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. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,887
    Likes Received:
    2,961
    :lol: Hilarious how you contradict yourself again. When you want to defend the navy, Indian scientists failed, but at the same time they didn't, because they showed partial success.

    You do have some informative parts in your posts, but end up in baseless claims and contradictions as shown and when you prove yourself to be wrong, it can't be the truth right?
     
  2. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,245
    Likes Received:
    14,503
    Country Flag:
    India
    I will request you to read what ACM Arup Raha stated just one month before his retirement. he very clearly stated that IAF is more interested in MK1A than MK2.
     
  3. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,245
    Likes Received:
    14,503
    Country Flag:
    India
    Look buddy, you seem to have problem of comprehension. LCA is a success for what it was designed for but adopting it for Deck ops is faulty. The design itself is unfit for deck ops. You can make a pigeon fly but how can you make a cow fly?
     
  4. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,887
    Likes Received:
    2,961
    The problem is the claim about reduction of weight of the gear, but ask yourself please, which gear is reported to be overweight LCA or NLCA?
    Why did we hired Airbus, to fix LCA or NLCA?

    Maybe this helps:

    https://www.livefistdefence.com/2014/06/exclusive-photos-when-indias-lca-navy.html

    So was the weight of the IAF LCA MK1A reduced?
     
  5. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,245
    Likes Received:
    14,503
    Country Flag:
    India
    IN not only gave 900 crores to the NLCA but they have also agreed to pay Russians money to modify Svetlana system to handle aircraft with landing weight of 6.5tons. This is the commitment of IN to NLCA project. The technologies developed for NLCA will help India garner data for NAMCA. Aaj nahin toh kal, we will have our own deck based fighter. AND IN will ensure it. What we need is confidence in our scientists. They may go wrong and who has not gone wrong till date? Are we going to judge them by their failures or by their success? This is what we as a nation need to ask ourselves.
    I am not sure of the weight reduction but if these guys after consultancy from Airbus say it, I trust them. I have no reason to distrust them especially when it involves French. They are very reliable people and very true.
     
  6. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,887
    Likes Received:
    2,961
    More interested in MK1A because, 1A includes several of the modifications, that IAF required for MK2. So they made a compromise to take it now with some modifications but less flight performance, instead of waiting several years for MK2 with all modifications including more thrust.

    Wait now you are not sure about the weight reduction anymore?
    You do realise, that by agreeing to the weight reduction by Airbus, you contradict your earlier claim of weight reduction for LCA MK1A, because Airbus works to reduce the weight of NLCA's gear.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2017
  7. zebra7

    zebra7 Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Country Flag:
    India
    When we talk about the sensors, then there are many e.g onboard MMR is also an electronic sensors, they may be upgraded or replaced completely, but what is left is how to manage the various inputs of the sensors data via Mission Computer aka design of the electronic and cockpit suite. Whether GE 414 IN6 or its EPE variant or Kaveri derevative engine with uprated variant, the powerplant will share the common design, componets, parts which will help in easy maintenance, replacement, and MRO work.

    As far as the weapon integration is concerned, the mounting the weapon by an OEM is an easy exercise and even HAL could fit Meteors in any aircraft of Indian inventory and could do the weapon release trial, but the difficult task in the integration is the integration of the software MMR needed for cueing it to the target.

    For your sake if you need to integrate a weapon, you need to modify if different electrical connections, LUGS, ejectors, replacement/upgrade of the weapon management unit if needed, and yes the software upgradation needed for the mission computer, display computer etc, and yes training of the ground staff to handle the weapon aka store, maintainace, handling and fuse management, stock and log procedure accordingly.

    As far as integration of Israeli LGBs is concerned, than it was done by the Israeli team, and HAL and IAF too played their role with the fitment, mounting of the weapon on the Jaguar airframe, and weapon release safe trial. All software realated integration work is done by israeli and yes both the LGB and Laser designated pod was from the same OEMs, so there was not much problem.


    And when did I mentioned the word Stealth. And Stealth is just one feature of a modern 5th gen. fighter plane, but not the necessity that's why Rafale is also a 5th generation capable fighter plane.

    Common all planes have different design, thus different aerodynamics, even LCA MK1 and LCA MK2 or LCA trainer have different aerodynamic data. But what is important is the capability to design the platform, needed for the carrier operation, something which India haven't done yet. You need the data and studies to know the impact on the airframe, keel and landing gear during the controlled crash landing during the carrier operation. You need the graphs and the data to study the impact of the winds and the algorithm needed to modify to land on the non static platform of the carrier, something which SAAB is lagging and desperately needed, as they don't have an aircraft carrier where they could carry out such tests with their prototype that's why ready to give all its IPRs and tech. transfer.

    And what coating, not every stealth plane uses the coating as the F22. India have a good experience in making the composite airframe parts using composites, and if you look at the manufacturing of the wings, the whole structure is manufactured by putting thin layers of resin one by one on each other and sticking, and this process needs manual work aka with hands. Radar absorbent material embembeded in few layers of resin could be also fabricated in the layer itself. What you need is more R and D, time and most important faith.

    Developing and manufacturing an Air-frame with the stealth design is easy, but for the real 5th Generation capability you need something else, and for that MK2 will serve as the test bed. e.g High speed optical fibre will remove lot of control wirings and when this technology is developed could be implemented in other platforms.


    Why are you focusing on the airframe only, when the FCS needed for the carrier operation is what which is the most important. And that could not be developed untill you build it. This will speed up the AMCA development, and this is the practical and logical approach, which other OEMs do rather than start from the scratch. When the ADA is confident that they could developed the carrier capable aircraft, then why are we doubting as they are the ones who know all the problems, difficulties, and the target.
     
    GSLV Mk III, layman and vstol jockey like this.
  8. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,245
    Likes Received:
    14,503
    Country Flag:
    India
    The weight reduction is for LCA MK1A and not for NLCA. I am very sure that ADA can reduce about 700-800 kgs for sure bcoz addition of more equipment will add some more weight. So while one ton reduction is claimed from the present design, the final figure will be 6.5-1+0.2=5.7 tons. This is what I meant when I stated that I am not very sure about one ton reduction. They may actually do it if they are able to reduce the number of Avionics LRUs by combining the functions in to one box. It was for this reason that I had stated using M2K upgrade avionics architecture.
     
  9. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,887
    Likes Received:
    2,961
    No it's not, because it only means you buy weapons from a single supplier, but the integration is to different fighters, with different radars, weapon stations and each integration will require it's own set of tests and certifications. So you don't have any benefit from integration of a weapon in LCA, wrt the integration into AMCA. Not to mention that AMCA will carry and launch most weapons from internal bays, which makes it a whole different story anyway.

    When you said that the aerodynamics of LCA would be similar to AMCA. But they obviously are not, therefor no benefit from NLCA design for an NAMCA design.

    Which is exactly why I stated that the NLCA MK1 tech demo was important to gain that knowledge, but that doesn't justify an MK2 since it doesn't add anything more wrt navalising, nor does it give us anything wrt navalsing a stealth fighter.

    The MK2 upgrade only offers changes for the operational needs of the fighter itself, adding more thrust, fuel or avionics, but it is not related to the navalising! So if IN don't want NLCA as a fighter, there is no need to waste time and money in NLCA MK2.
     
    vstol jockey, Agent_47 and layman like this.
  10. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,887
    Likes Received:
    2,961
    @The enlightened

    Wrt who started the NLCA MK2 project, from the opening article:

    Also from the article @Agent_47 posted:

    As I said, NLCA was born out of ADAs planing, not IN's and they do want a indigenous carrier fighter some day, but one that is capable.
     
    Agent_47 likes this.
  11. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,245
    Likes Received:
    14,503
    Country Flag:
    India
    Exactly. ADA told IN that they can deliver the required aircraft and IN trusted them but they made a fool of IN and wasted 900 crores which IN put in for the development.
     
    layman likes this.
  12. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,887
    Likes Received:
    2,961
    Which doesn't add up, since the weight reduction for MK1 was based on the fact that the prototypes carried ballast weight. But as the HAL director explained, in MK1A the ballast weight will be replaced with the weight of AESA and integrated EW, which then even increases the weight about 50Kg.
    That alone cuts around 300Kg, from the 1t reduction rumor, but as I showed the only gear that is under development, is the (in your own words), over build NLCA MK1 gear. So they most likely reduced the weight of the NLCA gear, if that had any relation to IAFs version is pure speculation at this point.
     
    layman likes this.
  13. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,245
    Likes Received:
    14,503
    Country Flag:
    India
    No one knows the weight of NLCA till date but when did the presentation of LSA to IN, they told me that it will be one ton above MK1A weight. So if we assume weight of MK1A to be 5.75tons, NLCA will be 6.75 tons. and MK2 ia supposed to be another 500kgs more.
     
  14. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,887
    Likes Received:
    2,961
    Which is an assumption without a factual base. The official weight for MK1 including ballast weight is 6560KG + 50Kg for MK1A changes adds to 6600Kg.
     
  15. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,245
    Likes Received:
    14,503
    Country Flag:
    India
    I will not say that it is without factual base. we know that whole airframe including gear is overbuilt. if you reduce one kg weight from gear, you reduce 8 kgs from the fuselage. This is the equation about air structure bcoz the whole weight of gear is extended on the fuselage. Now I do feel that MK1A will come down to 5.75tons while HAL/ADA claims it to be around 5.5 tons based on inputs given by Airbus consultants. This translates in to 6.5 tons for NLCA considering it will be one ton heavier.
    You must also consider that ballast weights are added to keep CG limits within a fixed range. Once a platform reaches maturity, these can be replaced by re-arranging the internal equipment to ensure correct CG position. The FBW system of LCA is now fully mature and there is no need for ballasts now. MK1A will see removal all kinds of ballast and equipment being placed in lieu to manage the CG. You won't need ballast for MK1A. The calculations for MK1A therefore seem more plausible to me.
     
    Sathya likes this.

Share This Page