NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Naval Air Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Indian Built Fighters On Indian Built Carriers

September 23, 2009: The Indian Navy is buying six of the new LCA (Light Combat Aircraft, or "Tejas") fighters to fly from the new carriers they will enter service in the next five years. This is an experiment to see how the LCA will do as a carrier aircraft. The navy has already bought navalized MiG-29s for these carriers. The navy LCAs will also be navalized (mainly stronger landing gear, a tail hook and different cockpit electronics.) The MiG-29K weighs 21 tons (16 percent weapons), while the navalized LCA weighs 13 tons, 34 percent of that weapons. The MiG-29 is a better fighter, but the LCA carries a little more (4 versus 3.5 tons) armament, making it a cheaper way to attack ships or land targets with missiles and bombs. A land based carrier deck is being built, so the naval LCA can begin tests, and training pilots, within two years.

The LCA is only now  preparing to enter mass production. Five prototypes already exist, and another ten pre-production models will be built next year. By 2012, mass production (at least 20 aircraft a year) is to begin, no matter what. Or at least that's the plan. For over two decades, India has been trying to design, develop and manufacture its own "lightweight fighter." India calls it the LCA, and the project has been a major disaster.

The U.S. F-16 is probably the premier "lightweight fighter" in service, and entered wide service about the time India began thinking about creating their own. Both the F-16 (at least the earlier models), and the LCA, weigh about 12-13 tons. But the F-16 is a high performance aircraft, with a proven combat record, while the LCA is sort of an improved Mirage/MiG-21 type design. Not too shabby, and cheap (about half the cost of an F-16). Also, for all this time, money and grief, India has made its aviation industry a bit more capable and mature.

When work began in the mid-1980s, it was believed that the aircraft would be ready for flight testing by 1990. A long list of technical delays resulted in that first flight not taking place until 2001. Corners had to be cut to make this happen, for the LCA was originally designed to use the Indian built Kaveri engine.

For a jet fighter, the engine is the most complex part of the aircraft, and the Kaveri has had its share of setbacks. Fortunately, there was an American engine, the GE 404, that fit the LCA, and could be used as a stop-gap. The Kaveri engine is not expected to be ready for flight tests until later this year, or thereabouts. The American engine has been used in the meantime.

For all this, India only plans to buy 200-300 LCAs, mainly to replace its aging MiG-21s, plus more if the navy finds the LCA works on carriers. Export prospects are dim, given all the competition out there (especially for cheap, second-hand F-16s). The delays have led the air force to look around for a hundred or so new aircraft (or even used F-16s) to fill the gap between elderly MiG-21s falling apart, and the arrival of the new LCAs. However, two decades down the road, the replacement for the LCA will probably be a more competitive, and timely, aircraft.

The LCA was not the first attempt to produce an Indian jet fighter. The HF-24 was an earlier attempt at developing a modern fighter. Designed by Kurt Tank (who also designed the FW-190 and Ta-152), the HF-24 was a failure because India could not develop a powerful enough engine. Thus the 147 HF-24s built, served from the 1960s, to the 1980s, as a ground attack aircraft.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article ATTRITION: Navy ROTC Just Got More Expensive


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
smitty237    Look on the bright side   9/23/2009 12:53:02 PM
I think the Indians designing a naval aircraft is a good thing.  They will quickly provide the aquatic life with places to feed and spawn.  Not only that, it will give the Indian Navy scuba divers something to do. 
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       9/23/2009 2:15:51 PM
LCA resembles to Kfir a bit, in fact both resemble to Mirage III. Is it possible that people who designed Kfir influenced LCA ? There is, indeed,  an ongoing military cooperation between Israel and India.
 
DG
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hari Sud    LCA - Made in India   9/23/2009 4:07:49 PM
 
Are you sure you are not trying to sell F-16 (used or new) by hook or by crook to India.
 
F-16 is an old design, old concept and has never fought a worthy adversary. Fighting Libyans or Iraqis or in Bosnia does not prove its high capability. It is only when you fight a worthy adversary like Russia or China or India that you prove its superiority. In last three India - US friendly excercises, US has lost big times. The point here is that a new designed LCA even if it is a copy of Mirage or Kfir or MIG is still a newer design than F-16. By the way F-16 is a copy of Phantom and Starfighter 104. The latter was US widow maker.
 
Cheers
 
HS
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Thank you for playing   9/24/2009 7:06:57 AM
Not to be insulting but not a single thing you wrote is factually correct.  You might want to look at something like F-16.net for some facts.  New does not equal better.  The LCA design began in 1983 as a program to replace the Mig 21 and here we are 26 years later and it still needs a foreign built engine in the F404.  Anyone with any realistic appreciation of Indian defense programs would be extremely careful about making performance claims.  Do you really believe the LCA with it's EL/M-2052 radar is better than an F-16 with the same radar? 
 
As for as the F-16 being a copy of the single engine (J79) 1952 designed F-104 interceptor and the dual engine (J79) flying brick mid 1950s designed interceptor/fighter bomber that was three times heavier than the F-104 I suggest you know a tad less than you might in order to present this notion.  The F-16 was originally a lightweight day fighter first designed in 1972. It's not a "copy" of the F-104 or F-4.  It did replace these aircraft in many air forces.
 
Also the Kfir is based on the Mirage 5, itself based on the 1950s Mirage III, which Israel copied as the Nesher.  The J79 was tested in the Mirage III in 1970 in Israel.  Kfir entered service in 1975 vs the F-16 in 1978.  In USN service the Kfir was replaced by the F-16.
 
Finally, India should be building it's own combat aircraft by now.  If the LCA is ok then buy it but don't inflate what it can do.  So far however, the engine is US, the radar Israeli, the aam's are Russian (maybe Astra works?) and frankly I don't imagine the rest of the avionics are all Indian.  I do not believe it's a better aircraft than an F-16, YMMV.
 
In any case if you want to compare an LCA with Astra or R-77 + R73 vs a late model F-16 with the same EL/M2052 with AMRAAM and Python-4/5 then I suggest the LCA loses most of the time and that the F-16 is superior in almost any strike role you wish to imagine.  Little things like carrying twice the weapons load and already being cleared to carry an extremely wide array of weapons such as Harm, Harpoon, etc.  On a positive note I'm sure Israel will be happy to sell you an excellent targeting pod.  A proper comparison for the LCA would be another modern F404 class fighter such as the Gripen.  The LCA is not a Gripen.  I certainly hope the structure is robust enough to handle carrier ops.  Personally I'd suggest the F-18 or Rafale instead of the Mig29.  Frankly India should be buying any western fighter or anything it can produce itself- anything except Russian fighters which are simply not reliable as the IAF knows extremely well by now.  Good luck with the LCA.
 
 

Are you sure you are not trying to sell F-16 (used or new) by hook or by crook to India.

 

F-16 is an old design, old concept and has never fought a worthy adversary. Fighting Libyans or Iraqis or in Bosnia does not prove its high capability. It is only when you fight a worthy adversary like Russia or China or India that you prove its superiority. In last three India - US friendly excercises, US has lost big times. The point here is that a new designed LCA even if it is a copy of Mirage or Kfir or MIG is still a newer design than F-16. By the way F-16 is a copy of Phantom and Starfighter 104. The latter was US widow maker.

 

Cheers

 

HS

 
Quote    Reply

Hari Sud    LCA V/s US F-16 fighter   9/24/2009 5:26:10 PM
 
 
LB above dealt with a lot of history of F-16.
 
It may or may not be true. India has amatch for F-16 in MIG-29 & SU-30MKI.
 
The point here is why buy a fighter jet which is a generation older in design which is being dumped by US itself in favor of  Raptor.
 
Too many improvements in a airframe of F-16 suggest that it was a bad design to start with.
 
As regards to its Engine, Avionics & missiles of LCA you are so right. These are all imports. That is one reason what makes LCA a light but very capable fighter. All the forgoing technologies are super modern. Only the Viper version of F-16 have them. That has put F-16s price at $60 million a piece - too expensive compared to $20 million for an LCA.
 
LB you commented on almost all the points I said earlier. Thanks for that. You missed one. That is F-16 has not fought a single battle with a worthy adversary. Have you fogotten your Old Testament that litlle David brought the giant Goliath down with a single shot. It could happen again to an over-confident American friends, whose F-16, F-18, B-2s and eveything else forced them into a defeat in Iraq, although it is hard for them to comphrehend.
 
Cheers my friend: do not rely upon sales brochures too much.
 
 
HS
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       9/24/2009 7:56:31 PM
How many battles has the Su-27 or the Mig-29 fought a "worthy" adversary? How many Indian built aircraft have fought battles against a "worthy" adversary? And once you give me a number, name the adversaries.
 
Also the F-16 is not being dumped in favor of the Raptor. The replacement for the F-16 is the F-35, and other nations are buying more sophisticated F-16s to soldier on into the future.
 
But good luck with those Russian weapons purchases, I'm sure they won't keep screwing you guys over like they have in the past.
 
Quote    Reply

albywan       9/24/2009 8:29:15 PM


The point here is why buy a fighter jet which is a generation older in design which is being dumped by US itself in favor of  Raptor.

 

Too many improvements in a airframe of F-16 suggest that it was a bad design to start with.

 
 
Because the Raptor isn't available... nor is the JSF just yet.
 
 
Alternately there have been so many improvements for the F-16 because the design was good to start with allowing the upgrades. Try telling Israel the design is bad, they have more succesful air combat history since WWII than most nations and use their F-16 as an integral part of their air combat wing.
 


 
 
Quote    Reply

Hari Sud       9/24/2009 8:36:31 PM
 
I am writing not, i repeat not to favor the Russians.
 
I am writing about the emptiness of claims in the glossy brochures put out by F-16 manufacturers. The author of this main article just copied all those claims in order to downgrade the LCA.  Not a very smart strategy, even if you are a salesman for this company.
 
The F-16 plane (the super variety) along with five or six similar from European and other American supplier is under test in India at the time of this writing.
 
You do not have to wait too long to find out what the score.
 
F-18 will score the highest together with Eurofighter. These two will compete in the end, leaving Russians behind.
 
Cheers for your defence of F-16
 
 
HS
 
Quote    Reply

LB    F-16's in Combat   9/25/2009 4:47:20 AM
The F-16 has been flown in combat many times- probably first by Israel in 1981.  In 1982 vs Syria Israeli F-16's shot down around 44 aircraft in air to air combat and have shot down other aircraft in Afghanistan (1980's) and over the Balkans.  The former best air superiority fighter in the world, the F-15, has around twice as many air to air victories with 104 but over half of these were again made by Israel.
 
So the most combat experienced air force in the world has gotten 44+ victories with it and 52+ with it's F-15's.  Exactly what aircraft flown by whom has a better combat record than Israeli F-16's and F-15's with 4th gen aircraft?
 
One can hope the LCA turns out to be a wonderful aircraft but one need not be unrealistic about what it can do and how well it compares to other aircraft.  The LCA is in fact smaller then the F-16 and in a different class.  If the LCA does anything better than the F-16 that has yet to be demonstrated.
 
Quote    Reply

Hari Sud       9/25/2009 9:40:44 AM
 
LB
 
Point taken.
 
LCA is not going to be the very best but it will be Indian.
 
Let us not add more to this discussion. We have said all there is to say.
 
Cheers
 
 
HS
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       9/25/2009 6:50:36 PM

 

 

LB above dealt with a lot of history of F-16.

 

It may or may not be true. India has amatch for F-16 in MIG-29 & SU-30MKI.

 

The point here is why buy a fighter jet which is a generation older in design which is being dumped by US itself in favor of  Raptor.

 

Too many improvements in a airframe of F-16 suggest that it was a bad design to start with.

 

As regards to its Engine, Avionics & missiles of LCA you are so right. These are all imports. That is one reason what makes LCA a light but very capable fighter. All the forgoing technologies are super modern. Only the Viper version of F-16 have them. That has put F-16s price at $60 million a piece - too expensive compared to $20 million for an LCA.

 

LB you commented on almost all the points I said earlier. Thanks for that. You missed one. That is F-16 has not fought a single battle with a worthy adversary. Have you fogotten your Old Testament that litlle David brought the giant Goliath down with a single shot. It could happen again to an over-confident American friends, whose F-16, F-18, B-2s and eveything else forced them into a defeat in Iraq, although it is hard for them to comphrehend.

 

Cheers my friend: do not rely upon sales brochures too much.

 

 

HS



 
It forced them into a hard time.
 
Also, nice to see an Indian who's proud of his nation and still earthbound.
 
The Indian arms industry is chugging along, but I think you have 20 years to go before you catch up with a late-block F16. (China is at 10)
Your navy and army is good though.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       9/25/2009 6:55:57 PM

 

LB

 

Point taken.

 

LCA is not going to be the very best but it will be Indian.

 

Let us not add more to this discussion. We have said all there is to say.

 

Cheers

 

 

HS



I think it's nice. I like the price. Also, this kind of thing is necessary in order to work out the crinkles in tech, dev. and manufacturing culture.
My bets are it will be quite a good budget plane for low-intensity engagements.
 
Remember to buy some Western planes to defeat Pakistan with in a frontal battle though.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    It's Great   9/26/2009 12:07:48 AM
It's great that India is building it's own combat aircraft.  The LCA might surprise a few with it's EL/M 2052 AESA radar.  One would hope it carries a quality BVR aam to exploit it.  By way of comparison the Zhuk AE is said to be able to track 30 targets- this is the radar currently offered with the MiG29/35.  The Elta 2052 tracks 64.  Over time India will be able to build a larger percentage of components.  Be interesting to see the results of the MCA program.
 
 
 

LB

 

Point taken.

 

LCA is not going to be the very best but it will be Indian.

 

Let us not add more to this discussion. We have said all there is to say.

 

Cheers

 

 

HS

 
Quote    Reply

kirby1       9/27/2009 5:33:05 AM
Umm, Not to pee on the ongoing F-16 vs LCA,  MIg and SU gunfight, but lets be honest here.
 
The Indians are not going to put F-16s on their carriers. They're not going to put F/A-18s on those little boats either. I have a feeling that there is something lacking when in the F/A-18 when it comes to STOBAR  that has the Indians deciding not to pursue that particular airplane.
 
They got the Migs for their main Cap Fighter. I'm betting the LCA is going to wind up pulling double duty as both an attack aircraft, and an advanced landing and takeoff trainer, and may later wind up supplanting the Migs in entirety if the Indians are not satisfied with their Russian hardware. Its strengths: They can build more as the planes attrit out without having to negotiate with the Russians. And attrition will be high as the old aircrews  adjust to the new carriers, and even higher when new aircrews start training on the new carriers. The LCAs will have lower operational costs per hour versus the Migs, and a better supply of spare parts.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hari Sud       9/27/2009 9:55:10 AM
Kirby1
 
Excellent points.
 
Thanks
 
 
Cheers
 
 
HS
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy