Indian Navy LCA to soon begin test flights

[GURU DUTT]

Replies in bold.

god almighty who wrote that bold part i never did

 

[HariPrasad]

Stupid people want to ruin IN Navy air wing with tejas. Tejas is no match for mig29k yet Navy want to deploy tejas on ACC.

Indian Navy is little interested in MK1 actually they are targetting MK2 for NAVAL operation post 2020.

MK1 is just a platform for training etc. for MK2 induction.

Navy want a 118 KN thrust engine tejas on the deck of IAC.

 

[spectribution]

Nope,the MiG-29K is a multi-role aircraft and so is the operational NLCA (with the GE F414).
IN Carriers cannot operate different kinds of aircraft for different roles...


Testing.

Take a look at USN Aircraft fleet. Multirole is one thing, being good for a role is another.

 

[Chanakyaa]

Why exactly is it taking so long for for Indian LCA ( Tejas) to be become OPERATIONAL.

Can you figure the number of countries having a SUCCESSFUL carrier based fighter ?

Hint : Su33 is NOT !

 

[Alphacharlie]

Gentlemen -

If you are entering a club where Nations have been making "Marine" Fighter Jet, it is a Huge Challenge...

I remember in 1983 when was at HAL Workshop Banglore...... saw a Model of "Next Hindustan Fighter". That Model didnt move to Wind Tunnel till 1997.

The issue was not of Intellect, but was of Political Will..

We could have made Tejas Enter service in Ealry 2000...But the Political Will was ABSENT...

If Politicians are getting Tips in their Swiss Bank Accounts then why should an Indian Jet Be Allowed...

Why is Indian Missiles So Sucessful...Rationale Being No nation will give you Critical Technology...

I was Mighty please when saw M777 Guns Tender being Rejected for a Domestic Gun. Make a Local Gun and which is 1/4 the foreign price and Fix 3 Batteries at locations where you are keen on Plotting area.

Modis advent has made Change, But My Next Smile will come when I see HAL, Govt Ship Yards being Privatised.

 

[sancho]

simply they desire a domestic fighter jet flying off their flat tops in the future.

Exactly and that is the nonsense part of this project, because they spend billions of taxpayers money for their "desire" as you call it, to have an indigenous fighter on an indigenous carrier, no matter operational limitation there are and what the actual would be needed to have a capable carrier air wing. If they wanted the best possible airwing, to make the carrier as capable as possible, they would go for Rafale as they openly admitted several times, or for more Mig 29K with a higher Indian content.

By that rhetoric, why would the air force want the LCA when they have MKIs and mig-29s and soon Rafales?

Because for them it's a cheap and cost-effective fighter for low end air policing and CAS roles, that operates in a large fleet next to medium and heavy class fighters as well as force multipliers like AWACS and tankers. Here the limitations of capability will be countered by numbers of LCAs, or the whole fleet, while that is not possible in the limited operational area of a carrier!
The IN can only carry around 30 aircrafts in total, with nearly 1/3rd of them being helicopters. That leaves just a very small ammount left for fighters, be it for the defence of the CBG or in offensive actions. Force multipliers are limited to helicopter AEW and buddy refuelling and most of all, the ski-jump take off limits the operational payload of the fighters compared to what the same could carry by taking off from shore bases.

So the logical thing to do, would be to get around 20 of the most capable multi role fighters, for offensive and defensive roles and to counter the limted numbers with higher capability. But that's not what you get by limiting the number of Migs in favour for N-LCA, which according to IN itself, is only meant as a base for the naval fighter development in India and not to be operationally very useful. They want to use it in point defence / defence of the CBG, be it against enemy fighters,or at limited ranges against enemy vessels, but not for offensive strikes against ground targets or air raids at longer distances.

LCA in IAF can be useful, especially in combination with other fighters (active / passive combos)
N-LCA in IN is operationally limited and makes the carrier less capable as it could be, which is why a naval AMCA development would be far more important and where the funds would make a lot of more sense!

 

[indiatester]

LCA in IAF can be useful, especially in combination with other fighters (active / passive combos)
N-LCA in IN is operationally limited and makes the carrier less capable as it could be, which is why a naval AMCA development would be far more important and where the funds would make a lot of more sense!

Wouldn't it make sense in a war of attrition?
IN will be able to keep its N-LCA numbers to the mark against losses to the Mig29.
This should also give them greater offensive options around friendly bases. For ex. N-LCA could be used to take off from AC, conduct a raid and land on airbase past hostile territory.

 

[Sergi]

@sancho : you are an agent of videshi maal
Few notable things I got from a retired navy officer who himself was a Navy pilot

1. Indian Navy's role is different from US Navy or others like it. IN was and is meant to control IOR and not attacking other's shores. ( you already knew that )
2. In future IN will be trying to snatch coast defence from IAF so they need more pilots and planes.
3. So LCA is cost effective measure for IN to train its pilots over Mig saving the costly platforms life span.
4. Right now IN has enough jets for the ACC it has and will have thats why Rafale for IN never came in light
5. 10/20 LCAs isnt much of investment if you look at the returns

Nobody is saying they want to go in war with LCAs on flat top; they are saying they want LCAs capable of operating from flat top.

 

[pursuit of happiness]

Why exactly is it taking so long for for Indian LCA ( Tejas) to be become OPERATIONAL.

--
either its dead project or on way of becoming game changer ....
test conducted in LCA seems endless .. good if getting result and learning but need result yes or no

 

[UFO77]

~ ~ soon soon soon, I'm tired of listening is! Five years or three years off soon. Paper things although more imagination space to the person, after all, but still will be turned into reality, hope India will be more practical.

 

[ptltejas]

Exactly and that is the nonsense part of this project, because they spend billions of taxpayers money for their "desire" as you call it, to have an indigenous fighter on an indigenous carrier, no matter operational limitation there are and what the actual would be needed to have a capable carrier air wing. If they wanted the best possible airwing, to make the carrier as capable as possible, they would go for Rafale as they openly admitted several times, or for more Mig 29K with a higher Indian content.



Because for them it's a cheap and cost-effective fighter for low end air policing and CAS roles, that operates in a large fleet next to medium and heavy class fighters as well as force multipliers like AWACS and tankers. Here the limitations of capability will be countered by numbers of LCAs, or the whole fleet, while that is not possible in the limited operational area of a carrier!
The IN can only carry around 30 aircrafts in total, with nearly 1/3rd of them being helicopters. That leaves just a very small ammount left for fighters, be it for the defence of the CBG or in offensive actions. Force multipliers are limited to helicopter AEW and buddy refuelling and most of all, the ski-jump take off limits the operational payload of the fighters compared to what the same could carry by taking off from shore bases.

So the logical thing to do, would be to get around 20 of the most capable multi role fighters, for offensive and defensive roles and to counter the limted numbers with higher capability. But that's not what you get by limiting the number of Migs in favour for N-LCA, which according to IN itself, is only meant as a base for the naval fighter development in India and not to be operationally very useful. They want to use it in point defence / defence of the CBG, be it against enemy fighters,or at limited ranges against enemy vessels, but not for offensive strikes against ground targets or air raids at longer distances.

LCA in IAF can be useful, especially in combination with other fighters (active / passive combos)
N-LCA in IN is operationally limited and makes the carrier less capable as it could be, which is why a naval AMCA development would be far more important and where the funds would make a lot of more sense!

I was just waiting for your reply... so the things got cleared. well NLCA is scrapped and if Eurojet is selected over GE Engines will it be helpful in AMCA too, how the Eurojet is better than GE?

 

[sancho]

Wouldn't it make sense in a war of attrition?
IN will be able to keep its N-LCA numbers to the mark against losses to the Mig29.
This should also give them greater offensive options around friendly bases. For ex. N-LCA could be used to take off from AC, conduct a raid and land on airbase past hostile territory.

When N-LCA is not as capable as a Mig 29K, you can't replace the latter equally in case of a loss, so it would only a replacement by numbers, but not by capability.
And your last point is actually the funny point, that makes clear why we don't really need carriers, because we can operate the same fighters, maybe even more effective from our shore bases to attack targets around the Arabian Sea or the Bay of Bengal.

@sancho : you are an agent of videshi maal

That's the usual misconception about me, but only when you not properly read what I actually say.
I don't want "just" more Mig 29Ks, but with a much higher Indian content! I want the things we develop or wanted to develop for LCA, being integrated in Mig 29K airframes to bring the so called "MKIzing" to a whole new level or to a similar project as Brahmos, that also integrate indigenous system on a Russian platform.
For IAF LCA and all the indigenous techs are useful and make sense, for IN the same techs and weapons would make more sense in a better platform and even if we look forward, it would make more sense to develop a naval AMCA based on the indigenous techs and capabilities for LCA, but airframe wise from the Mig 29K platform onwards, as both would be at least medium class twin engine fighters.

1. Indian Navy's role is different from US Navy or others like it. IN was and is meant to control IOR and not attacking other's shores. ( you already knew that )

Yes, that's exactly why I say the carriers are pointless in a war against Pakistan, since we wouldn't need or risk the fighters from them to attack targets that could be attacked simpler by sub launched cruise missiles, or shore based IAF fighters.
But, India's threat perception has changed and control of IOR would include defence against Chinese carriers in the long run and do you honestly belive N-LCA can stand a change (offensive or defensive) against J15s, or even better fighters? Of course not, that's why N-LCA is a pointless development today, when we need customized Mig 29Ks now and naval AMCAs for the future!

2. In future IN will be trying to snatch coast defence from IAF so they need more pilots and planes.

I would like if that would be the case, but so far I don't see any indication for that. IN still gets only carrier fighters, none of the MKI squads that will be raised at the costal areas will be diverted to them, not even the maritime attack Jags, so that's (as sad as it is), no point for N-LCA either. And even if they would take over the role, they

3. So LCA is cost effective measure for IN to train its pilots over Mig saving the costly platforms life span.

That A) would reduce N-LCA to a bare trainer only, B) is wrong since IN want single seat N-LCAs too and C) doesn't make sense by the fact that IN is ordering own Mig 29K twin seaters for the training too

4. Right now IN has enough jets for the ACC it has and will have thats why Rafale for IN never came in light

Rafale M is an option since the earlier 2000s, but for different reasons it's a dream of the IN that never will be fulfilled anymore

5. 10/20 LCAs isnt much of investment if you look at the returns

Not sure what you mean with 10/20

Nobody is saying they want to go in war with LCAs on flat top; they are saying they want LCAs capable of operating from flat top.

Come on mate that doesn't make any sense! You develop a fighter for millions of tax payers money and then don't want to use it in war, which is it's prime use? More over, if IN would only want to develop an N-LCA capable of operating on a carrier, they only would need some more upgraded N-LCA MK1s and not fully developed MK2s with all the requirements the IN set up. You don't need higher thrust, if you want N-LCA MK1 to take off without useful loads, you don't need additional internal fuel tanks, if you don't intend to use it in long endurance roles, you don't need AESA radar, if you don't intend to detect enemy targets...

I was just waiting for your reply... so the things got cleared. well NLCA is scrapped and if Eurojet is selected over GE Engines will it be helpful in AMCA too, how the Eurojet is better than GE?

EJ 200 would had got us more ToT of critical techs, the possiblitly to jointly develop TVC, if we played it rightly even to fix the problems of Kaveri and it is lighter than the GE engine, which would had helped LCAs weight issue too.
We know that Snecma had offered a Kaveri / Snecma engine with up to 90kN thrust, imagine a Kaveri / EJ engine with around 100Kn + 3D TVC, that could not only suitable to LCA MK2s but also to AMCA, so the ideal base for our indigenous fighters, rejected only for N-LCA!

 

[indiatester]

When N-LCA is not as capable as a Mig 29K, you can't replace the latter equally in case of a loss, so it would only a replacement by numbers, but not by capability.
And your last point is actually the funny point, that makes clear why we don't really need carriers, because we can operate the same fighters, maybe even more effective from our shore bases to attack targets around the Arabian Sea or the Bay of Bengal.

2nd front?

PS: Yes I am out of my league

 

[ANPP]

Yes, that's exactly why I say the carriers are pointless in a war against Pakistan, since we wouldn't need or risk the fighters from them to attack targets that could be attacked simpler by sub launched cruise missiles, or shore based IAF fighters.
had got us more ToT of critical techs, the to jointly develop TVC, if we played it rightly even to fix the problems of Kaveri and it is lighter than the GE engine, which would had helped LCAs weight issue too.

And how many missiles we can place in our war ships, perhaps 40-50 at maximum. And cost is also another issues.
That is the wrong percepsion about carrier that it is useless against in low intensity or smaller threat.

Karanchi is still 200-350 km far from Indian land. Sending IAF fighters doesn't make any diffirence as only one or two soties at maximum a day. However marine division is a due in indian armed forces which will take shape in future or perhaps in near future, but definetly. Even IA was happy of the air support of IAF where airfields are only 50-100 km away from front.

So carrier as well as induction of LCA in navy promised to strenghen the navy's muscles.,

 

[sancho]

2nd front?

Example 1:
- IN Mig 29K takes off (with KAB 500 PGMs and limited fuel because of ski-jump take off) from INS Vikramaditya, which operates in a safe distance somewhere in the Arabian Sea
- refuels in air, either by buddy refuelling or IAF tankers
- operates with AEW support of either KA 31, but most likely with IAF AWACS
- attacks shore based targets

Example 2:
- IN Mig 29K takes off (with KAB 500 PGMs and full fuel) from IN's airbase in Goa
- refuels in air, either by buddy refuelling or IAF tankers
- operates with AEW support of either KA 31, but most likely with IAF AWACS
- attacks shore based targets

Example 3:
- IAF Mig 29UPG takes off (with KAB 500 PGMs and limited fuel) from IAFs airbase in Jamnagar
- doesn't need air refuelling because of the close distance
- operates with AEW support of IAF AWACS
- attacks shore based targets


In all 3 examples, the same targets could be attacked from the same sea side, with pretty much the same fighters, weapons and technical capabilities (not included MKIs or MMRCAs that might be used in such attacks as well). Which shows that we don't need carriers to attack coastal targets in neighboring countries, to create a "2nd front" .
The carriers are needed to retain control of the sea areas around India and the IOR, but by the lack of credible naval forces in the region, IN's fleet would easily be able to retain control even without carriers. The only possible enemy that could pose a real threat to IN is China and their naval fleet, so our carriers must be aimed on countering them and not the limited capabilities of our neighboring navies.

Sending IAF fighters doesn't make any diffirence as only one or two soties at maximum a day.

Lets put aside if that is true or not, but just out of logic, an IN Mig 29K that is operated from a carrier much farther away than the IAF Migs, can logically do less sorties right? When you also add that IAF has a full squad of fighters avalilable, while IN could only use a fraction of their fighters on the carrier for offensive operations, because most of their fighters will be limited to defence of the CBG, it also shows that sortie rates will be limited for IN. So your point is actually proving the disadvantages of using a carrier and it's fighters to attack targets in our neighboring countries, when IAF fighters are available anyway.