Naval LCA Tejas

[Rajaraja Chola]

Yup. This one is curvier. The aesthetics are like that of the Swat Kats plane TurboKat (except for the twin engines).

Swat Kats has a tri engine version.

 

[Abhi9]

beauty and a beast .........................................................................

 

[Abhishek Shrivastava]

NLCA was in full testing mode this month,

NP1: 61 total test flight

NP2: 27 total test flight

 

[kr9]

Are there any major combat / tactical differences between the Naval LCA and Mk1 / Mk1A; other than its ability to be operable from carriers , twin seats etc:-- since we are now incorporating the F-404s into the IAF ones as well, and the F-414 seems to be some time away.

If not, is it not redundant to run 2 different development programs instead of creating 1 fighter for IAF & IN with all the capabilities? A hybrid that can:-- rearm and resupply from a carrier and then perform again (in the absence of an air refuel tanker).

@Abhi9 ,@Kunal Biswas

 

[Chinmoy]

Are there any major combat / tactical differences between the Naval LCA and Mk1 / Mk1A; other than its ability to be operable from carriers , twin seats etc:-- since we are now incorporating the F-404s into the IAF ones as well, and the F-414 seems to be some time away.

If not, is it not redundant to run 2 different development programs instead of creating 1 fighter for IAF & IN with all the capabilities? A hybrid that can:-- rearm and resupply from a carrier and then perform again (in the absence of an air refuel tanker).

@Abhi9 ,@Kunal Biswas

There might not be major combat/ tactical differences in between Naval LCA and the one for IAF. But they have some huge structural difference in both. So keeping in mind these structural difference, we have to make a dual approach towards the design aspect.

 

[kr9]

There might not be major combat/ tactical differences in between Naval LCA and the one for IAF. But they have some huge structural difference in both. So keeping in mind these structural difference, we have to make a dual approach towards the design aspect.

But does the IAF need the structural differences? As I understand, the Naval LCA has a bigger wing-span among other structural changes (which improved the performance somewhat) . So, can the IAF not take the larger version? Do you know if it is an operational requirement to have a smaller plane? Maybe to fit in Mig-21 hangars or something...?

 

[Kharavela]

But does the IAF need the structural differences? As I understand, the Naval LCA has a bigger wing-span among other structural changes (which improved the performance somewhat) . So, can the IAF not take the larger version? Do you know if it is an operational requirement to have a smaller plane? Maybe to fit in Mig-21 hangars or something...?

Naval LCA was derived from Tejas (Air Force version), not other way round.

If IAF now demands Tejas to have same structure as of Naval LCA, everything has to be started from scratch. More time consuming, more delay for certification, more delay in induction.

 

[Chinmoy]

But does the IAF need the structural differences? As I understand, the Naval LCA has a bigger wing-span among other structural changes (which improved the performance somewhat) . So, can the IAF not take the larger version? Do you know if it is an operational requirement to have a smaller plane? Maybe to fit in Mig-21 hangars or something...?

Not just the wings and size. I am quoting here one excerpt from Air Marshal M.S.D Wollen.

Funds have been sanctioned for a Naval LCA. PD and studies in critical technology areas have commenced. The aircraft will be powered by a Kaveri engine (more information follows) and is to operate from the Indian Navy's Air Defence Ship, under construction. Launch speed over a 12 deg ramp is 100 kts; recovery speed during a no flare deck landing, using arrester gear, is 120 kts. Take off mass 13 tonne, recovery mass 10 tonne. Most stringent requirements are that the airframe will be modified: nose droop to provide improved view during landing approach; wing leading edge vortexes (LEVCON) to increase lift during approach and strengthened undercarriage. Nose wheel steering will be powered for deck maneuverability.

http://www.tejas.gov.in/featured_articles/air_marshal_msd_wollen/page_02.html

So you could see, basically from the very first it was two different design which HAL and ADA worked on. Moreover if you compare the structure of Naval LCA and that of IAF, you could see that structurally Naval LCA does have a greater RCS then that of IAF version (that's what I think, but I may be wrong here).

 

[delta]

i have a fundamental question: why are the naval variants of the same aircraft two seaters whereas the airforce variants are generally single seaters? not just noticing IN, but even USN preferred the two seater F14, and now the F/A 18 super hornet too.

as i understand, the workload is divided between the two pilots, but other than that, does a two seater aircraft offer any advantages? and if it does, why do the airforces do not adopt the same to as high a degree as the navies do?

 

[Chinmoy]

i have a fundamental question: why are the naval variants of the same aircraft two seaters whereas the airforce variants are generally single seaters? not just noticing IN, but even USN preferred the two seater F14, and now the F/A 18 super hornet too.

as i understand, the workload is divided between the two pilots, but other than that, does a two seater aircraft offer any advantages? and if it does, why do the airforces do not adopt the same to as high a degree as the navies do?

As far as I know, it depends on the role an aircraft performs. Even in IAF Su30 is a twin seater aircraft. Basically twin seater aircraft is used in dual role of reconnaissance and strike and single seater like F22 or Mirage are used as either strike or as reconnaissance.

Traditionally we have seen that naval aircraft are used more then often for reconnaissance role the the airforce counterpart. Although I may be wrong in my theory, but you have raised a valid point. Lets forward it to some other experts here.

@ersakthivel @Kunal Biswas @bengalraider

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Two seat approach is of IAF in Indian context, The reason two seat is preferred is coz :

A. Better awareness
B. Lesser stress
C. Better functionality

This enhance the effectiveness of an Aircraft under combat, Here you have two brains working as one with greater efficiency than one brain ..

=================

Unlike SU-30MKI, Light fighter duration up in Air is lesser unless Air-refualers comes into play, SU-30MKI stay longer and hence more pilot fatigue is there and hence two seat here is urgently required than in a Light fighter like Tejas and Mirage 2000th, MIG-21.

As far as I know, it depends on the role an aircraft performs. Even in IAF Su30 is a twin seater aircraft. Basically twin seater aircraft is used in dual role of reconnaissance and strike and single seater like F22 or Mirage are used as either strike or as reconnaissance.

Traditionally we have seen that naval aircraft are used more then often for reconnaissance role the the airforce counterpart. Although I may be wrong in my theory, but you have raised a valid point. Lets forward it to some other experts here.

@ersakthivel @Kunal Biswas @bengalraider

 

[Chinmoy]

Two seat approach is of IAF in Indian context, The reason two seat is preferred is coz :

A. Better awareness
B. Lesser stress
C. Better functionality

This enhance the effectiveness of an Aircraft under combat, Here you have two brains working as one with greater efficiency than one brain ..

=================

Unlike SU-30MKI, Light fighter duration up in Air is lesser unless Air-refualers comes into play, SU-30MKI stay longer and hence more pilot fatigue is there and hence two seat here is urgently required than in a Light fighter like Tejas and Mirage 2000th, MIG-21.

Thanks a lot.......

Then as @delta had mentioned, why Naval fighters are traditionally two seater? Although there are single seater versions too.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I believe on same principals Navy dictates its fighter design and tactics associated with its role ..

 

[Anupu]

I believe on same principals Navy dictates its fighter design and tactics associated with its role ..

Just one question I had about Naval Tejas... Won't it's range be huge constraint in the kind of roles it could play?

 

[garg_bharat]

Lca can carry about 4000 liters in internal tanks and one centerline external tank. This should be good enough for 500km combat radius. Should be enough for India's EEZ.

For example, flying from land bases in peninsular India and A&N islands, these small fighters can reach any point in bay of Bengal.

For bigger ranges, we have mig29k and su30.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

IAF tejas can go +1700 kms while cruising without afterburners, I believe Naval LCA can do the same or better ..

In case of long range operations, Tejas or for MIG-29K will be refueled in Air via refueling pods on MIG29ks ..

Just one question I had about Naval Tejas... Won't it's range be huge constraint in the kind of roles it could play?

 

[Shadow]

 

[Abhi9]

..............................................................................................................

 

[Abhi9]

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[Abhishek Shrivastava]

Great Pics, Do we have video for these trails.
And what abut the performance paramenters in these trails