sancho
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,011
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
It could also, be that the N-LCA will get deployed in Andaman and that's as far as it will go? Btw, is the N-LCA capable of STOL or CATOBAR?
Doubtful, at least not permanently. Once because IAF remains with the costal defence role and they cover A&N from their shore bases at the mainland and secondly, because it IN would aim on using fighters from shore bases, they would take LCA MK2 instead of N-LCA MK2, because it offers more performance and less costs than the naval varient can offer.
No, N-LCA is not able to take off via catapults, because it neither has the necessary front gear and structural strengthening, which would require major additional changes beyond of what is plant so far.
5. Like LCA "Start from scratch on next gen fighter" -- No one does that.. no one start something from scratch.. Design can be done from scratch but "next gen fighter??" You are contradicting urself
Not really, because it's not only about developing a bigger fighter with 2 engines rather than 1, but about getting an idea about a complete new set of capabilities, be it the design, be it the engine capabilities (Supercruise, TVC, low IR signature), or advanced active and passive sensors, as well as avionics that only partially are developed for LCA today. So it is a start from scratch with very little to benefit from LCA / N-LCA. In fact we would benefit more from HAL's limited participation on FGFA, for any future stealth fighters, than we do from indigenous LCA / N-LCA development, because FGFA gives us access to all NG techs and design fields and will include development of NG sensors or avionics for our version too.
Few things for Naval fighter which is common , whether the plane is stealth or not .. Catapult or STOBAR
a) Strong Undercarriage
b) Landing gear
c) landing and Takeoff capability
That's only partially correct, because only the rear landing gear will be similar, because the arrested landing is the same on both kind of carriers. The take off however is different and that also is the cause for the most crucial differences. Not only does the front gear of a catapult capable fighter need major strengthening, but also the whole airframe structure, because the whole fighter needs to be capable to take the forces during catapult assisted take off. The ski-jump take off on the other side is basically a normal take off, without major changes necessary for the fighter, which is why it's easier to navalise an Air Force fighter to be used on STOBAR carriers, than to CATOBAR carriers, unless it was designed with structural strengthening from the design stage itself.
So there are credible changes between naval fighters, depending on take off and landing procedures.