Discussion in 'Indian Navy' started by sathya, Jul 20, 2011.
I think somewhere I posted the same lets not bring BK in thread.
AFAIK no NLCA is on manufacturing ramp, but It might start by end of this month. Rest will be updated later.
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.
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
"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
As and when DRDO and ADA develop a deck based fighter we are happy to induct it. - Admiral Lanba
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
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.
A really old photo from 2005, showing KH-35, KH-31A and Magic AAM so does PGM ..
Why can't IN buy LCA Naval Mk1 as trainer for deck training??
LCA Navy color scheme is so cool. I wish AF adopt the Navy colors!
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.
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?
This year itself, Naval LCA was finalised. That is fake news
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.
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.
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?
hope amca naval version will fly from iac 2
nlca will teach lessons to hal..and ada...
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.
@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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.