Light Combat Aircraft -LCA naval variant all at sea

[Sergi]

What would be the requirement? If it is to be a carrier fighter, you need to develop N-LCA, if it's meant to be a shore based fighter for costal defence, you just take IAFs LCA version, even LCA MK1. Btw, why do you think IN will get the costal defence, did I missed any news? I mean that's what I am suggesting for a long time, but I didn't saw a single hint from MoD, or even IN to push for it.

It was in the consideration of MOD at the same time when there was a ongoing turf war between IAF and IA for attack helos.

AFAIK this is on hold till IN get decent number of Jets and man power to operate them and gather much needed experience . And hence was the follow on order for 29Ks and proposal for Naval airbase . And the speculation is that upgraded Jags will go to IN.

If I am not wrong our follow on 29Ks will be based on shores till IAC 1 join IN. Let's say for some weird reason we want a shore based fighter capable of landing and take off from carriers. Now how do you see N-LCA in that role.

 

[sancho]

This is the first time that we are designing such an aircraft..so its quiet natural that some problems may arise.

Of course it is, but that's one more reason to keep the development as simple as possible, get as much help as possible and take some of the shelf parts at the begining as well. We did exactly the opposite and the N-LCA is just another sign of this, since it is nothing but a distraction at this point, from fixing LCA MK1s problem and getting the MK2 upgrade as soon as possible. Most of the MK2 upgrades now have to do with INs requirements, if that would not be the case, we would possibly do it like Pakistan/China does it with JF 17 and further develop the fighter with a smaller Block 2 upgrade, to induct the fighters faster, while the Block 3 upgrade will include AESA, IRST, more powerful engine and airframe changes.

It was in the consideration of MOD at the same time when there was a ongoing turf war between IAF and IA for attack helos.

Any source? I didn't saw a single article about it.

If I am not wrong our follow on 29Ks will be based on shores till IAC 1 join IN. Let's say for some weird reason we want a shore based fighter capable of landing and take off from carriers. Now how do you see N-LCA in that role.

The Mig 29K has nothing to do with taking over maritime attack roles, they are just based at IN shore bases for training, repare and as spares, since not all of them would be operated on a carrier ath the same time. And as I said, for costal defence from shore bases, you don't need a navalised fighter, all the weight additions are useless, which is why IN would not take N-LCAs, but normal LCAs if they had that role, which should be cheaper too.

 

[neehar]

A nonsens project, for the wrong reasons, that delays the whole LCA project!

nlca for what?? i thought our both carriers use mig29k

 

[Sergi]

Any source? I didn't saw a single article about it.

no source. Rumour mill. 2 of three come true.( 1.Attack helo to IA 2. unified command for commando operations - under processs )If I remember correctly somebody also posted in that helo thread and you too commented in that thread. 4/5 months back at tops.
We will know the truth after 2 years unless somebody in MOD or either of forces speak first

The Mig 29K has nothing to do with taking over maritime attack roles, they are just based at IN

Yes. I was pointing at experience and man power. It should be Jags.

 

[sancho]

nlca for what?? i thought our both carriers use mig29k

They will, but the current orders are not enough. Gorskov is estimated to operate 16 to 22 fighters, IAC 1 might even be able to use 30 fighters and both would carry some helicopters too. That means the 45 x Migs will not offer any reserves, but IN sadly decided to go for a fully fledged N-LCA, instead of getting more out of the Mig and Gorshkov deal to be more capable at the end.

Yes. I was pointing at experience and man power. It should be Jags.

The Jags have no real A2A capability and only a dozen Jags were aimed at the maritime attack role, which makes it as a fighter and the gained experience very limited. IAF infact now will induct the Mig 29UPG in the maritime attack role too, that's why Kh 35s were added.

 

[Sergi]

The Jags have no real A2A capability and only a dozen Jags were aimed at the maritime attack role, which makes it as a fighter and the gained experience very limited. IAF infact now will induct the Mig 29UPG in the maritime attack role too, that's why Kh 35s were added.

Even after upgrades ??? I hope not

I was saying training and experiment on 29Ks and when time comes Jags will be handed over. And remember its from rumor mill. I am pushing it cause other 2 are under processes. So chances for 3rd are good

That's all I got on the issue. We will have to wait.

 

[sancho]

Even after upgrades ??? I hope not

I was saying training and experiment on 29Ks and when time comes Jags will be handed over. And remember its from rumor mill. I am pushing it cause other 2 are under processes. So chances for 3rd are good

That's all I got on the issue. We will have to wait.

Of course, because it gets only new WVR missiles for very basic self defence purposes, so they are hardly useful in future, be it for IAF or IN.

Instead of getting Jags for costal defence, it would be much better for both forces, if IAF diverts Mig 29UPG and LCA MK1 squads and replace them with more Rafales. Mig 29UPG will have all the same systems and weapons as Mig 29K, which means common training, maintenance and logistics for IN. Similarly, LCA MK1 will have EL 2030 and derby missiles, which also are available with the Sea Harriers today and for costal defence, the MK1 is definitely maneuverable enough, while having credible BVR range capability too, not to mention that it would get the same Kh 35 anti ship missile, like the Mig 29s.
For IAF that would be a huge benefit too, since it we get rid of more different fighter, radar and engine types, while increasing the commonality in the fleet => reduced operational costs.