probably not.. I see it as a modern day A-4. but questionable performance aside, it does give very invaluable experience for the Indians trying to learn how to build a navy plane! you gotta start somewhere..

look at China and the Q-5!

The A-4 apart from aggressor roles in the US, was dedicated for strike. Q-5 AFAIK was also not intended for multirole duties.

The IAF & IN both intend to use the LCA for multirole duties, which is why they won’t compromise on both the payload or even airframe performance when loaded (which is why the GE414 was insisted on).

Otherwise, with current payload etc it handily outperforms the MiG-21 variants and is superior to a lot of the other IAF planes in terms of systems (eg MiG-27s, Jaguars etc) – eg it has a MMR, full glass ‘pit, dedicated pylon for EW, HMDS etc etc.

For the IN’s MK2 they have asked for more fuel as well, with the structural improvements it may be heavier than the AF version but it should have decent range.

These are some estimates of the LCA MK1 range.

http://mach-five.blogspot.com/search?q=lca

Now the MK2 will have a more powerful engine (Ge 414INS6) but more fuel as well, which should balance things out.

Yeah, but if the plane is as useful for the IAF as the A-4 was for (say) the IDFAF in ’73, then its a good buy indeed.

OT, but the RNZAF A-4s were beauties (the upgraded ones), I recall they got F-16 avionics.

Do you think the J-15 has inferior avionics to the 1970s era Soviet kit, N001 radar, etc?

Certainly the WS-10 powerplant should be an improvement.

Not just the avionics, that’s usually the relatively easy part – heck even much older gen planes have been upgraded. I am talking of the overall aircraft – the structures, the reliability, etc. Thats the point – if the J-15 is an upgrade, it has to be better in at least some and at least equal across the board in the rest of the parameters. Right now we cannot say that.

Plus, I am not yet sold on the WS-10 TBH. Lets give it a few years. The AL-31 series OTOH, has demonstrated reliability and performance. Its a proven engine.

At least calling J-15 a copy or rip off from Su-33 is a bit flawed, maybe upgrade would be a better word >_>

How do you know for sure its an upgrade? It could as well be inferior to the original Su-33 in several parameters for all we know.

Su-33 got minor upgrade, really a deep overhaul recently. New engines however, but nothing like the SMs cockpit.

Naval PAKFA is definite long term intention.

Were those new engines AL-31 FM variants or the original AL-31s? I wonder if the FM-2 has gone into production yet. Am thinking if its ready it could be a good fit for the Su-30 MKI MLU & other Flankers including the Russian ones. It would make the latter, since they are lighter A2A birds, real hotrods.

BTW, as you had recently asked, about the current % of indigenization regarding the AL-31 & Su-30 in India. Will improve further over time.

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/defence-industry/Impact-of-Offset-Policy-on-Indias-Military-Industrial-Capability—II.html

Aircraft airframe (includes subsystems like hydraulics etc) is at 55% leading to cost savings of 45% over import, and the engine at 65% leading to similar cost savings.

And there is this for instance (indicative of the effort in terms of sourcing locally).

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/enterprise-it/infrastructure/Robots-help-fighter-Jets-take-off/articleshow/10519685.cms

In a small factory tucked away in Peenya, a dusty industrial suburb of Bangalore, a master-robot is busy rehearsing giving commands to a ‘slave-robot’ to integrate complex engine components of Sukhoi aircraft, a multi-role fighter jet. The slave-robot obediently follows the commands in a welding chamber with no oxygen within. This is the first of its kind facility built in India by Bangalore-based Hind High Vacuum Company (HHV) for defence major Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL). …..HHV won the contract, after India decided to make their own engines for the Sukhoi aircraft instead of buying them from Russia. This aircraft is expected to form the backbone of the Indian Air Force’s fighter fleet in the next decade. “We bid against Russians,” said Sakhamuri an engineer-turned-entrepreneur, who got the idea of using robots on fighter jets after watching a few kids playing a video game.
…………………..
His innovation got accepted by the defence laboratories to use it on India’s indigenous light-weight combat aircraft Tejas. They wanted to make stealth version of Tejas by using robots to sputter special coating on the aircraft. This would prevent it from getting detected by radar. HHV has built many such indigenous speciality equipment and technologies for customers such as Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro), Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Larsen & Toubro and many public sector units.

There is big difference between F135 and G414.
F35 is really light weight aircraft considering internal volume of fuel and engine size.
NLCA will need all the time ET. You cannot run 8 Ton (Most minimum empty weight of NLCA) aircraft on 2.5ton internal fuel.

Dude, whatever floats your boat.

FYI, the LCA MK2 (intended to be the definitive Naval variant) has more intenal fuel than MK1 and the MK1 itself is regarded as the most fuel efficient fighter the IAF has ever had. Eitherways the actual makers & users don’t buy into your statements.

Once again, you repeat your claims like a parrot, without any evidence. Good job. You are the one making the tall claims, back em up. Note, unlike you, I am not claiming the MiG-29K is a much superior plane to a modernized Su-33.

I laid out the evidence, that, when they had the ability to go for either Su-33 or MIG-29, both RuAF and India went for MiG-29. That tells me something.

Have Russian reports spoken of any plans to upgrade the Su-33 or is a naval version of PAK-FA considered?

Interesting video that and he certainly doesn’t pull any punches with criticism of the aircraft or program when he see’s it. He clearly points out converting an airforce type to naval operations is not an ideal solution.

Regarding conversions, thats always the case. Its much harder to navalize an AF plane than the other way around. That was exactly why I posted the vid.

Coming to the plane & the program – having seen the video and heard him in person – as Maolankar says, the original program (to develop a fully carrier capable, IN compliant MK1 version) was too ambitious, especially given India has had no experience in making a naval fighter. He personally regards the MK2 as what will be the definitive aircraft which will meet Naval needs, and he’s ok with it, whereas the MK1 will be capable but not fully to IN reqs.

As far as the Naval program is concerned, he is one of the key guys in charge. Its not criticism or even carping, but his evaluation of what has to be done to meet Naval requirements. Remember, he is part of the decision making chain and as such he calls it like it is. If he doesn’t know where the challenges are, he really can’t structure the program to be successful.

Basically, the Navy joined up to have India develop the capability to field a carrier aircraft given their long term strategic needs. But modifying an AF fighter to a Naval one (CTOL version) as an add on is anydays more complex than developing the latter first & then making an AF version. Plus you have the element of whose priorities come first – the AF or the Navy. You can make that out with the couple of humorous asides he makes as the AF has tailored the entire program to its needs and the Navy came in later and has had to fit its needs into a design, test, and build program which has already been configured around the primary customer.

BTW, Maolankar noted at an industry event, that the LCA Naval program is critical to the IN and as such the IN is willing to do whatever it takes to make it a success. Which leads me to the consideration that the IN has more than just the LCA in mind when it comes to future naval programs and regards the LCA-N as critical to capability building and not just the fighter itself.

The key thing to consider is the process. What is clear from the video is that these guys have figured out what needs to be done, and are systematically going about tackling each and everyone of the issues. Whether it be the landing gear or the navalization etc. This fact – that they know what they need to do – is arguably the key point (from the IN point of view) of the LCA-N. Because it shows they have progressed to the execution stage & are not really groping in the dark about where they’ll face what issues. Of course, there will be some unforeseen challenges -as Maolankar says, they’ll only know how much an airframe can withstand once they take it to the sea, and he says India should even be ok with testing airframes to destruction. Basically he’s saying take more risks. One of the key things with the program so far has been the amount of risk aversion & huge buffer built around time consuming IV&V to prevent mishaps.

This sort of learning, capability will pay off for future programs.

The delays dont really affect the Navy that much because right now, they have planes -eg MiG-29Ks but no carriers.

The IN plans around 40-60 MK2s but they’ll really be required many years thence because simply put, right now there are no carriers.

The bit about the characteristics of undercarriage failure on the Ski Jump was fascinating. I didn’t know most failures were in extension rather then compression. I suppose the sudden change from compression to extension off the end of the ramp presents a significant shock to the structures involved in the airframe, then again he did spend much time talking about how the undercarriage is over engineered. As a side note it will be interesting to see how the F35B performs when it is tested off the Ski Jump at NAS Patuxent.

There was actually a fascinating talk at another event by a F/A-18 pilot whose statements actually add to what Maolankar said. Unfortunately I can’t find it online.

Interesting to note that they are using American procedures as far as possible for their flight operations off the new carriers.

The US is perceived to have the most experience in Naval operations across a range of platforms. Maolankar also makes the wry comment that unfortunately the US did not operate or believe in operating delta CTOLs off ski jumps so India can’t leverage the experience.

Jaguar (the lightest) & Mirage 2000 are very similar in empty weight, & closer to each other in both empty & max T/O weight than either is to any of the others, smaller & lighter than the rest. They’re very similar to the Gripen NG weights.

Yes indeed, but the IAF roughly slots them all in the MMRCA category. The MKI is clearly HCA though. The NG development and now the MK2 (LCA) are interesting in that the original “light” specifications are giving way to more and more performance expected. I generally see that as the trend.

I think that people look at it from the wrong perspective. Before the Su-30 was introduced into the IAF it had no heavy fighters at all. There was no other viable option to the Flanker back then and it is rather clear that the heavy Flanker replaced a number of smaller/lighter types. The IAF has changed its force structure from a one sided light-medium combat aircraft fleet to a mix of heavy and lighter fighters. Right now the IAF’s mix of combat aircraft is around 150 heavy Su-30s and ~450 light-medium types. The FGFA will replace the Su-30 in the longer term, while the MMRCA will make up for numbers and in the mid term replace types like the MiG-27, Jaguar, MiG-23 (alread ywithdrawn from service) and to a certain extend probably the MiG-29 and M2k as well. The AMCA will be complementary and the MMRCA also is an assurance in the case the FGFA and AMCA suffer from delays. The LCA on its side will replace the MiG-21 which was once the most numerous fighter in the IAF. In the longer run we’ll see a fleet of 126+ LCAs, 126-189 MMRCA, a yet to be specified number of AMCAs and probably ~350 heavy Su-30MKI/FGFA. The mix of heavy and light fighters is not that one sided either. Considering that the USAF purchased ~750 F-15A-D and ~1000 F-16s and that the Soviet AF introduced ~700 Su-27 and not many if any more MiG-29s it is a false perception that various larger AFs operated a high-low mix to the extend stated by many here.

Bingo! Finally someone gets it.