Indian Navy News & Discussions

[sancho]

Bro i understand that f-35 is better but claming the mig 29k to b a bad a/c is injustice towards the beautiful beast.The interview mentions the construction of a bigger iac to catter the needs of the future with a future a/c which i think must b the naval version of FGFG which may b better than all other option seeming to b viable today...what's ur thought.

I understand it the same way, N-LCA and Mig 29K for Vikrant and Vikramaditya and later possibly FGFA and MCA for the bigger carrier.
But those next gen fighters and the bigger carrier will only arrive after another decade and what will we have till then?
A single engine fighter with less thrust, that won't be able to take much payload and the Mig 29K that as yet won't have latest techs like AESA radar, or TVC. Compare that with other carrier aircrafts, Rafale, F18SH, F35, Su 33 and possibly even J10, all of them will be more capable than our combination.

 

[sancho]

But when the design of our IAC was stabalised could we have even thought of having an US a/c ?do u get what i mean.MORE over the rafale still dosent have operational aesa radar,and the IAC was not made keeping the rafael in mind.MOREOVER hopefully the N-LCA WILL B SURELY COMING WITH A HIGH THRUST ENGINE,as it is expected to come only by 2015-16.when the iac will b in its final stages.BRO the lca with high thrust engine,aesa radarwill surely b grt fighter to look up for.Lets b optimistic & through our weight behind our indeginious products like the navy did and now they r reeping its fruits.

Don't misunderstand me, I think LCA Mk2 will be a good aircraft for IAF, but I have doubt about it as a carrier aircraft for IN!
LCA is already suffering of too much weight, an N-LCA will have a heavier airframe, arrester hook, special front gear and not to forget it will be a double seat version, so weight will rise! Starting via ski-jump means the aircraft can carry less payload than a land based LCA and most of it will be used for external fuel tanks. So even with a higher thrust engine, I doubt there will be enough payload left for much more than a2a weapons.
I think you mean that Rafale and F18SH are used with catapults and we won't have catapults on our carriers right? I must say I can't prove to you that they will be able to start via ski jump, but on the other side why shouldn't they? What is the difference between the carrier version of Rafale and the Mig 29K? Both have specialised airframes, front gears and arrester hooks which mainly are needed to land on such carriers, not to start. IMO the only requirement is a specific t/w ratio to be able to start like that. The Rafale is lighter than the Mig, but has less thrust at the moment (if UAE fund the M88-3 it will also have 90Kn like the Mig engine), not sure if the actual t/w ratio would be enough.
About the AESA radar of Rafale, it is ready for induction from next year on, the Rafale that will attend the trials in september will come with AESA and so will any Rafale that we will buy.
Anyway, all I say is if go for expensive aircraft carriers, we should not try to save some money by using cheap, but less capable aircrafts. An N-LCA won't be really useful in strike, or anti ship missions and will be inferior against N-J10, or Su 33. Not sure how good the Mig will be against those fighters without AESA, but at least it will be more usefull against ships and for strikes.

 

[Screaming Skull]

Don't misunderstand me, I think LCA Mk2 will be a good aircraft for IAF, but I have doubt about it as a carrier aircraft for IN!
LCA is already suffering of too much weight, an N-LCA will have a heavier airframe, arrester hook, special front gear and not to forget it will be a double seat version, so weight will rise! Starting via ski-jump means the aircraft can carry less payload than a land based LCA and most of it will be used for external fuel tanks. So even with a higher thrust engine, I doubt there will be enough payload left for much more than a2a weapons.
I think you mean that Rafale and F18SH are used with catapults and we won't have catapults on our carriers right? I must say I can't prove to you that they will be able to start via ski jump, but on the other side why shouldn't they? What is the difference between the carrier version of Rafale and the Mig 29K? Both have specialised airframes, front gears and arrester hooks which mainly are needed to land on such carriers, not to start. IMO the only requirement is a specific t/w ratio to be able to start like that. The Rafale is lighter than the Mig, but has less thrust at the moment (if UAE fund the M88-3 it will also have 90Kn like the Mig engine), not sure if the actual t/w ratio would be enough.
About the AESA radar of Rafale, it is ready for induction from next year on, the Rafale that will attend the trials in september will come with AESA and so will any Rafale that we will buy.
Anyway, all I say is if go for expensive aircraft carriers, we should not try to save some money by using cheap, but less capable aircrafts. An N-LCA won't be really useful in strike, or anti ship missions and will be inferior against N-J10, or Su 33. Not sure how good the Mig will be against those fighters without AESA, but at least it will be more usefull against ships and for strikes.

Hi Sancho,

How are you buddy? While I agree with you that the N-LCA may be a less capable aircraft as compared to Rafale or the SH but what you are forgetting is that the AC itself limits the payload capacity. The total payload that the AC can carry is fixed irrespective of the aircraft that it uses. You are comparing the payload per aircraft when the actual limiting factor is the payload capacity of the AC itself. Now, going by your logic if one was to use a Rafale or SH instead of the N-LCA it makes little difference as neither aircraft is going to add to the capacity of the AC which is fixed! Let us assume that the capacity of the AC is X tons, then all the aircrafts on the AC put together with their armaments should add up to X tons. Now, when that is the case the weight of the airframe and fuselage is a big waste as it eats away into the effective armament carrying capacity of the AC. But, the N-LCA is lightest amongst the lot and hence all aircrafts put together will provide a greater armament carrying capacity to the AC.

 

[sancho]

Hi Sancho,

How are you buddy? While I agree with you that the N-LCA may be a less capable aircraft as compared to Rafale or the SH but what you are forgetting is that the AC itself limits the payload capacity. The total payload that the AC can carry is fixed irrespective of the aircraft that it uses. You are comparing the payload per aircraft when the actual limiting factor is the payload capacity of the AC itself. Now, going by your logic if one was to use a Rafale or SH instead of the N-LCA it makes little difference as neither aircraft is going to add to the capacity of the AC which is fixed! Let us assume that the capacity of the AC is X tons, then all the aircrafts on the AC put together with their armaments should add up to X tons. Now, when that is the case the weight of the airframe and fuselage is a big waste as it eats away into the effective armament carrying capacity of the AC. But, the N-LCA is lightest amongst the lot and hence all aircrafts put together will provide a greater armament carrying capacity to the AC.

That's an interesting point mate, but think about it this way.
One Rafale fully loaded with fuel and arms has a MTOW of 24t, that is nearly the MTOW of two N-LCA I guess. So instead of each Rafale one could also carry two N-LCA with the same payload of the carrier right? But are two N-LCA also as capable as one Rafale?

This is a model of N-LCA and the possible external armament:

http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/tejas_front.jpg

I think in any kind of mission it will carry 2 x WVR and 2 x BVR missiles, which leaves only 2 more wingstations and the belly station for fuel tanks, or heavy weapons. That means the max number of a2g weapons is 2 with only one belly fuel tank.
One Rafale instead can carry a max of 2 x WVR and 4 BVR missiles, 4 Exocet anti ship missiles or up to 12 AASM and a belly fuel tank.

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/2393/Rafale-weapon-options.jpg

Moreover I read somewhere that the carrier airwing of the IAC could look like this, 16 Mig 29K + 8 N-LCA and 6 helicopter (can you confirm this btw?). If so and N-LCA will only come in such small numbers, would it make a difference to have 8 x N-LCA, or just 4 more Mig 29K(Rafale)?

The whole N-LCA development makes no sense to me and should be dumbed asap to concentrate more on the induction of LCA into IAF. If IN wants Mig 29K get 20 of them with AESA, IRST and TVC engine of Mig 35 for both carriers.

 

[sancho]

BRO,it may appear to us that a certain a/c is better than the other and is more capable.But remember one thing that there r certain objectives that r needed to b accomplished and for that we have to sometime compramise to a certain level,to repe the fruits in the future.N-LCA MAY SURELY appear to b a compramised a/c but we have experience in operating single engined a/c and hence the dicision has some weight to it.Rafael project was not at all an opt. during 1997-2001 when the entire decision of the a/c was taken and compramising for an indeginious a/c is not at alol a compramise and surely will benefit us in the long run,i hope u understand.Regarding mig-29k it is qualitatively much better than the su-33 and surely will b upgraded with aesa radars even before its mid life ubgrade,as i dont remember but i surely heard from an interview with the naval chief were he mentioned that mig-29 will benefit a lot from the development of an ino-russian venture,which i think he was refeing to the fgfa project and remember the aesa radar of MIG35 is undergoing developments and seeing the state of mig corp,i do think they would pit for the same upgrades for our iac.

What objectives that are needed to be accomplished by N-LCA do you mean?
IAF can benefit through LCA coming in big numbers, but IN can't cause it most likely won't even have 2 dozen of them.The experience of Sea Harriers won't be any benefit for N-LCA, because they have nothing in common.
Why do you think Mig 29K will be qualitatively much better than Su 33? It is mainly a upg naval version of the Mig 29 SMT and already offers the same engine that Mig 35 has, he only new tech it could get are AESA and TVC nozzles. I don't doubt that we won't get it but the costs will rise again (already $46 million each + costs for foreign avionics). China already produce a Su 30 copy and own AESA radar and engine are under development, it won't be so difficult to make them carrier capable. The only advantages that Mig 29K has, might be the low RCS and more maneuverability if it gets 3D TVC, but against J10B these advantages will be gone too.

 

[sudhir007]

India releases $122 mn for Gorshkov modification- Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times

NEW DELHI: India has cleared an installment of $122 mn to Russia to ensure that the modification work on aircraft carrier Gorshkov, also known as
Vikramaditya, continues till a settlement on the final price is reached.

The payment was sanctioned earlier this month by the government following demands by Rosoboronexport, the sole Russian agency designated for importing or exporting defence equipment, according to India Strategic defence magazine.

India had paid around $600 million initially after an agreement between the two countries in 2004, according to which the old aircraft carrier was gifted as free but India was to pay $974 million to modify and upgrade it in accordance with Indian Navy's specifications.

In 2007, however, the Russians said they had made a mistake in their calculations to repair and modify Gorshkov, and demanded another $1.2 billion. Recently, they have added still another $700 million saying that modifications, and then sea trials, would be more expensive than as considered by them earlier.

The total demand by the Russians now touches $2.9 billion, instead of $974 million, or, approximately one billion as originally contracted.

The delivery of the aircraft carrier has also been pushed from 2008 to 2012-13, although repair work on it is continuing without break at the Sevmash shipyard in northern Russia on its Arctic coast.

The Russian government had extended $250 million to the shipyard in 2008, and now the installment of $122 million being paid by India is also to ensure that there is no break in the repair work, India Strategic quoted sources as saying.

Indian naval officials have been stationed at Sevmash for the past several years to monitor the day-to-day activity and to ensure that the repair and modifications are in line with the Naval Staff Qualitative Requirements (NSQRs), the dispute over the additional monetary demands notwithstanding.

India has naturally been reluctant to meet the post-contract Russian demands, and even the Comptroller General of India (CGI) has described the deal as a mess. But the Navy needs Gorshkov as early as possible as its only existing aircraft carrier, Viraat, is on life extension and undergoing a refit to serve for another few years.

It takes nearly 8 to 10 years to acquire an aircraft carrier. Procedures within the Indian bureaucratic system require two to three years, and then a company which is ordered to build it, should take another 5 to 8 years.

Although the Indian Navy is already building one of its two aircraft carriers in design consultancy with Italy's Fincantieri, it has no choice but to go in for Gorshkov in line with its sanctioned three-carrier planning. Ideally though, a country the size of India with 7,500 km of coastline should have at least five aircraft carriers.

A Russian defence delegation was in New Delhi in July but it refused to negotiate lower than its demand for $2.9 billion.

Discussions though will continue.

The government's Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) is reported to have asked the Ministry of Defence to continue the negotiations but has not acceded to the two revised Russian demands.

It may be noted that the Gorshkov deal also involves a related $740 million contract for 16 Mig 29K aircraft. That deal is going smoothly and the first four of these aircraft are likely to arrive at INS Hansa, the Indian Navy training facility in Goa, by year-end.

Ten pilots, initially trained by the US Navy for carrier landing at its Naval Air Station, Pensacola training facility, are now in Russia training on the Mig 29Ks.

Four of these Mig 29Ks are twin-seaters for training and the remaining 12 for routine operational flying.

The Navy will continue to operate the Mig 29Ks from its ground stations as all 16 of them are likely to be in India before the arrival of Gorshkov.

 

[sancho]

.And i think u forgot that the lCa began its journey as a naval pro. for the then air defence ship which then transformed into the iac and lCa became More of an iaf project for replacing migs.So it is necessary for IN to put its weight behind n-lCa so that the efforts dont go in vain.

See Arun and that is what I don't see, where IN really puts weight behind N-LCA? If they would, wouldn't they take only N-LCA for our IAC? We need to buy Mig 29K, because it was a combined deal for the Russian carrier, for our IAC we don't have to, but still IN seems to want it as the main aircraft and not the N-LCA!
That's what I said before, if we go for numbers like IAF do, we can say it will be a benefit for the future, but if IN really takes such a small number the whole development of N-LCA gets worthless.

 

[Mig-29]

16 naval exercises in 3 months


Mumbai: The Western fleet of Indian Navy successfully completed one of the largest and longest deployment exercises in the western hemisphere, in which it conducted joint exercises with 16 navies. The exercise--codenamed Sambandh 2009--stretched over three months and passed through 18 countries, covering a distance of 68,000 nautical miles.

Four warships--INS Delhi, INS Brahmaputra, INS Beas and INS Aditya--carrying 1,376 Indian Navy personnel traversed through the Arabian Sea, Meditteranean Sea, Red Sea and the Atlantic Ocean to conduct the joint exercises.

The joint exercise with the Royal Navy of United Kingdom was named Konkan 2009, and the one with the French Navy was christened Varuna 2009. These helped navy personnel learn about anti-submarine operations. Both navies provided their nuclear submarines for the exercise, which was held in the Atlantic Ocean for the first time. They were earlier held only in the Indian Ocean.

Talking about the exercise, Rear Admiral SPS Cheema, the Flag Officer commanding the western fleet, said, "The exercise was completed successfully, and it helped prove our prowess and efficiency to navies of foreign countries. It also helped us learn about maintenance, use of technology and the working style of other navies, and similarly they learned from and admired ours."

He added, "The joint exercises conducted with foreign navies will be useful in future operations and co-operation at the sea. Also, we are maintaining a database of ships passing from the Gulf of Eden." The Gulf of Eden is a popular sea route among ships from Asia, Africa and European countries, and the Indian Navy has been escorting merchant ships in these waters as pirates operating there have targeted merchant ships at earlier instances.

Keeping a check on terrorist activities, drug trafficking, piracy and human trafficking was also a part of the operation. In addition to Varuna and Konkan operations, the ships undertook passage exercises with navies of countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Algeria, Eritrea, Israel, Libya, France and Australia.


16 naval exercises in 3 months - dnaindia.com

 

[sudhir007]

Navy likely to get new diesel submarines



The Defence Ministry is believed to have cleared the decks for the Navy to purchase diesel-powered submarines to replace its ageing fleet of Russian submarines. The purchase is reported to be worth over Rs 25,000 crore.
The proposed acquisition of submarines was discussed Monday during the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) meeting—which clears the acquisitions by the armed forces—chaired by Defence Minister A K Antony. The meeting also discussed Army’s proposal to upgrade Air Defence equipment—guns and missiles systems.
Though the Indian Navy has already ordered six French Scorpene Hunter submarines, the first of which is expected to be inducted by 2012, at a cost of over Rs 18,000 crore, it is looking for a second line of modern submarines to replace the old Kilo and Foxtrot series submarines, which are currently the mainstay of its submarine fleet.
The Navy is keen on the new set of advanced submarines, equipped with Air Independent Propulsion (AIP), as it will considerably boost its ability to stay submerged.
The Navy had issued RFIs (Request for Information) to major companies including German HDW, French Armaris and Russian Rosoboronexport for the submarines in 2007 but it is yet to issue a tender for the acquisition. Sources, however, said the tender will be issued shortly.
The Navy is keen to expedite the acquisition of the submarines partly because Pakistan inducted its first AIP equipped French origin submarine last year.
Unlike other warships, AIP equipped subs do not need to surface frequently to take in oxygen and can stay submerged for days. As a result these submarines are quieter than nuclear submarines and more enduring.

 

[sudhir007]

Indian Aircraft Carrier Back in Service in a Month - Defense News

NEW DELHI - India's only aircraft carrier, INS Viraat, which has been in dry dock for a year, will be back in service in a month after a refit allowing the carrier to function until 2015, said a senior Indian Navy official.
The Navy wanted the Viraat back in service as quickly as possible because of continued delays in delivery of the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov. Despite a planned 2008 delivery date, India and Russia remain stalemated over cost.
The Indian Navy official said the service hopes to have the Gorshkov and the homemade Air Defense Ship on line by 2015, when the Viraat will be nearing the end of its service life.
The Viraat was fitted at state-owned Cochin Shipyard with new fire control equipment, navigation radars, improved nuclear, biological and chemical protection, and deck landing aids. The ship's Russian-made Kashtan air defense system was sent to Russia for repair.
The aircraft carrier also has been fitted with the Israeli Barak air defense system and the anti-ship cruise missile BrahMos.
The Navy's long-term plans include a blue water force with six aircraft carriers and improvements in littoral warfare capabilities.
INS Viraat originally was commissioned in the British Royal Navy as HMS Hermes in 1959; India bought the vessel in 1986. The aircraft carrier earlier underwent a refit in 1999-2001.

 

[sancho]

Hum! a point to take note of & even i agree with u to certain extent,that if the n-lca can't take longe range missons why should not we go for a single platform mig which can undertake both long & short range missions,why to diversify?...But what IN says is that it would b a platform for future naval a/c projects and the induction of n-lca is the fulfillment of their minimum comitment with hal & drdo for the lca project that started in the mid 80s.(remember n-lca was the perfect opt. for the air defence ship but as the dimensions of the ship changed we opted for long range and much capable a/c.But still the IN kept their comitment & now it will now b complement of both a/c using them according to their suitability to different missions.

Maybe it was the intention of IN in the past, but that's really a typical problem of the LCA development! We wanted too much and are not able to get rid of unnecessary things, even if the requirements changes. N-LCA is not needed anymore (if it was anyway) and even for future developments, I doubt there will be so much benefits. The next carrier after Vikrant class will have naval FGFA and possibly MCA fighters, or even UCAVs, aircrafts of a totally different gen and not comparable to N-LCA.
The problem with N-LCA and long range missions will be the payload and the internal fuel. The more external fuel tanks it has to carry the less stations are left for weapons. As I said in an earlier post, it hardly can carry 2 anti ship weapons with only 1 belly fuel tank.

 

[sudhir007]

Coastal security faces shipbuilding delays


India’s coastal and maritime problems are growing faster than the fleet of ships needed to deal with them. Here in Kolkata, at Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers (GRSE), two newly built patrol ships have lain for two months, waiting for collection by the Indian Navy. But the admirals insist: first meet the navy’s performance requirements.

Meanwhile, Defence Minister A K Antony travels on Thursday to the Maldives to extend India’s maritime security network to that island nation. And an unauthorised North Korean freighter, espied lurking in Indian waters off the Andaman Islands early this month, underscores the urgent need for more patrolling.

GRSE, India’s second-biggest defence shipyard, got a Rs 514-crore order in March 2006 to build 10 Water Jet propelled Fast Attack Craft (WJ-FACs), whose high-tech German MTU water-jet engines could propel these sleek vessels through the water at 65 kmph, tackling threats along the coastline for up to 3,600 km without refuelling.

After the Mumbai attacks on 26/11, the need for such craft was felt more than ever. The first two WJ-FACs — INS Car Nicobar and INS Chetlat — were press-ganged into the navy in February 2009, even though they were restricted to just 50 kmph by flawed gearboxes supplied by Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd (KPCL).

But now the navy has refused to accept the next two WJ-FACs — INS Cora Divh and INS Cheriyam — until KPCL rectifies the transmission systems that it had developed and supplied to GRSE.

Rear Admiral K C Sekhar, GRSE chairman and managing director, told Business Standard that KPCL had already supplied 30 defective gearboxes (three go into each WJ-FAC), but had now taken some back to diagnose and resolve the problem.

“I expect three gearboxes to come back very shortly,” said Admiral Sekhar, “and we have a commitment from KPCL that they will be responsible for their product. Any additional expenditure incurred will be their responsibility.”

KPCL is unlikely, however, to pick up the tab for the growing expenditure on trials. And GRSE supervisors say the morale of workers — who are pushed hard to get vessels ready for on-time delivery — suffers when buyers reject a completed ship. KPCL has not responded to repeated requests for their comments.

As coastal security grows in importance, the Indian Navy and the Coast Guard are acquiring greater numbers of patrol vessels and attack craft. These smaller, lightly armed vessels, like the Car Nicobar Class WJ-FACs, are lighter, cheaper, easier to build, and better suited for coastal surveillance than the capital warships — corvettes, frigates and destroyers — that are designed and built for war.

Vice-Admiral Arun Kumar Singh, who until recently commanded the Eastern Naval Command in Visakhapatnam, points to the growing importance of coastal security: “The term ‘a balanced Navy’ has now acquired a different meaning altogether; a ‘brown water’ coastal force is as relevant and essential as a ‘blue water’ force.”

In recent years, the navy has built 7 Sukanya Class offshore patrol vessels, one of which was sold to Sri Lanka; 4 Trinkat Class fast patrol vessels (FPVs), one of which was given to the Maldives and one to Seychelles; 7 Super Dvora Mark II class FPVs; and 4 Bangaram Class fast attack craft (FACs). In addition, four Saryu Class offshore patrol vessels are being built by Goa Shipyard Ltd.

The 10 Car Nicobar class WJ-FACs, with their ability to react quickly at high speeds, are purpose designed for coastal security. These 50 metres long, 600-tonne vessels are crewed by 35 sailors. Each WJ-FAC is armed with a 30 mm CRN-91 automatic cannon that can engage targets up to 3 kilometres away.

 

[Screaming Skull]

@sancho

Read all your posts about the N-LCA. First of all I think I need to clarify a few things-

The N-LCA is not a new aircraft. It is a naval version of the AF LCA-MkII, incorporating all the additional features and modifications required for a carrier based aircraft. The development of the N-LCA requires only minuscule infrastructure development over the already existing infrastructure in ADA & HAL. It is using the same production line and test rigs used for the AF version. Out of all the test rigs available, significant modifications are required only for the landing gear test rig. The only big investment for the N-LCA is a mock testing facility coming up at Goa where the flight deck with the runway of the indigenous carrier is being developed on land for training pilots. This too one may argue is not specific to training for N-LCA as pilots for Mig-29K (and future aircrafts operating from the carrier) too will be trained here before moving to the A/C. The point being, N-LCA can be considered as just another prototype or variant of the AF LCA Mk-II which doesn’t require much additional investment over the AF version. Another important thing to note is that whenever the Navy does intend to go for another superior indigenous/JV aircraft like the FGFA or MCA, it will have to go through the same procedures it is going through for the development of N-LCA. At that time it will help if ADA and HAL have the infrastructure and expertise available to expedite those projects. Thus, the N-LCA is not a one time investment. Instead it is a stepping stone for the future endeavors of the Navy in conjunction with ADA and HAL.

Coming back to my previous post and your reply to it, it appears that I couldn’t convey my point effectively. So brace yourself for some math.

Let us assume the carrier will carry 8 N-LCAs. Obviously you can’t replace 8 N-LCAs with 8 SHornets or 8 Rafales due to weight constraints. So I shall normalize the nos. of the 3 aircrafts wrt their weights. Assuming,

SHornet-

Empty weight: 13,900 kg; Max takeoff weight: 29,900 kg

Rafale-

Empty weight: 10,196 kg; Max takeoff weight: 22,200 kg

LCA-

Empty weight: 6,500 kg; Max takeoff weight: 16,000 kg

So, 8 LCAs will have a max. weight of 8*16,000=128,000 kg

128,000 kg is equivalent to 128000/29900=4 SHornets and 128000/22200=6 Rafales

So, by total weight (fighter+fuel+armaments), 8LCA=6Rafale=4SHornets.

Now let us calculate the effective payload capacity (fuel+armaments) of the total no. of aircrafts of each type:

4 SHornets can carry a payload of (29900-13900)*4=64,000 kg

6 Rafales can carry (22200-10196)*6=72,024 kg

8 LCAs can carry (16000-6500)*8=76,000 kg

Now do you get my point? This is what I meant when I said; ‘the actual limiting factor is the payload capacity of the AC itself’. When you actually calculate, the LCA is more advantageous compared to the other aircrafts due to its light weight. The extra weight of the airframes and fuselage of the other two are a disadvantage for a medium carrier. Having said that, your concern about the range is valid and that is why the Navy plans to operate the Mig-29K in conjunction with the N-LCAs. Moreover, mid-air refueling capability is always there. Also, operating 8 indigenous N-LCAs will work out to be much cheaper than say operating 4 SHornets or 6 Rafales.

So, imo the N-LCA is here to stay for a long time and will serve the Navy very well. If anything, we can think about replacing the Mig-29Ks with more powerful and better aircrafts in the future.

 

[Screaming Skull]

IN Mig-29K at MAKS-2009​

 

[sancho]

@sancho

Read all your posts about the N-LCA. First of all I think I need to clarify a few things-

The N-LCA is not a new aircraft. It is a naval version of the AF LCA-MkII, incorporating all the additional features and modifications required for a carrier based aircraft. The development of the N-LCA requires only minuscule infrastructure development over the already existing infrastructure in ADA & HAL. It is using the same production line and test rigs used for the AF version. Out of all the test rigs available, significant modifications are required only for the landing gear test rig. The only big investment for the N-LCA is a mock testing facility coming up at Goa where the flight deck with the runway of the indigenous carrier is being developed on land for training pilots. This too one may argue is not specific to training for N-LCA as pilots for Mig-29K (and future aircrafts operating from the carrier) too will be trained here before moving to the A/C. The point being, N-LCA can be considered as just another prototype or variant of the AF LCA Mk-II which doesn’t require much additional investment over the AF version. Another important thing to note is that whenever the Navy does intend to go for another superior indigenous/JV aircraft like the FGFA or MCA, it will have to go through the same procedures it is going through for the development of N-LCA. At that time it will help if ADA and HAL have the infrastructure and expertise available to expedite those projects. Thus, the N-LCA is not a one time investment. Instead it is a stepping stone for the future endeavors of the Navy in conjunction with ADA and HAL.

Coming back to my previous post and your reply to it, it appears that I couldn’t convey my point effectively. So brace yourself for some math.

Let us assume the carrier will carry 8 N-LCAs. Obviously you can’t replace 8 N-LCAs with 8 SHornets or 8 Rafales due to weight constraints. So I shall normalize the nos. of the 3 aircrafts wrt their weights. Assuming,

SHornet-

Empty weight: 13,900 kg; Max takeoff weight: 29,900 kg

Rafale-

Empty weight: 10,196 kg; Max takeoff weight: 22,200 kg

LCA-

Empty weight: 6,500 kg; Max takeoff weight: 16,000 kg

So, 8 LCAs will have a max. weight of 8*16,000=128,000 kg

128,000 kg is equivalent to 128000/29900=4 SHornets and 128000/22200=6 Rafales

So, by total weight (fighter+fuel+armaments), 8LCA=6Rafale=4SHornets.

Now let us calculate the effective payload capacity (fuel+armaments) of the total no. of aircrafts of each type:

4 SHornets can carry a payload of (29900-13900)*4=64,000 kg

6 Rafales can carry (22200-10196)*6=72,024 kg

8 LCAs can carry (16000-6500)*8=76,000 kg

Now do you get my point? This is what I meant when I said; ‘the actual limiting factor is the payload capacity of the AC itself’. When you actually calculate, the LCA is more advantageous compared to the other aircrafts due to its light weight. The extra weight of the airframes and fuselage of the other two are a disadvantage for a medium carrier. Having said that, your concern about the range is valid and that is why the Navy plans to operate the Mig-29K in conjunction with the N-LCAs. Moreover, mid-air refueling capability is always there. Also, operating 8 indigenous N-LCAs will work out to be much cheaper than say operating 4 SHornets or 6 Rafales.

So, imo the N-LCA is here to stay for a long time and will serve the Navy very well. If anything, we can think about replacing the Mig-29Ks with more powerful and better aircrafts in the future.

Hey, I know that N-LCA is not a new aircraft, but it's still needs further developments from the normal LCA version, which are imo unnecessary at the moment. It is much more important after all the delays of the LCA project, to get it done now and induct it into IAF in numbers, than wasting more time, energy and resources for just 8 N-LCAs.
As I said before I doub't there will be much benefit for later carrier aircrafts through this project, because FGFA will get all necessary navalised parts directly from the N-Pak Fa, so there won't be any further developments for us to do. Even if we go for a navalised MCA, don't you think the experience and parts of navalised FGFA will be more important than from a N-LCA?

I did understand your point before, that's why I made nearly the same calculation and said that one can carry 8 N-LCAs, or 4 (you said even 6) Rafale, or Mig 29K with the same payload of the carrier.
But I can't agree on your conclusion that N-LCA is more advantageous for 2 reasons.
At first you took the empty weight and MTOW of the normal LCA version, but the N-LCA has increased empty weight because of double seat and changes to make it carrier capable. That's why it also will have a lower MTOW and the effective payload will be much closer, if not equal to Rafale/Mig 29K!
Secondly, even if 8 N-LCA can equalise 6 Rafale in payload of the carrier, they are way inferior in capabilities. A single Rafale, or even Mig 29K can take as much payload and weapons as 2 N-LCA. So to have slightly less numbers of a more capable aircraft is still more advantageous, than to have just 2 more of an inferior aircraft!

Of course a single engine fighter is cheaper to operate than a double engine fighter, but we have to keep one thing in mind! There will double engine fighters in big numbers anyway and N-LCA is just an small addition. You might save the maintenance cost of some engines (6 Mig 29K 12 engines, 8 LCA 8 engines), but also have to carry spares, parts and maybe even weapons of 2 different fighters, with different engines. That means even if the operational cost per aircraft might be reduced, the logistic costs will increase!

That's why I said if N-LCA won't give any advantage in capability, even if we can take some more of them, why make things more complicated as they have to be? Take just 22 Mig 29k instead of 16 + 8 N-LCA and you will have a way more capable airwing within the payload of the carrier and less problems in logistics. Also you have to train pilots only for a single type of aircraft and not for 2 totally different types.