Indian Naval Discussion

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Mar 2010 22:06

I think the N-LCA will see the light of the day and should be pursued even though if it means 1-2 years of delay , when the IAF selects the next gen of engine for Tejas Mk2 the N-Tejas should eventually move to the same engine and other improvement possible ported back to N-LCA from MK2 program ( AESA,Core Avionics,Weapons etc )

It would be foolish for us to loose this opportunity to develop a carrier variant of Tejas after good progress Tejas has made so far. Single engine fighter like French Super Etendard ,Sea Harrier have done quite well , the newer JSF too is single engine fighter, so no reason to doubt single engine cannot do well at sea on Naval Carrier.

The IN should cancel this RFP for another new fighter which is such a colossal waste of money considering that IN budget is so low ( ~ 13% - 18 % ) and it has many other critical platforms shortfall to bother about for e.g depleting conventional submarine force than fund yet another new fighter.

Mig-29K and N-Tejas will be the right choice for the next ~ 15 years till Naval variant of FGFA gets developed.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Mar 2010 22:14

NLCA will be developed to full extent, that is a given. I'm not saying anything about the single engine comment as well, we all know that it is not a problem.
point I'm making is that even if NLCA does not see operational service we will witness the completion of the program and that is a good thing.

about this RFP thing, I must say I'm confused by it as well. may be they just want to know the specs in some detail before designing the NFGFA ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Mar 2010 22:40

Rahul M wrote:point I'm making is that even if NLCA does not see operational service we will witness the completion of the program and that is a good thing.

Hmmm may be its just me , but without having a operational N-Tejas in numbers on IN Carrier why should just completion of test phase should be considered good ?

What good is a fighter if it does not enter operational service specially after completion of expensive and time consuming test flight program ?

BTL we should be happy then that Arjun has proven to be a great tank in all development trials but should be happy to see T-90 in service

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Mar 2010 22:51

too many differences between the two saar ji, if I try to explain it will derail the thread. in case of NLCA/IN, IN is putting its own money in the development which clearly indicates it has a firm future route planned for the NLCA and associated design skills. that is what I'm calling good, not the fact that it may not be (IMHO) in active service. of course I would be happy to be proven wrong.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 11 Mar 2010 23:13

Austin wrote: BTL we should be happy then that Arjun has proven to be a great tank in all development trials but should be happy to see T-90 in service

The difference is that the T-90 is an inferior tank compared to the Arjun and will probably turn out to be a liability in future wars, which is not the case with Mig-29k vs NLCA.
Anyways, IMVHO, the navy needs aircraft which pack a bigger punch payload wise since the number of aircraft it can operate per carrier is limited. The IAF needs large number of light aircraft that are easy and cheap to maintain to replace the Mig-21s. The LCA caters to the IAF's need. What works for the IAF need not necessarily work for the IN. But the experience gained in "navalising" the LCA will benefit ADA and HAL if they have to do the same in the future for the MCA.

kulhari · Post by **kulhari** » 11 Mar 2010 23:18

IN is definitely making right decision in funding of N-LCA. Even if it doesnot see service on Gorki of the IAC. The knowledge expansion (fighter aircraft design and manufacturing base) is badly needed in our Mil-Ind setup. More over they can use it as shore based assets. When placed on AN of LD (if possible) the NLCA would be very useful.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 12 Mar 2010 02:02

The most ideal aircraft for the Navy for carrier borne ops is the Mig-29 K and in the future a N-MCA.

*JSF is gold plated and very expensive. But with a 9% growth rate, and a GOI+MOD+Armed Forces not particularly keen on indigenous tech and mil products this is a possibility.
*PAK-FA is HUGE, too big for INs 40,000 ton carriers.
*For now N-LCA should do for the 40,000 ton carriers.

Ultimately, GoI will have to bite the bullet and set up tech development programs which it is already doing and then force these products down the armed forces throat. Once the armed forces are resigned to the fact that the easy and lucrative import option is not on, they and the state will more enthusiastically embark on improving the quality and the speed of development of indigenous defense products.

Not accepting a domestic product must result in a lot of halla gulla, and some of this will happen once the private players enter enforce into defense production.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 12 Mar 2010 14:32

f 35 was meant to replace harrier jets, if naval-LCA was developed in a VTOL version,it would have replaced sea harrier and would have influenced design of a pair of dedicated aircraft carriers to tackle pakistan and serve in a defensive role

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Mar 2010 14:40

Future IN carriers will be definitely larger than the first IAC design,suitable of carrying he naval PAK-FA/SU-33 sized carrier aircraft.They may even be nuclear powered.The Gorky and first IAC carrier ae only waypoints for the IN's future large carriers most probably nuclear powered and about 60,000t+.When the PLAN are building carriers of that size,the IN cannot have carriers of inferior capability.RN studies showed that only carriers of around 55/60,000t+ were able to operate large naval aircraft,AEW aircraft and large anti-sub helos,absolutely required in view of the growing range and speed of anti-ship missiles like Brahmos and even those fired from subs.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 12 Mar 2010 15:21

Rahul / Austin,

How do you rate the possibility of Navy using NLCA for shore based operations and thus make itself independent from marine duites of jaguar /Mki..

Routine patrolling/Escorts for P 8i, Naval refuelers and AWACS/AEW if any

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 12 Mar 2010 15:29

Philip wrote:Future IN carriers will be definitely larger than the first IAC design,suitable of carrying he naval PAK-FA/SU-33 sized carrier aircraft.They may even be nuclear powered.The Gorky and first IAC carrier ae only waypoints for the IN's future large carriers most probably nuclear powered and about 60,000t+.When the PLAN are building carriers of that size,the IN cannot have carriers of inferior capability.RN studies showed that only carriers of around 55/60,000t+ were able to operate large naval aircraft,AEW aircraft and large anti-sub helos,absolutely required in view of the growing range and speed of anti-ship missiles like Brahmos and even those fired from subs.

But that wont change the fact that we will have at least two(or three) aircraft carriers in 40-45K ton range within 5 yrs,and naval LCA ,if it becomes ready will augment these aircraft carriers to protect themselves as well as shores . NLCA can be made ready by a boost in its development in a couple of yrs time.
If this happens then ,maybe Naval LCA turns out to be a more successful version of LCA than LCAmk2 !!

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 12 Mar 2010 17:38

I believe IN has been much more forward thinking when it comes to the development of NLCA. The addition of levcons as an extra control surface as well as derby as BVR missile was done long back.
FWIW, When I visited the ADA booth at Aerosem-08, I was consistently given the answer that NLCA as well as LCA-mkII will be powered by EJ-200. That along with the anouncement of thrust vectoring EJ-200 for the LCA makes a great deal of sense for NLCA.
All I can understand from that news piece is that NLCA will have a different engine than current LCA period.

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 12 Mar 2010 17:50

x-posting from LCA thread
EJ-200TV on LCA pitch during Aero-India09
Extra control surface added due to Thrust Vectoring Nozzle.

Effect of TVC on take-off distance

Original source-Journal of Aerospace sciences and technology-Vol 61:1, page 230

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 12 Mar 2010 18:36

SNaik,

I missed replying earlier. Doors & hatches in bulkheads separating watertight compartments are different than the one shown here.

The one in the image is a cabin door, and its purpose is privacy. There will be many such cabins within a watertight compartment. However I am sure the bulkheads for the entire compartment will be quite solid.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 12 Mar 2010 19:29

nrshah wrote:Rahul / Austin,

How do you rate the possibility of Navy using NLCA for shore based operations and thus make itself independent from marine duites of jaguar /Mki..

Routine patrolling/Escorts for P 8i, Naval refuelers and AWACS/AEW if any

first things first, I'm not sure if any MKI units has a dedicated marine role ATM like there is for the no 6 sqdn jags. but I do remember reading a report that we bought KH-35 anti-ship missiles for the su. then there is the brahmos integration going on. again, we keep hearing that the policy makers from both mil and civil side are interested in basing MKI's in A&N.
considering all, there's a strong chance that we will see su sqdns in marine role in the future. if that happens, there is virtually no other a/c in the near term that can replace it in terms of capabilities. the mig-29k comes close but would the IN really 'waste' them in that role ?

as for the jag, NLCA capability will come close to or even surpass the jag IM IMHO.

anyway, I don't know what the navy thinks since they haven't mailed me yet (!) but even if we do have maritime MKI sqdns, picking up a couple of NLCA sqdns for shore based duties would be a nice and cheap way for IN to expand the air arm and develop the units and men for the future, when we are likely to have expanded carrier fighter fleets. in fact, if they do create such units, all those shore based units are likely to undergo full carrier certification so that they can be used to bump up numbers/replace war losses on the carriers in case of a conflict.

SNaik · Post by **SNaik** » 12 Mar 2010 20:35

tsarkar wrote:SNaik,

I missed replying earlier. Doors & hatches in bulkheads separating watertight compartments are different than the one shown here.

The one in the image is a cabin door, and its purpose is privacy. There will be many such cabins within a watertight compartment. However I am sure the bulkheads for the entire compartment will be quite solid.

Tsarkar,

Do you remember the photo of the energy control room which had the same type of door? I can agree with such a door for a cabin but not for one of the most important compartments on a ship.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 12 Mar 2010 21:30

Your point is correct. In case of battle damage or consequent flooding, the combat management center is designed to “batten hatches” and keep directing weapons and sensors.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Mar 2010 21:33

Russia signs $1.5-bln fighter jet contract with India

"An agreement on supplying an additional set of MiG-29K fighter jets has been signed, the start of supplies is scheduled for 2012," Mikhail Pogosyan said.

Russia against developing military ties with Pakistan

"I would like to stress that Russia is not maintaining military cooperation with Pakistan as it takes into account the concerns of [our] Indian partners," Putin said after a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Mar 2010 21:36

Russia, India sign new contract on Admiral Gorshkov

“A new contract on the aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov was signed, the price is agreed upon,” Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said. “The price was coordinated, but I cannot call it a mutual agreement,” the vice-premier said. “The delivery date is the end of 2012,” he added.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 13 Mar 2010 00:20

what does "price is coordinated but I cannot call it a mutual agreement" imply? Are the Russians still unhappy?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 13 Mar 2010 00:21

Austin wrote: Russia against developing military ties with Pakistan

"I would like to stress that Russia is not maintaining military cooperation with Pakistan as it takes into account the concerns of [our] Indian partners," Putin said after a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Errr! Would anyone remind him about supply of RD-93 for the JF-17 fighter!

John · Post by **John** » 13 Mar 2010 00:40

Vivek K wrote:Errr! Would anyone remind him about supply of RD-93 for the JF-17 fighter!

The only reason Russians were not selling to Pakistan is because of its close ties to US (within month of China supplying M-9/11s to Pakistan, CIA had full blueprints of both missiles guess who they got it from?) and what happened in Afghanistan. As the cold war wounds start to heal and with Pakistan getting billions in aid to beef up its military, Russia is seeing $$.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 13 Mar 2010 01:11

Philip wrote:As I predicted many moons ago that the Naval LCA might not see the light of day (operationally).The max that might emerge would be a "tech demonstrator"! In fact,a single-engined naval aircraft is sorely handicapped as stats have shown for obvious reasons.With the ever increasing range,speed and lethality of anti-ship missiles,future manned naval fighters will require a large combat radius,long endurance and loiter time and capable of carrying a heavy weapon load.This is an operational anomaly for so-called lightweight multi-role aircraft.Such types are suitable onbly when the size of carrier is such that it cannot carry medium or large strike aircraft.The ideal aircraft fro the IN for the futre is anaval version of the PAK-FA,which will come with stealth and all the bells and whistles that it is supposed to have.In fact,its design and wide spacing in the middle,where the internal weapons bays are,make it ideal for a STOVL version as developed for the JSF.SWuch a naval version that might arrive around 2017/18 would be perfect for the hinted at larger sized indigenous carriers that will succeed the first IAC.

one thing I've never understood about your posts. that you're staunchly anti-US is fine but why are you so rabidly anti-indigenous as well ? There are issues with the N-LCA airframe and landing gear, thats understood, but why the constant pessimism that almost never rears its head when you so happily talk about Russian equipment as if there have never been issues with their equipment, or their support, etc. ?

While a single-engined aircraft does have a lack of engine-redundancy which is beneficial without a doubt, there are plenty of naval fighters over history that have been single-engined. When the IAF can issue a RFI to the Sea Gripen then what's the problem with the N-LCA ? Anyway, the IN already has provided funding for the first 6 N-LCAs and we'll see if your prediction that it will fail comes true or not.

besides, with 2 engines, you end up with a fighter that is larger, heavier, and uses twice the amount of fuel as a smaller single-engined fighter while the payload doesn't necessarily double. So that means for a smallish sized carrier, if you have twin-engined fighters, you can keep fewer on-board since they take up more space down below, fewer on-deck, and that directly affects the defensive and offensive potential of that carrier. they also have more maintenance requirements, which can mean more down-time and with fewer fighters carried on-board anyway, that means fewer available for CAP or any other mission.

with the advent of In-flight refuelling, buddy-refuelling and OBOGS, sortie durations on single-engined aircraft can also be much longer than earlier. Besides, the LCA's range has been appreciated by a test pilot as being only slightly lesser than that of a Mirage-2000- in his words "enviably long legs for such a small fighter due to the gas-sipping F-404 engine". Of course, you'll choose to ignore any praise for the LCA since you've been a vocal critic of this program for several years now and I don't think I'll waste more time trying to change your mind on that.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 13 Mar 2010 01:15

All of IN's carrier borne fighter aircraft have been single engined so far.

All the way from the Alizes, to the Sea Hawk to the Harrier. all.

Only the Mig-29 K is twin engined.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 13 Mar 2010 02:08

with Pakistan getting billions in aid to beef up its military, Russia is seeing $$.

Those billions are for US equipment. The money never leaves the US. None for Russia.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 13 Mar 2010 02:16

guys, keep in mind that with PV-5 starting its test flights, in many ways, the NP-1 has also begun its test-points program. They share structural similarity to a very great degree (except for the LEVCONS) and internal layout, systems and equipment on PV-5 and NP-1 will be similar as well. So, while we wait for NP-1 to overcome weight issues with the airframe due to the higher sink rate (LCA for IAF was designed with landing gear attachment points designed to take 10.5 ft/sec sink rate, whereas for the N-LCA it is 24 ft/sec sink rate. You can quite clearly see how much of a strengthening that requires).

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 13 Mar 2010 02:23

Gerard wrote:
with Pakistan getting billions in aid to beef up its military, Russia is seeing $$.
Those billions are for US equipment. The money never leaves the US. None for Russia.

Gerard, while the pakis use US money to buy US equipment (get it for free that is) they can use their own money to buy from elsewhere like they are doing with the JF-17. So in a sense there is money for Russia if they decide to sell them stuff.

John · Post by **John** » 13 Mar 2010 04:51

nachiket wrote:
Gerard wrote:
Those billions are for US equipment. The money never leaves the US. None for Russia.
Gerard, while the pakis use US money to buy US equipment (get it for free that is) they can use their own money to buy from elsewhere like they are doing with the JF-17. So in a sense there is money for Russia if they decide to sell them stuff.

Yeap for example Perry FFG transfer saved pakistan from having to spend 300-500 million for a new frigate, plus the billions in aid are likely to end up for arms as well.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 13 Mar 2010 14:44

Rahul M wrote:Rahul / Austin,

I'm not sure if any MKI units has a dedicated marine role ATM like there is for the no 6 sqdn jags. but I do remember reading a report that we bought KH-35 anti-ship missiles for the su. then there is the brahmos integration going on. again, we keep hearing that the policy makers from both mil and civil side are interested in basing MKI's in A&N.
considering all, there's a strong chance that we will see su sqdns in marine role in the future. if that happens, there is .

I too am not aware of any dedicated AsuW SU 30s like the No 6 Sqdn. But at least some of the SU 30MKI can carry KH 31 anti-ship missile. SU 30MKI can be a very potent anti ship weapon. With ibe squadron on AN we can stop the flow of oil to South East Asia (read China). Perhaps this has prompted Japan to have some naval ties with IN

K

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Mar 2010 14:19

Kartik,I'v always advocated for a strong indigenous defence industry.Unfortunately,the LCA has been delayed fro so long that it is in serious dange of ebcoming obsolete when perfected in a MK-2 version,which has yet to se the light of day with the new engine not yet selected.Therefore,how can a MK-1 version which has an underpowered engine especially at sea level dramatically morph into a Naval LCA that will suffice for the IN? Moreover,in the naval context,a twin-engined aircraft is far preferable because of the safety factor (twin engines),which is why most naval strike fighters today have twin engines (F-18,Rafale,SU-33,MIG-29K,F-14 now retired).Land based aircraft if they have engine problems do have the possibility of returning to base,another airstrip if possible,which is impossible for naval aircraft where the pilots have to eject.The increasing range and lethality of modern anti-ship missiles have dramatically increased the radius of action and endurance time of naval air defence fighters.It is only navies that operate small carriers who have limitations of space on deck and hangars who are considering using smaller light fighters.However,studies by major carrier navies have determined that to be relevant,the minimum size of carriers should be around 55-60,000t ,which size enables them to carry a decent number of aircraft,UAVs and helos and conduct simultaneous launch and recovery of aircraft.

I've stated if you read my posts carefully,that ther appears to be vesed interests who do not want the LCA to succeed by deliberately delaying vital decisions such as the engine choice for MK-2.There is a red line beyond which no service,IAF or IN will want an aircraft as they have to have in their inventory the rquired numbers and capability for conducting their respective responsibilituies.If you hear of how thr project has been treated like "the second wife's child" by the entire establishment,from hard sources on the inside, it is most depressing.A knowledgable soul in private industry,which produces a number of defence items,said that they (private industry) were unwilling to invest large sums of money into defence R&D primarily because of the uncertainity in getting a large order from the MOD.They oftenn hoped for orders only to see at the last moment orders placed abroad.Some time ago a JV with BAE and an Indian major was shopt down by the GOI.At that level he said,"decisions are taken on a PM to PM basis",where the "national interest" prevails over the "service interest",and he "nationa interest" is known only to the PM and ruling tribe of the day!

The services ask for the right tools top do the job entrusted to them,give options and all they ask for is quick decision making.The current controversy over the Brazilian air force choice where Pres.Lula favous the Rafale against the air force's alleged choice the Gripen, is an example of decision making whch also plagues India.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... DC1QWOIIgw

Meanwhile,the Greeks and Germans have come to an agreement about the supply of German U-boats.The first will now be sold to a foreign operator.The IN has a strong chance here to evaluate the sub and consider it for the IN as a type that can replace the older U-209s in service.Pak was earllier trying v.hard to acquire German U-214 AIP subs but the Germans refused for fear of antagonising India and Pak's terrorist credentials.We should seriously evaluate replacing our existing U-boats with newer AIP U-214s ,so that the German line of contemporary sub tech remains with the IN and is not lost forever.These subs can then be evaluated against the Scopenes and even Amurs with Brahmos,which logically should replace the Kilo class.From these thre strains of forign sub-tech.,one or two indigenous conventional AIP sub designs can be drawn up with the IN's special requirements foeremost (we will need subs both for littoral hunter-killer ops and long range blue-water ops) apartf rom SSBNs and SSGNs for global oceanic opeations.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Mar 2010 17:51

Philip may be I am not as well informed on LCA , please tell me how is Tejas MK1 obsolete ?

I can agree on the delay part but obsolete ? Even with slight engine performance issue which I think is not a big deal , the Tejas can still be an excellent air superiority fighter in A2A role.

The Naval Tejas with the same GE IN20 engine can do the job equally well if not better and one already has a choice of upgrading it to Mk2 standards once the IAF gets it.

The IAF still operates the 50's design Mig-21 and with just avionics/weapons improvement it has proved it worth and IAF loves it too ,it would see service for atleast for a decade from now , how does a 80/90's design fighter become obsolete before entering service ?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Mar 2010 18:46

By 2020 the 5th-gen fighters in both east and west will be dominating the skies in large numbers.Tejas, by HAL's own production figures will have reached 120 max.in 10 years.The aircraft will at its very best be nothing more than a 4th gen fighter,perhaps 4+,while the supposedly 4++ MMRCA contenders are already superior to it,let alone the SU-3-MKI.How many more LCAs do you think that the IAF or IN will really want by then? Even the MIG-21 Bison is a stop-gap arrangement because of the late arrival of the Tejas.In fact,the Tejas has yet to arrive in operational status! Unless Tejas' fruther and final development is hugely accelerated,poduction rate doubled,by the time the aircraft is "perfected",it will be obsolete,clearly outclassed by the latest arrivals from both east and west.I cannot see the IAF wanting the inferior Tejas to even the MMRCA whatever aircraft is ultimately chosen.Sadly,and I sincerely hope I will be proven wrong,Tejas will serve the IAF well but in limited numbers only,just as the HF-24 did.To my mind,history is repeating itself.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 15 Mar 2010 19:11

Senior members of the forum should be ashamed for putting out such hogwash against domestic equipment.

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 15 Mar 2010 19:15

^ I believe philip has me on his ignore list but asking for the sake of argument.
Which 5th gen aircraft will be there over the seas? And given the fact that the date of induction has been announced as march next year, how do you think that is going to be obsolete when its inducted? Naval prototype is already under construction and some of the data points for the NLCA are being validated using the PV5. My feeling is that the NLCA will be semi Mk2 if not Mk2 itself. I believe the Navy has already decided on the engine(JMTs onlee).

The only 5th gen carrier based aircraft will be JSF, whose final numbers are still under speculation. The Chinese and Russian carrier based 5th gen are still on drawing board.

Pleased to see that he now says serve in limited numbers atleast!

edit: thanks Kartik for pointing out the error

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 15 Mar 2010 20:40

Guys, hold your guns for a moment...

Phillip in only trying to say more the delay, lesser would be the chance of seeing LCA in higher numbers...He has not ruled out the possibility of its operational induction.

He has listed two reasons:

- Slow production rate: Although rate is currently slow, it may be increased in future. but even that may take its own time (setting another assembly line). However, going by the no of Su 30 MKI (in spite of order or 140), production rate is miserably low to the extent that we gave order for 40 off the shelf and are also negotiating further 40 again off the shelf.

- Obsolete: Though his assessment may not be very good, it certainly has to be looked into. For navy problem may not be as bigger as IAF as very few navy (America/Russia/French/British and prob China) will be operating high performance fighter, but for IAF it is certainly a cause of concern. Further, more than obsolete it will the availability of option that might make chance of LCA (in higher numbers) dim. However, the reason does not appear very realistic not by 2020 at least or even 2025.

I understand we are very much involved in LCA (both financial and emotionally). It is project of national pride and it has to succeed at any cost. However, we also need to understand what may prevent it in succeeding so that we dont make mistake. We need to take some decision very fast so that the project does not fall prey to the above mentioned reasons...

However, LCA inducted in say around 150, it should be a good no as per me which when considered with MCA (in future) will make it very successful aero project undertaken by once upon time third world country

Phillip - i dont agree with your comparison of LCA with MMRCA and certainly not with MKi as all of them fall in different class. If range, payload and TVC is ignored, i feel LCA is equally good as MKI(avionics) and even exceeds it in certain criteria (RCS)

Sorry for OT. Request moderators to move all LCA related discussion to appropriate thread

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Mar 2010 21:41

whatever said and done, the russian finesse strategy of thumping on a mig29k contract, and claiming to not do business with pakis, is a card well played to attract the brains that decide all about contracts and charter our doctrine, from an external angle so to speak.

IN was the only institution to support more of indigenous development. Though it is surprising that Antony saab (again he is a profound supporter of indigenization) to mark that NLCA has defects.

Now, defects comes only after a review of the design, and goes into flight testing. When DRDO fails to get to the base requirement in prototype stage, then it is not a defect, but a missing feature or component that need to be done.

It is better to get DRDO a more PR office for such cr@ppy information that comes out, especially those that bash them open in the ddm circle. If they don't tell it right, then there are firangi aided corrupted pen pals who would write anything to make a good home for them.

John · Post by **John** » 15 Mar 2010 22:26

Austin wrote:The Naval Tejas with the same GE IN20 engine can do the job equally well if not better and one already has a choice of upgrading it to Mk2 standards once the IAF gets it.

19,000 lbs/thrust won't be enough for even takeoff weight of 12 tons (so ideally you are looking around 9.5 tons vs 18.5 tons for 29k), from ski jump? With empty weight of at least 6.5 tons that leaves little room for payload.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Mar 2010 22:45

Sadly,and I sincerely hope I will be proven wrong,Tejas will serve the IAF well but in limited numbers only,just as the HF-24 did.To my mind,history is repeating itself.

(No issues with the topic per se.)

Why is it we are hung-up on the acronym "LCA"?

HF-24 did not have a backbone to grind through adversity, the "LCA" does have that backbone. For the "LCA" is not a start-finish product. It can be improved upon (because a backbone should exist) and a NewLCA can come out of it. MCA is another route. The "LCA" can be a tech demo for future air crafts.

What is preventing the current "LCA" from being (Indians should be very familiar with this!!!!) "upgrading" or "mid life" whatever? Can design a stealth "LCA" if need be.

IF all else fails India can use it a s VVVIP vehicle (IF VVV exist in India).

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 15 Mar 2010 23:05

This abdul managed to sneak-a-peak into INS Rajali....

........managed to have a 'dekko' at the venerable TU-142 from INS 312 "Albatross" Squadron. Man O! Man...am I happy or what....finally got to see and feel these birds...these gentle giants....these legends of aviation history........muaaahhhhh!!!!!!

PS: I thought the Russians designed only their tanks with cramped space and with nary a thought for 'ergonomics'....but guess their a/c also suffer from the same draw back........the crew compartment is one heck of a small place...and as for the tail gunner..my sympathies are with him....

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 15 Mar 2010 23:09

So even if the LCA is only produced in small number, the benefits gained from the experience of developing it will flow into future development of fighters. Maybe we can develop a stealth version or turn it into a UCAV.