LCA News and Discussions

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 07 Jul 2010 00:13

Naval LCA has canards.

aditya.agd · Post by **aditya.agd** » 07 Jul 2010 00:17

This is a beautiful plane ... I just wish that Indians should rely more on indigenous planes like LCA and MCA come whatever may .

If we aspire to be a world power we must fight with our own weapons. We should not be dependent on external supplies during war time.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 07 Jul 2010 00:20

Kartik,

I thought Naval-fighters need to be read to fly-away if they cannot get the arrest-hook. Is dumping fuel a wise idea?

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 07 Jul 2010 00:22

sanjaykumar wrote:Naval LCA has canards.

I don't think so.. To my untrained eyes, those are more of Leading Edge Vortex Controller (LEVCON's) used in aiding reduction in approach speed for Carrier Landing by the Flight Control system

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jul 2010 00:36

RamaY wrote:Kartik,

I thought Naval-fighters need to be read to fly-away if they cannot get the arrest-hook. Is dumping fuel a wise idea?

dumping fuel is a necessary design feature of all carrier borne fighters. dumping does not mean it dumps every last drop of fuel on-board

, just enough to bring the total weight within designed bring back weight. even after dumping it will have more than enough fuel for quite a few passes.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 07 Jul 2010 00:45

sanjaykumar wrote:Naval LCA has canards.

Those aren't canards- they're LEVCONS (Leading Edge Vortex Controllers). The purpose is to allow for more controllability at high AoA and low speeds, which is especially crucial for the N-LCA especially since it needs to have even lower landing speed than the IAF version.

sawant · Post by **sawant** » 07 Jul 2010 01:10

putnanja wrote:Is the LCA-N unveiled today a 2-seater? Look at this photo from http://livefist.blogspot.com . Click on it for the larger res image. I thought they would have a single-seater LCA-N first!

That's the trainer version... at least that's what it says on the top of the shed from where the NLCA is shown ...

HariC · Post by **HariC** » 07 Jul 2010 01:34

excellent pics.

so i assume the navy hates the name "Tejas".. (because LCA is painted where Tejas should be)

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 07 Jul 2010 01:36

Wasn't there some speculation of the two-seat version being longer than standard LCA ? The official press-release posted by CJ gives the length as same of the std LCA (ie 13.4 m). Assuming it is true, then 2-seat version should carry less fuel compared to single-seater although it is only a trainer.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 07 Jul 2010 01:52

The Rafale Marine is delta winged.
Even though the super etendard was not. One can clearly see the french influences in the way India is pursuing the LCA program.

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 07 Jul 2010 02:19

Newbee question :--
Please refer the 2nd picture (NLCA with defense minister).
There couple of white squarish stuff that are present between the nose cone and start of the canopy.
Also there is another squarish cover just left to the white square stuff.

what are these stuff ?

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 07 Jul 2010 02:27

I think that for a fighter plane (atleast for a naval one), the canopy should be opened vertically backwards (similar to F-16, Su-30 etc) rather than sideways Tejas, HJT Sitara..

This way the pilot has more options to move into and move out of the cockpit.
Most of the naval fighters like Su-33,Mig-29K,Super Hornet have the vertical backward open canopies, Sea harrier as the backward slider canopy whereas Rafale and Tejas have side opened canopy.

Please correct if I am wrong ..

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Jul 2010 02:31

Such a beautiful bird! Really mesmerising. I can't concentrate on my work. I keep returning to watch it again and again. Something about those curves .... Don't know why the IAF trainer didn't as appealing

. Can't quite wait for the NP-1. It will be a really good looking, the best in my eyes amongst fighters of recent times.

But still no sign of the IFR probe! Isn't it part of IOC? LCA was supposed to have a non retractable IFR probe. Does anybody know if LSP-5/7/8 will have an IFR probe?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 07 Jul 2010 02:47

Avinandan wrote:Newbee question :--
Please refer the 2nd picture (NLCA with defense minister).
There couple of white squarish stuff that are present between the nose cone and start of the canopy.
Also there is another squarish cover just left to the white square stuff.

what are these stuff ?

The ones in white are IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) antennae.

naird · Post by **naird** » 07 Jul 2010 03:05

I dont see any aux intakes like LCA -- did they increase the size of air intakes (not likely) or does LERX has something to do with it ?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 07 Jul 2010 03:20

Light Combat Aircraft for Navy to fly this year

...
The first prototype, a trainer called NP1, will fly in October followed by the fighter version, NP2, the Defence Minister, Mr A.K. Antony, announced as the fully assembled aircraft was rolled out of the hangar.
...
...
The IAC-1 and the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya (Admiral Gorshkov), which are being acquired from Russia, are meant to complement this power.

Mr Antony said these ships should be in possession by 2011. A pan-India network of radars, including 46 along the coast, would ensure security when in place.
...
...
The ADA Director, Dr P.S. Subrahmanyam, said the re-jig for the Navy was challenging. The aircraft still needs to shed 400 kg and the landing gear has to be perfected.

The ship-borne aircraft has to take off within 200 metres against Air Force version's 800 metres; and land within 90 metres, a tenth of land-based landing length.

The high strength steel had to be sourced specially from Midhani (Defence PSU Mishra Dhatu Nigam).

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 07 Jul 2010 03:35

This is just my impression but aesthetically speaking, the N-LCA is much much better looking to the eye or maybe its just this "showroom" model. But so far, I think compared to all the earlier images of LCA I have seen, this one seems to have smoother lines and is much better proportioned . Also, the build quality seems to have gone up! I think the present position of the pilot, the bigger nose and the LEVCONS should be incorporated into the Mark-2 variant of the LCA for the IAF as well.

Well, one thing is for sure, ADA is definitely learning, slowly but steadily.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jul 2010 04:23

Well Philip, any aircraft will have a max landing weight and it's maximum bring back load will depend on that. It doesn't matter it is an AF version or a Navy version. For eg, a Jaguar IM will not dump a Sea Eagle missile while landing, or for that matter a Mirage 2000 will not dump it's 500kg LGB loads just to land. In such cases, they will make sure that the fuel is used up /dumped so that they come within the bring back load the undercarriage is designed for.

Vina,

Are you dead sure about that? My recollection is that all naval planes are not allowed to land with any ordnance - to ensure that an accident upon landing does not threaten the carrier itself.

I have to assume that the naval planes carry dummy or eject-able ordnance. Live ordnance is either used up (practice) or dumped (irrespective of cost - the cost of a threat to the mother ship is far greater than that of the ordnance).

?????????

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 07 Jul 2010 04:25

NRao wrote: Vina,

Are you dead sure about that? My recollection is that all naval planes are not allowed to land with any ordnance - to ensure that an accident upon landing does not threaten the carrier itself.

I don't think Boeing would be harping about the Super Horny's greater "bringback" ability if that was the case.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 07 Jul 2010 04:33

Some additional HIGH RES Pics....
LCA-NAVY 1
LCA-NAVY 2
LCA-NAVY 3

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jul 2010 05:34

nachiket wrote:
NRao wrote: Vina,

Are you dead sure about that? My recollection is that all naval planes are not allowed to land with any ordnance - to ensure that an accident upon landing does not threaten the carrier itself.

I don't think Boeing would be harping about the Super Horny's greater "bringback" ability if that was the case.

Ah. Thanks.

I guess "my recollection" has redefined the word "ancient"!!

steve · Post by **steve** » 07 Jul 2010 06:18

Brando wrote:This is just my impression but aesthetically speaking, the N-LCA is much much better looking to the eye or maybe its just this "showroom" model. But so far, I think compared to all the earlier images of LCA I have seen, this one seems to have smoother lines and is much better proportioned . Also, the build quality seems to have gone up! I think the present position of the pilot, the bigger nose and the LEVCONS should be incorporated into the Mark-2 variant of the LCA for the IAF as well.

Well, one thing is for sure, ADA is definitely learning, slowly but steadily.

Brando..........you hit the nail.

That is exatly the way I felt too. The movement I saw LCA Navy version NP 1, it looked far better than that of LCA airforce version. The finishing is many times better than the LCA AirForce version and as you say it has ".....smoother lines and is better proportioned.....".

Yes the manufacturing quality seems to have certainly gone up several times.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 07 Jul 2010 06:34

So the N-LCA has new slightly bulging fairings below the fuselage to fit in the larger main landing gear..someone here wrote that it didn't have any main landing gear doors..the reason it seems that way is that they're in the closed position on the ground. They seem like they'll open when the gear is retracted

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 07 Jul 2010 07:06

Second squadron (20nos) of ‘Tejas’ fighter jet ordered by IAF

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has won the approval to buy 20 additional Tejas fighter jets, the home-grown light combat aircraft to be built by military plane maker Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), defence minister A.K. Antony said on Tuesday.

The defence acquisition council has cleared the plan, he said. So far, IAF has ordered 28 Tejas aircraft, currently under development at the Aeronautical development Agency (ADA), the design agency for the aircraft.

http://idrw.org/?p=2283

So final Tejas MK-1 order has been placed by IAF , now the wait is for Tejas Mk-2 roll out in another 3 years perhaps

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jul 2010 07:29

Well ............................. The Naval LCA is no small achievement I would think. It is a redesigned machine, no small feat - granted it has some ways to go. The issue with the Mk-II would be the engine more than anything else. And, if the engine takes 1-2 years, then the Mk-II could easily take 2-3 years. I am not sure if any other component (radar?) needs to bake more than the engine.

I would like the AMCA to make a statement. And, I am inclined to think it will.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 07 Jul 2010 07:33

Kartik wrote:Chacko, even casually speaking, the SHar and the N-LCA share almost no similarity looks wise except maybe for similar physical dimensions of length. the wing planform, the huge "elephant ears" intakes on the SHar are very different from the small under-wing shielded intakes on the N-LCA.

I shouldn't have said that aloud.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 07 Jul 2010 09:08

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/07/ ... ombat.html

L to R: Ashok Nayak, CMD HAL; RK Singh, Secy Def Production; Adm Nirmal Verma, CNS; AK Antony, Defence Minister; VK Saraswat, MD DRDO; Dr Prahlada, CC DRDO; PS Subramaniam, Director ADA Rocky Balboa atop the Naval LCA

Indeed, he deserves that accolade...

Congratulating the stakeholders in the development of the first indigenously developed carrier-bone Naval Trainer Aircraft, Shri Antony described today’s development as a ‘defining and memorable event’ for the nation. He said the prophets of doom have been silenced by a series of major breakthroughs of DRDO-led projects in recent times. He gave the examples of MBT Arjun, LCA and Akash missiles, which are now being adopted by the Forces. Shri Antony said the goal of self-reliance can be achieved by developing synergy among the scientists, the Forces and the public and private sectors.

It looks like a policy statement and indeed a welcoming statement as self-reliance cannot be achieved by developement agency alone and it needs the support of 'the Forces'

The LCA (Navy) will form the air element of the Indian Navy. Its primary role will be that of air defence and will provide a formidable platform with a higher thrust engine and an optimised mass for suitable replacement to the ageing Sea Harriers at a later date.

Did anyone miss that implied meaning...thats what our good friend Chacko hinting from beginning, i guess.

I mean ...can the LCA operate from the exisiting Aircraft Carrier, Viraat ?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 07 Jul 2010 09:19

Kanson wrote:
The LCA (Navy) will form the air element of the Indian Navy. Its primary role will be that of air defence and will provide a formidable platform with a higher thrust engine and an optimised mass for suitable replacement to the ageing Sea Harriers at a later date.
Did anyone miss that implied meaning...thats what our good friend Chacko hinting from beginning, i guess.
I mean ...can the LCA operate from the exisiting Aircraft Carrier, Viraat ?

Not just that. A regular reader of FI, a French Journalist had this to say

This is going to be what the British navy needs. Even if India was able to lease such aircraft to British for 5 or 10 years it would be a delightful signpost for Indian progress in the air.

Its not just me saying that.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 07 Jul 2010 09:30

chackojoseph wrote: Not just that. A regular reader of FI, a French Journalist had this to say
This is going to be what the British navy needs. Even if India was able to lease such aircraft to British for 5 or 10 years it would be a delightful signpost for Indian progress in the air.
Its not just me saying that.

Thanks for the tip Chacko ji...wonderful news...but it has to wait for the new engine and further weight rationalization, i guess. I know you are a trove of such info & tidbits..pls share if anything you like to add..

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jul 2010 09:42

a lot of forces like sher khan will be working hard to put roadblocks on this new project imo. nobody wants to see a new oceanic power arise with long range projection capability which NCLA + 50,000t CVs will provide.

negi · Post by **negi** » 07 Jul 2010 09:52

I do not think replacement of SHar implies ability to operate from INS Viraat , the ship is already long in tooth and modifying the ski jump and re-engineering for arrested recovery apparatus is simply humongous. In fact given the dimensions of Viraat and limited real estate both on and under the deck I wonder if it is even feasible.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jul 2010 10:05

While the N-LCA is better choice for small and medium size carrier like IAC and most importantly is good our aviation industry .
The Brits will end up Navalising the Typhoon if required it can offer far greater persistence/range , weapons payload/avionics and reliability of twin engine for Naval operation.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 07 Jul 2010 10:15

I would be wonderful if the AMCA gets approval with a naval version

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jul 2010 10:27

Kakarat wrote:I would be wonderful if the AMCA gets approval with a naval version

I seriously think that is the navy's line of thinking. NLCA is a stepping stone to that.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jul 2010 10:50

>> The Brits will end up Navalising the Typhoon if required

the brits have invested money (and RR got the engine deal) for VSTOL JSF. nobody has the money to navalize typhoon esp as UK is the only country going fwd with a carrier or two big enough to field the naval typhoon. italy and uk will run with jsf. france has the rafale. germany has no carrier plans.

we should worry about our own need which is quite huge with 3 carriers x 50000t needed each with a airwing of 50 planes.

we need to have carrier borne fighter wings that can take on land based chinese flankers and J11 and win.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Jul 2010 10:59

One must admit that the naval LCA aesthetically is a real beaut! One reason for this is that the cockpit looks more streamlined,being longer for the trainer version and is also positioned a little higher.If one looks at the JSF cockpit,it resembles the Harrier's cockpit very much,the higher position so that the pilot can get a better forward view when landing on deck.I only wish that a twin-engined version is also developed once Mk-1 is indcuted into service,as it would be perfect for carrier ops,the second engine preferable in the event of one failing and the aircraft being lost at sea.The speed with which the naval version has been developed/rolled out contrats with the protracted devlopment of the Tejas,and should be a spur to getting Mk-1 into active service asap.There was also a mention in AWST about a UCAV version of the LCA being thought about as far back as 2008 (which some of us suggested to take advantage of LCA tech developed),but no news of any work on this has been forthcoming.

PS:If there is any life left in the Viraat afte the Vik and IAC-1 are inducted ,the best use for the vessel would be as an ASW carrier or command ship assisting amphib ops,for which it has been used for in the past,Falklands War,etc.The ship is so historic that when it is finally retired from service I'm sure that if the IN/GOI does not want to retain it,the Brits will want it back for a museum.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Jul 2010 11:07

naird wrote:I dont see any aux intakes like LCA -- did they increase the size of air intakes (not likely) or does LERX has something to do with it ?

I don't know any reason why the LEVCONs should affect the air intake! The utility of the auxiliary intakes was a debatable item even within the HAL designers, especially for sustained turns. However for take-offs etc it made a change.

If LSP-5 incorporates the same intake as NP-1, it would really mean a lot. I say so because I feel that they might have taken the LSPs through high AoA tests to realize/corroborate what they have been telling the IAF for a long time, the present air intakes are adequate. But then I might be reading too much into it.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 07 Jul 2010 11:17

negi wrote:I do not think replacement of SHar implies ability to operate from INS Viraat , the ship is already long in tooth and modifying the ski jump and re-engineering for arrested recovery apparatus is simply humongous. In fact given the dimensions of Viraat and limited real estate both on and under the deck I wonder if it is even feasible.

Hopefully IN buys more SHAR's. If not, they have to run it empty, discard or redeck.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 07 Jul 2010 11:20

Kanson wrote:Thanks for the tip Chacko ji...wonderful news...but it has to wait for the new engine and further weight rationalization, i guess. I know you are a trove of such info & tidbits..pls share if anything you like to add..

I didn't imply that Brits will buy it. We can only hope it happens. Its lot cheaper to scramble LCA N than turn on the F-135 fans. They can keep F-35 for different threats.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 07 Jul 2010 11:22

LCA & Harrier, both have similar dimensions though span and height are bit higher. I guess, it can be accomodated in the same hangar & lift as the one with Harrier and both are having similar payload. Take off for the LCA could be bit long but can be operated from Viraat. So the point is if there is delay from Groky and IN intended to keep the Viraat longer than planned, LCA can be operated from Viraat as Harrier is in depleted strength. What is the current Harrier strength, 7 or 6 ?