Posted on 03/12/2012 7:07:28 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Navy light combat aircraft refused certification
SUMAN SHARMA NEW DELHI | 11th Mar
The Naval version of India's first indigenous fighter — the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA-Navy) — has not been able to obtain the certification needed to make its debut flight because of structural issues. The Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification (CEMILAC) refused the certification saying the structure of the aircraft needed rectifications. The debut flight was initially slated to take place by the end of 2010, but was delayed. The US Navy and the European consortium, EADS, are being consulted to rectify the problems.
The two most important features that require rectifications are the landing gear and special controls. The weight of the landing gear needs to be reduced. The movement of the Levcon (leading edge vortex control) too has to be reduced. A Levcon is a small wing ahead of the main wing of the aircraft, at the edge, and is required to have a controlled movement. These features distinguish the naval version from the Indian Air Force's LCA. The LCA-Navy is heavier than the IAF version as it has a landing gear that makes its under-carriage weightier than its IAF counterpart. The Levcon is also missing in the IAF version.
Being built by the Bangalore-based Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) under the guidance of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the LCA-Navy has the primary role of air defence and anti-shipping strike and interception. Fuel dump, an additional feature that the LCA-Navy will have, will help the aircraft land safely by reducing its weight. The first LCA-Navy was rolled out in July 2010 and was supposed to take off by the end of 2010. It may be noted that the carrier-borne fighter's first prototype had its Engine Ground Run (EGR) only on 26 September 2011.
Defence Minister A.K. Antony stated in Parliament last year, "Deficiencies have been detected in the airframe and other associated equipment of the LCA Navy. Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is working out modalities with
various organisations for rectifying these deficiencies by suitable modifications to the engine/airframe design."
All naval LCAs will be tested at the Goa-based shore-based test facility (SBTF), which will have a simulated arresting gear and landing aids as in an aircraft carrier, as the aircraft will form a part of the fleet onboard the indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC). The Navy has ordered 46 of these aircraft for the IAC, which is expected to be ready for sea-trials towards the end of 2013. The 40,000 tonne warship is being built by Cochin Shipyard Ltd.
The LCA (Navy) project team comprises members of the Indian Navy, IAF, HAL, DRDO, CEMILAC, DGAQA, CSIR laboratories, educational institutions and other public and private sector partners. The programme is being headed by a retired naval officer, Commodore Balaji, who has been under tremendous pressure to show results.
The IAF LCA Tejas has been delayed already. Its final operational clearance (FOC), which was slated for 2013 will now come in 2014. With the first flight of the naval version too getting delayed, the entire programme has come under criticism.
Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Nirmal Verma was quoted saying in Port Blair in February this year that the parent agency, ADA, concentrated mainly on the IAF version of the aircraft, more than the naval version, which caused the delay. The Navy chief largely blamed the ADA for not delivering.
Former IAF chief S. Krishnaswamy has said that the naval aircraft will probably need a new engine apart from a lot of testing and modifications. He has said that with the primary IAF version too hitting technological roadblocks, it's bad news for the LCA programme all-round.
Whoops - looks like someone, somewhere, neglected to cross the proper palm with sufficient baksheesh.
ping
Very well stated. The structural abuse a carrier plane faced on a day-to-day basis is truly remarkable.
Fat chance of one government agency (which designed the fighter) bribing another to certify it.
The problems are multiplied when you start with a design which was aimed at being light/small/cheap; the scope for modification would inevitably be messy.
The French approach of simultaneously developing both air force and naval versions of the Rafale (also seen with the F-35A and C) is not too shabby either.
The Chinese, being as smart as ever, adopted the idea you described in the last line!! Their J-15 is a modernized Ukrainian SU-33.
I dont know why LCA had to go with the GE F404 in the first place when its found to be under powered. Not not buy the GE F414 from the start and save all that trouble?
Click on pic for past Navair pings. Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist. The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation. This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
The ROCAF was to buy 250 of the IDF, but protracted development problems and the eventual sale of F-16s to the ROCAF, capped IDF numbers at 125. The IDF has been hampered since its beginning with underpowered engines. The two Garrett/Honeywell TFE731/F125 afterburning turbofans are not in the same league as the GE F404 (that the U.S. refused sale). In fact, the IDF was so underpowered that it could not takeoff (in full afterburner) with a full fuel and ordnance load.
Remember, the IDF is strictly a land based fighter and imagine the kinds of beefing up a similar type must have to become a carrier-qualified aircraft. Example: Though they looked physically the same, a navy/USMC F-4B/S and AF F-4C/D were not. If the AF F-4 tried to land on a carrier, the arresting hook would have stopped it, but the impact of touchdown would have driven the landing gear through the wings and fuselage. THAT is the difference between land and carrier based aircraft.
Excellent point. Oddly, the A-7 Corsair II is another carrier bird gone land based.
The F-404 can’t be really faulted since it was more an issue of weight creep during initial integration and testing. And given the (small) size of the LCA, you would need to rework the fuselage and air intakes to install the F-414. That would have led to a couple of years of additional delay. By inducting a small batch of LCAs powered by a modified variant of the F-404, you can at least finish integration, weapons testing and development of logistics.
Just a long overdue THANK YOU for all informative and interesting threads you’ve posted over the years..
When the F404 was first selected, it was only supposed to power the development aircraft, to be replaced by an indigenous engine then in development for all production aircraft.
The indigenous engine development didn't go so well, so it was decided to use the F414 on production aircraft.
The F414 is a larger engine than the F404 and will not fit in a bay designed for the F404.
The choice was to build the first tranche of Tejas' with the F404, or not field any Tejas while the airframe was redesigned.
The first tranche of Tejas will serve well as type-transition training aircraft as they get replaced with F414 powered aircraft.
Apparently you’re unfamiliar with the nature of life in India.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.