A Detailed Look At The Design Evolution Of India’s Naval-LCA Mk1 Fighter

Ashwin

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
8,319
15,028
Bangalore
September 2019 will go down as a seminal month in the history of Indian naval aviation, marked as it was by multiple milestones. On September 19, prototype NP-1 of the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft- Navy Mk1 (NLCA MK1) design became the first ever naval fighter aircraft developed in India to carry out an arrested landing. This feat took place at the Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF) in INS Hansa, Goa, where NP-1 would go on to successfully complete eight more arrested landings in the course of the month. Rounding off a crucial period in Indian military aviation, on September 29, a second NLCA Mk1 prototype, NP-2, would complete another first for India by taking off from a ski-jump and then completing an arrested landing during the same test mission. What is more, NP-2 would accomplish the same later in the day as well! Indeed, it must be observed that such sortie rates are usually expected of operational aircraft, not prototypes in testing. As such, these developments mark the coming of age of India’s naval fighter program and establish the credentials of the team which undertook perhaps the most difficult challenge of modern aviation – the development of a modern carrier-based fighter aircraft.

After all, India embarked on this journey (i.e. indigenous carrier-based aviation development) relatively late and somewhat half-heartedly, trying to piggyback on the development of the shore-based fighter program, the LCA Tejas. Consequently, as of today, India has not been able to develop a fighter that can fulfill all of the Indian Navy’s (IN’s) requirements, the recent successes registered NP-1 and 2, notwithstanding. Nonetheless, the NLCA Mk1 project serves as a technology demonstrator (TD) program that can certainly be used to develop a fully specifications-compliant aircraft in the near future. NLCA Mk1 can also be used as a very capable Lead in Fighter Trainer (LIFT) , which can be used for training purposes at a significantly lower operating cost than is incurred by using on the MiG-29KUB, which a two-seater version of the IN’s in-service fighter, the MiG-29K. It is therefore worthwhile to take a closer look as to what the NLCA Mk1 brings to the table in terms of design pedigree.

Program Overview

The idea of developing a naval version of LCA can be traced back to the Project Definition Phase (PDP) of LCA in the late 1980s [1]. Ten years after the LCA project was sanctioned in 1983, the IN made preliminary inquiries with respect to the possibility of navalizing the baseline LCA design. The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the LCA’s developer, having already anticipated the prospect, gave an enthusiastic response to the IN. Subsequently, a feasibility study was launched in 1995 as a result of which, in a manner similar to the LCA Air Force program, the LCA Navy program was sanctioned in stages: Project Definition Phase (PDP), Pre-Project Phase (PPP) and Full-Scale Engineering Development (FSED). The PDP was undertaken in collaboration with the Central Aero-hydrodynamic Institute (TsAGI), Russia to identify the key design drivers and preliminary design of the NLCA.

The earliest public depiction of the LCA design with Leading-edge vortex controllers (LEVCONs), which is a signature design feature of the NLCA Mk1 can be found in a research paper from ADA in 1995 (See Fig.1 below). By this time, a sizable amount of the PDP-related work had already been done. The total expenditure on PDP was only about Rs 14 crores. The basic goal of the study was to develop a navalized design with minimum changes to the LCA Air Force version. Accordingly, the critical design drivers identified in the feasibility study were:

  • Strengthening of landing gear (LG) for higher sink rate of flare-less landing on carrier deck
  • Reduction in landing approach speed to match the maximum speed, any putative arrester gear system could handle
  • Arrester hook and supporting structure design
  • Over-the-nose vision during landing approach.
  • Controllability of the aircraft after ramp exit until its airborne.


word-image-17.png


Figure 1: LCA MK1 with LEVCON configuration from 1995 ADA Publication

The FSED-1 of LCA Navy project was sanctioned in March 2003 by the Government of India with grant-in-aid seed funding of Rs 949 Crores and a planned completion date of December 2009. The IN contributed 40 percent of the development cost, the rest being put up the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), which controls ADA. The NLCA Mk1, was envisaged as a tech demonstrator for indigenous capability to design and operationalize a carrier-based fighter jet with limited operational capability. The key objectives of FSED-1 were not only set with a view to developing the aircraft but also dovetailed to the establishment of a whole gamut of testing facilities required to test and certify a Naval fighter. These objectives are summarized below:

  • Design and build two prototypes NP-1 (Two-seater Trainer) and NP-2 (Single-seater Fighter)
  • One Structural Test Specimen (STS-Navy) for full scale structural strength testing.
  • Shore based Test Facility at INS Hansa, Goa
  • Full range of test facilities specific to Naval requirements
  • Flight testing for Carrier Compatibility
Typically, it is easier to design a naval fighter first and then derive a shore-based variant from that baseline. This is evidenced by the development of the F-18 and Rafale families and is often called a two-aircraft design approach. Doing things the other way round is significantly more difficult. Russia and China certainly realized this while navalizing the Su-27 and the Mig-29. The resultant Su-33/J-15 and Mig-29K are virtually new designs. In India’s case, the decision was made based on funding, or the lack thereof. There was no scope to have a dedicated naval fighter program counterpart to the shore-based LCA program which had already taken off. The inexperience of India’s aviation designers also played a part. The end result was an expanded LCA program and a ‘Two-and-Half’ Aircraft design approach.

In this approach, an Air Force fighter variant (now the Tejas Mk-1) and a Navy trainer would be designed as ab initio designs. The Air Force trainer (a third variant) would essentially have the same design as the naval trainer albeit with stripped down landing gear and supporting structure. Finally, the Navy fighter variant would be a modified version of the naval trainer. Accordingly, NP-1 was planned as a Navy trainer. And it was converted to a single-seater Navy fighter version in the form NP-2 with the second cockpit utilized for additional avionics and fuel. The Air Force trainer was designed keeping as much commonality with the Navy trainer as possible [3], [5]. All four variants can be considered to be ‘Mk1’ variants of the overall LCA-family.

Initially, ADA estimated that NP-1 would differ from the LCA Air Force fighter version by about 15 percent and that the incremental development involved could be wrapped-up within 6-7 years. The designers tried to limit the changes to the mid-fuselage only, but as the detailed design work progressed the extent of changes burgeoned to as much as 40-45 percent [2]. Furthermore, it was evident that this constraint resulted in a sub-optimal and heavier than anticipated design. Consequently, Navy LCA (NLCA) Mk2 design was taken up in the FSED-II stage of the project which was sanctioned in December 2009. With the experience of Mk1 behind them, ADA decided to design NLCA MK2 on an ab initio basis, with a view to optimizing it for naval applications from the ground up. It is this version which will have the required level of operational capability that the IN expects from the NLCA programme. Figure 2 below gives an overview of the LCA Navy program. FSED-II has the following key objectives:

  • Two single-seater fighter prototypes (NP-3 & NP-4)
  • Meeting all the mission objectives set out by the IN
  • Better performance than LCA Mk1
  • Integration of a full suite of weapons
In order to achieve these objectives, the following key changes were identified for the Mk2 aircraft configuration:

  • Higher thrust engine
  • Increased internal fuel capacity
  • Increased wing area
  • Area ruled and streamlined configuration
  • Lighter Landing gear and supporting structure
  • Improved layout for better safety and maintainability
  • word-image-18.png
    Reduced approach speed compared to Mk1 even with a landing mass that had increased by 2.5 tonnes.
Figure 2: Overview of LCA navy Program, FSED-1 and FSED-2 (Source – ADA)

It is noteworthy that, the IN has offered a steadfast support to the LCA Navy program with manpower, materiel and monetary contributions right from its inception. For the long-term vision shown and pragmatic approach shown, Naval Headquarters (NHQ) needs to be applauded. The Navy’s commitment to NLCA is best summed up from the following passage from its ‘Maritime Strategy’ document:

“The ongoing Aerospace projects are bold and pioneering ventures into many esoteric fields like airframe and engine design, weapon system integration, flight-control development and evolution of new materials. It is inevitable that these projects will face many hurdles, impediments and delays, but IN will give them full support and backing. While the IN will demand quality from the DRDO, we will also extend financial and manpower support for vital projects.” [1].

Table 1: Prototypes of LCA Navy in FSED Phase I and II.

word-image-19.png


Full article : A Detailed Look At The Design Evolution Of India’s Naval-LCA Mk1 Fighter

@randomradio @vstol Jockey @Milspec @GuardianRED @ni8mare @Gautam
 
  • Informative
Reactions: R!cK, GuardianRED and Gautam
N-LCA will be nothing more than a tech demonstrator. It doesn't have enough range nor firepower to take long range missions nor protect CBGs alone. Can only serve as an interceptor and support Mig-29s of the navy. ARDE should use this to develop a N-MWF and go into full scale production
 
Ashwin said:
September 2019 will go down as a seminal month in the history of Indian naval aviation, marked as it was by multiple milestones. On September 19, prototype NP-1 of the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft- Navy Mk1 (NLCA MK1) design became the first ever naval fighter aircraft developed in India to carry out an arrested landing. This feat took place at the Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF) in INS Hansa, Goa, where NP-1 would go on to successfully complete eight more arrested landings in the course of the month. Rounding off a crucial period in Indian military aviation, on September 29, a second NLCA Mk1 prototype, NP-2, would complete another first for India by taking off from a ski-jump and then completing an arrested landing during the same test mission. What is more, NP-2 would accomplish the same later in the day as well! Indeed, it must be observed that such sortie rates are usually expected of operational aircraft, not prototypes in testing. As such, these developments mark the coming of age of India’s naval fighter program and establish the credentials of the team which undertook perhaps the most difficult challenge of modern aviation – the development of a modern carrier-based fighter aircraft.

After all, India embarked on this journey (i.e. indigenous carrier-based aviation development) relatively late and somewhat half-heartedly, trying to piggyback on the development of the shore-based fighter program, the LCA Tejas. Consequently, as of today, India has not been able to develop a fighter that can fulfill all of the Indian Navy’s (IN’s) requirements, the recent successes registered NP-1 and 2, notwithstanding. Nonetheless, the NLCA Mk1 project serves as a technology demonstrator (TD) program that can certainly be used to develop a fully specifications-compliant aircraft in the near future. NLCA Mk1 can also be used as a very capable Lead in Fighter Trainer (LIFT) , which can be used for training purposes at a significantly lower operating cost than is incurred by using on the MiG-29KUB, which a two-seater version of the IN’s in-service fighter, the MiG-29K. It is therefore worthwhile to take a closer look as to what the NLCA Mk1 brings to the table in terms of design pedigree.

Program Overview

The idea of developing a naval version of LCA can be traced back to the Project Definition Phase (PDP) of LCA in the late 1980s [1]. Ten years after the LCA project was sanctioned in 1983, the IN made preliminary inquiries with respect to the possibility of navalizing the baseline LCA design. The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the LCA’s developer, having already anticipated the prospect, gave an enthusiastic response to the IN. Subsequently, a feasibility study was launched in 1995 as a result of which, in a manner similar to the LCA Air Force program, the LCA Navy program was sanctioned in stages: Project Definition Phase (PDP), Pre-Project Phase (PPP) and Full-Scale Engineering Development (FSED). The PDP was undertaken in collaboration with the Central Aero-hydrodynamic Institute (TsAGI), Russia to identify the key design drivers and preliminary design of the NLCA.

The earliest public depiction of the LCA design with Leading-edge vortex controllers (LEVCONs), which is a signature design feature of the NLCA Mk1 can be found in a research paper from ADA in 1995 (See Fig.1 below). By this time, a sizable amount of the PDP-related work had already been done. The total expenditure on PDP was only about Rs 14 crores. The basic goal of the study was to develop a navalized design with minimum changes to the LCA Air Force version. Accordingly, the critical design drivers identified in the feasibility study were:

  • Strengthening of landing gear (LG) for higher sink rate of flare-less landing on carrier deck
  • Reduction in landing approach speed to match the maximum speed, any putative arrester gear system could handle
  • Arrester hook and supporting structure design
  • Over-the-nose vision during landing approach.
  • Controllability of the aircraft after ramp exit until its airborne.


word-image-17.png


Figure 1: LCA MK1 with LEVCON configuration from 1995 ADA Publication

The FSED-1 of LCA Navy project was sanctioned in March 2003 by the Government of India with grant-in-aid seed funding of Rs 949 Crores and a planned completion date of December 2009. The IN contributed 40 percent of the development cost, the rest being put up the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), which controls ADA. The NLCA Mk1, was envisaged as a tech demonstrator for indigenous capability to design and operationalize a carrier-based fighter jet with limited operational capability. The key objectives of FSED-1 were not only set with a view to developing the aircraft but also dovetailed to the establishment of a whole gamut of testing facilities required to test and certify a Naval fighter. These objectives are summarized below:

  • Design and build two prototypes NP-1 (Two-seater Trainer) and NP-2 (Single-seater Fighter)
  • One Structural Test Specimen (STS-Navy) for full scale structural strength testing.
  • Shore based Test Facility at INS Hansa, Goa
  • Full range of test facilities specific to Naval requirements
  • Flight testing for Carrier Compatibility
Typically, it is easier to design a naval fighter first and then derive a shore-based variant from that baseline. This is evidenced by the development of the F-18 and Rafale families and is often called a two-aircraft design approach. Doing things the other way round is significantly more difficult. Russia and China certainly realized this while navalizing the Su-27 and the Mig-29. The resultant Su-33/J-15 and Mig-29K are virtually new designs. In India’s case, the decision was made based on funding, or the lack thereof. There was no scope to have a dedicated naval fighter program counterpart to the shore-based LCA program which had already taken off. The inexperience of India’s aviation designers also played a part. The end result was an expanded LCA program and a ‘Two-and-Half’ Aircraft design approach.

In this approach, an Air Force fighter variant (now the Tejas Mk-1) and a Navy trainer would be designed as ab initio designs. The Air Force trainer (a third variant) would essentially have the same design as the naval trainer albeit with stripped down landing gear and supporting structure. Finally, the Navy fighter variant would be a modified version of the naval trainer. Accordingly, NP-1 was planned as a Navy trainer. And it was converted to a single-seater Navy fighter version in the form NP-2 with the second cockpit utilized for additional avionics and fuel. The Air Force trainer was designed keeping as much commonality with the Navy trainer as possible [3], [5]. All four variants can be considered to be ‘Mk1’ variants of the overall LCA-family.

Initially, ADA estimated that NP-1 would differ from the LCA Air Force fighter version by about 15 percent and that the incremental development involved could be wrapped-up within 6-7 years. The designers tried to limit the changes to the mid-fuselage only, but as the detailed design work progressed the extent of changes burgeoned to as much as 40-45 percent [2]. Furthermore, it was evident that this constraint resulted in a sub-optimal and heavier than anticipated design. Consequently, Navy LCA (NLCA) Mk2 design was taken up in the FSED-II stage of the project which was sanctioned in December 2009. With the experience of Mk1 behind them, ADA decided to design NLCA MK2 on an ab initio basis, with a view to optimizing it for naval applications from the ground up. It is this version which will have the required level of operational capability that the IN expects from the NLCA programme. Figure 2 below gives an overview of the LCA Navy program. FSED-II has the following key objectives:

  • Two single-seater fighter prototypes (NP-3 & NP-4)
  • Meeting all the mission objectives set out by the IN
  • Better performance than LCA Mk1
  • Integration of a full suite of weapons
In order to achieve these objectives, the following key changes were identified for the Mk2 aircraft configuration:

  • Higher thrust engine
  • Increased internal fuel capacity
  • Increased wing area
  • Area ruled and streamlined configuration
  • Lighter Landing gear and supporting structure
  • Improved layout for better safety and maintainability
  • word-image-18.png
    Reduced approach speed compared to Mk1 even with a landing mass that had increased by 2.5 tonnes.
Figure 2: Overview of LCA navy Program, FSED-1 and FSED-2 (Source – ADA)

It is noteworthy that, the IN has offered a steadfast support to the LCA Navy program with manpower, materiel and monetary contributions right from its inception. For the long-term vision shown and pragmatic approach shown, Naval Headquarters (NHQ) needs to be applauded. The Navy’s commitment to NLCA is best summed up from the following passage from its ‘Maritime Strategy’ document:

“The ongoing Aerospace projects are bold and pioneering ventures into many esoteric fields like airframe and engine design, weapon system integration, flight-control development and evolution of new materials. It is inevitable that these projects will face many hurdles, impediments and delays, but IN will give them full support and backing. While the IN will demand quality from the DRDO, we will also extend financial and manpower support for vital projects.” [1].

Table 1: Prototypes of LCA Navy in FSED Phase I and II.

word-image-19.png


Full article : A Detailed Look At The Design Evolution Of India’s Naval-LCA Mk1 Fighter

@randomradio @vstol Jockey @Milspec @GuardianRED @ni8mare @Gautam
Click to expand...
Some take away :

1) The Navy LCA program with the NP1 and NP2 is slowly but surely achieving the Goals set by them (Still - see point No. 4) . Looking forward to actually landing and takeoff from INS Vikramaditiya Soon :)

2) The Trainer does have a future as a LIFT for Navy Training - This opportunity should be taken seriously

3) Question the need to build 2 more Mk1s ie NP6 and NP7

4) Looking at the Project Timelines - yikes - its a sad state of affairs :( - need improvements here
 
  • Agree
Reactions: R!cK
This article says NLCA Mk2 NP3 is under construction. While NP 6 & 7 are Mk1. Either its a mistake or the plan is confusing.

I do not know any seed money getting released for NLCA Mk2 so how have they started construction. Has F414 ordered?
 
Vicky said:
This article says NLCA Mk2 NP3 is under construction. While NP 6 & 7 are Mk1. Either its a mistake or the plan is confusing.

I do not know any seed money getting released for NLCA Mk2 so how have they started construction. Has F414 ordered?
Click to expand...

Received couple of F414 out of 8 into all order
 
Sathya said:
I ve read long back, out of 100 or so orders we paid for initial batch of 8.

After that not sure if we paid full..
Click to expand...

As far as I know we wanted to order some 114 GE414-IN engine, but since mk2 got delayed, the order was never placed. The order should be placed now if the metal cutting news of Mk2 news is true, which i doubt. It may even end up like Honeywell saga where after they making all investments and waiting like 6 years decided to quadraple the price.

Moreover the budget allocation for MK2 and AMCA is confusing. This govt is all talk in defence. While they are pushing already developed projects, new R&D projects havent got any significant money since 2014. Mk1A is funded out of HAL funds and not exactly GoI.
 
Vicky said:
As far as I know we wanted to order some 114 GE414-IN engine, but since mk2 got delayed, the order was never placed. The order should be placed now if the metal cutting news of Mk2 news is true, which i doubt. It may even end up like Honeywell saga where after they making all investments and waiting like 6 years decided to quadraple the price.

Moreover the budget allocation for MK2 and AMCA is confusing. This govt is all talk in defence. While they are pushing already developed projects, new R&D projects havent got any significant money since 2014. Mk1A is funded out of HAL funds and not exactly GoI.
Click to expand...

Read else where, plan was to buy 98 engines for Mk2. Got 2 delivered in the initial batch order.

It's confusing if we look from top - down.
Bottom up, better.. Hal manufacturing numbers.. And Timelines.
 
Ashwin said:
Naval LCA prepares for its Final Showdown
Click to expand...
Posting you guys from my presentation to IN in Dec 2016 about LSA.
Gear Vertical speed Certification Limit – Please refer to my last e-mail regarding the criteria for sink rate certification of a carrier based aircraft. I have done a detailed study of approach criteria for F-18E/F, Rafale-M & F-35C. Posted below is the links which show the demonstrated vertical speed for F-35C & Rafale-M.
http://www.lockheedmartin.co.in/us/...35-achieves-three-milestones-on-same-day.html
“The F-35C, designed for aircraft carrier operations, completed a landing at its maximum sink speed to test the aircraft’s landing gear, airframe and arrestment system at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. “Five sorties were conducted, building up the maximum sink rate test condition of 21.4 feet per second, which represents the maximum sink speed planned for this test,” McFarlan said. During the tests, the F-35C did three arrestments, several touch and goes and one bolter. The landings were to demonstrate structural readiness for arrested landings on an aircraft carrier at sea”.
Dassault Rafale
“The Safran Landing Systems landing gear on the Rafale M (Navy version) are considered the most advanced system for carrier-compatible aircraft. Compared to the Rafale B and C (Air force Version) the nose and main landing gears on the navy version have been reinforced to satisfy the difficult aircraft carriers landing and catapulting conditions for this type of aircraft. To meet this requirement, the gears have been designed to absorb landing vertical energy at a speed of 6.5 meters per second. The Rafale Navy version nose gear not only incorporates the catapult bar and its operating mechanism, but also the unique "jump strut technology" in the shock absorber to give the aircraft an angle of attack during catapulting. One advantage of this gear is its ground maneuverability, due to the wheel which can be oriented at 360°, with steering control to +/- 75°.”
The performance criteria for military and civil aircraft can be divided into-Demonstrated, Certified, Gross & Net Performance. The certified performance is always lower than the demonstrated performance. The Gross performance is what every aircraft within the fleet must meet even after degradation in performance due to engine/systems performance. Net performance is what every pilot operating the type is capable of achieving on a bad day. The sink rate limit is based on the speed for the worst case scenario landing configuration for which the aircraft is certified for safe operations from deck like asymmetric payload configurations, slat/flap & engine failure.
Shown above is the approach speed graph for F-18E/F which shows that the worst case scenario for F-18E/F is the failure of Trailing Edge flaps. The aircraft carrier in such emergency recovery situations is required to generate maximum WOD to reduce hook engagement speeds. It clearly shows that failure of trailing edge flaps causes the landing speed to shoot up and therefore its gear certification must meet the criteria of 50% safety margin over and above the hook engagement TAS sink rate for trailing edge flap failure approach and landing speed. F-18SH has another big problem. This aircraft emerged out of light weight fighter completion and was basically a land based fighter which was adopted for deck operations due to its twin engine configuration. The long nose of F-18 makes it impossible for F-18 to utilise the full ability of LERX due to FOV-Field of View limitations. This forces F-18 to fly its approach at 8.1alpha which degrades its lift resulting in high approach speeds even after having just 20*sweptback wings. LSA-IN approach speeds are based on more conservative 30% increase in stall speed in approach configuration in power-off conditions. I once again reiterate that what I had posted in my earlier e-mail was absolutely correct. LSA-IN will have an approach alpha of 14* with slat & flap failure without compromising on its FOV which will generate very high lift due to large LERX. LSA-IN will need a sink rate certification limit of 6.1m/s with 25kts WOD. The sink rate limits have been calculated for full weapon load of Air Defence role with eight A2A missiles and 500kgs of fuel on-board. All external pylon loads are supposed to be jettisioned in such extreme condition of slats & flaps failure with 50% safety margin for sink rate.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Bali78, Sathya, randomradio and 2 others
I did this study as a very stupid guy in IN told me that they need to have the aircraft gear certified for 7.2m/s sink rate as told to them by USN. I had a very detailed hot discussion right there in the office of ACNS (Air) and told him that he was grossly wrong. That was the time when IN was about to release its RFP for deck based fighters and they had incorporated this demand of 7.2m/s sink rate in that. It was after my email and the details posted above, that IN changed the criteria and did not ask for 7.2m/s sink rate. LCA-N gear is over designed for this very reason. Americans fooled us resulting in a poor design and consequentially a poor performance of LCA-N.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Sathya, randomradio and _Anonymous_
vstol Jockey said:
I did this study as a very stupid guy in IN told me that they need to have the aircraft gear certified for 7.2m/s sink rate as told to them by USN. I had a very detailed hot discussion right there in the office of ACNS (Air) and told him that he was grossly wrong. That was the time when IN was about to release its RFP for deck based fighters and they had incorporated this demand of 7.2m/s sink rate in that. It was after my email and the details posted above, that IN changed the criteria and did not ask for 7.2m/s sink rate. LCA-N gear is over designed for this very reason. Americans fooled us resulting in a poor design and consequentially a poor performance of LCA-N.
Click to expand...
I hope it's not the case wherein all your ideas for LSA got incorporated into the NLCA. If yes, what's the novelty of your plane then?
 
_Anonymous_ said:
I hope it's not the case wherein all your ideas for LSA got incorporated into the NLCA. If yes, what's the novelty of your plane then?
Click to expand...
Its no more LSA but much evolved version of that based on the problems of LCA-N. One major difference is engine and new wing design.
One of the major things which I told DRDO and also IN was that the LCA configuration is not fit for a deck based fighter and that without an additional control surface, it wont make it. I told this to DRDO in July 2015. We now all know about LEVCONS and also a design of LCA with tailplane. The NLCA was an add on to fleece funds from IN when IAF had stopped support for it in 2009.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: _Anonymous_
vstol Jockey said:
Its no more LSA but much evolved version of that based on the problems of LCA-N. One major difference is engine and new wing design.
One of the major things which I told DRDO and also IN was that the LCA configuration is not fit for a deck based fighter and that without an additional control surface, it wont make it. I told this to DRDO in July 2015. We now all know about LEVCONS and also a design of LCA with tailplane. The NLCA was an add on to fleece funds from IN when IAF had stopped support for it in 2009.
Click to expand...
So what's the status of the LSA or rather the MSA now? Do you see the MoD backing you? And if not, what're your options?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom