N-LCA NP-2 First Flight Successful!

[Supply&Demand]

If INS vishal goes for CATOBAR system, will we be able to launch LCA using it?

 

[sancho]

If INS vishal goes for CATOBAR system, will we be able to launch LCA using it?

Most likely not (depends on the changes of the MK2), because catapult operations will require much more strengthening of the core of the fighter to be able to take the forces. N-LCA is basically a varient of the air force design, not a fighter specifically designed and developed for carrier operations in the first place like Rafale or F18s.

 

[Ind4Ever]

Thats Mig29K take off and landing not N-Tejas.

Why has Navy only ordered 6 Tejas? Is it trying to scuttle Tejas like it scuttled Trishul?

There are trainers . MK2 will be used for AC. Until then Mig 29 K / KUB will be our spear head.

Which again shows how clueless ADA / DRDO are going on with this project. Taking the twin seat cockpit design of the Su 30, or the Mig 29KUB fuel tank solution is good, but they prefered US companies for the navalisation and ended up with Airbus, just as pilots are trained by USN not by Russian navy that operats STOBAR carriers and Mig 29Ks.
Btw, if that is the final solution for the fuel tank, that confirms my estimates that NLCA has nowhere near the fuel capacity needed for the operations from a carrier, let alone that they need more internal fuel to not carry wing fuel tanks and then free hardpoints. However this solution with such a large tank and the angled cockpit section comes with a lot of disadvantages too!

View attachment 191133


Compare the backward visibility of the pilot in both and you will see that the angled cockpit of the N-LCA puts the fuel tank much higher than in the Mig, not to mention that the fuel tank in the Mig is kept much below the canopy to keep good visibility.
Apart from that, the empty weight of a twin seat config, especially such a large one like on the LCAs, will add to the emptyweight compared to a single seater. And it would be interesting to know if the lack of back seat and displays will counter the weight of this large fuel tank, or if that adds more weight too.

LCA MK1 single seater - 6560Kg empty
LCA MK1 twin seater - 6560Kg empty + 200Kg at least
NLCA MK1 twin seater - 6560Kg empty + 200Kg at least + navalisation, some reports said up to 1000Kg more initially
NLCA MK1 single pilot - 6560Kg empty + 200Kg at least + navalisation, some reports said up to 1000Kg more initially (+ fuel tank - backseat and displays)

Not to forget that the final N-LCA will be based on the MK2, with lengthened airframe, larger fuselage, 3 more internal fuel tanks, heavier engine, radar and avionics, IFR probe...
Would you realistically expect an empty weight below 8000Kg even for the single pilot N-LCA MK2?

True but MK2 will be more powerful , More range More advanced radar . So it will be fine . I presuming we will get tweaked version of N-LCA mk 2

 

[Supply&Demand]

Most likely not (depends on the changes of the MK2), because catapult operations will require much more strengthening of the core of the fighter to be able to take the forces. N-LCA is basically a varient of the air force design, not a fighter specifically designed and developed for carrier operations in the first place like Rafale or F18s.

Then dont u think that this investment on development of naval LCA is going to be waste if we do not include it in large numbers...?

 

[Abingdonboy]

For all those interested in the NLCA program this vid is well worth a watch (although it is 2 years old now):

The NLCA program seems to be running 10-12 months behind schedule but given they've had to do considerable changes to the NP1 that is, somewhat, understandable. Now the NP2 will have to go down to the SBTF and go through a rigorous flight test and validation routine. I'm most looking forward to the afloat testing stage where the NLCA will be on a carrier. @sancho is the INS Vikramditya up to that task? I would have thought there was no issue with using the Viky for this, or do they have to wait for the IAC-1 to begin the afloat stage of flight testing?

Anyway a very insightful and articulate (as well as pragmatic) briefing on the NLCA and the challenges ahead.

@Oscar @sandy_3126 @Capt.Popeye sirs perhaps this video would interest you if you haven't already seen it)

 

[sancho]

True but MK2 will be more powerful

More thrust doesn't mean you can add indefinite ammount of weight. Take the Gripen E as an example, which has the same GE 414 engine, but according to the latest Saab specs weighs 8000Kg empty + carries around 3300Kg internal fuel. That translates into a TWR ratio of around 0.88, which is worse that that of the Gripen C (around 0.91)!
LCAs development goal was a TWR of 1 or better and the MK1 didn't achieved that, which is one reason why more thrust was needed. Now if ADA / DRDO add too much weight on the MK2, they won't achieve the TWR goal either, especially for the naval version.

Then dont u think that this investment on development of naval LCA is going to be waste if we do not include it in large numbers...?

I think it's a waste because it's not a capable carrier fighter, but IN aims to add N-LCAs on INS Vikramaditya and IAC1, so there will be enough (imo far too many) numbers anyway.

I'm most looking forward to the afloat testing stage where the NLCA will be on a carrier. @sancho is the INS Vikramditya up to that task? I would have thought there was no issue with using the Viky for this, or do they have to wait for the IAC-1 to begin the afloat stage of flight testing?

Why shouldn't the carrier up to that task? It's the fighter that is the problem and I'm not sure if there will be actual carrier tests with the NP1 or 2, since they are based on the MK1 standard only. Not to mention that without the hook carrier landings are not possible anyway, so arrested landing at the STBF alone might take some time.

 

[Abingdonboy]

More thrust doesn't mean you can add indefinite ammount of weight. Take the Gripen E as an example, which has the same GE 414 engine, but according to the latest Saab specs weighs 8000Kg empty + carries around 3300Kg internal fuel. That translates into a TWR ratio of around 0.88, which is worse that that of the Gripen C (around 0.91)!
LCAs development goal was a TWR of 1 or better and the MK1 didn't achieved that, which is one reason why more thrust was needed. Now if ADA / DRDO add too much weight on the MK2, they won't achieve the TWR goal either, especially for the naval version.



I think it's a waste because it's not a capable carrier fighter, but IN aims to add N-LCAs on INS Vikramaditya and IAC1, so there will be enough (imo far too many) numbers anyway.



Why shouldn't the carrier up to that task? It's the fighter that is the problem and I'm not sure if there will be actual carrier tests with the NP1 or 2, since they are based on the MK1 standard only. Not to mention that without the hook carrier landings are not possible anyway, so arrested landing at the STBF alone might take some time.

The chief test pilot of the NFTC stated that the afloat testing on a carrier will take place once they have completed the full spectrum of testing at the SBTF, he didn't specify that this would only happen with the Mk.2 but seemed to indicate this would happen with the Np-1 and 2 (at least that is how I understood his comments). Of course the arrested landings need to take place at the SBTF (along with many other things) first but the next logical progression of testing is tests from the carrier.

 

[sancho]

The chief test pilot of the NFTC stated that the afloat testing on a carrier will take place once they have completed the full spectrum of testing at the SBTF, he didn't specify that this would only happen with the Mk.2 but seemed to indicate this would happen with the Np-1 and 2 (at least that is how I understood his comments). Of course the arrested landings need to take place at the SBTF (along with many other things) first but the next logical progression of testing is tests from the carrier.

If I remember correctly, they want to build 4 prototypes of the NLCA and the last 2 should be based on the MK2 right? If that's the case, I would expect them to be used from carriers. Wrt the NP1, I'm not even sure if it has all the fuselage strengthenings for arrested landings, or if it was just a base version to design and test cockpit, LEVCON and gear modifications.

 

[Krate M]

@sancho I think it is reverse. 2 mk1 and 4mk2.

 

[sancho]

@sancho I think it is reverse. 2 mk1 and 4mk2.

So 6 in total? But that wouldn't change things on carrier tests, it's doubtful at this point that the MK1s have enough thrust to take off from the carrier.

 

[Krate M]

So 6 in total? But that wouldn't change things on carrier tests, it's doubtful at this point that the MK1s have enough thrust to take off from the carrier.

The first flight from stbf showed a better than expected performance, so it is possible that certain configurations can fly from carrier, though the operational capabilities would have to be seen, lets see as the tests progress.

 

[sancho]

The first flight from stbf showed a better than expected performance, so it is possible that certain configurations can fly from carrier, though the operational capabilities would have to be seen, lets see as the tests progress.

The NP1 had a far longer take off run than it would have on a carrier, not to mention that it was much lighter than a fully developed version with hook and all necessary systems.

 

[GORKHALI]

The NP1 had a far longer take off run than it would have on a carrier, not to mention that it was much lighter than a fully developed version with hook and all necessary systems.

Well for the first time they were doing this, so they took off from 300 Meters. While am sure with every new test they going to shorten the take off run way and increase the payload like drop tanks and weapons.So chill bro.

 

[Abingdonboy]

If I remember correctly, they want to build 4 prototypes of the NLCA and the last 2 should be based on the MK2 right? If that's the case, I would expect them to be used from carriers. Wrt the NP1, I'm not even sure if it has all the fuselage strengthenings for arrested landings, or if it was just a base version to design and test cockpit, LEVCON and gear modifications.

I'm pretty sure the NP-2 has the required strengthened structure (primarily the landing gear) to do arrested landings, if it is up to testing on from carriers I'm not sure.

I'm basing this information on that AI seminar from 2013 that I posted in the other thread. The test pilot laid out the testing regime (from SBTF then to afloat tests) but didn't mention the specifics like which aircraft would do what.


It does make sense that the Mk.2 would only go for afloat testing though given the IN has had strengthening built into the design and the current "over engineered" landing gear on the NP-1/2 will not be needed on the MK.2s as a result. That and the increased thrust as you have mentioned.

 

[sancho]

Well for the first time they were doing this, so they took off from 300 Meters. While am sure with every new test they going to shorten the take off run way and increase the payload like drop tanks and weapons.So chill bro.

I didn't said it was bad, but that the first test from the STBF doesn't mean it could take off from a carrier. They will try to shorten the distance, but as you said have to add more weight at the same time too and that makes the later prototypes more likely to be tested from a carrier.

I'm pretty sure the NP-2 has the required strengthened structure (primarily the landing gear) to do arrested landings, if it is up to testing on from carriers I'm not sure.

NP2 should have it, but it's more about the airframe structures and the forces at arrested landings. What I meant was, that it's not clear if the NP1 has the same, or if it's mainly meant for flight testing of design features and integration of payloads.
When you look at the T50 prototypes for example, you will see that each is aimed on different parts of the testing stage. The T51 was basically for flight tests only and did the expansion of flight profile, while the others also did integration and testing of EW or radar.