Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

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.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54263
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby ramana » 25 Mar 2020 02:28

Thanks. For the info.
You don't know what you just conveyed.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3349
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby fanne » 25 Mar 2020 08:30

this could be the best use of downtime at HAL - build NLCA - risk mitigation vis a vis Mig 29 (I believe at least in AA role, NLCA has adequate range and time on station with enough aa missile). A mixture, where NLCA provides AA coverage (and if A to S or A to G if feasible) while M29 goes out for A to S and A2G roles).
Also we advance our TEDBF with a practical NLCA, many tech can keep on maturing on NLCA. A 16/32 plane run for NLCA may not be bad. When TEDBF comes over they get handed to IAF (and if needed, some parts rebuilt - e.g. landing gear).

basant
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 81
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby basant » 25 Mar 2020 23:08

fanne wrote:this could be the best use of downtime at HAL - build NLCA - risk mitigation vis a vis Mig 29 (I believe at least in AA role, NLCA has adequate range and time on station with enough aa missile). A mixture, where NLCA provides AA coverage (and if A to S or A to G if feasible) while M29 goes out for A to S and A2G roles).
Also we advance our TEDBF with a practical NLCA, many tech can keep on maturing on NLCA. A 16/32 plane run for NLCA may not be bad. When TEDBF comes over they get handed to IAF (and if needed, some parts rebuilt - e.g. landing gear).

I am just wondering what if the downtime is used to make LCA Navy trainer? As needed, it can be used as Navy trainer, air force trainer and in combat for IN and IAF. It may not excel in the last 2 roles and not perhaps required for the first but practically it can be used for any role in dire straits.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20611
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Philip » 26 Mar 2020 02:58

An article on how the CV is affecting the IA's ability to respond to both fronts,because of budget blues, basic small arms,ammo,etc. unavailable, will have a cascading effect and the IN,whose slice of cake has gotten even smaller will have nothing in the pocket for the NLCA. It is more likely to buy more limited numbers of 29Ks,to fill any gaps,being cheaper and a more cost-effective solution.Just a sqd. of NLCAs, will find it v.difficult to set up a future domestic logistic supply chain. What money we have ,let's for now plug the ASW helo gap.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 289
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby agupta » 26 Mar 2020 03:35

I am sorry, folks, but what khayali dosas are y'all slinging speculating about "downtimes"...

Reproducing Kartik's careful & thoughtful forecast below. As he says, one needs a grounded "how" HAL will ramp up production rates WITHOUT dropping something else to even begin this kite-flying...

Kartik wrote:
With the first Mk1A supposed to be rolled off the assembly line in 2022-23, there is no point in ordering any more Mk1s. There is no assembly line that is idle as of now. All the focus must be on delivering the Mk1A in the defined schedule and finishing all 73 single seat Mk1A deliveries BEFORE 2029.

As you can see below, there is no gap in the schedule to accommodate more Mk1 orders. All it will do it slide the Mk1A deliveries to the right

2019-2020 -- 2 FOC single seaters (SP-21 and SP-22)
2020-2021 -- 14 FOC Single seaters (SP-23 onwards to SP-36)
2021-2022 -- 8 FOC trainers + 8 FOC trainers from the Mk1A batch
2023-2024 -- 14 Mk1A + 2 FOC trainers
2024-2025 -- 16 Mk1A
2025-2026 -- 16 Mk1A
2026-2027 -- 16 Mk1A
2027-2028 -- 11 Mk1A + 5 MWF (hopefully)

The only way the schedule can be contracted further is by increasing production to 20 Tejas Mk1As per year.


Note that wonderful achievement that HAL was recently crowing about re. automation of drilling seems to have come-in AFTER the entire IOC batch of production ended, instead of at the beginning like one would have expected... multiple years late, and its then celebration time ! Talk about expectation management and conditioning the customers/public !!!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8140
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Indranil » 26 Mar 2020 04:12

I don't want to go to NLCA production. There are no orders and IN is not keen on it. It is on TEDBF, and work is going fast on that. I can tell you a few number of internal reviews with IN has been completed. IN considering the NLCA Mk1 as LIFT. It is mighty pleased with NLCA Mk1 tests. The test results are better than anticipated, kind of anticlimactic in a way. The team demonstrated 3 hot refuels resulting in 4 traps and 3 takeoffs for 3 hours of continuous flying on a single aircraft. Nobody expected that from a prototype on its second day ever onboard ANY ship. The design team also learned a lot about what works best onboard a floating hangar and flight deck.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8140
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Indranil » 26 Mar 2020 04:18

Gupta sahab, it is easy to blame HAL and say if only it was for another company (preferably private) things would be rosier.

I guarantee you, paisa phenko tamasha dekho. Double the orders, and one more line will come up magically. On the contrary, if you don't pay the dues to a company, to the the point that it has to take loans then NO company will invest in capital intensive automatic drilling machines which are required for large scale production!

It is quite simple only, the use and abuse is bidirectional. One has to be deliberately biased to find malice on one side only.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 289
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby agupta » 26 Mar 2020 04:40

Hmm... there are incompetent Private companies too - they get run out quickly, so don't see my note as a push to hand this over to a private agency. And my grey hair have been witness to many accounts of Services playing fast-n-loose as well. That's not the issue.

My point is simply this: Taking on debt to finance operations is a VERY COMMON thing to do in big industrials. Is HAL really doing a rona-dhona about it or is this angst an internet forum construct ? If its the former, then geez - that's disappointingly far from even a best-of-India class professionally run industrial management

I am not arguing for an extra line or production expectations. I think the current evolution of Mk1A--> MWF / NLCA TD --> TEDBF is a wise and mature thing to do. I don't believe even if HAL got more cash or orders for Mk1, its efficient enough to manage it - it WILL screw over and mess up MWF and TEDBF EIS timelines... and THAT transition for playing defense to offense with the foundation the Tejas program has given us is what I would love to see ASAP.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8140
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Indranil » 26 Mar 2020 04:52

agupta wrote:Hmm... there are incompetent Private companies too - they get run out quickly, so don't see my note as a push to hand this over to a private agency. And my grey hair have been witness to many accounts of Services playing fast-n-loose as well. That's not the issue.

My point is simply this: Taking on debt to finance operations is a VERY COMMON thing to do in big industrials. Is HAL really doing a rona-dhona about it or is this angst an internet forum construct ? If its the former, then geez - that's disappointingly far from even a best-of-India class professionally run industrial management

Sirjee, how many C295Ws has Tata built based on confirmed orders? If they have not built one, then which quality of industrial management are they missing?
agupta wrote:I am not arguing for an extra line or production expectations. I think the current evolution of Mk1A--> MWF / NLCA TD --> TEDBF is a wise and mature thing to do. I don't believe even if HAL got more cash or orders for Mk1, its efficient enough to manage it - it WILL screw over and mess up MWF and TEDBF EIS timelines... and THAT transition for playing defense to offense with the foundation the Tejas program has given us is what I would love to see ASAP.

That's your opinion. I am not going to try to change it. But MWF, NLCA, TEDBF etc. are currently not HAL run projects.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 289
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby agupta » 26 Mar 2020 05:01

My point above was simply that

1. It seems to me there is no downtime to fit anything into currently given HAL effectiveness on the manufacturing side. Either Mk1s, or NLCAs etc. So lets stop speculating

2. A posting error has mistakenly linked this to LCH orders etc. NOT advocating it.

3. True MWF/TEDBF are not HAL run projects. But having the Manufacturing/System Integration chops to "productize" them from ADA quickly, on time and on schedule (whatever HAL commits to) is enough of a challenge given efforts so far that HAL should reserve its energies for executing on them as those move from Development to Product Realization phase

HAL Aircraft Div run projects: Sitara(limping back after multiple development snafus), HTT-40 (running - good initiative). Lets leave it that. Let them take one to full success and then ask for ownership of others

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7558
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby nachiket » 26 Mar 2020 05:12

If MoD hadn't paid dues to the tune of thousands of crores to a private company (foreign or domestic) there would be arbitration proceedings going on right now and MoD would end up paying through their (taxpayer's) noses eventually. They know that very well. So they don't default on payments to private (especially foreign) vendors. With HAL, it looks like there is a "sab kuch chalta hai" attitude since it is a government agency and is not going to sue the MoD.

And yes if they had defaulted on payments to a private vendor that vendor would not be drilling a single hole (in a manual or automated manner) to fulfill more orders.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 289
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby agupta » 26 Mar 2020 05:13

You've raised an interesting possibility of the NLCA --> LiFT role ! Interesting. I do recall you advocating for a clean sheet AJT/HAwk-scale LIFT design as well, right ? Are you thinking we may end up having 2 different LIFT candidates - separate one for IAF and IN ?

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 289
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby agupta » 26 Mar 2020 05:20

nachiket wrote:If MoD hadn't paid dues to the tune of thousands of crores to a private company (foreign or domestic) there would be arbitration proceedings going on right now and MoD would end up paying through their (taxpayer's) noses eventually. They know that very well. So they don't default on payments to private (especially foreign) vendors. With HAL, it looks like there is a "sab kuch chalta hai" attitude since it is a government agency and is not going to sue the MoD.

And yes if they had defaulted on payments to a private vendor that vendor would not be drilling a single hole (in a manual or automated manner) to fulfill more orders.



I dunno, Nachiket-ji. I believe if MoD was just sitting on dues without any real or contractually enforce-able reasons, HAL would've made a big stink by now. I can only speculate that they are in a vise because the contractual language screws them over and perhaps in the past, "9X% performance" was sufficient and now if someone wants to hold them hostage (even if unfairly) they can. You know, If you want to charge pass-through fees for managing component integration because you're allowed to, maybe some else starts to use the the old "work-to-rules" play... all parties can play that game. All speculation only, not even chaiwala info

The hole drilling was I believe connected to IOC contract; all paid for. So lets not get off tangents on future contracts. What would be instructive would be - Original timeline for that improvement, promised production cycle time vs. realized on say the last batch of the IOC tranches.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8140
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Indranil » 26 Mar 2020 05:55

agupta wrote:You've raised an interesting possibility of the NLCA --> LiFT role ! Interesting. I do recall you advocating for a clean sheet AJT/HAwk-scale LIFT design as well, right ? Are you thinking we may end up having 2 different LIFT candidates - separate one for IAF and IN ?

1. IN doesn't have a trainer that can land on deck. NLCA Mk1 trainer will be that LIFT. ADA trying to sell that concept to IN. IN sees the merit. Short on money.
2. HAL has put forward LCA AF trainer -- as LIFT for IAF and other AFs. There is virtue in it. But, I don't see the differentiator from the Boeing/Saab T-7, Lockheed Martin/KAI T-50, the Yak/Hongdu L-15 and the Chengu/PAC J-17B. If I were a foreign buyer, I would go the T-7 which has ~500 orders on day 1, and is designed from the ground up as a standalone LIFT. It's maintenance is going to be the least by virtue of the design choices it has made.
3. Therefore I have khayali pulao design in my mind of next generation AJT/LIFT which is based on single-AB engine. A modern day Mig21/F-5E. It will be cheaper to acquire and maintain than all the above (except the T-7). Performance wise it will lie in between a Hawk and an LCA Mk1. It can chose a slightly more performant AJT because it is on a three airplane syllabus and the IJT is a pretty decent jet trainer.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1140
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby shaun » 29 Mar 2020 15:19

"Carrier Integration has been proven with successful operations from the flight deck of INS Vikramaditya, a total of 18 arrested landings and 18 ski-ramp take off carried out from INS Vikramaditya in 5 days. "

Good number of sorties

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Vivek K » 29 Mar 2020 23:19

Great accomplishment. The sortie rate is for two aircraft, right? How does it compare with say the Migs or the Harriers?

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2938
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby tsarkar » 30 Mar 2020 18:30

Vivek K wrote:Great accomplishment. The sortie rate is for two aircraft, right? How does it compare with say the Migs or the Harriers?

The Harrier sea trials were held onboard INS Vikrant in June/July 1972. Speaking from memory the pilot made 20+ sorties in 1/2 days using a single two seater.

A more comprehensive document is here but dont have access to open it.

https://www.scribd.com/document/2650121 ... r-in-India

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8631
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby brar_w » 30 Mar 2020 19:37

That's good though a little unfair given that the Naval Tejas team was integrating the platform on a carrier for the very first time ever as opposed to taking a more mature naval aircraft and running sea trials with it.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Vivek K » 30 Mar 2020 21:46

tsarkar wrote:
Vivek K wrote:Great accomplishment. The sortie rate is for two aircraft, right? How does it compare with say the Migs or the Harriers?

The Harrier sea trials were held onboard INS Vikrant in June/July 1972. Speaking from memory the pilot made 20+ sorties in 1/2 days using a single two seater.

A more comprehensive document is here but dont have access to open it.

https://www.scribd.com/document/2650121 ... r-in-India

Ok. Well - that is the difference between a "first ever" carrier flight and buying an off the shelf carrier accepted aircraft. Some time was perhaps spent in checking telemetry and being risk averse. I bet the sortie rate for future missions to the carrier would be higher.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1140
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby shaun » 30 Mar 2020 22:11

tsarkar wrote:The Harrier sea trials were held onboard INS Vikrant in June/July 1972. Speaking from memory the pilot made 20+ sorties in 1/2 days using a single two seater.

A more comprehensive document is here but dont have access to open it.

https://www.scribd.com/document/2650121 ... r-in-India


sir scribd is free for 1 month Scribd is giving away 1 month of unlimited access for free. Reading subscription service Scribd is offering free access to its library of over one million ebooks, audiobooks, magazines and more for the next 30 days (no commitment or credit card information required)

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2604
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Cybaru » 30 Mar 2020 23:14

Good points Brar and Vivek. The cost of operating Harrier Gr9 was in excess of £15,000 an hour by the way for those who are comparing.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1425
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Gyan » 31 Mar 2020 00:57

Apart from NP1 & NP2, are we going to manufacture additional Naval LCA MK1? There used to talk of 1-2 more prototypes and 6 LSP aircraft to provide experience & knowledge to develop and manufacture next series of Naval aircraft.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2938
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby tsarkar » 31 Mar 2020 16:55

Vivek K wrote:
tsarkar wrote:The Harrier sea trials were held onboard INS Vikrant in June/July 1972. Speaking from memory the pilot made 20+ sorties in 1/2 days using a single two seater.

A more comprehensive document is here but dont have access to open it.

https://www.scribd.com/document/2650121 ... r-in-India

Ok. Well - that is the difference between a "first ever" carrier flight and buying an off the shelf carrier accepted aircraft. Some time was perhaps spent in checking telemetry and being risk averse. I bet the sortie rate for future missions to the carrier would be higher.


It was a Harrier prototype in 1972 and not "off the shelf carrier accepted aircraft". Sea Harrier entered RN service in 1980.

We wanted a close look and wanted to check carrier compatibility in hot and humid conditions, hence the 1972 trials in June and July. The Harrier prototype in those trials was far from production standards.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Vivek K » 31 Mar 2020 17:40

Great to know. It was still an aircraft that had the benefit of years of data. This is India’s first effort ever to attempt carrier integration. They probably had set objectives that were qualified during the trials.
For example - NLCA future prototypes will benefit from the first set of landings and could expand the envelope as needed.

basant
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 81
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby basant » 10 Apr 2020 02:29

Please check BRF FB page for a nice pic of Naval Tejas posted by Harshal Pal, it's beautiful! Armed with 3x ASRAAM, 2x Harpoon AShM, 2x 1200L drop tanks and GSh-23 canon.

BTW, did the previous carrier trains involve sorties with (dummy) weapons? I remember reading about difficulty in doing so.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8800
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Rakesh » 10 Apr 2020 04:23

The proportions in the picture (from the post above) are not correct.

Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5177
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Kartik » 19 May 2020 03:17

US Navy is looking for a jet trainer to replace the T-45 Goshawk that it operates off it's carriers.

The IN has a trainer available in the Naval LCA Mk1 that SURPASSES the US Navy's trainer requirements in most areas except the airframe total life. And while the US Navy wants to teach landings and touch-and-go on carriers to rookies, the IN prefers to use Hawks for advanced jet training and then move them directly onto MiG-29KUB trainers.

A much smarter approach would be to have the N-LCA Mk1 trainers as part of a 2 stage jet training process, with Hawk graduates moving to the N-LCA Mk1 trainers and practicing carrier traps and take offs before graduating to the combat squadrons. Would free up the INAS squadrons from a host of training related duties and sorties.

US Navy begins search for next jet trainer to replace T-45 Goshawk

The US Navy (USN) has begun its search for a new jet trainer to replace its Boeing T-45 Goshawk fleet.

As part of its new Undergraduate Jet Training System programme, the service wants a nondevelopmental, land-based jet trainer capable of field carrier landing practice and nuclear aircraft carrier touch-and-go landings by 2028 or sooner, according to a request for information posted online on 14 May.

The service wants a two-pilot aircraft with ejection seats. The jet should be able to be flown from either cockpit.

The USN is interested in knowing what aircraft can integrate advanced technologies, such as Precision Landing Mode, which is used to help land the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet on aircraft carriers. It also wants the trainer to have an automatic ground collision avoidance system.

The service wants an assessment of how certain aircraft would handle the forces of high sink rate landings, the hallmark of training for landing on the short deck of an aircraft carrier.

Each example of the next-generation trainer is expected to fly 400h per year. The USN wants to conduct field carrier landing practices at an annual rate of 1,200 per aircraft. It also wants each trainer to perform carrier touch-and-go landings 45 times per year.

Candidate aircraft should have a flight life of at least 14,400h, and be able to sustain 43,200 landings.

The service does not plan to conduct arrested landings or catapult launches from aircraft carriers using the jet trainer. That approach differs from its current T-45 fleet, which conducts carrier landings and launches.

The aircraft should have an operational ceiling of 41,000ft, and be capable of speeds greater than 600kt (1,110km/h).

..


and China's new naval trainer JL-9 lacks an arresting hook as of now. Speculation is that it won't be used for carrier landing training, but land based training of naval pilots.

Once again, the IN has a superior product than the PLAN as well. I can bet my bottom dollar that the IN wouldn't even touch something like the JL-9 with a 100 foot pole. Imagine HAL offering a MiG-21 derivative with a MiG-21 derivative turbojet engine to the IN for entry into service in 2022 or so.. what kind of criticism would we see? :roll:

Yet, the IN sleeps on a proposal to buy 8-10 Naval LCA Mk1 trainers solely for the purpose of training it's naval rookies in the extremely difficult art of landing on an aircraft carrier. A naval trainer that exceeds every other dedicated naval trainer anywhere in the world in specs and capabilities and is extremely affordable.

Image

New naval JL-9 trainer takes flight in China

Visually there is little to set the aircraft apart from the baseline JL-9, apart from extensions to its wingtips and modest changes at the base of the tail.

Notably for a model designed to train aircraft carrier pilots, the new JL-9 lacks a tailhook. Online speculation suggests that the aircraft will never be developed to land on an aircraft carrier, but be used solely for the land-based training of naval pilots.


In an image released of the first flight activity on Chinese state television, a patch on a pilot’s uniform suggests the name of the new variant is “Sword Fish.”

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8140
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Indranil » 19 May 2020 03:35

US will look no further than its T-7 derivatives.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4452
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby chola » 19 May 2020 04:08

The NLCA has trapped on an operational carrier. How many aircraft anywhere in the world has done that? As Kartik observes, it passes the specs of what the US and Cheen are using.

It wouldn't make sense not to use it at least as a trainer even if the IN is dead set on a twin-engine onlee for the carriers.

That said, if the Navy trusts the NLCA enough to have trapped the thing twice on an operational carrier then I have to trust their judgement. It is not like they are avoiding the aircraft. But I find no reason why it can't be inducted as a naval trainer at least.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5177
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Kartik » 19 May 2020 04:36

Indranil wrote:US will look no further than its T-7 derivatives.


And rightly so. But what about our IN? When will it start looking at the N-LCA Mk1 for it's trainer needs?

arvin
BRFite
Posts: 347
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby arvin » 20 May 2020 20:51

NLCA is the perfect product which can be squarely aimed at T-7 Red hawK. T-7 doesnt have the thunder thighs required for carrier landings.
We should be pulling all diplomatic levers to promote this bird. It would have definetly helped if the navy had ordered a squadron worth of this
aircraft. An operational aircraft would be far easier to sell and to iron out minor issues. IMO, govt should push down a squadron worth of NLCA down the navy's throat whether they like it or not.
If the navy was ok with the piddly payload the harrier was able to cart around, NLCA is definetly able to lug around more. Its is a serious error of judgement from Navy's side for not ordering this bird.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11853
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Aditya_V » 20 May 2020 21:28

Whatever it is US will import from country like India which is not considered as a close ally. Its stupid for us to waste our energy, rather get our Navy to order

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4563
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby srai » 21 May 2020 03:22

...

If the navy was ok with the piddly payload the harrier was able to cart around, NLCA is definetly able to lug around more. Its is a serious error of judgement from Navy's side for not ordering this bird.

...


I’ve been thinking along similar lines. NLCA Mk.1 should do well comparatively against Sea Harrier.

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2014
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Bala Vignesh » 21 May 2020 11:51

Just came back after many a moons to this thread and Jingo bahut khush hua!! Now all that remains is for the khayali biryani that most of us are cooking(NLCA Mk1 in Navy service) becomes reality.
Indranil ji, would you be able to share if there is a tentive timeline on when the next set of tests are supposed to happen for the NLCA and If this pandemic has had any impact on it??

Rsatchi
BRFite
Posts: 684
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby Rsatchi » 21 May 2020 13:21

srai wrote:
...

If the navy was ok with the piddly payload the harrier was able to cart around, NLCA is definetly able to lug around more. Its is a serious error of judgement from Navy's side for not ordering this bird.

...


I’ve been thinking along similar lines. NLCA Mk.1 should do well comparatively against Sea Harrier.

SraiJi
The main issue with our armed forces is : If U can have 'Gori Mainm' then why are U asking to go for 'Dehati Aurat' :D
If IAF has Rafales and Army gets Apaches why should Navy buy NLCA!!! :roll:
creating of CDS notwithstanding, this probably will go on
But COVID-19 is a golden opportunity to knock few heads together and get them all to support desi stuff

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2938
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby tsarkar » 21 May 2020 18:05

Kartik wrote:US Navy is looking for a jet trainer to replace the T-45 Goshawk that it operates off it's carriers.

This is a wonderful export opportunity for the NLCAT for the Minister of Commerce Piyush Goyal to pursue along with the India US trade deal under discussion. NLCAT already uses GE F-404 engine and Litening and other parts can be Americanised.

Indranil wrote:US will look no further than its T-7 derivatives.

We all know the pains of navalizing a land based fighter. The US too failed navalising the F-16. The NLCAT offers a neat solution. If only GoI/HAL took aggressive sales efforts here!

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2938
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby tsarkar » 21 May 2020 18:32

srai wrote:
...If the navy was ok with the piddly payload the harrier was able to cart around, NLCA is definetly able to lug around more. Its is a serious error of judgement from Navy's side for not ordering this bird....
I’ve been thinking along similar lines. NLCA Mk.1 should do well comparatively against Sea Harrier.

In a Air Defence Role, yes.

But NLCA's competition is the Klub family and BrahMos family deployed on 3 Kolkata 3 Shivalik 6 Talwar and 9 Sindhu 1 Chakra 1 Arihant submarines.

roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/shipborne-weapons/kalibr-nke/

Unless NLCA delivers a payload at range greater than these weapons, the whole economic rationale for an aircraft carrier is lost. Which is why GoI isnt approving the next aircraft carrier.

Hence the requirement for a Rafale/F-18/TEDBF that offers more payload at greater range in addition to Air Defence Role. That will justify investing in an aircraft carrier.

Also the logic of NLCAT for combat and carrier training is very sound as proposed by Kartik. Especially given the landing gear issues of the MiG-29KUB.

arvin
BRFite
Posts: 347
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby arvin » 21 May 2020 20:05

tsarkar wrote:
srai wrote:I’ve been thinking along similar lines. NLCA Mk.1 should do well comparatively against Sea Harrier.

Also the logic of NLCAT for combat and carrier training is very sound as proposed by Kartik. Especially given the landing gear issues of the MiG-29KUB.

Exactly sir.
Its a rare instance where we have a superior product (NLCA: Thrust 53 kN) over anything that the west has yet to field regards trainers. Boeing realized this since the talon has only 18 kN dry thrust and there exists a huge gap regards avionics and thrust if pilot are moved to F-16 (79 kN).

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8631
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby brar_w » 21 May 2020 20:44

Kartik wrote:US Navy is looking for a jet trainer to replace the T-45 Goshawk that it operates off it's carriers.

The IN has a trainer available in the Naval LCA Mk1 that SURPASSES the US Navy's trainer requirements in most areas except the airframe total life. And while the US Navy wants to teach landings and touch-and-go on carriers to rookies, the IN prefers to use Hawks for advanced jet training and then move them directly onto MiG-29KUB trainers.

A much smarter approach would be to have the N-LCA Mk1 trainers as part of a 2 stage jet training process, with Hawk graduates moving to the N-LCA Mk1 trainers and practicing carrier traps and take offs before graduating to the combat squadrons. Would free up the INAS squadrons from a host of training related duties and sorties.


The US Navy is looking at an off-the-shelf training solution that can replace a subset of its T-45 syllabus. The approach seems to be to get something in quickly that can relieve majority of the T-45 flight hours by this decade. This will extend T-45 remaining flight hours even further. Then they'll ask the OEM to propose a suitable variant that can fully replace the T-45 once that fleet is completely gone. They are looking for a non-developmental, next generation training system paired with a high airframe life aircraft that they don't have to develop. The Boeing T-7A meets that pretty much 100%. That's pretty much what it has been designed for The USAF picked it as the most superior pilot training option very recently so the USN has enough basis to issue a sole source contract. Boeing has experience integrating JPALS et al and pretty much anything the USN has fielded on carrier aviation over the last 20 years since most of that stuff has been developed for or tested on Boeing's product (including anything unmanned mode related - MQ-25).

Long term, I don't think the USN is going to be much concerned about the ability of the T-7 program to deliver a trainer that can completely meet the service's needs to replace T-45's. What they'll be closely watching is the 3-5 decade cost of buying, and sustaining the entire system (aircraft and training portion). Commonality with the USAF, particularly on the training portion (which is like 30-40% by contract value) of the program. This is a huge advantage for Boeing even compared to other US OEM's. The combined USAF and USN production quantities will likely exceed 500 aircraft. The Navy is the most conservative of US military branches and is almost obsessed with working with what they know and can model with some degree of certainty. Right now, Boeing sustains 100% of the USN's fighter portion of the carrier air wing (at least until the F-35 deploys next year) and this number will continue to remain at high levels as MQ-25 comes online. Given its T-45 involvement it has a huge leg up over pretty much anyone else.

tsarkar wrote:We all know the pains of navalizing a land based fighter. The US too failed navalising the F-16. The NLCAT offers a neat solution. If only GoI/HAL took aggressive sales efforts here!


The prospects of a couple of hundred of USN orders wouldn't have been lost on Boeing when it closed a very questionable financial case on the T-7 by underbidding its competitors. It would be highly surprising, given Boeing's connections with naval aviation, that they hadn't performed internal studies or design work related to that requirement when it designed the original aircraft. It is also highly unlikely that the USN is not aware of this work. The T-45 is itself an adaptation of a land based trainer aircraft.
Last edited by brar_w on 22 May 2020 00:02, edited 5 times in total.

arvin
BRFite
Posts: 347
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Naval Tejas Mk1: News & Discussion - 03 January 2020

Postby arvin » 21 May 2020 21:33

Its a feb 2020 article. Did not see it posted here.
https://www.flightglobal.com/singapore- ... 97.article

Boeing believes there is a global market for 2,600 T-7s, both as trainers and light-attack or aggressor aircraft.

“Some statistics say one in four and advanced fighters in the world’s air forces today are being used for training missions,” says Thomas Breckenridge, vice-president of international sales in Boeing’s strike, surveillance and mobility business unit.


Export of Tejas will be the test case for all the big defence reforms undertaken last week. We have a mature product and how much will we be able to bag out of 2600.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anoop, MeshaVishwas, schinnas, uskumar and 68 guests