HAL Tejas Jet Fighter

A

aksha

Captain
Deino said:
Thanks but more important is how great is the commonality between both versions ?
Click to expand...

brochureshttps://www.sinodefenceforum.com/hal-tejas-jet-fighter.t4721/page-20#post-327154,

the NLCA mk2 is different enough from the LCA mk2 for them to give a different name.

and i would love to have your analysis on this matter since you are an aviation writer

the naval LCA with looks bigger than the airforce version, almost big enough to be an MCA

this is the air force version
11-48a5eda406.jpg

and this the navy version

13-f0fd040286.jpg
 
Deino

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
aksha said:
...
the NLCA mk2 is different enough from the LCA mk2 for them to give a different name.
...
the naval LCA with looks bigger than the airforce version, almost big enough to be an MCA
...
Click to expand...

That's to admit exactly what I feared of ... again a nearly completely new version, that requires additional testing, cost, waste of manpower and most of all the miss of a successor for the MiG-21 since years.

It simply turns over everything this project wanted to be, should have been and even more could have been if things were done properly from the beginning.

Maybe someone helps me if I'm wrong, but now we have the LCA TDs, the real prototypes, the LSPs ... so far o.k. even if long overdue ... and additionally the LCA-N prototypes which required a redesign even before they flew.
Now there will be the Mk. 2 version (also quite fine after several years of service) and even more the LCA-N Mk. 2 that is now again even more different to the Mk. 2 AF-version.

And if You consider how big/small the complete production run will be - esp. for the naval version - .... I simply don't get it.

For me it seems as if this now is the overall third, maybe fourth attempt to develop a decent fighter to be used for both the AF and navy ... and I'm not sure if this will be the last redesign until it enters service.

and i would love to have your analysis on this matter since you are an aviation writer
Click to expand...

To admit that would be too much honor especially since I'm not an specialist in technical terms of aviation. I'm a data-hamster, someone who collects data and information from very different sources and tries to put them into a - hopefully correct - perspective ! You are correct, I'm an aviation writer only, but not an analyst.

Anyway thanks,
Deino
 
A

A Bar Brother

Junior Member
Deino said:
Maybe someone helps me if I'm wrong, but now we have the LCA TDs, the real prototypes, the LSPs ... so far o.k. even if long overdue ... and additionally the LCA-N prototypes which required a redesign even before they flew.
Now there will be the Mk. 2 version (also quite fine after several years of service) and even more the LCA-N Mk. 2 that is now again even more different to the Mk. 2 AF-version.

And if You consider how big/small the complete production run will be - esp. for the naval version - .... I simply don't get it.
Click to expand...

The navy version was always meant to be different. It has LEVCONS, a redesigned nose, a new landing gear, arrestor hook and so on. The navy version isn't a Mig-21 replacement version. It is possible the Mk2's engine will be more powerful than the air force version.

While the IAF version serves as a Mig-21 replacement, the delays in the project meant a simple Mig-21 replacement is no longer enough. So while the LCA Mk1 is good enough as a replacement for the Mig-21, the LCA Mk2 has become more necessary in terms of mitigating obsolescence.

There are 6 versions of the LCA as of today, 3 each for the navy and the air force. The LCA AF Mk1, LCA AF Mk2, LCA AF Trainer Mk1, N-LCA Mk1, N-LCA Mk2, N-LCA Mk1 Trainer. All of them are different.

It is unclear if the IAF will ask for a trainer based on the Mk2, but the navy is fine with a Mk1 trainer version. Only the trainers are two-seat versions.
 
Deino

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
A Bar Brother said:
...

There are 6 versions of the LCA as of today, 3 each for the navy and the air force. The LCA AF Mk1, LCA AF Mk2, LCA AF Trainer Mk1, N-LCA Mk1, N-LCA Mk2, N-LCA Mk1 Trainer. All of them are different.

It is unclear if the IAF will ask for a trainer based on the Mk2, but the navy is fine with a Mk1 trainer version. Only the trainers are two-seat versions.
Click to expand...


Thanks for explaining this even more detailed ... however it even surpasses my description since it makes the situation even more complicate ... and that all for what an overall production run ??

Don't get me wrong and even if all these changes, updates, modernizations and so on can easily explained step by step, I have that strange feeling that this project will surely be seen in retrospect as a great achievement for India but I'm also sure some future will also raise their eyebrows and question why oh why it all happened this way !

Thanks again,
Deino
 
A

A Bar Brother

Junior Member
Deino said:
Thanks for explaining this even more detailed ... however it even surpasses my description since it makes the situation even more complicate ... and that all for what an overall production run ??
Click to expand...

As of today, from what's been confirmed or "promised,"
LCA AF Mk1 = 40 (ordered)
LCA AF Mk1 Trainer = 16 (expected soon)
LCA AF Mk2 = 83 (promised)

N-LCA Mk1 Trainer = 8 (ordered)
N-LCA Mk1 = 0 (no requirement)
N-LCA Mk2 = 45 (promised)

Total = 192

There may eventually be follow-on orders for the trainers and the Mk2 versions. The Mk1 single seat versions will not see more orders.

So the numbers ordered are fine. By the time HAL builds that many at 16/year, it's going to be 12-15 years. In case the Mk2 is a success, HAL may be able to push production by 8 more.

Don't get me wrong and even if all these changes, updates, modernizations and so on can easily explained step by step, I have that strange feeling that this project will surely be seen in retrospect as a great achievement for India but I'm also sure some future will also raise their eyebrows and question why oh why it all happened this way !

Thanks again,
Deino
Click to expand...

I am a critic of the LCA program, however I'm not against completing the full development of the LCA program as a whole. I am only a critic against forced induction.

As of a year ago, the total cost of the project was just $1.1 Billion for 15 TDs, prototypes and LSPs. So the program itself is not expensive and is helping create a vast pool of talent for future projects. When the LCA program started, the design pool the ADA had access to was very small, just a few dozen. Now they are in the thousands. It makes sense to experiment with the LCA in as many ways as possible before embarking on a more expensive AMCA program simply because the costs involved are low and the program's failure will not cripple either the air force or the navy. Making mistakes in the LCA program would mean avoiding the same mistakes in the AMCA program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top