Multi-Role Carrier Borne Fighter For The Indian Navy - Updates & Discussions

What should we select?

  • Total voters
    61
  • Poll closed .
Picdelamirand-oil said:

Multi-Role Carrier Borne Fighter For The Indian Navy - Updates & Discussions

The View From Olympus: Building SMS Pinafore The View From Olympus: Building SMS Pinafore – traditionalRIGHT The problem of poor warship design is not limited to Germany. The United States is currently building the first Ford–class aircraft carrier, which also doesn’t work. The new-design...
www.strategicfront.org www.strategicfront.org
Click to expand...

It was.

www.ndtv.com

244 To 0 Kmph In 2 Seconds: How Tejas Jet Will Land On Aircraft Carrier

The naval variant of the homemade Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas became the first aircraft in India to successfully perform an "arrested landing", in what is being billed as a major step in the programme to make the jet ready for service with the Navy.
www.ndtv.com www.ndtv.com
In about two seconds, the Tejas-N decelerated from 244 kilometres per hour (132 knots) to standstill by snagging the wire on the test runway with the hook attached to the jet's fuselage.

They met the sink rate requirement. The land-based jet does up to 200 knots. And I believe the requirement is less than 130 knots. It may be 125 knots.

I recall the first carrier landing happened at 128 knots.

But I guess it's okay for a trainer because of the experienced instructor and ATOL.
 
Picdelamirand-oil said:
Around 14500 kg empty
Click to expand...

14T is the design goal. It is a big aircraft.

It's undergone design changes since its first reveal. Possibly enough to take care of your initial impressions in 514.
www.strategicfront.org

Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF)

Hah! Almost from the front. Someone managed something close to sensible. Anyway, based on the specs posted, I'm speculating the important stuff. We already know the payload is 9T. So... Option 1: Empty weight = 11T Fuel = 6T Payload = 9T Thrust = 98KN, 10T TWR, full fuel = 1.17 Fuel fraction =...
www.strategicfront.org www.strategicfront.org

Old design:
1.png


It has undergone more refinement since 2021.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TARGET
Ashwin said:
I have never seen any official saying NLCA can be a candidate to fill the trainer requirement.

They are specifically ordering airforce twin seater Rafale and we already have enough Mig-29KUBs. Their current training structure is Hawk -> KUB -> K. Which will continue.
Click to expand...

The IN want to move a carrier pilot's entire training regimen under their own thumb. That means they need basic, intermediate, advanced and LIFT trainers. So that's HTT-40, Sitara or equivalent, Hawk and N-LCA, a squadron each.

Earlier, the N-LCA training was to be fulfilled from the coast, like on a Mig (MOFTU). But now that ADA has achieved carrier compatibility, obviously the IN's gonna want a carrier capable trainer. Even the USN expects only touch and go services with their new trainer.

KUBs are necessary for the Mig-29s alone.
 
randomradio said:
The IN want to move a carrier pilot's entire training regimen under their own thumb. That means they need basic, intermediate, advanced and LIFT trainers. So that's HTT-40, Sitara or equivalent, Hawk and N-LCA, a squadron each.

Earlier, the N-LCA training was to be fulfilled from the coast, like on a Mig (MOFTU). But now that ADA has achieved carrier compatibility, obviously the IN's gonna want a carrier capable trainer. Even the USN expects only touch and go services with their new trainer.

KUBs are necessary for the Mig-29s alone.
Click to expand...
Again, im asking you for reference.

There is no “obviously”. If thats so obvious they would have came out and said it.

Even USN is moving away from carrier capable trainer.

The future trainer would not be designed to go to the ship, but would need to be able to endure repeated unflared landings to practice the carrier flight profile.
Click to expand...

U.S. Navy Is Steaming Ahead On A New Trainer | Aviation Week Network

Requirements for the service’s T-45 replacement would likely mean more engineering work for existing competitors.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
 
vstol Jockey said:
Hawk is for Naval Orientation training (NOT). When we pass out from AFA, we undergo training in Navy to learn to fly over sea which is extremely demanding as we have ground features available over ground to judge our height and land features for navigation but its all water all around over sea. After the NOT, we go for higher performance aircraft training to IAF on Migs. After getting trained in flying high performance aircraft, naval Aviators convert to the final aircraft. Like in my case , I flew Hunters with IAF 20 Sqn before converting to Sea Harriers. Than I flew Chetak choppers to learn hovering and finally converted to Sea Harriers. In case of Mig-29K, we have a trainer but that takes a lot of flying hours from the KUB to train pilots. N-LCA will help us reduce this time to go to Deck as the time for final conversion to main aircraft will get drastically reduced as we will not be required to send our pilots to IAF for training on high performance aircraft training. We will do it in house and also teach the pilots deck landing.
Click to expand...

Seems logical. What mix of single and twin seat would you visualize for a Deck Flying Training squadron?

I imagine that the squadron could also deploy to sea aboard a carrier in times of need and undertake fleet air defence duties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya
aditya g said:
Seems logical. What mix of single and twin seat would you visualize for a Deck Flying Training squadron?

I imagine that the squadron could also deploy to sea aboard a carrier in times of need and undertake fleet air defence duties.
Click to expand...
I think it will be mostly trainers and very few single seat fighters. In case of hostilities, these single engine fighters will not be part of fleet aviation, instead they will be shore based to protect shore establishments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aditya g, Sathya and Rajput Lion
aditya g said:
Seems logical. What mix of single and twin seat would you visualize for a Deck Flying Training squadron?

I imagine that the squadron could also deploy to sea aboard a carrier in times of need and undertake fleet air defence duties.
Click to expand...

vstol Jockey said:
I think it will be mostly trainers and very few single seat fighters. In case of hostilities, these single engine fighters will not be part of fleet aviation, instead they will be shore based to protect shore establishments.
Click to expand...

Doubt there's a plan for single-seat, it's gonna be all twin-seat, with a secondary air defense role for carrier ops. From land, they will naturally be strike capable.

IN plans to operate N-LCA on all three carriers. I guess 4-8 jets with every deployment. They may operate it like the IAF's Mig-21; quick to scramble, high turnaround time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aditya g and Rajput Lion
randomradio said:
Doubt there's a plan for single-seat, it's gonna be all twin-seat, with a secondary air defense role for carrier ops. From land, they will naturally be strike capable.

IN plans to operate N-LCA on all three carriers. I guess 4-8 jets with every deployment. They may operate it like the IAF's Mig-21; quick to scramble, high turnaround time.
Click to expand...
I don't think they will be operating it on carriers. I hope they do but most likely it will be a trainer. But the Americans do fly the f-35c.
 
Lolwa said:
I don't think they will be operating it on carriers. I hope they do but most likely it will be a trainer. But the Americans do fly the f-35c.
Click to expand...

That's the IN's stated requirement. Carrier capability for training and air defense.

Whether they ultimately decide to fly it or not may depend on many factors.
 
vstol Jockey said:
has any of my predictions gone wrong till date? I told you Rafale for IN. I also told you an overall size of over 220 Rafale for India including IN. Infact the count was close to 300.
Click to expand...
Is it confirmed? Close to 300 means IAF alone will be operating 200+ minimum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back