Of course, just like I know that you need at least 2 x N-LCAs to carry the same load of a single Mig, so what's the point? You can only operate a limited number of fighters on a carrier, wasting space then for fighters that are operationally and capabilitywise highly limited hardly makes sense, but if the aim is the simple pride to have an indigenous carrier fighter and to claim to be in the small group of nations that have developed a carrier fighter, costs and capability doesn't matter much anyway, even if the fighter is the worst modern carrier fighter in the world.
My point is that, the fulcrums anyways doesn't have to do that everyday..But surveillance of coastline is required on daily basis..Hence, Flying fulcrums everyday or Flying Tejas everyday for that role, which one could be better??
I'm not against fulcrums, I'm just against using more fulcrums for the roles which can be easily done by tejas in a better and cost effective way..
Wasting space??C'mon yaar, tejas is easily half the size of fulcrum and your are telling me that, it will be a waste of space to have tejas on board..???
capability wise limited???What aspect of Fulcrum do you think the Tejas will be lacking??
1.AtoA role? pretty much capapble of carrying out the same mission, expect range limitations and size limitations, but that is also an advantage for them.
2.AtoG role? Fulcrums can attack land targets??If so, Specify the armaments with links?
3.Surveilance role??- tejas can do equally good
4. Defensive role??- Can stand toe to toe against any known adversaries with its current configuration..
What else? That are the prime platforms that an IN carrier would have to face and when you plan with N-LCA to provide air defence for the CBG, they are the benchmark IN must look at.
I disagree, it need not be matching the flankers or Falcons toe to toe..
any flanker or falcon on an offensive role targeting our CBG will be Mostly on anti-shipping mode and will at the most carry three to four AAMs, four for flankers..And may be two anti ship Missiles, one ECM/Jamming pod and two External fuel tanks, because they cannot land their ship anywhere close to 400 kms near our coast or CBG and hence they need range extension.. here I'm possibily excluding the AWACS and other supporting platforms..
The current NLCA weapons config for defensive role is very much capable of taking them on head to head with two SRAAMs and 2 BVRAAMS and an external fuel tank for extended range and may be two more IR versions of the SRAAMS..Are you telling me that, NLCA with this configuration wont be able to take on these flankers and falcons..?
Hence going by your logic, NLCA is very much capable of defending the assets on defensive role..Also it can carry an Antiship missiles if two SRAAMS are to be sacrificed..still it will be able to stand against any CBG on a strike formation..
Not to forget the avionics part of LCA and also the RCS which could be equal to those pitted against them if not better..Hence it is not necessary that the NLCA should be benchmarked to flankers and falcons..
I'm sorry but you are highly mistaken and should inform yourself a bit more about the differences of both versions. The normal navalising of a land based fighter with some changes at the gears and fuselage alone will add around 500Kg, in N-LCAs case that figure is likely to go up because of the added LEVCONS and we already know that the fuselage of the naval version is very different and bulkier than the Air Force version, because of the modifications of the gears. We will have to wait till we see the final MK2 design to see what additional changes the naval version might get, but it's very clear that the performance of both fighters will be different and that, not even including the operational differences I already mentioned by operating from land bases or STOBAR carriers. So N-LCA in IN will be very different to LCA can be in IAF, be it in roles, performance or importance!
Dear Sancho,
These are very small details when compared to the operational charecteristics of the fighter and the OP concurrence..
Fuselage strengthening and arrestor hook addition will definitely add some weight but the OP characteristics will be the same..
Out of all the parameters that are needed to be tested, for the NLCA more than 85% parameters are in concurrence to that of the Airforce variant and hence the testing is already done and documented and flight characteristics are arrived and SOPs are being framed as we speak now..Hence NLCA will not take much time to be delivered or even to get its FOC compared to LCA provided the T/W is optimised for career based ops with all the additions..
The Naval Version is going to get a Buddy refuelling or AtoA refuelling probe which the MK2 version is also going to get, the arrestor hook, strengthened undercarriage to with stand shock..
Coming to your point of Anti- shipping role, MKIs are stationed at Thanjavur as a part of the look east policy taken by MOD and it has strategic depth and meaning in it..Of course MKIs are there to be the main deterrent to any maritime attack that come towards eastern or western seaboard..But again I'm telling you that is not going to happen everyday..Tell me how many times after indian Indepenence, India seaboard got attacked by any naval forces or atleast any naval blockades imposed on Indian ships..??So far none..
The MKIs are there to avert and tackle any such situation, but they'll just sit there and wait for any action..They wont do the recon and surveillance everyday..Those roles for both the sea boards will be carried out by LCA sulur..
As per Indian Security planners, there is no such thing as Navy's role and airforce role as far as south India is concerned.
