N-LCA out of the hangar

[ganimi kawa]

Thank you,sancho sir for your detailed reply. I was looking forward to something like this!

You are right about that, but the important point we have to keep in mind is, that this was the initial idea behind N-LCA, but things have changed now!
N-LCA development is very delayed and although they rolled out the mock up version now, it doesn't mean anything, because we know that N-LCA will be based on LCA MK2, which will come only by 2014!
There is no decision for the engine yet, AESA radar is not developed, same goes for IRST, not to mention that airframe changes could be possible too (bigger air intakes, different weapon stations, or fuselage design). To sum it up, N-LCA is nowhere close to be inducted and that exactly is the reason why IN has gone for additional Mig 29K.

I agree with you,the fate of LCA project (not just NLCA) is dependant on successful and fast development of mk2 version.Otherwise, LCA will be limited to initial orders from IN (6) and IAF (40).In that case none of my arguments for tejas would be valid

Mig 29 are meant for the same roles N-LCA was initially meant for, air defense and anti-ship, it has some strike capabilities now too, but not comparable to latest carrier fighters like Rafale, or F18SH and N-LCA will not even come close to them either. So with 45 Mig 29s for INS Vikramaditya and IAC1, what role will be left for N-LCA and how many of them are needed now? It won't be better than the Mig in air defense, or anti-ship and doesn't offer any advantage in strike role too. The only role where it has some advantages is recon, with a good recon pod and the advantages of its low RCS, but that won't require numbers of them right? Also the STOBAR layout of these carriers will limit the payload of N-LCA (Sea Gripen has 1/3 less payload than Gripen NG according to Saab), which means less external load anyway.

Again I agree with you about the facts.
Tejas cannot compete with rafale or F-18 and that is why we have the naval mrca contest. Afaik rafale was evaluated by the navy but ultimately rejected under russian pressure.

Mig 29k is surely superior to tejas mk1 and in close combat will be superior to mk2 also. However, in bvr combat tejas with aesa and ew (mayawi) and smaller rcs may approximate the mig especially if navy goes for Zhuk- ME in the new order also.

About STOBAR config; it's the carrier's fault and not the aircraft's. Even rafale suffered upto 50% loss according to brazillian tests.
However, NLCA with a payload of 3500 kg is definitely no slouch in air to air or anti shipping loadout.This will increase further in mk2.

 

[GoogleIndia]

for how much time india will use viraat

untill INS vikramaditya will not entered into navy service.

 

[ganimi kawa]

continuing my reply to post # 178.

Exactly and that should be the main aim of still keeping N-LCA development allive!

I agree completely!

Mig 29K is said to cost $46 millions each, LCA Mk2 should be around $30 millions with AESA and foreign engines...and carrier fighters are always a bit more expensive, so possibly $10 millions less each, while offering less performance too.
Shouldn't the Mig carry more fuel, be it internal, or external? If yes, it can remain in the air for longer, while N-LCA has to return.

30 mil is the cost of NLCA as of now,no further increase on account of being carrier capable ( LCA costs upto 25 mil). It's a saving of 16 mil per plane plus savings in life cycle cost.
About performance,it will not be hugely disproportionate (except for maybe payload,mig will carry 2000 kg more!)

Sir,the mig carries more fuel but it also is more heavy and with less fuel efficient engines.
The ferry range of both mig and NLCA is same at around 3000km

About the reliance of NLCA on us engine (though I'd prefer EJ);it is still better than importing the whole plane.

 

[sancho]

I agree with you to some extent and I believe the success of LCA now solely depends on what they are bringing to the table with MK2 version like better t/w, weapon load, LO design, internal fuel , AESA etc
I believe ADA & HAL should get it dead right for the survival of LCA PG or it might remain as a POC/small numbers.

Please don't misunderstand me! I still think LCA has a good potential, but mainly in IAF, because it can come in numbers, will have more capable fighters besides them and are not limited to a few roles, or by less payload. In IAF they could be used in the CAS role, in short distances, for patrol, or interception, even for some heavier strikes (Mig 27 has the same payload), while most of the stations of N-LCA will be occupied for additional fuel tanks. A single engine fighter on a STOBAR carrier is simply not a good idea, unless it is a medium class fighter like the F35. Not even the Sea Gripen will be good in this role, so for LCA it would have been better to quit N-LCA and focus on LCA MK1 and 2 only.

I agree with you,the fate of LCA project (not just NLCA) is dependant on successful and fast development of mk2 version.Otherwise, LCA will be limited to initial orders from IN (6) and IAF (40).In that case none of my arguments for tejas would be valid

Hi ganimi kawa, as I said to Sri, I don't think LCA in general is a bad idea, for IAF I still see a lot of potential, but the N-LCA is just not needed.
The orders for LCA MK1 with 40 are not bad and we know that at least 100, possibly even 150 LCA MK2s will be added from 2014 onwards.

About STOBAR config; it's the carrier's fault and not the aircraft's. Even rafale suffered upto 50% loss according to brazillian tests.
However, NLCA with a payload of 3500 kg is definitely no slouch in air to air or anti shipping loadout.This will increase further in mk2.

If it has 3.5t payload, according to Saab, the STOBAR take off will reduce 1/3 of it, so only 2.34t payload are left. Lets assume 2 VWR and 2 BVR missiles ~ 500Kg and because most of the fuel will be burned at the take off, 2 fuel tanks (if I'm not wrong around 1000l each) of ~ 800Kg each, which leaves only 240Kg and that's hardly enough for a targeting pod, but not for any A2G weapon.

 

[flanker143]

because most of the fuel will be burned at the take off

how come ???????

 

[sancho]

how come ???????

Because they will have to take off with full afterburner as you can see in the following video and unless we can refuel them in air, the range will be limited, so for any A2G load 2 fuel tanks should be compulsory:

----http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5b0e1_mig29k-naval_tech----

copy and paste the add only!

 

[flanker143]

a minute or two wont drink the whole tank out !! thats what i think ... jet need afterburners only at take off which i don't think takes that long time to empty the internal fuel tanks ..... plz correct me if am wrong...

 

[sancho]

a minute or two wont drink the whole tank out !! thats what i think ... jet need afterburners only at take off which i don't think takes that long time to empty the internal fuel tanks ..... plz correct me if am wrong...

Not empty of course, but even those Migs with good t/w ratios and no loads needed quiet some time with ABs till they hat enough speed to take off and that will limit the range (especially when loaded). I read somewhere that Russias Su 33 can't take off with full internal fuel and a good external load, because they are too heavy. So they take off with minimum fuel and will be refuelled in air later, from other fighters.
N-LCA is a light class fighter, but also has less thrust, with A2A config one centerline fuel tank might be enough, but with any A2G loads, things will be different. Even F18s, Rafales, or super étendard often carries external fuel tanks and they use catapult take offs!

 

[d14gtc]

Perhaps everyone forget about ....AIRCRAFT CATAPULT...(An aircraft catapult is a device used to launch aircraft from ships—in particular aircraft carriers—as a form of assisted take off. It consists of a track built into the flight deck, below which is a large piston or shuttle that is attached through the track to the nose gear of the aircraft.At launch, a release bar holds the aircraft in place as steam pressure builds up, then breaks (or "releases"; older models used a pin that sheared), freeing the piston to pull the aircraft along the deck at high speed. Within about two to four seconds, aircraft velocity due to the action of the catapult plus apparent wind speed (ship's speed plus or minus "natural" wind) will be sufficient to allow an aircraft to fly away, even after losing one engine.)

it surely helps to minimise the fuel burn during take offs.

Plz correct if wrong

 

[ganimi kawa]

^^There is no catapult on VIK or IAC-1, they have what is known as a ski jump.
Please read about STOBAR configuration as it will be used by both NLCA and mig 29k on both the carriers.

 

[ganimi kawa]

Sancho sir, a coule of points about the NLCA range and payload.

If it has 3.5t payload, according to Saab, the STOBAR take off will reduce 1/3 of it, so only 2.34t payload are left. Lets assume 2 VWR and 2 BVR missiles ~ 500Kg and because most of the fuel will be burned at the take off, 2 fuel tanks (if I'm not wrong around 1000l each) of ~ 800Kg each, which leaves only 240Kg and that's hardly enough for a targeting pod, but not for any A2G weapon.

The figure of 3.5 ton payload for nlca has been quoted from official ADA website so I think there is no need for 30% deduction as ADA people. With drop tanks and all we get effective payload to be 1400 kg.It is not huge but can serve the purrpose of air defence (an extra couple of WVR and BVR missiles each) also a pair of kh31 can give you a good anti shipping punch. A2G capability,though will be poor.

About the range, I think It will be slightely less than Mig 29k, as the mig also needs three drop tanks to achieve it's full range of 3000km.

Also,please note that mk2 with new engine will have better twr also SFC will improve ( GE 414 has already done it by 4%) thus improving both range and payload.

P.S. I'm really enjoying this discussion.Thanks!

 

[ganimi kawa]

LCA (Navy) Will Add Punch To Blue Water Vision, Adm. Nirmal Verma Says

GO NAVY!!!


link

CNS: The LCA (Navy) was sanctioned in March ’03 [following] the success of LCA (AF) in January 2001. They were planned as a possible replacement to our aging fleet of Sea Harriers, which have been in service since the ’80s. The vision of the Navy has always been to be an effective force, and hence LCA (Navy) shall play an important role in our future carrier operations doctrine. The LCA (Navy) design specifically caters [to] the first Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC1) scheduled to be delivered by Cochin Shipyard Ltd by 2014. The aircraft is expected to have state-of-art sensors and weapons and would be an integral part of our air arm. LCA (Navy) would add punch to the Navy’s blue water vision.

The Shore Based Test Facility at Goa will primarily be used to carry out extensive Carrier Compatibility Tests for present and future versions of LCA (Navy). Since the facility replicates the deck of an aircraft carrier, it is an excellent platform for maintaining currency for the aircrew and [a] training ground of [the] crew for carrier operations. This would reduce the training load on the carrier, thereby increasing her operational availability. The Shore Based Test Facility can be used for training requirements for the carrier borne fighter aircraft in our inventory, viz MIG 29K.

 

[Gene]

Just imagine,,,,,when N-lca takes off from indigenous aircraft carrier...
i am sure indians will expand like balloons with proudness..

 

[flanker143]

just by thinking of it ...... if feel soooo happy and proud !!!!!

 

[ratnas]

Dude I am in love with this baby.
thanks for the pic