What's new

U.S. Industry Hit By LCA Clearance Problem

TATA

BANNED
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
517
Reaction score
0
U.S. Industry Hit By Naval LCA Clearance Problem



NEW DELHI — India is turning to Europe for support of the naval version of its Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) after its initial choice of the U.S. was stymied by an inability to gain the requisite approvals from Washington.

India selected Lockheed Martin as the winner of a bid for consultancy work on its naval LCA, but failure to secure U.S. State Department licensing approvals — at least in a timely fashion — now has resulted in EADS being in negotiation for the work.

This is not the first time regulatory issues have tripped up U.S. ambitions in India.

In April 2009 EADS picked up flight test work on the air force LCA as a result of Boeing being forced to withdraw. The U.S. manufacturer had been tapped for the project in 2008, but an inability to gain the required approvals from the U.S. administration forced it to pull its bid.

The naval LCA is being designed for short take-off, but arrested recovery (Stobar), with a first flight of the naval variant by December.

Neither EADS nor Lockheed are willing to comment beyond general statements. The U.S. company says it “continues to work with the U.S. government to support the LCA program. EADS, beyond confirming it has a consultancy contract (for the air force aircraft), says “both sides have agreed they will not disclose any details.”

In March, the Indian government told Parliament that “deficiencies have been detected in the airframe and other associated equipment of the naval LCA [navy]. The Defense Research and Development Organization [DRDO] is working out [approaches] with various organizations for rectifying these deficiencies by suitable modifications to the engine/airframe design.” The consultancy is intended to support this effort.

The consultancy on the naval LCA involves auditing the aircraft’s current configuration and optimizing the aircraft’s landing gear and arrestor hook design. The intent is also to reduce the aircraft’s all-up weight by around 1,000 lb.

Sources involved with the program indicated that Lockheed’s inability to begin the consultancy on time had impacted the development effort, but the program itself was on schedule and progressing well.

When ready, the naval LCA will primarily operate off Indian-built aircraft carriers, the first of which is under construction in Kochi. The sources also said that with almost all of the LCA’s equipping and cabling complete, the first prototype is scheduled to roll out of its hangar by mid-July. Three months of integration tests will follow, including ground vibration tests, structural coupling tests and other test routines before a first ground run and taxi test scheduled for October. If all goes well, the first prototype will fly in December.

The front fuselage of the first naval prototype is identical to the fighter trainer (PV-5) that began tests in November 2009.

The only part of the front fuselage in the naval prototype that will require a full routine of tests is a small additional control surface near the wing roots that is absent on the air force version. The naval variant will also have auxiliary air intakes.

Program officials admit that there have been multiple challenges in the design and configuration of the landing gear and arrestor hook assembly, especially in optimizing the aircraft’s sink rate, but were confident that it would prove itself during flight tests.

Apart from conventional takeoff and landing tests, the aircraft will undergo short takeoff and arrested landing tests at the Shore-Based Test Facility under construction at the Indian naval air station in Goa.

U.S. Industry Hit By LCA Clearance Problem | AVIATION WEEK
 
Last edited:
. . . .
shouldnt it be LCA hit by US disapproval ? lol

anyways best of luck with europe, since they have more experience with delta wing planes
 
.
shouldnt it be LCA hit by US disapproval ? lol

anyways best of luck with europe, since they have more experience with delta wing planes

nup....we have EADS wich provides us engine with thrust vectoring...also we will be secure from us sanctions......
 
. .
^ then why goto US in the first place

because during the trials held in mid January 2010..eads was unable to provide the engine for tests due to its pre-fixed schedule in Saudi Arab .......defense trials...it requested for the trials to be held in Feb....which was granted but with negative points...
also Boeing...being a partner of Hal in f-18e/f super hornet offset..was a favored candidate...also its engine was used as a test engine for prototypes also...
 
.
What is this about then ?

The U.S. manufacturer had been tapped for the project in 2008, but an inability to gain the required approvals from the U.S. administration forced it to pull its bid.

The naval LCA is being designed for short take-off, but arrested recovery (Stobar), with a first flight of the naval variant by December.
 
.
What is this about then ?


yaar try understanding my post.....u are mentioning the post for the engines for the lsp-2 to lsp 28...but this contract was for whole 40 aircrafts......as well as the partner for the mark-2 version.....

well really impressed by ur accurate presence in the post.....
 
.
^ mate im only asking out of curiosity, i have very limited knowledge on LCA thats why i posed that question to you

regrads
 
.
shouldnt it be LCA hit by US disapproval ? lol

anyways best of luck with europe, since they have more experience with delta wing planes


It's not the LCA of Air Force.

It's Naval LCA for Indian Navy.
 
.
@Creder

The Boeing and the other US aircraft makers have extensive experience in making and strengthening the undrcarriage of the aircraft as they are well versd in carrier borne operations. That is why the US was preffered. Now that US is not there the EADS has been offered the contract of consultation for which we will be paying. And as EFT sea based is also undergoing modifications it might be helpful.
 
.
Guys, please try to differentiate!

Boeing is nowhere to be a consultant of LCA, because the engine that is offered for MK2 is from GE, not from Boeing. Also this article is about the search for a partner of N-LCA and again not Boeing was found as the first choice, but LM.

The only link between LCA and Boeing would be the same engine if we chose the GE 414 and the F18SH as MMRCA winner.
But I am as confused about this search as Creader, because we chose LM with less experience with carrier fighters and not Boeing, Dassault, or Mig that developed such fighters before. So why did they really chose LM at first place?
 
.
Boeing, Dassault have always designed aircraft with Catapult assisted launch , not STOL variant , all their fighters have been twin Engined with effective thrust for that Take-off.

In case of N-LCA , it was similar to F35b version with STOVL variant and landing and L.M had experience of both F35 and LCA bcoz-----

L.M was initial consultant in Tejas programe in 90's . our FBW was initially tested and certified by L.M testing center . So it was logical to go with them initially
 
.
Back
Top Bottom