LCA Navy Gets Ready For Take-Off, Successfully Completes High Speed Taxi Ru

[sancho]

The NLCAs in operational service are going to be the same standard as LCA mk2. The first six (or nine, im not sure) are going to be in MK1 standards, as proof of concept in navalising the LCA. After that, they will make NLCAs in the same standard as the MK2 LCAs of the IAF, but navalised of course.

That's too simplistic, because there are several differences and they will be used under different situations!
A normal single engine, light / medium class airforce fighter in CAP role carries a centerline fuel tank, with increased internal fuel tanks (+mid air refueling capability and credible number of refuelling aircrafts available), IAF LCA MK2 is likely to use no external fuel tank at all.
For IN and althought N-LCA will be based on the MK2 changes as well, things will be different! Taking off via ski-jump burnes a lot of fuel, which partially can be countered by refuelling after take off, but since carrier fighters will be operated in long range and endurance missions, N-LCA MK2 will at least carry the centerline fuel tank too. By the fact that mid air refuelling aircrafts are limeted on a carrier, they still might even carry 2 wing fuel tanks.
In A2G things gets even more different, since LCA in IAF would be covered by numbers of more capable fighters, N-LCA will only a have limited numbers of escorts, not to meantion that it's payload and hardpoints are limited too. In any case of anti ship or strike roles, the Mig is way more useful, since it can carry more weapons, while the N-LCA might ony be good for escorts and recon missions only.
LCA in IAF can be a useful low end multi role fighter, while N-LCA would be a useful naval tech demonstrator, but not a useful carrier fighter. Ordering it in higher numbers and paying so much for it's development is just a waste of money and is making LCA as a project more costly. More logical would be to split LCA and AMCA developments, LCA only for IAFs lower end, while AMCA should be INs stealth fighter (while IAF has FGFA).

 

[ayesha.a]

I thinks the purpose of Jets on AC is to engage the hostile airforce. AC is base for jets so that they can go into hostile airspace. If we are way from shores and out of reach of enemy jets then obviously enemy is also out of range of our jets. Then what's the point of having AC ???

Not at all. Especially in the Indian navy, the main purpose of fighters has never been to engage enemy air forces, but for naval duties like anti shipping roles, maritime strike, fleet protection etc. Fighters taking off from aircraft carriers can patrol the seas to detect and fire at enemy ships long before they are in striking range of our own ships. So enemy ships will not dare to approach a battle group that is protected by fighter jets.

So in short, the point of jets is to launch anti ship missiles, anti submarine missiles etc, and also to maintain combat air patrol for our own ships. Engaging enemy air forces and land attack are only secondary missions for the indian navy. It is different for the US navy, their carrier air wings can do a lot more than just naval duties.

 

[SQ8]

More logical would be to split LCA and AMCA developments, LCA only for IAFs lower end, while AMCA should be INs stealth fighter (while IAF has FGFA).

Its what I have contended from the start.. but due to my being a Pakistani some idiots here think I say it because of my nationality and not because I am nuts about aviation..some even bigger douchebags will try to bring in the JF-17.. Im waiting to see who..
The LCA program has given you much more than just the Tejas aircraft.. Its a good platform.. but not all that it could be.
its not prudent to continue hammering the airframe to justify its existence.
the AMCA is the way to go.. once the MMRCA starts rolling in .. HAL(combined with other firms such as BEL) will have everything it needs to produce an extremely potent Stealth acft.. that may even teach the F-35 something about 5th gen multi-role and multi-service platforms.

 

[ayesha.a]

Its what I have contended from the start.. but due to my being a Pakistani some idiots here think I say it because of my nationality and not because I am nuts about aviation..some even bigger douchebags will try to bring in the JF-17.. Im waiting to see who..
The LCA program has given you much more than just the Tejas aircraft.. Its a good platform.. but not all that it could be.
its not prudent to continue hammering the airframe to justify its existence.
the AMCA is the way to go.. once the MMRCA starts rolling in .. HAL(combined with other firms such as BEL) will have everything it needs to produce an extremely potent Stealth acft.. that may even teach the F-35 something about 5th gen multi-role and multi-service platforms.

Why so much optimism about HAL's abilities to produce a 5th gen fighter? I mean, they don't have any experience in stealth yet, other than the future FGFA, right? Until the AMCA well and truly arrives, I think the LCAs can do a very meaningful and cost effective role in the IAF.

In the navy, I agree that it may not be the best thing to have, since even the mig 29Ks are much more potent in every respect, and in future they would want stealthy aircrafts. 15-20 years from now, I would want the IN to be operating only AMCAs. But I'm not sure we will really see navalised AMCAs before then.

To Sancho:
Yes, I know that LCA and NLCA have a lot of differences and are expected to perform different roles. I was just saying that the operational NLCAs will be UPTO MK2 STANDARDS, as opposed to MK1 standards that the current prototype is. In terms of engines, avionics, radar etc. Isn't that part right? Because some members were saying earlier that the IN will order a few more NLCAs in mk1 standard, and then others in MK2 standard. From what I have understood, other than the first few prototypes, all operational ones in service will be similar to IAF's MK2 in terms of specs. (Though not necessarily all parameters, and certainly not roles.)

 

[IndianArmy]

Who says it's only for IAC1? It would be even more logical to use it in higher numbers than Mig 29K from INS Vikramaditya, because it is smaller and this carrier has less space for fighters.

The time frame of the LCA-N and IAC-1 Speak for itself. Besides we have enough Mig 29 K's to have it on board. So why a need for Jumble?

 

[Major Shaitan Singh]

Naval LCA’s first flight today

Naval Tejas , successfully completed last high speed taxi trials yesterday and NP-1 has been cleared for its first flight . as per sources today will be the day the first flight likely to be carried out .

after issues with undercarriage and Landing gears , problems seems to be sorted out by ADA and HAL and it was certified airworthy recently , it was twice in recent times flight worthy certification was denied to it .

 

[Indian009]

Good luck LCA NP1

 

[sancho]

the AMCA is the way to go..

As mentioned, I see a need for AMCA only in the navy as a dedicated carrier fighter, IAF don't need another fighter type nor another stealth aircraft from the operational point of view, because AMCA would not add any advantages that FGFA and AURA wouldn't bring in anyway. In IN on the other side, a medium class stealth fighter with credible strike capability would be highly useful to project power.

To Sancho:
Yes, I know that LCA and NLCA have a lot of differences and are expected to perform different roles.

No they can perform the same roles, but operated from a carrier it has more limitations in terms of fuel capacity, payload..., not to mention that the limited numbers of fighters and support aircrafts on a carrier, will make operating light class fighters even more difficult. No matter in which role, LCA suits better to IAF and land based operations than to IN, they just want it because it's indigenous, nothing more and that's a mistake!

I was just saying that the operational NLCAs will be UPTO MK2 STANDARDS, as opposed to MK1 standards that the current prototype is. In terms of engines, avionics, radar etc. Isn't that part right?

That's correct, be it refuelling prob, new engine, increased internal fuel, radar avionics and weapons, everything will be the same, except of LEVCONS, hook, straightened airframe and gears. But as mentioned, they will be operated in under different scenarios and therefor will have different performance.

The time frame of the LCA-N and IAC-1 Speak for itself. Besides we have enough Mig 29 K's to have it on board. So why a need for Jumble?

The time frame has nothing to do with it, infact the first N-LCA is said to be inducted in 2015 or later, by that time we will have enough Migs to operate them on both carries (16 + 29). Using mixed squads on both carriers will give IN the chance to use both in different roles or in combined tactics. And as mentioned earlier, the carriers (especially Gorshkov) don't offer much space, therefor you might be able to carry 2 x N-LCAs instead of 1 x Mik 29.
Personally I would have bought some 2nd hand British Sea Harriers to add them to the Mig 29s instead of N-LCA. The Migs for A2A and anti ship roles, the Sea harriers for the strike roles and both as a stop gap solution till N-AMCA would be available.

 

[SQ8]

Why so much optimism about HAL's abilities to produce a 5th gen fighter? I mean, they don't have any experience in stealth yet, other than the future FGFA, right? Until the AMCA well and truly arrives, I think the LCAs can do a very meaningful and cost effective role in the IAF.

because the timeline chosen for the AMCA will be the optimum one.. the FGFA will be rolling in, the MMRCA will be inducted..
All that has been gained from the LCA will be ready..and there will a large electronics development base ..both GoI owned and private to supply avionics.
I would go so far to say that while the AMCA should be capable of carrying Russian,French and Israeli weapons..
Its primary weapons should be Indian.. like the Astra, Brahmos, Nag(brimstone type upgrade).. etc.

 

[Black Widow]

we have seen that first product takes time while the next improved version take lesser time.

eg: ALH and LCH.

On same line I am thinking that AMCA will take lesser time. I am just hoping.

Some one quoted in this forum that India start focusing seriously on domestic product after 90s.

 

[Storm Force]

I want to throw a CURVE ball.

I AGREE with OSCAR ....

LCA MK1 & MK2 should be for the air force.

THE NAVY VERSION is not needed and will be wasting time and money.

INDIA had to byt 16 mig29k as part of GORSKHOV deal ( which is ok)

BUT THE indengious CARRIER BEING BUILT NOW should have acquired MMRCA fighters ie rafale

AMCA should be NEXT LOGICAL STEP after mk2 in 2020 for the IAF.

eg.

MK1 LCA = 40 PLANES between now -2015

MK2 LCA = 83 PLANES between 2016 - 2022

MK3 LCA = 80 PLANES with kaveri engine 2022 -2026

AMCA = ???? PLANES POST 2025

 

[Black Widow]

That's too simplistic, because there are several differences and they will be used under different situations!
A normal single engine, light / medium class airforce fighter in CAP role carries a centerline fuel tank, with increased internal fuel tanks (+mid air refueling capability and credible number of refuelling aircrafts available), IAF LCA MK2 is likely to use no external fuel tank at all.
For IN and althought N-LCA will be based on the MK2 changes as well, things will be different! Taking off via ski-jump burnes a lot of fuel, which partially can be countered by refuelling after take off, but since carrier fighters will be operated in long range and endurance missions, N-LCA MK2 will at least carry the centerline fuel tank too. By the fact that mid air refuelling aircrafts are limeted on a carrier, they still might even carry 2 wing fuel tanks.
In A2G things gets even more different, since LCA in IAF would be covered by numbers of more capable fighters, N-LCA will only a have limited numbers of escorts, not to meantion that it's payload and hardpoints are limited too. In any case of anti ship or strike roles, the Mig is way more useful, since it can carry more weapons, while the N-LCA might ony be good for escorts and recon missions only.
LCA in IAF can be a useful low end multi role fighter, while N-LCA would be a useful naval tech demonstrator, but not a useful carrier fighter. Ordering it in higher numbers and paying so much for it's development is just a waste of money and is making LCA as a project more costly. More logical would be to split LCA and AMCA developments, LCA only for IAFs lower end, while AMCA should be INs stealth fighter (while IAF has FGFA).

Thanks for ur suggestion , but lt me tell you how development works.

Most N-AMCA components will be tested on N-LCA, Which will save tie. Just like Russia tested its PAK-FA components on Su35M, Berkut and 1.4 .

IAC1 and Vikadi need almost 60 machines. To have 60 operational we need at least 90 machine. Suppose in war/peace we lost 2-3, DO you think russia immediately provide MiG29K? To fill that gap we need M-LCA.

There are many carriers which carry 2 type of fighter plane, Our carrier too will carry it.

Some one mention here due to smaller size, carrier can carry more fire power as LCA.

Unless we fly it from deck how can we know the challenges coming in way of N-AMCA. I am sure that India will go for at lease 35-40 N-LCA with 50+ MiG29K.

 

[Ajaxpaul]

India's LCA-Navy Takes Off Tomorrow. Hopefully.


There have been way too many last minute aborts for this to sound certain in any way, but the LCA Navy is scheduled to finally make its first flight tomorrow at 10AM in Bangalore. The team, led by Commodore (Retd) C.D. Balaji is ready to put the aircraft into the air.

Approximately 18 months behind schedule, the maritime fighter programme has been beset with technological hurdles that the team has toiled to overcome. In February, the Defence Acquisition Council approved the manufacture of eight limited series production (LSP) LCA Navy platforms for the Indian Navy. The Navy, which supported the programme financially and otherwise, recently sounded pretty irritated with the delays.

Livefist: India's LCA-Navy Takes Off Tomorrow. Hopefully.

 

[Black Widow]

The Navy, which supported the programme financially and otherwise, recently sounded pretty irritated with the delays.


NAVY is desperate for its work.. It means they are looking for desi platform.

 

[Archie]

In most circumstances IN will prefer to use Mig29Ks for striking enemy instalations like ports , naval stations or engaging enemy fighters
while NLCA or SeaTejas will atmost carry out the role of fleet air defence , taking out enemy ASW aircrafts like P3C or ASW Helis , as well as basic anti ship operations through Kh31 anti ship missiles , it will not be fielded in a dense SAM environment

Also if ou look at the specs then Mig29k WITH 5500Kg payload , 1500 Km range and PESA radar , with a whole variety of A2A , A2G Weapons and with Plans to integrate Brahmos, seems better than

SeaTejas with 3000kg Payload , 1500 Km range, Pulse Doppler Radar , Derby A2A missile and Kh31 Anti ship missile with 145 Km range seems in adequate when compared to modern Naval Fighters like Rafale M and F/A18 Super Hornets , infact in its present guise NLCA is not much capable than Sea Harriers and Jaguar IM it has to replace

This also explain why Navy has initially ordered only 9 NLCA , to gauge the capability of platform , while they increased the order for Mig29K/Kubs from 16 to 45 , even before inducting them

If the NAVY is satisfied then it will increase the order from 9 to 46 (36 Fighters , 10 Trainers)
If they are not satisfied then you could probably see a token order for another 9-13 Aircrafts , to form a full Squadron + Trainers to replace Shore Based Jaguar IM and we will probably see a formal tender for 36-50 STOBAR Fighters for IAC1 , with Sea Typhoon , Sea Gripen and F35B competing