Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Why Navy’s rejection of Naval LCA is wrong

Discussion in 'Indian Navy' started by layman, Apr 16, 2017.

  1. zebra7

    zebra7 Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,206
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Country Flag:
    India
    Which one LCA MK1 prototype developed from LCA trainer or the LCA MK2 proposed. Do post the N-LCA as the role for the non carrier operation aka deployed for the Naval strike vs the Jaguar M.
     
  2. zebra7

    zebra7 Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,206
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Country Flag:
    India
    How ?? Didn't the LCA MK2 project will help in the mordernization of the IAF or IN existing aircraft and makes the AMCA way more easier aka the testbed for the AMCA technologies.
     
  3. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,802
    Likes Received:
    15,535
    Country Flag:
    India
    I will discuss the technical aspects only with proper details and special mention to RFI issued by IN.
     
  4. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,802
    Likes Received:
    15,535
    Country Flag:
    India
    This thread is about Why Navy rejected NLCA. We have a separate thread for IAC-1 and we can discuss the issue of catapults there.
    OR
    Let the @mods merge this thread with NLCA thread.
     
  5. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    3,373
    The MK2 upgrade was required by IAF because of all the shortcomings of the MK1. ADA/DRDO only combined it with the requirements of the navy for a carrier fighter. But the navy saw it only as a demonstration project, to gain important know how for future projects. NLCA MK1 will be the key to navalise AMCA in future, so nothing wrong about that, but MK2 is simply a bad carrier fighter for IN''s operational capabilities, simply by the fact that it''s not a capable fighter.
    And no MK2 won't have any relation to AMCA, since the only commonality it might share are AESA radar and integrated EW, which both now comes through MK1A.
     
  6. zebra7

    zebra7 Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,206
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Country Flag:
    India
    No commonality LOL commonality of a single developer, LRU's, EW suites, Smart Weapons, Communication devices, Links, OBOGL, Pumps, actuators, sensors and may be powerplant.

    Benifits and Technologies such as

    1. Optical fibre digital control.
    2. Aerodynamic and material tech. knowledge gained from the development.
    3. Knowledge gained for the development of the Carrier capable aircraft.
    4. Confidence of the landing gear, lack of which the N-LCA landing gear is over engineered aka 2.5 times than the 1.5 times the strenght required.
    5. Studies of the performance of the engine, aircraft and various subsystem in the alkaline environment of SEA.
    6. Setup of the indegenous institution to certify the Naval and the Carrier operation aircraft.
    7. Building of the Local supplier chain and local R&D and Local OEMs to play more role in Defence.
     
  7. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    538
    Likes Received:
    304
    While I can agree that MK-II doesn't hold much military value, it is important, especially in light (hope) of future N-AMCA that we clearly demonstrate the ability to have sustained carrier operations which likely has its own challenges and requires an operationally deployed platform.
    But more importantly are you trying to infer that MK-II is an ADA venture with no interest expressed by the Navy?
     
    zebra7 likes this.
  8. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    3,373
    MK2 upgrades mainly focuses on the limitations of LCA as a fighter. Higher power engine and drag reduction, to increase performance. Additional avionics, to bring it up to speed to comparable fighters of that generation and additional fuel, because it's limited range and endurance.
    None of these things are important for the development of AMCA. Also navalsing AMCA will be dependent on what take off option IAC2 will have, the basic arrested landing capability, was already developed with NLCA MK1 and again, MK2 doesn't add anything to it.
    Also the problems of navalsing a stealth design, can only be developed when AMCA's design is fixed and at least a first prototype is available, but LCA has no relation to that.

    NLCA MK2 yes, because ADA and Co asked IN for specs and requirements, IN never went to them and said develop a carrier fighter for us. All IN is doing, is supporting a Tech Demo to get basic know how and that's the right way to do it.
     
  9. Agent_47

    Agent_47 Admin - Blog Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    5,784
    Country Flag:
    India
    Just to be clear, this is written by retired ADA chief on Indian defence review. IDRW is copying the content.

    Obviously, his point of view will not be impartial.
     
  10. Agent_47

    Agent_47 Admin - Blog Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    5,784
    Country Flag:
    India
    Quoting CNS
    http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...e-to-six-years-navy-chief/article17664481.ece
     
    The enlightened and Sancho like this.
  11. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    3,373
    EW and sensors as said come in MK1A, with the Kaveri / Snecma development, LCA / NLCA MK2 and AMCA might not share the same engine, especially if we want to integrate a Russian TVC. How is weapons integration on 1 fighter in any way a related to the integration of another? We integrated Israeli LGBs to MKI, LCA and Jaguar, do you honestly think the integration had any relation?

    How is the aerodynamic of LCA similar to any stealth design?

    Again have no impact on a naval AMCA, because the size, weight and even the basic design is completely different! It will be even far more difficult now, when they have to find solutions on how to maintain stealth design and coatings in that environment. Things they neither have tested yet, since NLCA was never operated on a carrier, nor is it similar to AMCA.

    Both in place through Tejas program as a whole and the NLCA MK1, not linked to the NLCA MK2 upgrade.
     
  12. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    3,373
    The question is, what exactlyis his point of view? The titel and the context of his article doesn't fit, since he basically explains how the development went on, but he doesn't give much arguments to counter the admiral.
     
  13. Agent_47

    Agent_47 Admin - Blog Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    5,784
    Country Flag:
    India
  14. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    3,373
    That's what I meant, the only argument in his entire article is, that the requirements for operating NLCA are different than shown in the RFI for foreign fighter. The title how ever said, that the rejection is wrong and for that he doesn't really have much to say.
     
  15. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    538
    Likes Received:
    304
    No. I am not talking about demonstrating capabilities in Goa but on a live aircraft carrier over a long deployment in the ocean. That will help us encounter the problems associated with such operations as well as impact of corrosion on the airframe, electronics etc along with repeated controlled crash landings and thereby help avoiding the same with N-AMCA from the design phase.

    Entirely false. The Navy fully intended on developing a deck based fighter. The failure arose on DRDO delays as well as the inability of Tejas to take off with a reasonable payload due to low TWR and presumably poor low speed handling due to its Delta wings.
     

Share This Page