Naval LCA Tejas

[binayak95]

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.

F-18ASHs or Rafale Ms. Either would work.

 

[Sancho]

@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.

Funding will be limited to the MK1 version of NLCA though, because the MK2 version was based on operational requirements of IN, which now are not necessary anymore. As a tech demonstrator NLCA needs to prove ski-jump take offs and arrested landings at INS Hansa, as well as test naval radar and avionics. You don't need a costly MK2 development for that. For AMCA, the benefits will be limited as well, since the design of the fighter will be too different, too make use of common parts, or use the experience. AMCA's stealth design for example, has different aerodynamics, which will have different effects on carrier operations.

 

[Sancho]

F-18ASHs or Rafale Ms. Either would work.

Rafale doesn't fit to our current carrier, is too costly and doesn't get us catapults.

 

[binayak95]

Funding will be limited to the MK1 version of NLCA though, because the MK2 version was based on operational requirements of IN, which now are not necessary anymore. As a tech demonstrator NLCA needs to prove ski-jump take offs and arrested landings at INS Hansa, as well as test naval radar and avionics. You don't need a costly MK2 development for that. For AMCA, the benefits will be limited as well, since the design of the fighter will be too different, too make use of common parts, or use the experience. AMCA's stealth design for example, has different aerodynamics, which will have different effects on carrier operations.

Limited, yes but invaluable. Strengthening the undercarriage, increasing airframe strength to handle arrested recoveries.
And doing this while limiting overall weight and without compromising overall RCS. ADA will also be exposed to a new element they never had to bother with. maintainability of a fighter at sea.

 

[binayak95]

Rafale doesn't fit to our current carrier, is too costly and doesn't get us catapults.

I said both would do. And F-18ASH doesn't exactly fit in either.

And about catapults, I get your point, bro. Too bad.

 

[Sancho]

Limited, yes but invaluable. Strengthening the undercarriage, increasing airframe strength to handle arrested recoveries.

But that's the problem, if IAC2 is meant to be a CATOBAR carrier, AMCAs strengthenings have to surpass NLCA by far, because it also have to take the forces created during catapult take off. NLCA is developed for STOBAR operations only.

It can be used for flight testing things, but most of the AMCA navalising will be completely new and if ADA learned anything from NLCA, than that they should design AMCA as a carrier fighter firsts, with of foreign design partner from the start! But then again, ADA and DRDO often showed, that their ego is the problem, so wait and see.

ADA will also be exposed to a new element they never had to bother with. maintainability of a fighter at sea.

Yes and no, NLCA flight tests from shore bases can help them with understanding the issues of a naval environment. But here again, a stealth fighter is a totally different design, which is geared for low RCS and that starts with RAM coatings. That will be a difficult part to maintain on a stealth fighter, let alone in a naval environment.

 

[Filtercoffee]

.........................https://grabcad.com/library/lca-tejas-navy-1

Sent from my ASUS_Z017DB using Tapatalk

 

[WolfPack86]

LCA Navy Mk 2 new design? Just look at the canopy
https://twitter.com/indiandefencera?lang=en

 

[HariPrasad-1]

LCA Navy Mk 2 new design? Just look at the canopy
https://twitter.com/indiandefencera?lang=en

It is a part of aerodynamic improvement. This was studied earlier but it has not yet been done in MK1. You will see this by year endin mk1 as one of the scientist told that they will start working on MK1 aerodynamic improvement from 2017.

 

[Illusive]

LCA Navy Mk 2 new design? Just look at the canopy
https://twitter.com/indiandefencera?lang=en

This looks like a completely new aircraft.

 

[shiphone]

pix of last year reposted

just few pages back in this thread.

a slightly chined fuselage of LCA mk-2

 

[HariPrasad-1]

pix of last year reposted

View attachment 25546 View attachment 25547 View attachment 25548 View attachment 25549


just few pages back in this thread.

Look at the intake. It seems that an effort is been made to hide the engine blades.

 

[shiphone]

the fairing for the relocated/redesigned Main Landing Gear

 

[kamaal]

Look at the intake. It seems that an effort is been made to hide the engine blades.

Even in MK1 specification we can hardly see the engine blade. There is a reason ADA calls it a semi-stealth jet.

With 1 meter increase in length for MK2, the scope of blade visibility will be nill. But from day one LCA navy looked more refined design than IAF version.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Even in MK1 specification we can hardly see the engine blade. There is a reason ADA calls it a semi-stealth jet.

With 1 meter increase in length for MK2, the scope of blade visibility will be nill. But from day one LCA navy looked more refined design than IAF version.

I have always advocated making Naval LCA first and derive Airforce version out of it. Naval fighters always need much more domestication. We have lost lots of time in mismanagement and in confusion of what to do. For years, we designed Tajas w Mk2 with 0.5m long fuselage. Now they are talking about 1 m longer tejas. I hope they make it twine engine so that naval derivative becomes easy to derive.

 

[Enquirer]

Even in MK1 specification we can hardly see the engine blade. There is a reason ADA calls it a semi-stealth jet.

With 1 meter increase in length for MK2, the scope of blade visibility will be nill. But from day one LCA navy looked more refined design than IAF version.

"see"???
You don't seem to have any idea about propagation & 'antenna theory' vis-a-vis RF radiation!!
Radar waves can travel in (even in the curved) air duct as it acts as a "wave guide". Similarly the re-radiated energy (from the blades) can travel back out of the air duct!!!

 

[Kshithij]

I have always advocated making Naval LCA first and derive Airforce version out of it. Naval fighters always need much more domestication. We have lost lots of time in mismanagement and in confusion of what to do. For years, we designed Tajas w Mk2 with 0.5m long fuselage. Now they are talking about 1 m longer tejas. I hope they make it twine engine so that naval derivative becomes easy to derive.

India never designed any MK2 with 0.5 metre increase. It was only a probable dimension, not fixed one. The increase in length was fixed after taking full requirements from IAF in 2015-16.

"see"???
You don't seem to have any idea about propagation & 'antenna theory' vis-a-vis RF radiation!!
Radar waves can travel in (even in the curved) air duct as it acts as a "wave guide". Similarly the re-radiated energy (from the blades) can travel back out of the air duct!!!

The S band has 10cm wavelength. C band has even less wavelength. In comparisaon, the length of Tejas is 150times bigger. So, for the waves to curve and hit engines and then come out will require lo of bouncing and that will diminish the radar power.

By the way, the engines are hidden by curved ducts to hide heat signatures, not radio waves from radar.

 

[Enquirer]

India never designed any MK2 with 0.5 metre increase. It was only a probable dimension, not fixed one. The increase in length was fixed after taking full requirements from IAF in 2015-16.


The S band has 10cm wavelength. C band has even less wavelength. In comparisaon, the length of Tejas is 150times bigger. So, for the waves to curve and hit engines and then come out will require lo of bouncing and that will diminish the radar power.

By the way, the engines are hidden by curved ducts to hide heat signatures, not radio waves from radar.

Can you do me a favor and not f'ing respond to my posts (is there a way to block you)?
It's fricking annoying to have to respond to your brain dead commentary!!!
Go read some basic physics and math first!! Actually learn to read first (as is obvious that you can't)!! Like a monkey you keep slamming on your keyboard!!!

 

[HariPrasad-1]

India never designed any MK2 with 0.5 metre increase. It was only a probable dimension, not fixed one. The increase in length was fixed after taking full requirements from IAF in 2015-16.


The S band has 10cm wavelength. C band has even less wavelength. In comparisaon, the length of Tejas is 150times bigger. So, for the waves to curve and hit engines and then come out will require lo of bouncing and that will diminish the radar power.

By the way, the engines are hidden by curved ducts to hide heat signatures, not radio waves from radar.

We listen 0.5m increase in length all these years except when the new specifications came out. They kept saying 0.5m increase in length and reduced weight of 6150 kg for tejas mk2 all the time.

So far as curve duct is concern, they are in front part of engine and heat does not come out from front part but from the rare part. so it is absolutely wrong to say that intake ducts are used hide heat signature and not radar waves. It is exactly opposite.

 

[Kshithij]

We listen 0.5m increase in length all these years except when the new specifications came out. They kept saying 0.5m increase in length and reduced weight of 6150 kg for tejas mk2 all the time.

So far as curve duct is concern, they are in front part of engine and heat does not come out from front part but from the rare part. so it is absolutely wrong to say that intake ducts are used hide heat signature and not radar waves. It is exactly opposite.

The 0.5m increase was not design but just a speculation or tentative value. There was no MK2 designed on that parameters.

About heat signature, there is no way to hide heat signature from behind as the amount of heat generated by burning kgs of kerosene is simply enormous to hide. The heat signature of the engine section as seen from the front via the air ducts is what hidden by curved ducts. The stealth of aircraft is also focused upon frontal stealth as the idea is to spot the plane that is coming to attack rather than the plane which is leaving after attack