Naval LCA Tejas

[Armand2REP]

India has been using Sea Harriers which is single engine plane. So, it is wrong to say that twin engine is needed for carrier take-off.

If the engine quits on a single engine the only option is to crash, something the Harrier is known well for.

 

[gryphus-scarface]

If the engine quits on a single engine the only option is to crash, something the Harrier is known well for.

Yes that is true. However as far as I can tell the navy never rejected the Tejas because it was a single engine. A single engine fighter is roughly 30% cheaper to operate. When considering a fighter I'm sure they would have taken into account failure rate and costs. As far as I can tell the navy didn't take the LCA because it could not take off from a carrier with sufficient fuel and weaponry. However the IAC-2 will be larger and will have EMALS, so that shouldn't be an issue any more. If the NMWF proves to be good and comes in time, then the navy will take it over the super hornet.

 

[Armand2REP]

Yes that is true. However as far as I can tell the navy never rejected the Tejas because it was a single engine. A single engine fighter is roughly 30% cheaper to operate. When considering a fighter I'm sure they would have taken into account failure rate and costs. As far as I can tell the navy didn't take the LCA because it could not take off from a carrier with sufficient fuel and weaponry. However the IAC-2 will be larger and will have EMALS, so that shouldn't be an issue any more. If the NMWF proves to be good and comes in time, then the navy will take it over the super hornet.

Once Super Hornet is selected it will begin replacing MiG-29Ks. Even without catapults it can generate far more thrust on take-off for heavier payloads. Having common engines with LCA makes it a done deal.

 

[gryphus-scarface]

Once Super Hornet is selected it will begin replacing MiG-29Ks. Even without catapults it can generate far more thrust on take-off for heavier payloads. Having common engines with LCA makes it a done deal.

Then why fund NLCA even now? They expect some indigenous product. I suspect that the SH will be for IAC-1 and Vikramaditya (briefly), while IAC-2 will operate NMWF or NMWF+SH

 

[Armand2REP]

Then why fund NLCA even now? They expect some indigenous product. I suspect that the SH will be for IAC-1 and Vikramaditya (briefly), while IAC-2 will operate NMWF or NMWF+SH

It can still operate LCA but it is a wait and see deal like it has always been. The Super Hornet is the most polished naval fighter on the market at a reasonable price.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

If the engine quits on a single engine the only option is to crash, something the Harrier is known well for.

If you expect that a twin engine plane will be able to land on a carrier with one engine damaged, then you are wrong. Landing on a carrier is difficult business. If one engine is damaged, things become even more difficult. So, even if a twin engine plane gets its engine damaged, it will also have to crash in the water.

 

[gryphus-scarface]

It can still operate LCA but it is a wait and see deal like it has always been. The Super Hornet is the most polished naval fighter on the market at a reasonable price.

We will have to wait to see what happens with NMWF, but NCLA will never move past prototypes. It simply makes no sense, since NLCA gives very little additional capabilities over MiG 29K. It can't lift a higher load at take off. They will use NLCA as a test bed to gain data for NMWF.

Hopefully later in the pipeline, we see these prototypes in various test configurations, like how the US tested the F-16 MATV.

 

[Armand2REP]

If you expect that a twin engine plane will be able to land on a carrier with one engine damaged, then you are wrong. Landing on a carrier is difficult business. If one engine is damaged, things become even more difficult. So, even if a twin engine plane gets its engine damaged, it will also have to crash in the water.

The fly-by-wire is so advanced now the computers take care of everything. Remember that Israeli F-15 that was flying with only one wing?

 

[Prashant12]

Naval LCA prototype moves for final phase of shore-based trials

The LCA-N project which began in 2003, two years after the first LCA prototype flew, was meant to provide the navy with a light carrier-based fighter aircraft.

The twin-seat trainer naval variant of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA-N) is moving to a test facility in Goa for the final phase of its trials even as uncertainty hangs on the future of the project for an indigenous aircraft carrier-based fighter jet.

In 2017, the Navy cited its unhappiness with the LCA-N programme citing that both Mark 1 and Mark 2 variants were underpowered, to opt for an import of carrier-based fighters.


The navy is likely to seek requests for proposals (RFP) from western manufacturers of carrier-based jets like the F/A-18 and the Rafale-M later this year. The Navy will spend over Rs 50,000 crore to import the aircraft over the next five years.

ADA, meanwhile, has continued LCA-N development. Naval Prototype-1 (NP-1) as the trainer variant is called, flew two sorties in Bengaluru on April 24 with two new featuresan arrestor hook and pilot controlled LEVCONs.

Leading Edge Vortex Controllers(LEVCONs) are flaps that open up on the side of the aircraft like air brakes, allowing the aircraft to reduce landing speeds. Last year, the single-seat fighter variant, NP-2 underwent landing taxi trials at the Shore-Based Test Facility (SBTF) to prove its arrestor hook system.

The (SBTF) in Goa mimicks an aircraft carrier with a ski jump and a separate runway for arrested recovery’ was commissioned in 2014 is used to train the navy’s MiG-29K carrier-based pilots and for testing the LCA-N prototypes.

(An arrestor hook is a retractable landing aid which snags arrestor wires laid across an aircraft carrier allowing the aircraft to land on runways as short as 90 metres).

The LCA-N project which began in 2003, two years after the first LCA prototype flew, was meant to provide the navy with a light carrier-based fighter aircraft. When the navy eventually chose the MiG-29K as a medium-weight carrier-based fighter, the LCA-N development continued. NP-1 was rolled out in 2010 and first flew in 2014.

The Navy's decision to import fighter aircraft saw the conversion of the LCA-N into a navy supported technology demonstrator. The ADA project team has used the two prototype aircraft as technology demonstrators to master the two most complex technologies- landing and taking off from a deck less than 200 metres long.

The project team says that while they have mastered take-off, they are yet to perfect landing the LCA using its arrestor hook which explains the new round of tests in Goa.

Officials at the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the DRDO-organisation that runs the project say if they meet all project, the technology demonstrator project can be closed by the year-end.

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/sto...hase-of-shore-based-trials-1510512-2019-04-26

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Once Super Hornet is selected it will begin replacing MiG-29Ks. Even without catapults it can generate far more thrust on take-off for heavier payloads. Having common engines with LCA makes it a done deal.

F18 has empty weight of 15 ton whereas MiG29K has empty weight of 11 ton. Considering that the RD33MK engine of MiG29K is having dry thrust about 5% less and wet thrust about 10% less than F414 engine, I wonder how F18 will have better take off or flying parameters

The fly-by-wire is so advanced now the computers take care of everything. Remember that Israeli F-15 that was flying with only one wing?

As I said, landing on an airstrip is different from landing on an aircraft carrier. If even a small swerve happens, the ship will also get damaged along with other planes.and equipment on it. In an airstrip, you can simply land anyhow you want without many restrictions

 

[Armand2REP]

F18 has empty weight of 15 ton whereas MiG29K has empty weight of 11 ton. Considering that the RD33MK engine of MiG29K is having dry thrust about 5% less and wet thrust about 10% less than F414 engine, I wonder how F18 will have better take off or flying parameters

The F414 has half the fuel consumption of the RD33MK, it makes up for it with taking less fuel and still having better range. Of course the Rafale dominants in fuel consumption, but it won't matter if Cong takes over.

As I said, landing on an airstrip is different from landing on an aircraft carrier. If even a small swerve happens, the ship will also get damaged along with other planes.and equipment on it. In an airstrip, you can simply land anyhow you want without many restrictions

If FBW can land a plane missing an entire wing,

then it will have no problem compensating for a missing engine.

As I said, landing on an airstrip is different from landing on an aircraft carrier. If even a small swerve happens, the ship will also get damaged along with other planes.and equipment on it. In an airstrip, you can simply land anyhow you want without many restrictions

The ship isn't going to swerve, it is an aircraft carrier. The FBW compensates for the damage to the pilot inputs for the stick to respond as it usually would, you only have to worry about the throttle as your max output is cut in half, but then you don't need much power to land.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

The F414 has half the fuel consumption of the RD33MK, it makes up for it with taking less fuel and still having better range. Of course the Rafale dominants in fuel consumption, but it won't matter if Cong takes over.

This is untrue. The fuel consumption of RD33MK is not bad. It is reasonable and hence we can't say that F414 can compensate the overweight nature of F18. SO, F18 can't take off from STOBAR with reasonable payload.

If FBW can land a plane missing an entire wing,

then it will have no problem compensating for a missing engine.


The ship isn't going to swerve, it is an aircraft carrier. The FBW compensates for the damage to the pilot inputs for the stick to respond as it usually would, you only have to worry about the throttle as your max output is cut in half, but then you don't need much power to land.

The F15 has a big body which generated significant lift. the wings generate only 50% lift. Loss of one wing is loss of 25% lift. But loss of engine will cut the thrust by 50%. Handling that will be as difficult as handling the plane without a wing.

The bigger problem is landing on an aircraft carrier. The landing is arrestor based which requires extreme precision and proper thrust. The plane has to land at the exact spot so that it does not miss the arrestor. The angle of alignment must also be perfect to ensure that plane does not swerve and hit the nearby railing due to the impact of landing and arrestor cable torque.

Landing on a carrier is much more complicated than landing o runway. Prudence says that it is better to lose a plane than risk crashing it on a carrier

 

[Armand2REP]

This is untrue. The fuel consumption of RD33MK is not bad. It is reasonable and hence we can't say that F414 can compensate the overweight nature of F18. SO, F18 can't take off from STOBAR with reasonable payload.

Actually the specific fuel consumption of the RD33MK is quite bad... converted from kg to lb for comparison.

SFC of RD33MK ...
wet = 4.32 lb/lbf.h
dry = 1.72 lb/lbf.h

SFC of M88-2
wet = 1.66 lb/lbf.h
dry = 0.78 lb/lbf.h

SFC of F404
wet = 1.74 lb/lbf.h
dry = 0.81 lb/lbf.h

The Rafale is over twice as fuel efficient at dry thrust and almost 3X at full afterburner. You will also note the Tejas will have quite the efficiency advantage over a JF-17.

The F15 has a big body which generated significant lift. the wings generate only 50% lift. Loss of one wing is loss of 25% lift. But loss of engine will cut the thrust by 50%. Handling that will be as difficult as handling the plane without a wing.

The bigger problem is landing on an aircraft carrier. The landing is arrestor based which requires extreme precision and proper thrust. The plane has to land at the exact spot so that it does not miss the arrestor. The angle of alignment must also be perfect to ensure that plane does not swerve and hit the nearby railing due to the impact of landing and arrestor cable torque.

Landing on a carrier is much more complicated than landing o runway. Prudence says that it is better to lose a plane than risk crashing it on a carrier

Yes yes, we all know landing on a carrier is not as easy as a runway but with FBW it is not as deadly as it used to be. That is why carrier pilots train for emergency landings including losing an engine. Single engine fighters can't train for that... why? Because they have already crashed.

 

[garg_bharat]

I think we need large number of single engine fighters. Hope to see large increase in LCA Tejas production for both IAF and Navy. This along with emergency imports of around 140 fighters should see India through.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Actually the specific fuel consumption of the RD33MK is quite bad... converted from kg to lb for comparison.

SFC of RD33MK ...
wet = 4.32 lb/lbf.h
dry = 1.72 lb/lbf.h

SFC of M88-2
wet = 1.66 lb/lbf.h
dry = 0.78 lb/lbf.h

SFC of F404
wet = 1.74 lb/lbf.h
dry = 0.81 lb/lbf.h

Source for these? I find it suspicious as the SFC of al31F is quite similar to F100 & F110. So, I see no reason for RD33MK to be that worse.

Yes yes, we all know landing on a carrier is not as easy as a runway but with FBW it is not as deadly as it used to be. That is why carrier pilots train for emergency landings including losing an engine. Single engine fighters can't train for that... why? Because they have already crashed

It is about the risk involved. If I were the captain of the carrier, I would ask the pilot to safely crash the plane in the sea instead of taking a chance on the carrier. Pilots may be trained for landing without one engine, but it is not at all advisable in carriers as the risk is far too great.

Also, if you have noticed, many planes of twin engines keep crashing due to engine failure. It is unlikely that both engines fail together. So, there are certain types of engine failure which even FBW can't control

 

[Armand2REP]

Source for these? I find it suspicious as the SFC of al31F is quite similar to F100 & F110. So, I see no reason for RD33MK to be that worse.

The links have been there, all you have to do is click them.

 

[garg_bharat]

Actually the specific fuel consumption of the RD33MK is quite bad... converted from kg to lb for comparison.

SFC of RD33MK ...
wet = 4.32 lb/lbf.h
dry = 1.72 lb/lbf.h

Your conversion is wrong. Please give all figures in metric system for all three engines.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

The links have been there, all you have to do is click them.

No, it appears quite similar:
F404:

RD33MK:

If we make proper conversion, it appears that RD33 has better dry SFC while F404 has better wet SFC

 

[Armand2REP]

No, it appears quite similar:
F404:

View attachment 34503

RD33MK:
View attachment 34504

If we make proper conversion, it appears that RD33 has better dry SFC while F404 has better wet SFC

You didn't convert anything, the F404 is in pounds, the RD33MK is in kilograms. If you actually read the content of my posts you would already have the conversion.

 

[Shashwat]

30 chars 30 chars to hell with 30 chars