Naval LCA Tejas

[Pandora]

Bharat Karnad pulling stuff out of his ass is not at all surprising to people who know him well. India is filled with these so called "defence analyst".

Shiv Aroor did a bang up job is putting this joker in limelight.

I think somewhere I posted the same lets not bring BK in thread.

 

[TPFscopes]

ADA guy said 3rd prototype engine testing would be done in Dec.That means the proto is on the assembly line jig right now.

AFAIK no NLCA is on manufacturing ramp, but It might start by end of this month. Rest will be updated later.

If naval version is on jig taking up the space of SP then it is possible HAL s behind schedule by 1 SP

Prototype building will not affect the serial production in any manner. This year HAL already delivered 3 units of LCA and HAL will surely deliver 5 more units,if they continue moving with present speed but if they try to slightly enhance, they can deliver 6 or max 7 units by end of 2017.

 

[TPFscopes]

Another UPDATE for NLCA

We continue to LCA Navy project. Our share of the budget for LCA was 40%, over INR 600 crores. Paying 40% for LCA Mk2, over INR 300 crores. I need a Dec based fighter by 2020. LCA Navy is nowhere on the horizon. It is underpowered. - Admiral Lanba
https://twitter.com/statuses/936488138532425728


"I need a deck based combat capable fighter by 2020 for IAC I, in present state, LCA Navy cannot be operated from deck" - Admiral Lanba
https://twitter.com/statuses/936489229911179264


As and when DRDO and ADA develop a deck based fighter we are happy to induct it. - Admiral Lanba
https://twitter.com/statuses/936488638820552705


Don't foresee budget problems with 57 carrier borne fighters. We have fixed form and fit of IAC2, conventionally powered, CATOBAR, through deck carrier. - Admiral Lanba
https://twitter.com/statuses/936486373812469760


Source: Twitter

 

[TPFscopes]

Another UPDATE for NLCA

We continue to LCA Navy project. Our share of the budget for LCA was 40%, over INR 600 crores. Paying 40% for LCA Mk2, over INR 300 crores. I need a Dec based fighter by 2020. LCA Navy is nowhere on the horizon. It is underpowered. - Admiral Lanba
https://twitter.com/statuses/936488138532425728


"I need a deck based combat capable fighter by 2020 for IAC I, in present state, LCA Navy cannot be operated from deck" - Admiral Lanba
https://twitter.com/statuses/936489229911179264


As and when DRDO and ADA develop a deck based fighter we are happy to induct it. - Admiral Lanba
https://twitter.com/statuses/936488638820552705


Don't foresee budget problems with 57 carrier borne fighters. We have fixed form and fit of IAC2, conventionally powered, CATOBAR, through deck carrier. - Admiral Lanba
https://twitter.com/statuses/936486373812469760


Source: Twitter

 

[Pandora]

This is very true for NLCA,it need much more powerful engine unlike airforce version.ADA already announced that NLCA mk1 is a pure TD while NLCA mk2 is something they looking forward for.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

A really old photo from 2005, showing KH-35, KH-31A and Magic AAM so does PGM ..

==========

2016 ...

 

[Jagdish58]

http://idrw.org/why-hal-plans-to-convert-lca-trainer-into-lead-in-fighter-trainer-lift-for-export/

Why can't IN buy LCA Naval Mk1 as trainer for deck training??

 

[proud_indian]

2016 ...

LCA Navy color scheme is so cool. I wish AF adopt the Navy colors!

 

[rohit b3]

http://idrw.org/why-hal-plans-to-convert-lca-trainer-into-lead-in-fighter-trainer-lift-for-export/

Why can't IN buy LCA Naval Mk1 as trainer for deck training??

As far as I can remember, that was the original plan made in 2011-12, that the Navy would commit to 6 Naval LCA mk1 to be operated from Naval Ground bases, followed by 45 Naval LCA mk2.
However this new Naval chief turned it around.

 

[Sancho]

However this new Naval chief turned it around.

It wasn't the navy chief, but the prospect of the while development. NLCA was a proposal by ADA that the navy generously supported, but neither ADA nor the fighter itself lived up to the promises. Once because ADA messed up the whole design stage and thought they can do it alone, till they had to find a foreign company to fix their problems, but also because a light class fighter is the opposite of what a good carrier fighter should provide. By design it can't provide the range, endurance and load capabilities to actually project power. Not to mention that it's naive to believe that it could stand a chance against J15s. It simply was a pride project by ADA, to claim that they have designed a carrier fighter, while IN saw the problems and knew that it can't be more than a TD to increase the know how for future programmes.
They wanted naval MKIs or Rafales, but were limited to Mig 29Ks or NLCAs and hopefully might end up with F18s now, instead of more Migs for cost reasons.

 

[Kshithij]

It wasn't the navy chief, but the prospect of the while development. NLCA was a proposal by ADA that the navy generously supported, but neither ADA nor the fighter itself lived up to the promises. Once because ADA messed up the whole design stage and thought they can do it alone, till they had to find a foreign company to fix their problems, but also because a light class fighter is the opposite of what a good carrier fighter should provide. By design it can't provide the range, endurance and load capabilities to actually project power. Not to mention that it's naive to believe that it could stand a chance against J15s. It simply was a pride project by ADA, to claim that they have designed a carrier fighter, while IN saw the problems and knew that it can't be more than a TD to increase the know how for future programmes.
They wanted naval MKIs or Rafales, but were limited to Mig 29Ks or NLCAs and hopefully might end up with F18s now, instead of more Migs for cost reasons.

NLCA couldn't takeoff with full load due to lower powered engine. This was the problem, not your made-up ones like light class fighter is unfit. Naval MKIs? Are you mad? The problem with MKI is that it needs a bid runway.

LCA can carry decent payload over a decent range which is satisfactory for Navy. What matters is fuel to weight ratio, not just propaganda that light fighters can't travel far.

Even MiG29K had 11 ton empty weight and fuel capacity of 3.5tons. LCA has empty weight of 6.8 ton while fuel capacity of 2450kg. Do you see that fuel to weight is similar?

 

[Sancho]

Cross posting

...A poignant confirmation that Livefist was able to obtain as part recent interactions with naval planners was that the indigenous LCA Navy Mk.2, seen earlier as the last hope for the home-grown fighter for carrier operations, is officially off the table. Documents viewed by your correspondent show that on October 18, 2016, at a meeting between then Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, an Indian Navy team and representatives of the DRDO, it was officially decided that the file on the LCA Mk.1 and Mk.2 would be closed from a procurement perspective, though funding would continue. Noting that the proposed Mk.2 also did not meet requirements and would be available too late, Parrikar signed off on a decision to de-link the LCA program from the navy’s quest for further fighters. The file notes, ‘ADA to continue development of LCA Navy Mk.2 as an intermediate step with an aim to develop an indigenous deck based fighter that will meet naval requirements’. Minutes of a meeting that took subsequently took place on November 21, 2016 show that the navy was then cleared to ‘initiate a case for deck based fighters independent of the LCA Mk.2 project’.

The Indian Navy is therefore planning to formalise financial support to the fifth generation AMCA program is the potential first indigenous deck-based fighter.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/indian-naval-aviation.5337/page-52#post-1391656

 

[Kshithij]

Cross posting


http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/indian-naval-aviation.5337/page-52#post-1391656

This year itself, Naval LCA was finalised. That is fake news

 

[Vinod DX9]

LiveFist writes
Livefist was able to obtain as part recent interactions with naval planners was that the indigenous LCA Navy Mk.2, seen earlier as thelast hopefor the home-grown fighter for carrier operations, is officially off the table.

 

[binayak95]

LCA-Navy was always more directed towards creating the technical know how for the deck based fighter rather than operational service.

The Navy was funding, and continues to fund the project but will not accept the aircraft into active service certainly not carrier service.

For several reasons, including no practical payload, low endurance and the biggest reason being single engine.

LCA Navy is meant to create the ground for the AMCA to have a solid Naval variant. If this tech hadn't been developed now, we would have to start from scratch with the AMCA-Navy.

 

[Kshithij]

LiveFist writes
Livefist was able to obtain as part recent interactions with naval planners was that the indigenous LCA Navy Mk.2, seen earlier as thelast hopefor the home-grown fighter for carrier operations, is officially off the table.

For IAC-1 or NLCA is shelved permanently and won't operate even for IAC-2 in 2024-5?

If it was IAC-1, then it was obvious as MK2 isn't developed fully yet and will take 4-5 years while IAC is being commissioned by 2020

@binayak95 is NLCA MK2 shelved even for IAC-2?

 

[patriots]

hope amca naval version will fly from iac 2

nlca will teach lessons to hal..and ada...

 

[Filtercoffee]

Great! Now, say bye bye to a squadron or two of a land based, carrier qualified - light loaded and GE-414 or uprated Kaveri powered Indian NAVY fighter. Could it not be a naval interceptor? Further tests might reveal facts and figures.

 

[binayak95]

@Kshithij, the Navy will NOT accept a SE fighter for operation from deck. Safety reasons. The LCA Mk-2 might see shore based service from A&N islands, but seems unlikely... let's see.

But funding to the NLCA project will continue. Rest assured on that - the expertise gained will translate into the Naval version of AMCA.

 

[Sancho]

Could it not be a naval interceptor? Further tests might reveal facts and figures.

In Air Forces, you can use low end fighters in air defence roles, when you can deploy them in numbers and coupled with force multipliers like AWACS, tankers, or more capable fighters like the MKI.
On a carrier, space is limited, which means you need to get the maximum capability oit of the available aircrafts. Wasting space for a light class fighter, with limited performance and capabilities, then makes the carrier as a whole weaker and IN already struggles to keep up with PLAN.
There is no way an LCA can take on a Flanker class enemy, or project strike power to long ranges, to attack enemy shore bases. That's why there is no way around proper medium class carrier fighters, if we want to use our carriers more than to brag about being a blue water navy.

The focus must be on a CATOBAR capable AMCA development from the start, because we already are late in the 5th gen area and that's the only fighter that gives us the performance and future potential IN needs to fight China. In the mean time we should focus on a cost-effective stop gap, that gives us the capabilities we need to make IAC2 highly capable => F18SH now, with EMALS and E-2D later.