Naval LCA Tejas

[zebra7]

Naval LCA is cancelled, news will be out soon. Whatever tests are being done are for future aircraft needs and to develop technological know how.

Not a single GE414 engine has arrived till date. Confirmed contract for only 8 GE414 has been signed (maybe used for AMCA), till date no contract has been signed for the remaining 91 engines.

When there is no NLCA aka MK-2 version ready yet, where is the question of rejection. The Navy are specific about the NLCA MK-1 which is powered by F404 engine and designed inherited from the trainer version of MK-1.

BTW the GE CEO himself quoted that they have recieved order of 99 units of F414 engine, and as far as GE F404 engine is concerned, GE have stopped manufacturing F404 and total engine ordered by India so far is 42 unit -- Do the maths and remove all PVs and TDs from it.

I understand your concern and if you read my post again I said "highly unlikely".
Nothing is confirmed yet regarding the Naval LCA and the last part of my post are merely my own thoughts.
We will have to wait for official confirmation from ADA and DRDO for anything concrete.
Nevertheless despite the Navy urging DRDO and ADA to continue work on the project I am of the opinion that that not much work will be done on the it due to scarcity of funds.

To answer your questions:
1. The Navy was offered LCA MK1 for use on its carriers which it rejected. Considering the IA is opting for Tejas MK1A it is likely that MK2 development will be halted in favor of AMCA. Again this is my own hypothesis if anyone would like to counter my arguments please do so. Constructive debate is always welcome.
2. Once again with the mass order of 80+ MK1A and a tender for 100+ single engine aircraft I have doubts that the MK2 will ever materialize.
3. Answered by @lcafanboy above.
4. It will most likely end up as a tech demonstrator nothing more. For training we have Mig 29KUB and its simulators.

Lets disects the news and your statements properly first.

1. Navy have rejected MK-1 true, and due to the fact that its already cleared that it will takeoff from the STOBAR carrier with useful payload.

2. The options available for the IN for the ski jump capable aircraft is limited -- namely MIG-29K, SU-33, J-15, Sea Grippen (May be). If more pls mentioned it. The reality is that in SKI jump capable aircraft is needed for the new carrier. Now you have few option either convert the STOBAR carrier into the Steam Catapult aka CATOBAR carrier or pray for the U.S for this tech. by offering them order with F-18SH. Or go with more order of MIG-29K, because SU-33 is still not fully capable/under power like Chinese J-15. Last but not the least go for the SEA Gripen program with SAAB and provide them your carrier testing facility, which SAAB is so desperate to get, and kill the indegenous effort.

OR

Continue the development of the LCA MK-2 with F-414IN6 engine which will share comonality with the IAF's LCA MK-1 SOP 18 with the plan for the future upgrade of F-414EPE engine and AVEN TVC in mind, and try to build the capability to develop the carrier capable fighter plane which will provide the enormous flying data to the ADA and experiment with other posibilities such as LEVCON and TVC. Problem with the ADA is that they are trying to convert the IAF specific variant into the carrier specific, and it should be rather be developed from the base design of the LCA. ADA should come forward and seek the advice and help from the OEMs such as GE or Dassault for the Air intake design and development.It is so important for the N-AMCA if ever india want to project itself to true blue Navy.

3. Mass order of MK-1A could affect the MK-2 -- How ?? As far as I know infact if the comonality of the MK-1A with the Navy's MK-2 be 40%, that will infact help more faster manufacturing with common subcontrators and suppliers.

4. MIG-29KUB for the training -- Yes but costly due to twin engine and tell which country uses MIG-29K other than India. Thus the whole cost of the future development and the simulator will be bore by which country. So why not waste some part of it with the indegenous effort by promoting it. And which OEM could provide better service or the customization which IN wanted or in which IN engineers could contribute in its development and planning.

It is not just a matter of engines. The LCA Tejas is inherently designed as a Light Fighter and as such no matter what engine you put in the airframe be it GE F414 or the Kaveri, it will not be able to provide the Navy with the range or payload that they require from a carrier based fighter like the current Mig 29K.
The fact that the Navy wants to float a tender for foreign fighters also corroborates my point.
The Navy will not opt for Tejas on the Vikrant and even if Tejas Mk2 is built with better engines remember that the Tejas N is built for STOBAR landings while the Vishal will be built around a CATOBAR/EMALS configuration so no chance there as well.
Sorry mate but the NLCA will most likely remain as a tech demonstrator unless the Navy is arm twisted into accepting it.

LOL Navy issued RFI which is the information gathering process from the various OEMs, and as stated above there is no other aircraft other than MIG-29K available at the present, and It means that ADA/HAL could also compete and present their plan/RFI along with the other OEMs.

Sorry mate but there is no NLCA yet and the development is on and will take some time, so that India Navy could come to the conclussion on whether they would go for the Indian solution via MK-2 and then eventually with the N-AMCA route or go with the MIG-29K UPG route.

 

[Prashant12]

Aircraft carrier version of Tejas still alive, despite navy opposition

A decade ago, a far-sighted navy chief, Admiral Arun Prakash, posted his most talented engineering officer, Commander CD Balaji, to develop the Naval Tejas fighter at the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which oversees the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) programme.

Prakash, and several navy chiefs who followed him, continued backing the Naval Tejas with funds and personnel, even as the Indian Air Force (IAF) dragged its feet.

Now, ironically, the navy has turned its back on the Tejas, even as the IAF has backed the Tejas with orders for 103 fighters.

Although Balaji is now a commodore and the head of ADA, the admirals have insisted since April that they want to buy 57 foreign fighters instead of the Tejas. These will equip two current aircraft carriers: INS Vikramaditya, purchased from Russia, and INS Vikrant, nearing completion at Cochin Shipyard Ltd (CSL).

On Navy Day earlier this month, navy chief, Admiral Sunil Lanba publicly announced that the Tejas would not meet the navy’s requirements.

Business Standard learns that the navy wants ADA to develop a carrier deck version of the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), an indigenous, twin-engine, fifth-generation, stealth fighter that is unlikely to enter service before 2030.

This inexplicable volte-face by the last two navy chiefs --- Admiral RK Dhowan who retired in May and Admiral Sunil Lanba who succeeded him --- opens the doors for two global vendors: Boeing, which is offering its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet; and Dassault, which has already sold 36 Rafale fighters to the IAF.
Unexplained by the navy is the future role of its 45 MiG-29K/KUB fighters, which India paid over $2 billion for, and which were to equip the Vikramaditya and Vikrant, with 22-24 fighters on each.
Nor is it clear whether the Rafale and Super Hornet, which are designed and built to be launched from aircraft carriers with catapults, are capable of “ski-jump” launches from the two Indian carriers, neither of which have catapults.

Without catapults, those aircraft will have to be launched with significantly lower payloads of fuel and weapons, especially in India’s warmer environment. The navy has done no studies of the compromises that will be necessary.
With the navy short of answers, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar has ordered ADA to continue developing the Naval Tejas.

Balaji confirmed to Business Standard that the Naval Tejas development was under way. “ADA believes that we have a good configuration for the LCA Navy Mark II, which will meet the operational requirements of a deck-based aircraft, as specified in the cabinet clearance in December 2009.”
The navy, however, is now demanding far greater capability from the Tejas than what the cabinet clearance of 2009 had specified. At a defence ministry meeting in August, the admirals cited a significantly more challenging operational environment.

Meanwhile the two-phase upgrade of the Naval Tejas continues. In Phase-1, the IAF version of the Tejas Mark I was modified, at a cost of Rs 1,729 crore, into the Naval Tejas Mark I. This involved measures like strengthening the undercarriage for landings on carrier decks and modifying the cockpit to increase pilot visibility. Yet, the Mark I remained predominantly an air force, rather than a naval, fighter.

ADA intends to customise it into a naval fighter in Phase-2, which has been allocated Rs 1,921 crore. Like the IAF version, this will involve comprehensive redesign, including replacing the current General Electric F-404IN engine with a more powerful F-414 engine. But other important changes will optimise the fighter for carrier operations. Weight will be shaved off the undercarriage, which will be accommodated inside a lengthened wing, freeing up space in the centre fuselage for an additional 700 litres of fuel. This will give the fighter an extra 20-25 minutes of flight endurance. In addition, the tail hook will be engineered afresh.

The ADA chief has argued forcefully in the defence ministry, and Parrikar has accepted the need for a step-by-step approach to naval fighter design, rather than attempting a huge technology jump by designing a fifth-generation Naval AMCA. They believe that first designing an optimised naval fighter --- the Naval Tejas Mark II --- would develop capabilities realistically and incrementally.

Fleet air experts note the US Navy’s struggle to build the carrier deck version of the Joint Strike Fighter, called the F-35C. Although America has built carrier deck aircraft for a century, the technology leap attempted in the F-35 created issues that are still being resolved.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2016/12/aircraft-carrier-version-of-tejas-still.html

 

[Vikas Lohia]

Is Navy buying Tejas? I thought they rejected it

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Is Navy buying Tejas? I thought they rejected it

yes they rejected it and wisely so.

 

[kunal1123]

Is Navy buying Tejas? I thought they rejected it

yes they rejected it and wisely so.

no they didn't . navy gust said that lca mark1 is not up to requirement (not able to take off with full weapon load) and that is known from starting . lac mark 2 is the real deal until then there is only speculation by paid media....
and if a new engine based on ge141/kaveri come with 110+ thrust before nlca2 realized it will be a great deal..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Best not to propagate disinformation, This has been already debated on Naval Tejas thread in depth ..

yes they rejected it and wisely so.

 

[IndianHawk]

yes they rejected it and wisely so.

Nothing Wise in such rejection.
Navy must have a sizable aircraft fleet.
Not just for carriers. But also for shore based command centers as well as island based navel stations. NLCA with its low cost can go a long way.

So even if NLCA falls short for carrier operations (although it will be more maintainable than mig29k anyday)
It shall still be inducted in large numbers for naval base stations and island chains.

 

[abingdonboy]

The NLCA doesn't make sense as a frontline fighter for the IN's carriers, it will have a limited MTOW and limited range with the added risk of have no redundancy (single engined) for every 1 LCA on deck you could have a Rafale, what is going to deliver more bang for the aircraft space?

There is no shame in conceding that the NLCA is not the ultimate carrier fighter, it was never meant to be! The IN has not turned its back on the NLCA nor has it backstabbed the project, the job of the IN is to protect the security of India, clearly they are far better served with the Rafale-M.

The NLCA will still be an awesome addtion to the IN's air arm and very very useful in training budding carrier pilots (currently the IN's OCU ac- the Hawk Mk.132 cannot land on carriers) and will be useful for shore based air policing roles along the coast.

 

[IndianHawk]

for every 1 LCA on deck you could have a Rafale, what is going to deliver more bang for the aircraft space?

But there are many more things to consider.
Why did France bothered with Rafael M , it could have just bought f18 or f35B most recently.

The point is we need indigenous fighter on our carrier decks asap. When war comes calling I will chose NLCA because we can make them faster without permission from France and we supply spares at low costs .

War is not about few superior crafts it's about economics politics and military all combined. Our forces should minimize the economic cost of war fare if we ever wish to prevail.

If NLCA was unsafe / unsound we could have limited its role . Just because it has lesser range and payloads than Rafael (which the navy new since the beginning of LCA project it's most compact fighter afterall.) It can not be sidelined.

We can develop strategies around these range / payloads missions and we can always improve.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

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

Excellent post, I suggest you watch this documentary ..

If NLCA was unsafe / unsound we could have limited its role . Just because it has lesser range and payloads than Rafael (which the navy new since the beginning of LCA project it's most compact fighter afterall.) It can not be sidelined.

We can develop strategies around these range / payloads missions and we can always improve.

 

[abingdonboy]

But there are many more things to consider.
Why did France bothered with Rafael M , it could have just bought f18 or f35B most recently.

The point is we need indigenous fighter on our carrier decks asap. When war comes calling I will chose NLCA because we can make them faster without permission from France and we supply spares at low costs .

War is not about few superior crafts it's about economics politics and military all combined. Our forces should minimize the economic cost of war fare if we ever wish to prevail.

If NLCA was unsafe / unsound we could have limited its role . Just because it has lesser range and payloads than Rafael (which the navy new since the beginning of LCA project it's most compact fighter afterall.) It can not be sidelined.

We can develop strategies around these range / payloads missions and we can always improve.

I'm not saying abandon the NLCA at all, in fact the NLCA will act as a great test bed for the N-AMCA that will be in the same class as the Rafale and far more suited for the naval role.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Which NLCA you are indicating about ..

I'm not saying abandon the NLCA at all, in fact the NLCA will act as a great test bed for the N-AMCA that will be in the same class as the Rafale and far more suited for the naval role.

 

[abingdonboy]

Which NLCA you are indicating about ..

The NLCA the IN wants....NLCA MK.2

 

[Kunal Biswas]

In that case it has to be false, because IN officials are still supervising the ADA on NLCA MK2 ..

The NLCA the IN wants....NLCA MK.2

 

[charlie]

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

Excellent post, I suggest you watch this documentary ..

Brazil would be interested to use NLCA in future to replace their carrier aircraft as they still use light aircraft.

 

[Abhishek Shrivastava]

Both np's are grounded since august.
What is going on...

 

[kunal1123]

Both np's are grounded since august.
What is going on...

how u can say, just no news is coming that does not meant it is grounded.......

 

[Abhishek Shrivastava]

how u can say, just no news is coming that does not meant it is grounded.......

You can check the flight numbers on www.ada.gov.in
Lsp8 is grounded since last 13 months to IFR integration.

 

[kunal1123]

You can check the flight numbers on www.ada.gov.in
Lsp8 is grounded since last 13 months to IFR integration.

ok seen . well see the flight chart for jan lsp8 number increased by 1 . but it not grounded.

 

[rrrajesh.yadav]

I found this article today about LCA Tejas

Navy's rejection of Tejas is a lesson, failure of DRDO

• Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA) by the Indian Navy seems to have surprised most navy-watching analysts. Their confusion has been compounded by the near-simultaneous issuance of a global request for information (RFI) for procurement of "57 multirole fighters for its aircraft carriers" by Naval HQ.
  
  One can deduce two compelling reasons for this, seemingly, radical volte face by the only service which has shown unswerving commitment to indigenisation (lately labelled 'Make in India') for the past six decades.
  Firstly, by exercising a foreclosure option, the navy has administered a well-deserved and stinging rebuke to the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for its lethargic and inept performance that has again disappointed our military. The second reason arises from the navy's desperate hurry to freeze the specifications of its second indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC-2). The choice of configuration, size and propulsion of a carrier has a direct linkage with the type of aircraft that will operate from it. This constitutes a "chicken and egg" conundrum -- should one freeze the carrier design first or choose the aircraft first? The Indian Navy has obviously decided the latter.
  
  The IAC-2 will enter service in the next decade, at a juncture where a balance-of-power struggle is likely to be underway in this part of the world -- with China and India as the main players. It is only a matter of time before China's carrier task-forces, led by the ex-Russian carrier Liaoning and her successors, follow its nuclear submarines into the Indian Ocean. Since the Indian response to such intimidation will need to be equally robust, the decisions relating to the design and capabilities of IAC-2 (and sisters) assume strategic dimensions. Essentially, there are three options for selection of aircraft for the IAC-2.
  
  * Conventional take-off and landing types like the US F/A-18 Super Hornet and French Rafale-M that would require a steam catapult for launch and arrester-wires for recovery. The relatively large ship would need either a steam or nuclear plant for propulsion.
  
  * Types like the Russian Sukhoi-33 and MiG-29K would require only a ski-jump for take-off and arrester-wires for landing. This would mean a smaller ship, driven either by gas turbines or diesel engines. The LCA (Navy) could have been a contender in this category.
  
  * The F-35B Lightning II version of the US Joint Strike Fighter, capable of vectored-thrust, would require only a ski-jump for take-off, but no arrester wires since it can land vertically. This would result in the simplest and cheapest ship; a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) carrier.
  
  Once the navy has selected an aircraft, the ship and its operating and maintenance facilities can be designed around it, avoiding some of the pitfalls encountered on IAC-1.
  
  Reverting to the LCA saga -- as far back as the early 1990s, the navy had initiated a study for examining the feasibility of adapting the LCA to shipborne use. While confirming feasibility, the study had revealed some major problem areas, which included lack of engine thrust, requirement of an arrester hook and stronger undercarriage, and need for cockpit/fuselage re-design before the LCA could attempt carrier operations. Undaunted, the navy re-affirmed its faith in the programme by contributing over Rs 400 crore as well as engineers and test pilots to the project.
  
  The IAF accepted the Tejas into service, in July 2016, with considerable reservations because it had not been cleared for full operational exploitation and fell short of many qualitative requirements. The prototype LCA (Navy) had rolled out six years earlier, in July 2010, raising great hopes. However, it is obvious that the DRDO failed to address the problems listed above with any urgency, leading to ultimate rejection of this ambitious project.
  
  By its failure to deliver on the LCA (Navy), the DRDO has let down its most steadfast supporter amongst the armed forces -- the Indian Navy. A little introspection by those at the helm of this organisation would reveal to them three reasons for its abysmal performance despite a wealth of talent and a network of sophisticated laboratories -- an exaggerated opinion of their capabilities; a lack of intellectual honesty in denying obvious failures and an unwillingness to seek external help when required.
  
  Today, India has the ignominious distinction of being the world's biggest importer of military hardware, whereas China counts amongst the world's leading arms exporters and its aeronautical establishment has delivered aircraft ranging from UAVs to 5th generation fighters, helicopters and transports to the PLA.
  
  While one would be justified in blaming the scientists and bureaucrats responsible for defence research and production, the root cause of this colossal failure lies in political indifference and the inability to provide vision and firm guidance to our massive but under-performing military-industrial complex.
  
  (Admiral Arun Prakash (Retd) is a former chief of the Indian Navy. The article is in special arrangement with South Asia Monitor/www.southasiamonitor.org)

• Reference :-
• http://www.ecoti.in/F4cSgZ