LCA News and Discussions

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 07 Jul 2010 11:25

chackojoseph wrote:
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.

That was ruled out long before...Infact we tried to get some but it didnt materialized.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 07 Jul 2010 11:28

chackojoseph wrote:
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.

If it intends to use the exisiting carrier, the Naval LCA could be an option. I guess, it could face problem from the F-35 in the exisiting carrier...just a guess only...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jul 2010 11:35

india should invest in a bunch of 12,000t small container ships (1000s roam the worlds oceans) and convert them into nirbhay VL launchers (32 missiles). would easily beef up the strike power of indian forces when accompanied by a few warships. easy to buy, cheap to maintain, decent and economical staffing levels(30 crew) , long endurance, good sea keeping, COTS kit, 25 knot max, 18knot cruise.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jul 2010 11:37

Philip wrote:f 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.

Hopefully when Viraat retires and being a large ship that she is , she can be better utilised to study effects of Torpedo Explosion Under the kneel on military ships .

Simply speaking fire a Type 65 from Chakra and study the effect in details , a lot of this analyis can be fed back to our own IAC program to study damage control , effects of under kneel explosion and build better naval ships.

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.

Singha , There were serious talks of Brits opting out of JSF program and navalising Typhoon, if that indeed had happened they would have navalised the Typhoon

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

Right now it seems that IAC-1 and Gorshkov it will be , all this 50000T CBG is just some Admiral pipe dream keeps changing with time.

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

The best bet is to Navalise the FGFA.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 07 Jul 2010 12:22

The LCA is crucial to the Indian Navy's plan to deploy two carrier battle groups (CBGs) by 2015.

http://www.bharatrakshak.com/NEWS/newsr ... wsid=13122

How so ? , we are already taking posession of the 16 Mig 29k fighters to be based on-board the Vik and have placed orders for 30 more which will complete the fighter complement for IAC-1 which will be comissioned by 2015. Also , wrt to our 3rd carrier plans and RFI has already been issues to the foreign companies for sea based fighters with SAAB making a presentation recently.

Where is the gap which N-LCA will fill , it has always been clear the LCA (regular) will replace the Mig-21 fleet but where does N-LCA fit in. Unless we plan on evolving a different sort of Naval doctrine of having more fighters than the Ships can support operating in IOR so that many more sorties can be launched in an emergency and aircrafts can comeback to land based facilities after completiing the mission.

nits · Post by **nits** » 07 Jul 2010 15:50

Avinandan wrote: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 ..

Q to gurus - Does canopy opening effects anyway in Mid Air Ejection? also how do they test this feature...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jul 2010 15:55

the entire canopy will be blown off with explosive bolts and after a calculated time the ejection seat rockets will fire.

people have been reading commando comics with pilot manually opening the canopy , turning the a/c upside down and dropping
out with parachute, while firing a pistol with one hand at a Me109G/FW190.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 07 Jul 2010 15:57

In a mid air ejection , the plane is as good as gone, unless some miracle saves it

nits · Post by **nits** » 07 Jul 2010 15:59

Singha wrote:
people have been reading commando comics with pilot manually opening the canopy , turning the a/c upside down and dropping
out with parachute, while firing a pistol with one hand at a Me109G/FW190.

Sir, this was not a Q i asked after reading comic book... it was a general question raised; also not everyone is expert in every aspects of Avaiation sir... Anyways thanks for clarifying and replying to my Q; also can you please kindly answer the 2nd part ( again not asked after reading comic book

) that how this feature is tested...?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Jul 2010 16:01

nits wrote:
Avinandan wrote: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 ..
Q to gurus - Does canopy opening effects anyway in Mid Air Ejection? also how do they test this feature...

Yes. The canopy will crush the pilots head as he goes out. For that reason it is actually blown off first as the first step in ejection.

As regards Avinanadan's query I fail to see what extra options the pilot has for getting in and getting out if the canopy opens backwards. He will still need a ladder and that will be only on one side. And the number of places where he can put his feet is limited - he can't be clambering over everything from left, right, front, back as per his mood of the day.

nits · Post by **nits** » 07 Jul 2010 16:13

Some of the research says following -

The first live flight test of the Martin-Baker system ( Ejection Seat) took place on 24 July 1946, when Bernard Lynch ejected from a Gloster Meteor Mk III. Shortly afterward, on 17 August 1946, 1st Sgt. Larry Lambert was the first live U.S. ejectee. Martin-Baker ejector seats were fitted to prototype and production aircraft from the late 1940s, and the first emergency use of such a seat occurred in 1949 during testing of the Armstrong-Whitworth AW.52 Flying Wing.

Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejection_seat

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Jul 2010 16:38

40+ MIG-29Ks will not be enough for both the Gorshkov and the IAC.I think a figure of about 60+ carrier fixed wing aircraft would be the min. required.One needs some for war reserves and if we have a squadron of naval LCAs,they could be jolly useful.Plus,we should have some amount of Sea Harriers still in service.The second larger IAC-2,with a dt. of 60000+ t,as Austin has said,should deploy a naval version of the 5th-gen fighter.This would give us a real cutting edge capability.

The spiralling costs of the JSF,aropund $100m now,will put enormous financial pressure upon those navies who have opted for it in their future plans and are building carriers ,like the Brits,designed to operate it.In retrospect,a comparitively cheap Indian naval LCA could definitely see some exports especially to countries like Brazil,etc.,who operate smaller carriers (why,was was it a Frenchman who espoused the idea?),or even the RN in a reversal of the famous "Gnat" fighter sale to India!

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 07 Jul 2010 17:28

1 sqdn 29K and 1 sqdn NLCA embarked per carrier (~48 a/c)
1 sdn of each on shore posting (~24 a/c)
1 sqdn of each in training/work up mode (~24 a/c)
plus reserves, easily 110-120 aircraft, with 60 of each
can always have additional shore based NLCA sqdns, maybe even based in Andamans to supplement the Su30's

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 07 Jul 2010 17:28

putnanja wrote: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).

1/4 runway to take off and 10th of IAF Tejas' landing length. How are they going to achieve this miracle? Launches us into a whole new league, doesn't it....

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 07 Jul 2010 18:00

Manish_Sharma wrote: 1/4 runway to take off and 10th of IAF Tejas' landing length. How are they going to achieve this miracle? Launches us into a whole new league, doesn't it....

That is not miracle other countries already have achieved it

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jul 2010 18:04

even WSJ has a slideshow on it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1278474 ... DDLELSMini

wrt to ejection seat and canopy pyrobolt testing, I believe they do it on the ground using a rocket powered sled rather than waste a real a/c in the air. the ejection seat maker provides the computers which take data from plane and does it own working out of when and how to trigger the rockets. I once read "a few dozen parameters" are taken into account.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 07 Jul 2010 18:07

Have others noticed or is it just me, the Tailhook seems to be missing

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 07 Jul 2010 18:45

Manish_Sharma wrote: 1/4 runway to take off and 10th of IAF Tejas' landing length. How are they going to achieve this miracle? Launches us into a whole new league, doesn't it....

The take off will be either using a ski-jump or cat assisted. The landing will be arrested. That's how those numbers are achieved.

negi · Post by **negi** » 07 Jul 2010 18:47

I guess NLCA rollout is the best rollout ceremony in terms of both event organization and coverage , grey bird on crimson red floor and smoke generators in background (awesome entry).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jul 2010 19:14

if you put large rectangular air intakes, it would look like a smaller f18/f15 from that angle. AoA - the mahdi has arrived to lead us out of the desert. prepare for war!

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 07 Jul 2010 19:37

With a payload of 4000 Kg, the LCA cannot even carry Brahmos (3000 Kg)! The new Brahmos version is a Scramjet, in very early stages! I don't think such a light fighter has much use in the Navy!!

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 07 Jul 2010 20:01

4000 kg?

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 07 Jul 2010 20:02

Kanan wrote:With a payload of 4000 Kg, the LCA cannot even carry Brahmos (3000 Kg)! The new Brahmos version is a Scramjet, in very early stages! I don't think such a light fighter has much use in the Navy!!

LCA is useless. It cannot carry a Prithvi!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jul 2010 20:04

Kanan wrote:With a payload of 4000 Kg, the LCA cannot even carry Brahmos (3000 Kg)! The new Brahmos version is a Scramjet, in very early stages! I don't think such a light fighter has much use in the Navy!!

ah, sheer genius ! but the brahmos can't even carry a megaton bum,

so it is useless too. only question is which is more useless.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 07 Jul 2010 20:05

negi wrote:I guess NLCA rollout is the best rollout ceremony in terms of both event organization and coverage , grey bird on crimson red floor and smoke generators in background (awesome entry).

Indeed! Even ATV inauguration paled. But it misses the star line-up as witnessed during Tejas with ABV etc or MMS with ATV.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 07 Jul 2010 20:14

Kanan wrote:With a payload of 4000 Kg, the LCA cannot even carry Brahmos (3000 Kg)! The new Brahmos version is a Scramjet, in very early stages! I don't think such a light fighter has much use in the Navy!!

Yes f 35 with its two 1000 pound bombs would be very very useful

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 07 Jul 2010 20:18

er... brahmos is almost as big as the LCA!

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 07 Jul 2010 20:20

Kanan, please note that though we have named the fighter as "Light" there is nothing "light" about it. The Mig-27 can carry a payload of 4,000 kg and the Jags about 4540 Kg. So, the LCA brings a lot to the table. The LCA Navy is almost like a new generation LCA. The design could be used as the baseline config for the MK-II version.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Jul 2010 20:21

Lalmohan wrote:er... brahmos is almost as big as the LCA!

So Brahmos can carry LCA no?

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 07 Jul 2010 20:23

Where is the gap which N-LCA will fill , it has always been clear the LCA (regular) will replace the Mig-21 fleet but where does N-LCA fit in. Unless we plan on evolving a different sort of Naval doctrine of having more fighters than the Ships can support operating in IOR so that many more sorties can be launched in an emergency and aircrafts can comeback to land based facilities after completiing the mission.

Looks like someone is listening to you...

Indian Navy wants to induct 200 aircraft’s by 2020

....Navy which has recently inducted Mig-29k has already ordered 29 more of this jets making final total to 45 , and already has committed it self to induct 50 aircraft’s of Naval LCA which was recently rolled-out from HAL hangar and will have its first test flight by end of this year , Navy has also issued new RFI (Request for information) for further inducting 50+ jets....

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jul 2010 20:38

since rollout was akin to that of a new car, should have provided by booth babe type models to escort the munna out

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 07 Jul 2010 20:44

Kanson wrote: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 ?

how will an N-LCA land even if does manage to take off from the Viraat ? The Viraat has no arresting wires and will require costly and time-consuming refit to be modified with an arresting wire if it were ever done. I'm also not quite sure about the Viraat's lift's fitting N-LCAs..they have unfolded wings and their span may well be larger than the lift's width or the clearances may be too small (just mentioning another factor that may be needed to be considered). The Sea Harrier's wing span is 7.7m whereas that of the N-LCA is 8.2 m. That's 0.5m more than the Shar.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 07 Jul 2010 21:00

Is radar signature of NLCA any different from LCA or it's trainer version ?

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 07 Jul 2010 21:21

JTull wrote:
Kanan wrote:With a payload of 4000 Kg, the LCA cannot even carry Brahmos (3000 Kg)! The new Brahmos version is a Scramjet, in very early stages! I don't think such a light fighter has much use in the Navy!!

LCA is useless. It cannot carry a Prithvi!

And BEHOLD the genius! Strategic SSM being compared to an Anti-ship missile! For ur kind information, Rafale-M has 9500 Kg payload, Su-30 MKI and Super Hornets have 8000 Kg payload! Any Naval strike aircraft has good Payload!(though MKI is not Naval)

Vivek K wrote:Kanan, please note that though we have named the fighter as "Light" there is nothing "light" about it. The Mig-27 can carry a payload of 4,000 kg and the Jags about 4540 Kg. So, the LCA brings a lot to the table. The LCA Navy is almost like a new generation LCA. The design could be used as the baseline config for the MK-II version.

Vivek, what is the point of comparing the fighters that have retired from most Air forces round the world with the one we are going to use in the future?! Remember that Brahmos has become our premier anti-ship missile ( also to be used for land attack) and hence an airborne Brahmos platform for the Navy makes so much sense! That is why airforce is integrating Brahmos into MKIs!

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 07 Jul 2010 21:25

Which part of "Light" combat aircraft did you not understand? Especially given that you're comparing a light fighter to an MKI and other heavy aircraft! To carry the Brahmos, one would need a MKI (even that isn't a done deal yet!), short of using a dedicated bomber!Nor can the Mig-29K. Is the IN crazy to be buying them?

sawant · Post by **sawant** » 07 Jul 2010 21:33

Kanson wrote:

Indeed! Even ATV inauguration paled. But it misses the star line-up as witnessed during Tejas with ABV etc or MMS with ATV.[/quote]

I am happy that MMS etc was not present.... don't want another naming ceremony later ... God knows what kind of name they wud come up with...

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 07 Jul 2010 21:37

Matrten, Read my post! I have mentioned already Rafale-M 9500 Kg(France/Brazil?), Super Hornet-8000kg(US), Su-33-8000Kg(Russia/China), Su-32/34-8000 Kg(Russia)[shore based fighter bomber} need more.............?????

negi · Post by **negi** » 07 Jul 2010 21:42

Kanan you might want to post your thoughts in following thread.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... start=2280

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 07 Jul 2010 21:43

Kanan, Point is it is very rare u will find them carrying payload mentioned above

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 07 Jul 2010 21:51

Kakarat wrote:Have others noticed or is it just me, the Tailhook seems to be missing

interview on youtube with Lt. Cmdr Ankur who is a TP on the LCA and will be the first N-LCA pilot, said that the tail hook is not yet fitted but will be done soon. I'll post the video link later when I can search for it.