HAL Tejas | Updates, News & Discussions

[jha]

NLCA has absolutely no future in IN . LCA-II will be inducted but not in too big numbers imho. Ground reality is that LCA-II will be coming 5 years too late.

 

[Sergi]

I have very cleraly mention in my post "can't achieve a kill from distance" which means from 300km away. I know that India has other anti-ship missiles which N-LCA can carry. But you must understand that, only Brahmos has the potential to achieve a complete kill with one hit as it's inertia will be close to 16-32 times more than what will be achieved by other anti-ship missiles. Thus Brahmos can destroy the hull of the ship in one hit and also that it can target warships from that distance where there is no threat to the aircraft.



Again I mentioned potent in its class. There is no naval light weight fighter used by any navy which is of its weight class and still is significantly superior than N-LCA. Potent compared to light weight alternative that our adversaries have.



We need both AMCA & N-AMCA. It's for the same reason that we share both land and sea.

1. Any missile that we buy form outside is bound to come up with the cap below 300km. Brahmos is no doubt powerful but its not the only missile that can do that. Wiki has some good articles for anti ship missiles. Go through them. Nice read.

2. For you information NP-1 can't land or take off from any carrier. May be NP-4 which is supposed to be based in MK-2. It's still 4/5 years in future.
And thre is a reason why other Navies don't have fighter in that category

3. That's your opinion. I can't argue with that. But Naval air wing is to project power where AF can't reach.

NLCA has absolutely no future in IN . LCA-II will be inducted but not in too big numbers imho. Ground reality is that LCA-II will be coming 5 years too late.

We have ordered 100 GE414 with a follow on clause of 100 more. So we will have minimum of 100 Mark-2

 

[ziaulislam]

just to add 100 engines doesnt mean 100 fighters..u need spare engines too...
but yes most probably there will be 100 fighters for LCA

 

[Anony]

1. Any missile that we buy form outside is bound to come up with the cap below 300km. Brahmos is no doubt powerful but its not the only missile that can do that. Wiki has some good articles for anti ship missiles. Go through them. Nice read.

2. For you information NP-1 can't land or take off from any carrier. May be NP-4 which is supposed to be based in MK-2. It's still 4/5 years in future.
And thre is a reason why other Navies don't have fighter in that category

3. That's your opinion. I can't argue with that. But Naval air wing is to project power where AF can't reach.

If you can't comprehend the post, don't just give ****.Total off topic reply with complete nonsense. No need to reply, I am presuming that discussion on this conversation ends here.

 

[Sergi]

If you can't comprehend the post, don't just give ****.Total off topic reply with complete nonsense. No need to reply, I am presuming that discussion on this conversation ends here.

What off topic genius ??? Watch your mouth ... You can get the same reply
It's not s@it its your understanding. And things make sense if you know what they mean.

I am not interested in discussion with such arrogant minded person either.
Keep your presumption with you and live in wonderland . Reality might scare you. Good luck
don't even bother to reply

 

[Sergi]

just to add 100 engines doesnt mean 100 fighters..u need spare engines too...
but yes most probably there will be 100 fighters for LCA

Genius read again
100 ordered with a follow on clause of 100 more. That makes it to total 200 engines ( India alway use follow on clause). Means 100 planes. Got it ???

 

[sancho]

What off topic genius ???

Chill guys, lets get back to topic again!

Genius read again
100 ordered with a follow on clause of 100 more. That makes it to total 200 engines ( India alway use follow on clause). Means 100 planes. Got it ???

He is not wrong, the 200 engines, IF we go for them (which is unlikely if we develop the Kaveri K10), includes later replacements. The 100 though, are the first real order and ziaulislam is right that this doesn't automatically translate into 100 fighters, because some of the engines will be used for MK2 or N-LCA MK2 prototypes as well.
Earlier reports said, that IAF would go for 83 x LCA MK2s, which could hint on 3 x prototypes and 80 x fighters (=> 4 x squads + the 2 x MK1 squads), while the rest could be used for the early IN orders and version, or used as spare engines. Depending on N-LCA orders, or on Kaveri K10s development timeline, there might be follow orders, but not sure how many.

 

[Sergi]

Chill guys, lets get back to topic again!



He is not wrong, the 200 engines, IF we go for them (which is unlikely if we develop the Kaveri K10), includes later replacements. The 100 though, are the first real order and ziaulislam is right that this doesn't automatically translate into 100 fighters, because some of the engines will be used for MK2 or N-LCA MK2 prototypes as well.
Earlier reports said, that IAF would go for 83 x LCA MK2s, which could hint on 3 x prototypes and 80 x fighters (=> 4 x squads + the 2 x MK1 squads), while the rest could be used for the early IN orders and version, or used as spare engines. Depending on N-LCA orders, or on Kaveri K10s development timeline, there might be follow orders, but not sure how many.

I am NOT saying he is wrong. Was just pointing to spare engines

Well Sancho K10 is nowhere in sight. The JV we all hoped for isn't even in talks. Last we hear that We are searching for new partner. So evenif that was to pressurise French , JV is still a open deal.

AFAIK the news in past said JV will took 5/6 years to bring out the first proto which was a sharp reduction in time from earlier 8/10 years.

So we surely will be going for follow on order unless you want to say IAF won't go for a big order

 

[Beerbal]

Let me summarize the facts


1. All member agree that N-AMCA is what Navy targeting.
2. All of us agree that N-LCA is potent platform in its category (Class).


Differences
1. Some of us want N-LCA project just as TD (Tech demonstrator), while some of us want it to be operational.
2. There are very few of us believe that "NLCA has absolutely no future in IN ."

 

[sancho]

So we surely will be going for follow on order unless you want to say IAF won't go for a big order

I have some doubts on that, because the delays will increase the likelihood that we simply go for additional Rafales, instead of additional MK2s, or the speculated MK3s. You also have to see that there are only 7 x squads of Mig 21 Bis and M/MF to replace, while the current LCA orders already include 6 x squads, so there is not much to replace anyway.
The only follow orders I see, would be for N-LCA MK2s of course, but that again depends on the delays of the development. LCA MK2 is expected only by 2018 now and N-LCA as a version of it might even come later. By that time, INS Vikramaditya and even IAC 1 will be operational with Mig 29Ks, so hardly any use for N-LCA anyway, which again is a fact that many N-LCA supporters forget.

Wrt K10, yes there is no development for it at the moment, but if it goes as shown above, the next need for a big engine order for LCA comes only during the MLUs of MK1 and later MK2. According to several officials, Kaveri engine is currently de-linked from LCA, but still aims on replacing the US engines in future.
Also the current MK2 orders will be delivered only beyond 2020, a time where K10 should be available at least developed for AMCA, so any follow orders of LCA MK2 or MK3, then could use K10 instead of the GE414.

All on all, I don't see us going for more than 40 x follow orders of GE414, if at all.

Let me summarize the facts


2. All of us agree that N-LCA is potent platform in its category (Class).

Not really, a carrier fighter that can't carry a useful strike load, with a credible self defence capability can hardly be described as potent. Add the limited range and endurance, or the low chances in A2A against J15 for example makes it hardly useful.

 

[Sergi]

I have some doubts on that, because the delays will increase the likelihood that we simply go for additional Rafales, instead of additional MK2s, or the speculated MK3s. You also have to see that there are only 7 x squads of Mig 21 Bis and M/MF to replace, while the current LCA orders already include 6 x squads, so there is not much to replace anyway.

- we will surely be going for additional MMRCA clause. No doubt in that too.
- MK-3 is just imagination and pitching. Nothing more
- yes MK-2 will replace 7 Squds no doubt. But you are forgetting additional sanctioned Squd strength.
- As I mentioned earlier in this thread itself , if a retired IAF high ranker is to be believed IF LCA MK-2 delivered what it promised then IAF will go for 200+ order. So I believe atleast 10 Squd of MK-2s if not more

The only follow orders I see, would be for N-LCA MK2s of course, but that again depends on the delays of the development. LCA MK2 is expected only by 2018 now and N-LCA as a version of it might even come later. By that time, INS Vikramaditya and even IAC 1 will be operational with Mig 29Ks, so hardly any use for N-LCA anyway, which again is a fact that many N-LCA supporters forget.

- if costal role is transferred to IN. That was in talks but nothing comes out yet.
- I really STOPED beliving dead lines
- but you are forgetting one thing LCA will be more than a operational need. IAF will and have to support it.

Wrt K10, yes there is no development for it at the moment, but if it goes as shown above, the next need for a big engine order for LCA comes only during the MLUs of MK1 and later MK2. According to several officials, Kaveri engine is currently de-linked from LCA, but still aims on replacing the US engines in future.
Also the current MK2 orders will be delivered only beyond 2020, a time where K10 should be available at least developed for AMCA, so any follow orders of LCA MK2 or MK3, then could use K10 instead of the GE414.


All on all, I don't see us going for more than 40 x follow orders of GE414, if at all.

Sounds correct. But still I doubt the JV. It's been 4/5 years. Nothing.
I doubt we would go for K-10 in AMCA when we would have a NG engine ( hope ) in FGFA

 

[sancho]

But you are forgetting additional sanctioned Squd strength.

I didn't, but the point is, we will have Rafale and FGFA in production at the same time that LCA MK2 is in production and the longer LCA takes, the less useful it will be in operational terms. So it is more likely that IAF will add to squad strenght with Rafale or FGFAs and not with additional LCAs.

- but you are forgetting one thing LCA will be more than a operational need. IAF will and have to support it.

And they did for several years now, just like they show commitment with the order of 120 fighters, but at the end LCA remains to be the low end fighter only and that makes it less important in operational terms. So if IAF thinks that their operational needs makes it important to add more capable fighters, they obviously won't go for additional LCAs right?

I doubt we would go for K-10 in AMCA when we would have a NG engine ( hope ) in FGFA

We have to, because K10 is a light class engine, while the FGFA will use heavy class engines, so unless we suddenly go for a single engine AMCA, we won't use the FGFA engine.

 

[Beerbal]

Not really, a carrier fighter that can't carry a useful strike load, with a credible self defence capability can hardly be described as potent. Add the limited range and endurance, or the low chances in A2A against J15 for example makes it hardly useful.

What is the payload Tejas N-LCA can carry and what is the weight Harrier carries, can you give comparative view?? If N-LCA carry much lesser than BAE Harrier, then I will agree with you...

List of Carrier based fighters In service

Boeing EA-18G Growler
Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
British Aerospace Sea Harrier
Dassault-Breguet Super Étendard
Dassault Rafale M
Grumman C-2 Greyhound
Hawker Siddeley AV-8S Harrier
McDonnell Douglas A-4KU Skyhawk (AF-1)
McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II
McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet
McDonnell Douglas T-45 Goshawk
Mikoyan MiG-29K
Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye
Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowler
Sukhoi Su-25UTG/UBP
Sukhoi Su-33


Look into the list and compare LCA with it provided other fighter must be as light as LCA. Comparing 30ton F18 with 6.7 ton LCA will not be justified...

 

[Sergi]

I didn't, but the point is, we will have Rafale and FGFA in production at the same time that LCA MK2 is in production and the longer LCA takes, the less useful it will be in operational terms. So it is more likely that IAF will add to squad strenght with Rafale or FGFAs and not with additional LCAs.



And they did for several years now, just like they show commitment with the order of 120 fighters, but at the end LCA remains to be the low end fighter only and that makes it less important in operational terms. So if IAF thinks that their operational needs makes it important to add more capable fighters, they obviously won't go for additional LCAs right?




We have to, because K10 is a light class engine, while the FGFA will use heavy class engines, so unless we suddenly go for a single engine AMCA, we won't use the FGFA engine.

1. Agreed on everything

2. I think they have to. MOD isn't barring them from other capable options but they along with DRDO/HAL will surely be pushing for a Major order. Point there would be brandish the platform for potential export if any. Plus "we build it" is always going to be there.

3. You are right. So are we looking at K10 JV as a NG engine ???

 

[Beerbal]

Something went wrong in calculation...