it would be a colossal level of stpidity to go for a CATOBAR AC and then a new Jet to suit it, rather than just building a big STOBAR carrier for more MiG-29K. We can even have a N-powered larger STOBAR AC with double the number of Aircrafts on it and very high endurance. Plus the MiG-29K would be able to operate with more weight from larger STOBAR AC. So fundamentally there is nothing that should stop us from going for a 65000 or even 100000T STOBAR ship with lots of MiG-29K. Its technologically, cost wise and delay wise much lower risk solution.

The only advantage with CATOBAR is it could deploy aircrafts like Hawkeye. But with a larger STOBAR boat and longer take off roll perhaps we could deploy similar aircraft or go with a MiG-29K based mini-AWACS version (a la Growler) or fill the capability gap using shore-based large AWACS. Given we don't have immediate global ambitions, there are options to cater for this kind of capability in IOR region with bases like A&N and large range/endurance or bigger land-based AWACS.


Nicely put!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 23 Oct 2019 07:12

The IN is " obsessed" with lust for a 3rd. carrier to the utter detriment of the sub fleet, mine countermeasures, maritime strike bombers, etc. Considering the time to be taken to build a larger carrier- around 15 years, what is the rationale for acquiring 50+ naval fighters of the 4th. gen. on steroids for a carrier that will only appear around 2035 when 5th.- gen. birds will be already a decade+ old. And the aircraft being looked at cannot serve aboard either the VikA or the Vikrant-2 because of their size! Boeing is trying to design a rig I'm told, that tilts the aircraft on the lifts! Still unborn. Imagine trying to move aircraft in rough weather or in haste .One former chief, an aviator to boot was sceptical of this, the extra aircraft when asked. When the defence budget is so tight that the IAF can't even pay HAL thousands of crores and that entity is in crisis with an on- going strike that will affect the NLCA development, the navy chief will have to put his hands in his own pockets and find the money for it. Even the 4 amphibs that have been given the green light by the CCS, tenders called, is being sabotaged by the MOD as only L& T are left in the running by the withdrawal of another bidder leading to a so- called single vendor situ, which will restart the entire process again adding several more years to the delay.Ridiculous! This is absolute crap, no way for any MOD to behave .L& T were on the verge of the award a year ago. DPSUs sabotaging pvt. industry or what? It's anybody's guess.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2024
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Picklu » 23 Oct 2019 10:15

For all two engine version of naval aircraft fans .... not going to happen any time soon is my take.

Development of a new fighter is a multi-billion dollar proposition with a decade plus involvement of manpower and establishments. Does not make sense for 40-60 odd aircrafts for a capital AND high-tech manpower starved country like India, would be shot down or else even if approved for political-bureaucratic appeasement, would be drip funded.

The development dollars and manpower would be reserved for aircraft that would be procured in 150+ numbers. That means AF versions.

The only way we will have indigenous naval fighters is if it is a modification of AF version, in that development and design also AF will get priority since they are going to procure 150+ of it. That is the reason why AF version will be designed first by optimizing it for land based and high altitude operations and then the naval mods will be tucked in. Naval versions would not be designed first or naval constraints won't be considered first.

If you follow HVT on twitter, you know that namca is nowhere in the scene. And this is the reason.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5556
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

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

Postby vishvak » 23 Oct 2019 20:32

For all two engine version of naval aircraft fans .... not going to happen any time soon is my take.

From what I can remember, naval LCA was designed earlier but due to lack of range etc couldn't make it to production. Just for the record, maybe there are some advantages to have it(dual engine) designed alongwith will have some advantages out of more constraints for naval version.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2024
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Picklu » 25 Oct 2019 19:12

vishvak wrote:
For all two engine version of naval aircraft fans .... not going to happen any time soon is my take.

From what I can remember, naval LCA was designed earlier but due to lack of range etc couldn't make it to production. Just for the record, maybe there are some advantages to have it(dual engine) designed alongwith will have some advantages out of more constraints for naval version.


Naval LCA was designed by modifying IAF LCA version. This lead to a few "inconvenience" like sub-optimal mounting points for landing gear and arrester hook from airframe stress perspective.

This has been documented multiple times.

Expect the same for AMCA.

A naval operating environment puts quite a few design constraint that reduces performance compared to a aircraft designed purely for land based operation. IAF will not accept those constraints for one of their aircraft and since IAF is going to induct the lions share their preference would get precedence.

It simply does not make sense for DRDO/ADA/HAL/MOD to spend a few billion design & development dollar for an aircraft that would be inducted at the most 60 in numbers. Far better to purchase a foreign fighter and mitigate the strategic dependence risk via indigenous nuclear sub

If we have to spend a few billion design and development dollar, the following investments give far more benefit in terms of strategic autonomy
a. Turbofan engine (even a generation below is fine)
b. Semiconductor foundry (even two generations below is fine)

From all news, Kaveri core is fine and only afterburner is the issue

For the life of me, i can not figure out why we are not creating a cargo version of dornier or avro with non after burning kaveri and operationalizing it. In a product development life cycle, nothing gives more value than operationalizing a design, the earlier the better. To hell with fuel economy as long as we establish the credibility. Our PSLV design is not the most optimal either but we did operationalized it and reaped the benefit.

Same goes for putting marine kaveri on a naval vehicle. That mod will be far more strategic than putting dhanush on Sukanya class vessels.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20533
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 25 Oct 2019 20:49

The one size fits all approach of the LCA designers is not going to work.

The engine, airframe and the electrics/avionics has to be marinised to operate reliably and successfully and specifically designed as well as tested for use and long-term survival in the harsh marine environment.

just thumping it down on the deck does not make it a "naval" version.

this road is going to be rather long and arduous.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7769
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

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

Postby Indranil » 25 Oct 2019 21:10

This is unfair Chetakji. Naval LCA is unoptimized because it is over designed. But, it is very rugged.

Just before Dussherra they did the first trap. In the following 10 days, they did 20 sorties within ten days. Sometimes, they did 3 sometimes per day. This can not be done on a plane which is not sufficiently rugged.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3097
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 25 Oct 2019 21:16

Sorry for coming back to Mig 29k (and I am a fanboy for the record - but only of mother India)

- Mig 29 has the range, is advanced to take out any adversary that we may face (TSPAF - P3 Orions, JF-17s, F-16s or Mirage Vs) or PLAN planes (too many to list - there SU- 33 equivalent may have more range than Mig 29, but otherwise similarly matched, there long range bombers and anti Sub and Anti ship planes are essentially converted airliners - turkey shoot for Mig 29). This assessment is not going to change for 1-3 decades, and will only get overwhelmed when PLAN start deploying stealth planes on ship or give to TSP).
-It's avionics/radar etc. will at least go two major upgrades if it serves for another 30 years (and we are reaching quite a cutting edge at that)
-Many subsystems being tested on NLCA are making into Mig 29k to keep it current

Now the bad news -
- It has many niggles, not ruggedized enough Naval use, many subsystems repairing overhauls too soon. Bottom line can the 80% uptime be kept
-Some issues are designed related (like a hard landing impact 'breaks' some sub systems). Few can be taken care of, few may never be able to solve. The one that can be solved, unfortunately, we have to solve it, not the Russians. They have some token 20 planes for RUF (they have su33) and they are not going to invest money in it (in spite of our morale grandstanding). I think how we have solved for now is having a large inventory, a quick inspection after landing and replacing parts quick to maintain 65% uptime. Not a bad strategy, if it gets a 65% uptime (would have been better if these issues did not crop, but this is not a bad way to solve this problem).
-I think we should own the whole plane and upgrade/change where needed (some capital investment have to be done, we have the BRD that did Mig 29 upg, it is doing the last 2 upgrades). If we manage to remove the niggles and have it at a satisfactory level, then go for another 57 Mig 29Ks (with our mode). They will be way much more cheaper than any F-18 or Rafale M and adequate for what our adversaries can put up.

The design of the plane is great. It has not yet crashed at sea (1 accident on ground for IN and 2 with RUNAF). We definitely maintain our plane better than the Russians and also use them harder. It is modern, the only problem is it has lots of maintenance issues. We have operated Russians planes for almost 60 years now, and all of them had nightmarish maintenance, and overtime we have drastically improved the same planes. Same can be done with Mig 29K.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Avinandan and 86 guests