Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 01 Nov 2014 02:10

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2630 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 ... 66  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 02:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1934
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
chetak wrote:
As opposed to needing a "foreign partner" in the initial stages of developing the Kaveri?? Much time and treasure has been lost in the meantime. The more things change the less they change.


"Foreign Partner" in initial stages ??? Was even any entity ready to help India to come up with an aero engine ??? Wasn't an engine effort for Marut in partnership with Egypt scuttled by foreign powers ??? I am myself doubtful about this foreign partner thing at this stage but if DRDO believes that they can bring some amount of tech or knowledge that we currently lack then let them try this route as well. Our indigenous R&D related with aero engines isn't being put on a back burner it will continue in parallel but with the proposed partnership they are trying to cut down the time in developing Kaveri so as to achieve it's full potential and then further leverage the knowledge gained in the process.

bmallick wrote:
Couple of questions come to my mind:

a. As is said, we would go for a foreign collaboration for injecting tech into the Kaveri Engine programme. Since, there are a handful of companies in the world which make jet engines for fighter aircrafts, why the heck would they help us learn the tech from them and become a competitor to them 10 years down the lane. As long as India does not learn to make an engine, it would continue to buy engine from them and keep their cash register counting. So why would the present engine manufacturers do harakiri.


As long as India wasn't able to make an engine foreign aerospace companies were pretty comfortable in there sweet little world but since SDRE nation has now developed the capability to make an engine there sweet comfy world has started to rattle. Now they know very well that it is only a matter of time before we complete the last leg and come on par with them they would be now falling over each other to resort to other methods of making peace with the new entrant like by forming a JV so that they are also assured a piece of pie which will keep there bread and butter safe. The Kaveri programme has provided us with a leverage to deal with the foreign aerospace giants on our own terms. The article by Shukla say's that DRDO has calculated our jet engine requirements in the range of 1,60,000 Cr. If foreign aerospace companies refuse to provide us with the tech now, they will surely loose a lot more than they are set to gain by forming a partnership with us. This doesn't take an Einstein to figure out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 02:31 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 1010
Why does the first Indian engine need to be at par with the state-of-practice? India needs to learn to walk (in engine tech terms) before running. Therefore if an engine is developed with lower mtbo but with acceptable dry and wet thrusts that would be an acceptable solution. The Kaveri needs to be looked at from that perspective. SC tech will come in time till then what can be done to learning from "use" of the kaveri?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 02:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11040
Location: Illini Nation
Quote:
If foreign aerospace companies refuse to provide us with the tech now, they will surely loose a lot more than they are set to gain by forming a partnership with us. This doesn't take an Einstein to figure out.


It is one thing for India to produce an engine and another for India to make an engine for current on-going Indian military needs and totally different for India to catch up with them.

The first may be doable.

The second is nearly impossible in the next 10 years or so.

And, they must be betting India will never catch up with them - like ever.



On a different note, we must all realize that achieving the state-of-the-art requires a great deal of risks. India is risk averse by nature and likely to take very very low risks, which is why I feel India will not catch up - ever - in all areas.


Last edited by NRao on 06 Jan 2013 02:46, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 02:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25867
Location: NowHere
^these business are well said than done.. especially when the project was not chartered correct and ill-funded, then the correction needs to happen. Kaveri is now in a state to be fitted with prototype LCA vehicles. That must happen for the learning to mature, and make the company that does jet engines.

Get the business going for trainer jet engines, while work on the advanced versions. Lot of R&D is required... which can be done, but current GTRE is either not doing it correct or not funded or not doing their job.

India needs to be at par with GE 414 because IAF wants it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 02:53 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11040
Location: Illini Nation
R&D is pure risk. The likes of GE bet on products that are very, very, very high risk. And they do not back down when they encounter failures, in fact that is when they double their efforts.

India typically produces that kind of an effort - only - when India faces a Kargil type of a situation.

Not other wise.

The Indian space program seems to be an exception.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 02:54 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1934
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
NRao wrote:
The second is nearly impossible in the next 10 years or so.

And, they must be betting India will never catch up with them - like ever.


Yeah they also bet that India will not become a nuclear armed nation, that unkil can threaten us with there carriers/ nookes and India would stay silent, that they can bog down India with sanctions and India would meekly follow etc. etc. and by going against all these bets India came up with a big _|_ to answer all of them. So yes I sincerely pray that they keep betting against us :twisted:

NRao wrote:
On a different note, we must all realize that achieving the state-of-the-art requires a great deal of risks. India is risk averse by nature and likely to take very very low risks, which is why I feel India will not catch up - ever - in all areas.


LCA, Arjun, IGDMP they all go against your feeling and that's why I beg to disagree with you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 03:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11040
Location: Illini Nation
Sagar G wrote:
NRao wrote:
The second is nearly impossible in the next 10 years or so.

And, they must be betting India will never catch up with them - like ever.


Yeah they also bet that India will not become a nuclear armed nation, that unkil can threaten us with there carriers/ nookes and India would stay silent, that they can bog down India with sanctions and India would meekly follow etc. etc. and by going against all these bets India came up with a big _|_ to answer all of them. So yes I sincerely pray that they keep betting against us :twisted:


You JUST proved my Kargil point.

True, in addition to the Space program the nuclear one also deserves merit.

Quote:
NRao wrote:
On a different note, we must all realize that achieving the state-of-the-art requires a great deal of risks. India is risk averse by nature and likely to take very very low risks, which is why I feel India will not catch up - ever - in all areas.


LCA, Arjun, IGDMP they all go against your feeling and that's why I beg to disagree with you.


(I am glad you do disagree. Should provide for a good discussion.)

Again, true. However, for one, it has been stated what might happen if one LCA were to crash - most have felt that the program would end.

For another, again true, these products are a matter of great pride as they should be. But, I would not put them in the same class as the space program nor the nuclear effort you mentioned.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 03:18 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1934
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
NRao wrote:
You JUST proved my Kargil point.

True, in addition to the Space program the nuclear one also deserves merit.


Kargil was a huge learning experience our strategic community, scientists, defence forces have learned very well that when it comes to our interests we can't trust anyone but us only.

NRao wrote:

(I am glad you do disagree. Should provide for a good discussion.)

Again, true. However, for one, it has been stated what might happen if one LCA were to crash - most have felt that the program would end.

For another, again true, these products are a matter of great pride as they should be. But, I would not put them in the same class as the space program nor the nuclear effort you mentioned.


For me they are even greater feats than our space and nuke efforts both of which had super maibaaps in the form of Bhabha and Sarabhai. Who was there to look out for LCA or Arjun ??? Even then both have turned out to be a success. I am not demeaning our efforts in space and nuke arena but they have always been an apple of the eye of our political class (Thank God) but such has not been the case with LCA or Arjun.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 03:27 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11040
Location: Illini Nation
Quote:
Kargil was a huge learning experience our strategic community, scientists, defence forces have learned very well that when it comes to our interests we can't trust anyone but us only.


I am not sure that experience has reached the engine. But sure hope that you are right and I am wrong.

Quote:
both of which had super maibaaps


So very true.

Now if every strategic product could have a maibappa, India could achieve a lot in a short time.

Those lobbies are also a problem - a -ve maibappa.

Anyways, I think I am done on this topic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 03:36 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1934
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
NRao wrote:
I am not sure that experience has reached the engine. But sure hope that you are right and I am wrong


That is a work under progress.....

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/index.jsp?pg=moredetails_thrustareas.jsp#gasturbine

Some more info.... GAS TURBINE ENABLING TECHNOLOGY (GATET) INITIATIVE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 07:58 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31
Posts: 1167
Discussion that may be of interest:
Could Other Players Enter The Engine Market?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 08:34 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11040
Location: Illini Nation
Perfect storm.

Technically too many items to invent and then they all need to come to maturity at the very same time.

India has funds, but not much time.

Quote:
Pratt spent decades and tons of money to get the GTF ready for launch.


DecadeS.

tonS of money.

An engine it seems is unlike any other item out there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 09:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25867
Location: NowHere
There is no product without risk. Risk is what the challenge is after all, and the main denominator for all innovation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 10:19 
Online
BRFite

Joined: 15 Sep 2011 07:22
Posts: 479
NRao wrote:
A wet dream if anyone is expecting any aerospace company to part with core technologies. Cannot happen.

India needs to light that fire and make it into a huge bonfire. Only India can do it, no one else can. It will mean plenty of funds for sure.

Single crystal, N-axis milling machines, alloys.



How are we manufacturing AL-31FP at HAL Koraput ? Isn't that supposed to be directly from raw materials ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 12:09 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33395
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
how big a player is japan in the civilian side of the global aerospace industry? do they export high value finished products (other than honda business jet), engines, flight control systems , avionics. they always buy boeing...are they content to just let mitsubishi make wing panels and structures under offset deals for boeing planes?

I think we can agree they are no particular hidden sanctions in access to tech and are far ahead of us in basic science and engineering across the spectrum.

have they seriously tried to make civilian and fighter engines?

they make world class ships, cars , machinery, locomotives....what is preventing them from atleast matching the deeds of embraer , dassault and bombardier ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 13:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 6347
srin wrote:
NRao wrote:
A wet dream if anyone is expecting any aerospace company to part with core technologies. Cannot happen.

India needs to light that fire and make it into a huge bonfire. Only India can do it, no one else can. It will mean plenty of funds for sure.

Single crystal, N-axis milling machines, alloys.



How are we manufacturing AL-31FP at HAL Koraput ? Isn't that supposed to be directly from raw materials ?


AFAIK, single crystal is already being done at koraput.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 13:53 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06
Posts: 254
Vivek K wrote:
Why does the first Indian engine need to be at par with the state-of-practice? India needs to learn to walk (in engine tech terms) before running. Therefore if an engine is developed with lower mtbo but with acceptable dry and wet thrusts that would be an acceptable solution. The Kaveri needs to be looked at from that perspective. SC tech will come in time till then what can be done to learning from "use" of the kaveri?


Vivek K, that's why the IUSAV is being developed with far greater urgency than the AMCA. It's very simple. India has an engine it can use for IUSAV; furthermore, unmanned vehicles play to Indian strengths (software, composites, etc.).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 14:49 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Posts: 311
Location: Bharatvarsha
chetak wrote:
AFAIK, single crystal is already being done at koraput.

Yes, even DRDO has developed the tech way back in 1999. See this. Probably, GTRE lacks the right superalloy for turbine blades.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 14:54 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33395
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
the much tom tommed deep TOT for MKI was supposed to teach us how to make single crystal blades in koraput.
however if GTRE / DMRL is not able to make the same for kaveri it means only two things
* that aspect of tech was never transferred, some machines and formula materials were sent with a instruction sheet how to operate, not the design principles
* maybe raw metal blanks of SC are sent, and koraput is sent the machines to mill them into blades only
* some tech was transferred but its not enough to make SC blades for another engine like kaveri.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 17:24 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Posts: 311
Location: Bharatvarsha
Singha sir,
In another forum (keypublishing forum) there is a post of one Mr.Harry which includes an image of SC blade casting. Not sure if I'm allowed to post the link of that thread here.
This tech was given to HAL koraput for manufacturing turbine blades for AL31FP.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 19:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11040
Location: Illini Nation
Much water has flowed under the bridge and we are where we were when it all started?

Livefist :: August 2010 :: Kaveri's Compressor Blades + The Indian Single Crystal Effort

1) That presentation (to be clear, from : India's Defence Metallurgical Research Lab (DMRL) in Hyderabad) is from 2010 (there could be newer versions out there)
2) It does not claim that the Kaveri has SCB, it very well could have if that were a fact
3) It states, like a few posters here have, that India does have access to SC technology

Now, why this technology has not reached the Kaveri is beyond me. It has been talked about umpteen times on BR but without any conclusion. All I am saying is that MY FEEL is that all the latest technologies have not reached the Kaveri - why I do not know.

But, here is an interesting diagram, we now have a basic idea of temp/pressure/alloys in a Kaveri (it may have changed):

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 19:27 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4534
Location: Duke Nukem
prashanth wrote:
Singha sir,
In another forum (keypublishing forum) there is a post of one Mr.Harry which includes an image of SC blade casting. Not sure if I'm allowed to post the link of that thread here.
This tech was given to HAL koraput for manufacturing turbine blades for AL31FP.


Do post that link. But B.Harry died a while ago. Even if HAL Koraput has been given that, it probably came with such kind of restrictions and clauses that it cannot be used for other programs and has end use restrictions rendering it essentially useless beyond the SU-30 program.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 19:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11040
Location: Illini Nation
One more thing. The Kaveri did get some assistance from Central Institute of Aviation Motors (CIAM) of Russia.

Indian brains, some Russian help - not outright (I wonder why not. if they could help with nuclear efforts, why not engines), Ge and few others declining to help, Snecma willing but reluctant.

So, it seems to me that they have reached some sort of technical limit on the Kaveri. The limitation I suspect means redesign, which means not-for-LCA redesign.

I feel that the Kaveri-LCA has to be trashed - it will not work. Kaveri has to be redesigned - I suspect it will be larger than this engine and then they will have to fit a AMCA around the larger engine.

IF they want to retain this size, then it will take eons - time + funds.

Again, it is speculation on my part, but speculation based on data points I have read. But, then I could be totally wrong too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 19:34 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4534
Location: Duke Nukem
Quote:
But, here is an interesting diagram, we now have a basic idea of temp/pressure/alloys in a Kaveri (it may have changed):


Well, that diagram looks like what that would ultimately LIKE to achieve and not what it is at present. With a overall pressure ratio of 30 and turbine entry temp of the order of 2200 C , you are looking at only single crystal blades and absolutely cutting edge cooling schemes and thermal barrier coatings in the high pressure turbine.

And yeah. That engine will be at par with the EJ200 + and GE414 and M-88-3/4in terms of technology levels. I dont think we are there now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 19:40 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11040
Location: Illini Nation
vina wrote:
Quote:
But, here is an interesting diagram, we now have a basic idea of temp/pressure/alloys in a Kaveri (it may have changed):


Well, that diagram looks like what that would ultimately LIKE to achieve and not what it is at present. With a overall pressure ratio of 30 and turbine entry temp of the order of 2200 C , you are looking at only single crystal blades and absolutely cutting edge cooling schemes and thermal barrier coatings in the high pressure turbine.

And yeah. That engine will be at par with the EJ200 + and GE414 and M-88-3/4in terms of technology levels. I dont think we are there now.


We seem to have something to start with.

I think you are the best at guestimating what could possible be off from that diagram. Work backwards. Take a swipe.



Q: If they were to rework the dimensions of this engine, retaining pretty much the rest of it (alloys, etc), will it produce the wet thrust they are looking for? Or can it produce it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 20:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4534
Location: Duke Nukem
suryag wrote:
I think the "directionally solidified" stuff came from DMRL based on the techfocus article below

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfocus/2 ... il2011.pdf

Thanks. Hmmm. Some pretty solid and good work by DMRL. They have got the manufacturing and fabrication of directionally solidified blades in place and in addition to the Kaveri, seem to have got that into the Jaguar's Adour MK811 as well! Now, that is really going to squeeze the testimonials of RR out of one of the most lucrative annuity revenue streams. Ouch!

From all indications I see, we are not there yet in terms of indigenous single crystal in terms of manufacturing and fabrication. We are probably close to the top of the hump and will take some time to go over it. The directionally solidified blade the DMRL claims is equivalent (CM -XXX) to is the latest alloy from the specialist I quoted.

But think of it. Once that single crystal blade of a current generation is in place, we can give the Russians the birdie for the Mig 29 and SU 30 engines and the French for the M2K and Rafale engines and also the GE 404 engines as well probably, like we seem to be doing for the Jaguar's Adour and what the Jugaad after market guys were doing for the Industrial Avon! No wonder RR, the Russians and GE and the others are not going to give it to us on free terms, that will see a very lucrative revenue stream dry up forever! This thing is literally a gold mine.

Into the breach men! Let us get this over the hump and be done with it.

Quote:
how were the jet engines of the 70s and 80s achieve such high thrust without single crystal blades? Were they inefficient or were they huge?

Inefficient AND huge. What took a far larger number of stages and more fuel burn and a bigger engine is now done by a much smaller number of stages, with dramatically less fuel burn and a smaller engine. Sort of like what happened in automobiles. Today's power / cubic centimeter displacement (bhp/cc) is vastly higher than say 3 decades ago. What needed a V8 some 30 years ago is now done by a 4 cylinder of much smaller displacement and obviously using far less fuel and a smaller engine to boot.

Quote:
Q: If they were to rework the dimensions of this engine, retaining pretty much the rest of it (alloys, etc), will it produce the wet thrust they are looking for? Or can it produce it?

What is the point in putting in a V8 engine of 4.8L displacement from 1975 producing some 160 hp in a Honda Accord in 2012, when a 4 cylinder 2.4 liter engine in a current Accord produces close to 200 hp and is around a third of the weight and gives some 15 miles per gallon more and not to mention runs for 300,000 miles without any problems while a V8 circa 1975 will go Kaput in less than 80K miles?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 21:01 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00
Posts: 2415
Kaveri today cannot match the specification of M53 (Mirag 2000's) engine which was considered dated for the era 1967-70 when it was designed. We are just 40 years behind


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 21:05 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Aug 2009 08:01
Posts: 735
Location: Where you get 10 wives 20 daughters and 72 Virgins
We had this same discussion a couple of moons back. It seems they have SCB technology to produce blades of a smaller size, similar to the Laghu Shakti Engine. That too is not yet certified for mass production. The TF engine on Nirbhay will be very interesting once they test it. They still have lot of milestones to pass to create SCBs of the size required by Kaveri. This is what I remember was the conclusion of the discussion. Merlin can clarify ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 22:53 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1934
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
vic wrote:
Kaveri today cannot match the specification of M53 (Mirag 2000's) engine which was considered dated for the era 1967-70 when it was designed. We are just 40 years behind


So ???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 23:53 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11040
Location: Illini Nation
Quote:
What is the point in putting in a V8 engine of 4.8L displacement from 1975 producing some 160 hp in a Honda Accord in 2012, when a 4 cylinder 2.4 liter engine in a current Accord produces close to 200 hp and is around a third of the weight and gives some 15 miles per gallon more and not to mention runs for 300,000 miles without any problems while a V8 circa 1975 will go Kaput in less than 80K miles?


(((Errr...... the point is this 4 cylinder is of no use AT ALL - outside of consideration for a UAV right now.

The 4 cylinder from Honda at least lasts 80K miles.)))

But, I take it a redesigned engine will produce the desired thrustS, albeit inefficiently.

IF true then it all boils down to materials I would like to think. And, IF that is true, then they have a very long way to go IF they want to retain the current dimensions.


We heard a lot from Western sources about Indian inability to absorb newer technologies. This may be an example of that situation - wherein Russia has provided enough to kick start the effort on SCB, but India is unable for what reason to push it over the hump.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 00:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1934
Location: Aapke paas paisa hain but mere pass class hain
NRao wrote:
We heard a lot from Western sources about Indian inability to absorb newer technologies. This may be an example of that situation - wherein Russia has provided enough to kick start the effort on SCB, but India is unable for what reason to push it over the hump.


That's pure BS from goras, it's an excuse for refusing to share technology and by subscribing to such views you are only falling into there trap. It's just a small part of the larger plan to keep the brown man downtrodden. About alleged Russian transfer of SCB tech to India I haven't seen any authentic info about this in open source and neither any insider info about it to gauge how much tech we have been provided and what pound of flesh did Russia extract for that so unless and until we don't get the details of this alleged tech transfer it would be only wise to not form any kind of assumptions about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 00:22 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25867
Location: NowHere
aah ha!
http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... er/497740/

“We are abandoning the plan for co-development with Snecma."

GOOD.

But, why go global? I think I have successfully persuaded to get off from snecma, if the above is true. Who says public spells don't work!? :twisted:
Quote:
Major aero-engine development facilities are being set up in Chitradurga, where a 5,600-acre hub of strategic industry will house R&D, testing and production units of the DRDO, Department of Space (DoS) and Department of Atomic Energy (DAE).

These will include an official altitude test facility for aero engines, which US defence major Boeing is providing as an offset in India’s Rs 22,800 crore ($4.12 billion) purchase of ten C-17 Globemaster III transport aircraft. So far, GTRE has had to do all its testing in Russia.


I hope the global participation is only for drawing board [chinese model]. MoD expecting some firang companies to trade off technology is high hopes. Man.. what are they thinking?

I think we need to keep harping on GTRE reorganization and role up their sleeves and start working on their backyard more than expecting a spoon feed. 15-20 more years to deliver goods if done indigenous, then it is time for GTRE men to split up, and work given to other orgs who can do it in 5 years.


Last edited by SaiK on 07 Jan 2013 00:27, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 02:00 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11040
Location: Illini Nation
SaiK wrote:


Aah ha indeed. May explain why the MMRCA deal is being so slow too. And what would happen to the M2K upgrades I wonder.

Quote:
“To develop a more powerful Kaveri engine quickly and to become self-reliant in engine design, we need a foreign partner which can bring in core technologies. Otherwise the next cycle of engine development could take another 15-20 years,” admits Ramnarayan, frankly.

Quote:
The DRDO is struggling to develop the nickel and cobalt superalloys for the Kaveri turbine, where temperatures of 1,600 degrees centigrade warp normal metals.

Shaping the alloys into engine parts is an equal challenge. GTRE has learned how to make “directionally solidified” turbine blades; but it has not mastered the making of “single-crystal blades”, which are now standard.


Need help with a few alloys AND SCB at the very least.

Older article:

Feb, 2012 :: Kaveri turbofan programme seeks extension

Quote:
Negotiations [with SNECMA] on technology sharing and intellectual property have taken the better part of the two years

Quote:
The joint effort, in effect, calls an end to the Kaveri K9 programme as it stands.

Quote:
DRDO sources confirm that Snecma will transfer several key technologies as part of the joint engine programme, which include single crystal blades, bladed disk and EBPVD (electron beam plasma vapour deposit coating), all critical areas that the Kaveri engine has failed to find solutions to within the country, though not for lack of trying. Programme managers believe single crystal blade technology will be a major solution to one of the Kaveri's biggest problems — deformation of blades during testing as a result of high ambient temperatures. This has proved to be a severe limiting factor, considering that structurally solidified blades have structural integrity that comes nowhere close to single crystal structures. According to sources, it is negotiations over the modalities for single crystal blade technology that has taken so long,

Quote:
Almost the entire work force that has been dedicated so far to the Kaveri will be diverted to the K10 effort with Snecma. Scientists foresee challenges in absorbing the technology, but are confident that they will achieve goals once the contract is signed and the effort flagged off. A senior GTRE scientist says, "We have the will and the base technologies. We understand fully well what our shortcomings are, and are eager to deliver a full performance engine to the customer. Gone is the time when we can stay in the lab indefinitely saying we will come up with certain technologies by ourselves. The French will help us cut down on development time. And we will both deliver an engine that will power Indian aircraft. Everybody wins."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 02:17 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25867
Location: NowHere
I do not believe in GTRE senior scientists assertion. I think they are doing a CYA. I understand the technology here is complex and extremely safety critical, but it must not be over emphasized to side track the objectives laid for GTRE. I a sense, it is a CYA to their failures to deliver to specs.

Their funding needs to be bumped, management team reorganized, and fresh ideas and engineers on merit take up prestigious jobs, and paid well. Instead of paying the firang companies, pay the hard core workers.

It can be done in 5 years, if done correct.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 04:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11040
Location: Illini Nation
Casual reading on "nickel and cobalt superalloys" lead to noticing there are some 4-5 alloys of these metals alone in relation to an air craft engine!!!! Then comes casting these alloys.

It should take 1-2 years to select a partner. Another couple to transfer techs and start work. And, another two to build the first true Kaveri for the AMCA. Six years out. Till then the design work on the AMCA would be frozen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 07:11 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33395
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
AMCA design work need not be frozen because both for 90knx2 and 125knx2 there are solid alternatives from foreign vendors and for sale. but yes the engine bay design should be done carefully so that adaptor structures can be used to accomodate atleast 2 choices for the chosen size of the AMCA...a little subpar having to fit the bigger choice but can be tuned down later. Cheen is using AL31 in J-20 when its obvious the engine bay can accomodate a bigger engine of the foxhound mould.

we better get the AMCA project going seriously of we are ever to master the VLO thing, internal bays, aesa radar, DASS etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 09:00 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25867
Location: NowHere
from kat thread:

Vipul wrote:
MMRCA deal: Negotiations between defence ministry, Dassault run into fresh hurdle.
The French, it appears, are unwilling to transfer cutting edge technology such as that of the electronically scanned AESA radar while citing lack of maturity of the Indian defence industry to absorb such critical technologies as an excuse.

There is a strong lobby of small and medium French enterprises which is against industrial offsets and sees it as a threat to the competiveness of the French defence industry. Early last year, Patrick Colas des Francs, chief executive of Coges, the trade show organizer for the Eurosatory land systems exhibition reportedly said, “Offsets are a threat to small and medium-sized companies. This is a real problem.” "Offset deals not only take production work away from French subcontractors and suppliers, but also provide accelerated access to knowledge and skills that allows companies in the client country to compete in world markets," he said.
.


Katare wrote:
Assumption here is that throwing more money will solve the problem or bring the solution substantially faster. It's wrong! Often repeated mistake, money is but one of the many resources needed for success. Experience, design data, supplier base, infra and baseline needs time and good management more than they need money. DRDO has never been short of money, it has almost never been denied additional time and money by GOI. Anyhow the DRDO budgets and western budgets are not comparable because they follow completely different accounting. If DRDO budgets were to be calculated using proper GAAP methods they’ll be several times more than what they are on the paper. .....xyz



well said, and well shown by France et al.. this lesson must be learned by DRDO (especially GTRE) and GoI. One can't just pay money and get IPR-ed products with technology transfer. It would be every other person in the country of seller of technology's dead body sometimes.. These rights are basis for capitalism. It is a joke that GoI and GTRE charter on seeking technology. shame in many sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 09:45 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4534
Location: Duke Nukem
Singha wrote:
AMCA design work need not be frozen because both for 90knx2 and 125knx2 there are solid alternatives from foreign vendors and for sale. but yes the engine bay design should be done carefully so that adaptor structures .


They should choose one of the two sizes upfront. Cant do both. The 90KN is a Eurofighter/Rafale sized bird while the 125KN+ is an F-15/Su-30 sized bird.

What they should do is to design the plane around NATO standards so that they can access the largest , most competitive and most sophisticated supplier and buyer ecosystem around. All the buses, electronics, interfaces , armaments etc should be fully compliant with whatever relevant IEEE and NATO standards, so that no one gets a lock on our choices and crimps our flexibility.

Even the PAK-FA indian version should be fully NATO compliant and weapon interfaces and buses and maitenance and servicing stuff should be fully as per global stds. Going the Russian way will be a repeat of the Mig21 to Mig 29 story repeated again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 10:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31
Posts: 274
vina wrote:
Quote:
But, here is an interesting diagram, we now have a basic idea of temp/pressure/alloys in a Kaveri (it may have changed):


Well, that diagram looks like what that would ultimately LIKE to achieve and not what it is at present. With a overall pressure ratio of 30 and turbine entry temp of the order of 2200 C , you are looking at only single crystal blades and absolutely cutting edge cooling schemes and thermal barrier coatings in the high pressure turbine.

And yeah. That engine will be at par with the EJ200 + and GE414 and M-88-3/4in terms of technology levels. I dont think we are there now.

Vinaji, this has been discussed a few times before, that diagram is a bit misleading (maybe pre-meditated as well) - 2200dec C temp is what is attained in the combustor and not the Turbine Inlet/Entry Temp - no turbine blade exists (yet) which can handle that high temperature (except maybe the ceramic ones, but then there are no military turbine engines, that I know of, uses ceramic blades).

Also as moi, Geethji and Katareji had pointed out earlier here - from moi (and here - from Geethji and here - from Katareji), to prevent melting of the turbine blades, the tertiary/dilution zone of a combuster allows the "cold" air (approx 2/3 of the volume of compressor-generated "cold air")bypassed from the combustor primary zone (PZ) and the secondary/intermediate zone, to mix and bring down the temp of the combusted gas to an acceptable/tolerable level of the turbine blades - before it hits the turbine.

The highest TET that I've heard of are for F119, which is IIRC, around 1823K (or 1550deg centigrade) or thereabouts (maybe 1600deg C, as a higher ballpark). To handle even higher temp (approx around 1900deg C or a little more) you would need Ceramic Matrix Composite (CMC) technology, which is basically at a R&D stage worldwide (again IIRC).

By contrast, the TET for kaveri is around 1426deg C.

And I think it's worth mentioning in this context that, world-wide engine development (well more precisely, the engine metallurgy devleopment) history tells us every 100-150deg C increase in TET (beyond 1300deg C) has taken approx a decade of solid R&D by the advanced nations.
Pls refer to Pg 5 (Fig. 1.5) of the ebook The Superalloys - Fundamentals and Applications, Roger C Reed for a better understanding of the evolutionary path of the TET vs turbine metallurgy.
The path is DS -> Monocrystalline (SCB) 1st Gen -> Monocrystalline (SCB) 2nd Gen (usage of Rhenium) with internal blade cooling and TBC (1st gen) -> SCB with internal blade cooling and TBC (2nd Gen).

Long way for us to go before we start talking about 1600 deg C TET. :(

Also pls note 2200deg centigrade is very close to the stoichiometric temperature of "perfect" air-fuel mixture - very hard to attain in the real-world scenarios (but that's besides the point though).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 10:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25867
Location: NowHere
GE 414-EPE at 120 kN wet is all crap then? It is about the size and weight of Kaveri.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2630 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 ... 66  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bijeet, Google Feedfetcher, Majestic-12 [Bot], srin, ugandhar, Yahoo [Bot] and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group