Indian Naval Air Commander Outlines Expansion Plan

[thestringshredder]

The Indian Naval air arm is set to double its fleet of 217 aircraft in the next decade. The fleet–a mix of 14 models–“has emerged as a mini air force,” said assistant chief of naval staff (Air) Rear Admiral D.M. Sudan.

On May 11 the Navy will commission the first of three MiG-29K squadrons at its base in Goa. One is for training. The 16 aircraft originally ordered have all been delivered, as have four of a further 29. They will fly from the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya(previously Admiral Gorshkov), which has taken five years longer than planned to be refitted. Later, they will also fly from the Indian-built aircraft carrier (IAC-1), which is under construction in Kochi in Kerala. The MiG-29Ks are replacing Sea Harriers that previously received a limited upgrade. The VTOL aircraft will be phased out within two years.

The Navy is in the process of introducing 17 BAE Systems Hawk advanced jet trainers, which will be based on the East Coast beginning in July. At the end of the year, the Navy will take delivery of the first of eight Boeing P-8I Poseidons to replace Tu-142s in the long-range maritime patrol mission.

The Navy’s main helicopter fleet of Westland Sea King Mk 42Cs was decommissioned even as the RFP for 16 new multirole helicopters was released. Finalists Sikorsky (SH-70) and NH Industries (NH-90) are in the process of “completing the discussions on offsets,” Sudan told AIN. On whether the controversy over the AW101 helicopter buy could delay the decision, Sudan said, “The government has to make a call.”

Concerns about the suitability of the HAL Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) remain. “The Navy has given [HAL] a lot of support, but the helicopter needs a blade fold and that it is unable to do…so we can’t take it onto our ships,” said Sudan.

Future indigenous buys include the naval version of the HAL light combat aircraft (LCA). The prototype flew last year and carrier compatibility trials are scheduled before year-end at the Navy’s shore-based testing facility in Goa. “This is a critical test as [we will then know] if it can take off from and land on the carrier…We have grand plans for the LCA if it meets our requirements,” said Sudan.

Link - Indian Naval Air Commander Outlines Expansion Plan | idrw.org

 

[sancho]

Three different threads on the same Mig 29K topic within minutes and although there are already 2 available? Please check if similar threads are already posted and combine the news in one of them.

 

[selvan33]

The Indian Naval air arm is set to double its fleet of 217 aircraft in the next decade. The fleet–a mix of 14 models–“has emerged as a mini air force,” said assistant chief of naval staff (Air) Rear Admiral D.M. Sudan.

On May 11 the Navy will commission the first of three MiG-29K squadrons at its base in Goa. One is for training. The 16 aircraft originally ordered have all been delivered, as have four of a further 29. They will fly from the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya(previously Admiral Gorshkov), which has taken five years longer than planned to be refitted. Later, they will also fly from the Indian-built aircraft carrier (IAC-1), which is under construction in Kochi in Kerala. The MiG-29Ks are replacing Sea Harriers that previously received a limited upgrade. The VTOL aircraft will be phased out within two years.

The Navy is in the process of introducing 17 BAE Systems Hawk advanced jet trainers, which will be based on the East Coast beginning in July. At the end of the year, the Navy will take delivery of the first of eight Boeing P-8I Poseidons to replace Tu-142s in the long-range maritime patrol mission.

The Navy’s main helicopter fleet of Westland Sea King Mk 42Cs was decommissioned even as the RFP for 16 new multirole helicopters was released. Finalists Sikorsky (SH-70) and NH Industries (NH-90) are in the process of “completing the discussions on offsets,” Sudan told AIN. On whether the controversy over the AW101 helicopter buy could delay the decision, Sudan said, “The government has to make a call.”

Concerns about the suitability of the HAL Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) remain. “The Navy has given [HAL] a lot of support, but the helicopter needs a blade fold and that it is unable to do…so we can’t take it onto our ships,” said Sudan.

Future indigenous buys include the naval version of the HAL light combat aircraft (LCA). The prototype flew last year and carrier compatibility trials are scheduled before year-end at the Navy’s shore-based testing facility in Goa. “This is a critical test as [we will then know] if it can take off from and land on the carrier…We have grand plans for the LCA if it meets our requirements,” said Sudan.

Link - Indian Naval Air Commander Outlines Expansion Plan | idrw.org

Waited for this news only. so in future we will use our LCA in LHD's.

 

[janon]

Waited for this news only. so in future we will use our LCA in LHD's.

In our LHDs? Where did you read that? No, only from aircraft carriers.

He says that the harriers will be phased out in two years. There were statements previously that the Viraat will retire only in 2018. So what will the Virat do in between? Be used as a helo carrier? Or have they decided to retire Virat by 2015 as well? That would be the sensible thing to do, IMO. There is no point keeping it in service simply to carry the six or so harriers flying. Just not worth the money. And no point in converting it into a helicopter carrier simply for using it another 3 years.

@sancho : This is yet another naval officer who is expressing keenness to see the NLCA in service soon. He says the navy has "grand plans" for the N-LCA. Earlier a senior naval officer had remarked that the navy is eagerly awaiting the LCA, more so than any foreign fighter. Contrary to your assertion that it is a useless endeavor, and that it will not serve any purpose for the navy, the navy seems to think otherwise.

(Of course, capability-wise the NLCA is not as capable as other carrier borne fighters available in the international market. I am not disputing that. But it is several times more capable than anything the navy has flown so far from its carriers. And the fact that it is indegenous confers a lot of benefits in itself, which the navy seems to have realized. They are going to plan their doctrine around what is available to them, foreign and Indian included, which in the long run will benefit them and the nation more. As this officer is saying, they have "grand plans" for the LCA.)

 

[selvan33]

In our LHDs? Where did you read that? No, only from aircraft carriers.

He says that the harriers will be phased out in two years. There were statements previously that the Viraat will retire only in 2018. So what will the Virat do in between? Be used as a helo carrier? Or have they decided to retire Virat by 2015 as well? That would be the sensible thing to do, IMO. There is no point keeping it in service simply to carry the six or so harriers flying. Just not worth the money. And no point in converting it into a helicopter carrier simply for using it another 3 years.

@sancho : This is yet another naval officer who is expressing keenness to see the NLCA in service soon. He says the navy has "grand plans" for the N-LCA. Earlier a senior naval officer had remarked that the navy is eagerly awaiting the LCA, more so than any foreign fighter. Contrary to your assertion that it is a useless endeavor, and that it will not serve any purpose for the navy, the navy seems to think otherwise.

(Of course, capability-wise the NLCA is not as capable as other carrier borne fighters available in the international market. I am not disputing that. But it is several times more capable than anything the navy has flown so far from its carriers. And the fact that it is indegenous confers a lot of benefits in itself, which the navy seems to have realized. They are going to plan their doctrine around what is available to them, foreign and Indian included, which in the long run will benefit them and the nation more. As this officer is saying, they have "grand plans" for the LCA.)

oops...That's my mistake. Am sorry i mistakenly get confused with LCH and LCA.

 

[Badbadman]

Would be great if we can stand up another INAF. Two airforces two recon with.

 

[sancho]

@sancho : This is yet another naval officer who is expressing keenness to see the NLCA in service soon. He says the navy has "grand plans" for the N-LCA. Earlier a senior naval officer had remarked that the navy is eagerly awaiting the LCA, more so than any foreign fighter. Contrary to your assertion that it is a useless endeavor, and that it will not serve any purpose for the navy, the navy seems to think otherwise.

Actually it fits pretty well to my point of view of N-LCA and INs intentions, since they want it only based on indigenous purposes, with the aim to improve the naval fighter development in India, not based on capability, or suitability for our coming threats and to be honest, that one liner statement hardly has any value compared to this:

"LCA-Navy Not What We Want, But It's Ours": FONA

"It may not be what we want, but it is our own aircraft," says the Indian Navy's Flag Officer Naval Aviation (FONA) Rear Admiral Sudhir Pillai on the LCA Navy in an interview to FORCE magazine. He was asked how effective the LCA Navy would be for a carrier-based role given that it "only an eight ton platform". The officer's response: "I wish wish we could straightaway develop a Rafale. But seriously, we have to look at the Indian Navy and it commitment towards indigenisation. I agree that we have made a modest start, but it has been a huge learning experience. LCA Navy will remain a modest platform with an uprated engine which will give us adequate capability at sea. While it is easy to buy from abroad, sometimes it is extremely difficult to support those platforms. Our past experiences tell us that it is worth committing resources to develop our own assets."

Livefist: "LCA-Navy Not What We Want, But It's Ours": FONA


Again, IN knows pretty well that N-LCA is not a good carrier fighter, but their aim is to set up a naval fighter development base in India, just like LCA was based to set up a general fighter development base in India. In both cases, LCA will play only a minor role in the force, since both forces will operate more capable fighters too. The difference however is, that the operational situation for a single engine light class fighter is very different in IAF, than in IN and that makes is such a bad choice as a fully fledged carrier fighter version. Anything more that the current N-LCA MK1 tech demonstrator is a waste, since we get the necessary design and development experience and know how with this demonstrator. The operational side however should have been covered with higher numbers of more capable fighters!

(Of course, capability-wise the NLCA is not as capable as other carrier borne fighters available in the international market. I am not disputing that. But it is several times more capable than anything the navy has flown so far from its carriers. And the fact that it is indigenous confers a lot of benefits in itself, which the navy seems to have realized. They are going to plan their doctrine around what is available to them, foreign and Indian included, which in the long run will benefit them and the nation more. As this officer is saying, they have "grand plans" for the LCA.)

Whenever I discuss N-LCA with others, these 2 points will be shown as arguments for the fighter, better than the Harrier and it's indigenous. But I am kind of surprised to hear them from you, since these are just excuses to justify N-LCAs.
Comparing it with old generation fighters that we have operated in the past or till now, doesn't make any sense! Even the Harrier is many times more capable than the carrier fighters we had before them, but that that doesn't make it useful in attacking Pakistan shore bases against JF 17 or F16s and coastal air defences right? Nor will it have any chance to stand against J15, let alone a J31. But these are the important points, what roles is N-LCA intended to do and against what possible threats?

We (including IN) are still blinding our self with the term „indigenous“, ignoring that it's simply nuts to operate a single engine light class carrier fighter by 2022 (since N-LCA won't be operational earlier), against the capabilities of Pakistan and China by then. Even the Mig 29K will offer only limited potential, without credible upgrades, but no matter what, the future of IN must be a 5th gen fighter!
That's why a naval AMCA development would be so important for us, but ADA/DRDO as usual don't see the real requirements and IN is happy to get any chance of an own development (which is N-LCA), even if it is a bad one!

Btw, what benefits do we have from N-LCA being „indigenous“?
At this point we can say, that N-LCA and Mig 29K will both have foreign engines, IF the indigenous AESA will be ready by 2022, it must be integrated into the Mig too, the weapon package by then will be the same either:

R73
Astra
Sudarshan LGB with Litening LDP
Kh 35 anti ship missiles

While the Mig might even have Brahmos light too


Both will have a mix of Indian and foreign cockpit displays and avionics, the Mig will have the Indian Topsight version, N-LCA possibly too.

So where is the advantage? Isn't it the fact, that a customised foreign fighter, like the Mig 29K, the MKI, or even better a co-developed one like FGFA is the best that we could have, since it offer all the main advantage of „indigenous“ developments AND the high techs and capabilities we get from more capable countries and that we can't build on our own yet!

A naval AMCA wouldn't be better than Mig 29K or Rafale M because it's indigenous, but because it's a NG fighter, that's the reality that we have to see. Similarly, it's good to gain experience and know how with N-LCA MK1, but we need N-AMCA to defend ourselves against the threats of the future, not a "modest" 4.5 gen carrier fighter!

 

[surya kiran]

A naval AMCA wouldn't be better than Mig 29K or Rafale M because it's indigenous, but because it's a NG fighter, that's the reality that we have to see. Similarly, it's good to gain experience and know how with N-LCA MK1, but we need N-AMCA to defend ourselves against the threats of the future, not a "modest" 4.5 gen carrier fighter!

With all due respect for your expertise sancho, we are not able to get an LCA up and flying. The AMCA is not going to be ready anywhere before the Pak-FA goes into production. In fact, I will not be surprised if the work on AMCA is given priority after we absorb relevant technologies and know hows from the Rafale and Pak-FA projects. On the other hand, the naval LCA as a technology demonstrator and one squadron on order also gives the development partners enough confidence to concentrate on building aerial assets for the navy, the same way today shipyards and private contractors are ready to commit resources to the IN.

We are dreaming if we think the naval AMCA is going to be anywhere near trials before 2030. The Mig 29K and Rafale M, if bought, is for the now. The AMCA is for sometime in 2035 and by that time warfare would have evolved. What seems more likely than the naval AMCA is a naval Pak-FA. That's a more practical and do-able solution with a partner who has required expertise and more importantly a commitment to buy the planes.

 

[sancho]

The AMCA is not going to be ready anywhere before the Pak-FA goes into production.

Of course not, but how said we need to? IAC 2 will not be available before 2025 and that is the timerange that we have to aim with a NG naval fighter too, be it a naval FGFA, or a naval AMCA.

On the other hand, the naval LCA as a technology demonstrator and one squadron on order also gives the development partners enough confidence to concentrate on building aerial assets for the navy

Which is exactly the reason why I want the N-LCA MK1 TD program as well, but the N-LCA MK2 fighter development for Vikramadithya and IAC 1 is the issue, that is not needed, nor useful. Taking the N-LCA MK1 TD experience and combining it with what we have learned in FGFA will give us the necessary know how for a naval AMCA. Do it with the right partners, like Dassault and we can develop it into a NG CATOBAR fighter, if we get catapults. In the meantime, Mig 29Ks, ideally Mig 29Ks, that can be further customised in future with Indian AESA radar and Kaveri K10 engines, are the more capable and useful solution for our first to carriers, since they can be inducted way earlier than an N-LCA MK2 could be, with the same avionics and weapon packages.

We are dreaming if we think the naval AMCA is going to be anywhere near trials before 2030.

That depends on the way we do it! If we do it alone like we did LCA and remain with the attitude that only indigenous things are the solution, we will need longer, for sure. Therefor getting credible partners to the project from the start is the key and with additions like LCA MK2, Rafale, Super 30 and FGFA, we even have a good base of techs that simply could be diverted.

 

[janon]

Actually it fits pretty well to my point of view of N-LCA and INs intentions, since they want it only based on indigenous purposes, with the aim to improve the naval fighter development in India, not based on capability, or suitability for our coming threats and to be honest, that one liner statement hardly has any value compared to this:



Livefist: "LCA-Navy Not What We Want, But It's Ours": FONA

And notice the operative word in that quote, in the sentence that you reddened - "adequate". It won't be the IN's best fighter, but it will be good enough for a lot of jobs. That's what adequate means, right? Good enough for their needs. (Not all their needs, I know.) We keep trying to get the best, paying through our nose, while Pakistan and China make do with the "good enough".

Whenever I discuss N-LCA with others, these 2 points will be shown as arguments for the fighter, better than the Harrier and it's indigenous. But I am kind of surprised to hear them from you, since these are just excuses to justify N-LCAs.
Comparing it with old generation fighters that we have operated in the past or till now, doesn't make any sense! Even the Harrier is many times more capable than the carrier fighters we had before them, but that that doesn't make it useful in attacking Pakistan shore bases against JF 17 or F16s and coastal air defences right? Nor will it have any chance to stand against J15, let alone a J31. But these are the important points, what roles is N-LCA intended to do and against what possible threats?

We (including IN) are still blinding our self with the term „indigenous“, ignoring that it's simply nuts to operate a single engine light class carrier fighter by 2022 (since N-LCA won't be operational earlier), against the capabilities of Pakistan and China by then. Even the Mig 29K will offer only limited potential, without credible upgrades, but no matter what, the future of IN must be a 5th gen fighter!

See, and there we come to the crux of the issue. The harriers were better than anything the IN had previously, and they bought them. They weren't world beating, but they were good enough, and gave a significant boost to the IN's firepower. It was an era when F-14s and F-18s were setting the standards for naval aviation. Remember, PAF had F-16s all these years, which could have flown circles around the harriers. But so what, that's an air force, and we are talking about the navy. Our carriers will operate far away from PAF's reach, as they have always done. JF-17s and Mirage-iiis taking off from their mainland will not duel with our carrier fighters. If the navy wants to strike coastal targets with their aircrafts, they have the mig-29Ks anyway. (Not to mention the fact that the IAF with all its airbases can also do that.) Our N-LCAs will give fleet air cover to our battlegroup. And they will carry lots of anti ship missiles. PN's ships will not have air cover far from the mainland. So to question whether N-LCA can single handedly take on PAF is irrelevant, because it doesn't have to. There are lots of other ways in which it can make itself useful. "Good enough" or "adequate", although not the best.

Taking your arguments, the IN should not have bought the harriers back then, because they couldn't take on most aircrafts with PAF. Mirages, F-7s, early model F-16s could all have defeated them in aerial combat. But the harriers had a role to play, of making the IN's fleets invincible for an adversarial fleet that lacks air cover. And in today's situation, the disparity between the N-LCA and pak's aircrafts is not as big as the disparity between the harriers and the PAF's fleet then (in air combat). The N-LCA can easily comparable to the JF-17, and from specs, better. So why should the navy be queasy about a fighter that is comparable to the backbone of the enemy's air force?

Regarding China, it is a different issue. N-LCAs cannot be a match for a flanker or flanker clone that the PLANAF might fly off its carriers. But PLANAF has not yet floated a carrier, and it will be some while before they learn carrier aviation, and a lot more years before they can send a carrier into the Indian Ocean. I am not anticipating carrier to carrier air combat with China any time soon. If and when it happens, we can fill our carriers with the more capable fighters, and leave the N-LCAs in Goa for shore defence. But during all other times, when there are no Chinese carriers in the Indian ocean (I would think, 100% of the time), N-LCAs should serve on our carriers.

That's why a naval AMCA development would be so important for us, but ADA/DRDO as usual don't see the real requirements and IN is happy to get any chance of an own development (which is N-LCA), even if it is a bad one!

Btw, what benefits do we have from N-LCA being „indigenous“?
At this point we can say, that N-LCA and Mig 29K will both have foreign engines, IF the indigenous AESA will be ready by 2022, it must be integrated into the Mig too, the weapon package by then will be the same either:

R73
Astra
Sudarshan LGB with Litening LDP
Kh 35 anti ship missiles

While the Mig might even have Brahmos light too


Both will have a mix of Indian and foreign cockpit displays and avionics, the Mig will have the Indian Topsight version, N-LCA possibly too.

So where is the advantage? Isn't it the fact, that a customised foreign fighter, like the Mig 29K, the MKI, or even better a co-developed one like FGFA is the best that we could have, since it offer all the main advantage of „indigenous“ developments AND the high techs and capabilities we get from more capable countries and that we can't build on our own yet!

A naval AMCA wouldn't be better than Mig 29K or Rafale M because it's indigenous, but because it's a NG fighter, that's the reality that we have to see. Similarly, it's good to gain experience and know how with N-LCA MK1, but we need N-AMCA to defend ourselves against the threats of the future, not a "modest" 4.5 gen carrier fighter!

Yes, it will have foreign components. But then, contrary to your perception, the IN is not trying to get an indigenous fighter simply for pride or prestige. So even if the engines and a few other parts are foreign, the fighter is still an indigenous development. (Is Gripen a Swedish plane or not? It has the same American engines, and many parts are sourced from Europe and USA. yet, everybody calls it a Swedish plane.) The benefits are lower cost, to procure as well as operate over the lifetime, all spares and support from within India, which means further savings, ability to customize it with any weapon package we want (forget about using Russian missiles on Rafales or French ones on Mig 29K, should we procure Rafale in future), money spent within India, benefitting the local economy, creating more revenue, lower loss of forex, driving down the cost of the Tejas program as a whole (for the IAF as well), more experience in production technology, and so on and so forth. And all this, while getting a supersonic fighter that can do CAP of the battle group, sink enemy ships (especially those without air cover), and many other duties as well reasonably well. Not as well as the foreign fighters, but in the words of the official you quoted, "adequately".

 

[Abingdonboy]

@sancho sir, you can't run marathons before you even know how to walk. The IAF and IN LCA variants are incredibly important to the Indian aeronautical industery without these platforms India can't graduate onto designing and developing NG/5th gen fighters- there is a gradual and logical progression. And developing TDs and test air craft is all well and good but you DO need to roll out such fighters in large numbers and put them into full-scale devlopment. This builds in the industrial base for production and subsequent infrastructure to support the fighters over their lifetimes ie MRO facilities will be built, MLUs will be applied etc etc.


Some issues that come up after a/c are operational we're never even considered or addressed throughout the design,devlopment and subsequent testing process and as such they need to become operational for certain areas to be addressed and fixes found.


An entire ecosystem needs to be created in India that goes from intial design through to devlopment to testing and subsequent support. If you miss out any step then you are leaving yourselves open for pain down the road.


India is following a slow but pragmatic route.

 

[sancho]

And notice the operative word in that quote, in the sentence that you reddened - "adequate". It won't be the IN's best fighter, but it will be good enough for a lot of jobs. That's what adequate means, right?

No, "adequate" was aimed on the performance with the higher thrust engine, not on the general performance of the fighter, which was described as "modest"!!! And again, they make it clear that all their effort is aimed on supporting the industry, not for operational capability and that is the problem, because we need both, support for the industry (N-LCA MK1 TD) and capability (customised Mig 29K)!

They weren't world beating, but they were good enough

But janon, enough for what??? You still make the wrong comparison, since you compare it not against our threat perception, but against other carrier fighters that has nothing to do with India!
The Sea harriers came with nothing in mind thain air defence for a carrier (against no enemy, since no enemy carrier, or capable naval fighters were available back then) and with anti ship capability for Sea Control. The latter was the only use of INS Viraat in war times, but these days are gone and today, but more importantly in near future IN will have to face different threats! Offensive strikes against coastal targets and the coming threat of fighting a capable Chinese fleet or even carriers is what they have to do now and future. Do you really expect N-LCA to be capable enough for that, when it's available in 2022?

Our carriers will operate far away from PAF's reach, as they have always done. JF-17s and Mirage-iiis taking off from their mainland will not duel with our carrier fighters.

Wrong, in the past they did, since PAF didn't had either capable naval fighters, nor tanker support and long range attack capability like they have even today. JF 17 B2 will have refuelling capability and can carry Raad or C802, the F16 B52s with CFTs and Harpoons will have more than enough range to attack our carriers in the Arabian Sea too. Which means we need to keep our carriers even further away, we need more capable air defence capabilities and at the same time more capable long range attack capabilities too. The Mig 29K can offer this with some upgrades, the N-LCA can't!

The N-LCA can easily comparable to the JF-17, and from specs, better.

We don't even have any specs from the MK2 in general and let alone for N-LCA MK2, but there are some things that we do know, N-LCA will...

...be much heavier than the land based LCA MK2 (navalised airframe, LEVCONs and it's additional systems, hook, landing gear... could add to 1t or)
...have to carry 2 x wing fueltanks ro achieve enough range and endurrance in any role, but with 7 x weaponstations only and a minimum of 4 x AAMs, it leaves only a single station for anti ship missiles, or LGB
...have less AWACS and tanker support than PAFs fighters, unless IAF will divert their assets to IN, which is highly unlikely in war times and the limited numbers of AWACS and tankers they have on their own
...be operated in far lower numbers on our carriers (even if you add the Migs), compared to PAFs coastal defence fighters, so numerical disadvantage
...be no comparison against J15, which is a given, even if we have no credible specs of both fighters yet

I am not anticipating carrier to carrier air combat with China any time soon.

Just like N-LCA will not be around anytime soon, but when it will be, Chinese carriers with AT LEAST J15s will be here too and that is what you have to consider! And no comment on how to operate N-LCA, otherwise I would give trolls only more arguments to call LCA/N-LCA bad.

So even if the engines and a few other parts are foreign, the fighter is still an indigenous development.

Wait, you didn't get the point! Of course the fighter is indigenous, but you said that being indigenous would offer benefits it IN, but operationally that will not be the case, since most indigenous parts that make a difference like weapons or avionics are similar for N-LCA and the Mig, or are foreign on both fighters too.

 

[surya kiran]

@sancho we both are saying the same thing as far as the NLCA is concerned. Where it diverges is the next step. Efforts in development of a naval PakFA makes more sense than going in for naval AMCA. In fact, once we have worked on the naval PakFA, then attempt on the AMCA makes more sense.

 

[sancho]

@sancho sir, you can't run marathons before you even know how to walk.

Tell me about it, who is always saying that AMCA for IAF is not possible with the current level of know how in Indian industry. And who is always pointing out how important the LCA project as a whole is for India and why it is needed to finish it in a propper way and not simply go to the next project and I also want this know how for developing naval fighters too!
However, there is a huge different of operating LCA in IAF and N-LCA in IN as showed in the last posts, which we can't ignore only because we want to have an Indian carrier fighter. That's why I am all for the N-LCA Tech Demonstrator developments, but against waisting money on N-LCA MK2, or to make IN carriers less capable with N-LCA instead of having a good fleet of more capable fighters.

developing TDs and test air craft is all well and good but you DO need to roll out such fighters in large numbers and put them into full-scale devlopment. This builds in the industrial base for production and subsequent infrastructure to support the fighters over their lifetimes ie MRO facilities will be built, MLUs will be applied etc etc.

So you are saying Russia was wrong in developing Su 47, Mig 1.42 tech demonstrators and it's technologies, which now builds the base for their 5th gen developments and partially are even used to test the new techs, without building them in high numbers of operational versions?
Btw, the MLU for LCA are based on the air force version, not on the N-LCA, since N-LCA itself is only a varient of the air force version, not like the F18SH a carrier fighter used in air forces.
So N-LCA TD gives us the basic know how for navalising a fighter, which will help us in a naval AMCA development too, although that might have many other changes, but an operatonl N-LCA MK2 won't benefit in the future development.

India is following a slow but pragmatic route.

Not at all and that's my point mate!

N-LCA MK1 TD -> Mig 29K -> N-LCA MK2 by 2022 = not good!
N-LCA MK1 TD -> Mig 29K -> N-AMCA around 2025 = very good!

The later would be the slow and pragmatic route with a learning curve and a capable stopgap solution in between. The earlier is just nonsense, ignoring the threat perceptions of the future and even the lessons we already learned with N-LCA MK1, like navalising an air force fighter is not as simple as it seemed, which is why the next development should be based on a naval fighter itself!

Efforts in development of a naval PakFA makes more sense than going in for naval AMCA. In fact, once we have worked on the naval PakFA, then attempt on the AMCA makes more sense.

That depends on the carrier type! If we get catapults, re-designing FGFA will be too difficult, while developing a catapult capable AMCA from the start would be the better approach. Personally I think a twin seater FGFA is the perfect base for a carrier fighter, but I want catapults for effective fighter operations too.