NRao wrote:maitya wrote:
Before I retire for today, a rhetorical question - if by dginn magic or whatever Kaveri attains 84KN wet thrust levels today, will it be advisable to insist on Mk1's be produced with it? How long will it take to fully qualify the engine on the TDs, and do we have the luxury of waiting that long?
If answer to the above is NO, then wouldn't the same logic apply to AMCA a decade plus later.
Sir,
Not sure what the question is about, but ...................
India, IMHO, first and foremost needs to decide where she wants to be: High table or some lower table. I am going to assume the High Table. IF that is right, then she needs to "build": The AMCA, an engine and an engine on a plane - all three distinct threads - all at the very same time. I think it is a political issue and not so much a technical one - we ALL (arm chair variety like me) know where the chips are, that there are huge risks, etc. A parallel process will *never* meet that goal - cannot. Funds will come. And, India has, perhaps, the most brain power (outside of China - may be). THE *only* question: Is there a will? Rest ALL will fall into place, that I am sure of.
Heck check out that article about a GE employee (an NRI in fact) that took 20+ years to find a solution. You want to be at the High Table, that is what you need. And, for every "success" there will be about 9 "failures".
C'est la vie.
I would vote a "Yes" (not sure what I am voting for
), but a High Table is my goal. Why aim for less?
NRaoji, call it cliché etc, but there’s an old school saying “
those you don’t learn from their mistakes, are doomed to repeat them, again and again”.
The point that I’s trying to make out with that rhetorical question is, the following scenario:
Imagine this is 1990, and LCA program mgmt. architecture is being finalised – and there are key technology that has been identified to be developed to meet the ASR – Unstable (actually relaxed stability) design, FBW control, CFRP structure, MMR and a turbofan engine.
Wrt the turbofan engine development piece, in the decade before that (so in the 1980s), a world-wide search (called Feasibility studies) were carried out and it was revealed that
there was NO suitable engine available anywhere in the world - though Rolls Royce RB-1989 stage D and GE F404-F2J engines, by and large, met the requirement, provided certain concessions were granted in the Air Staff Requirements* (ASR).
And
Kaveri was to better (by 1998) all these contemporary in-use turbofans form these behemoths – such was the chutzpah of the R&D team then (hats off, as they almost succeeded
).
---------------------------
(*Note - There’s another indication of the unobtanium-ness nature of the brochure-copy-pasting-based-ASR – note no contemporary engine in production world-wide, were found then would have met the ASR specified performance characteristics, a fact known right at the beginning of the program itself … but those are for separate discussion.
I’m deliberately not putting up the source of the above assertion, as I want to people who want to oppose it, atleast comes prepared after some through searching and reading-up).
Now coming back to the point, in the decades prior to it, GTRE already had a working 80KN-class turbojet (GTX-35) and a 88KN-class prototype turbofan (GTX-37-14UB, derived from GTX-37 turbojet series).
Based on it a feasibility study was carried out jointly by GTRE, ADA and HAL and in Aug’86 they confidently notified that they would be able to combine GTX-35 and GTX-37-14UB and come up with a 80KN-class Turbofan* that would meet the TWR, SFC etc being asked for in the ASR (
which no contemporary world-wide engine of the day could match).
That turbofan was to be called GTX-35VS (the naming is not random, it hints at the lineage as well) which later got formally called as Kaveri.
-----------------------
(*Note – Why were they not able to take GTX-37-14UB and use it … well the answer is hidden in the Kaveri sticky thread – hint: there’s a small table there, pls look up at other cells of that table to figure it out).
Why am I saying all this, in this context?
Well, fast forward to 2015, today, what do we have:
1) A turbofan not yet full-FTB certified that meets the dry thrust ask but falls short of the wet thrust levels by 10%
(
similar to 1980s where we had non-flight certfied GTX-37 and GTX-35 series, all more or less meeting some of the parameters like thrust, but were woefully short on other, equallly crucial ones - that required next gen level of technology to be developed)
2) No chance of using it operationally, on the intended platform, as the platform itself has had weight creep of approx. ~25-27%
(
those 35 adn 37 versions, even if put through a FTB regime wouldn't have made to the LCA, as they would be overweight for the intended platform - hint: in the Kaveri sticky thread, look at how Kaveri tries to play catch-up the thrust figures of these two predecessors by removing LPC, HPC and even LPT stages, to shed weight)
3) The very foreign engine (F404-2J) that was found unsuitable then, is now going to make the platform operational
4) A then under-development derived/evolution turbofan (F414) of this engine is the messiah for the next iterative “growth” version of the platform.
but the clincher of all, drum roll pls,
5a) All of these engines will be fully imported – no desi lic mfg setup in place
5b) The manufacturing technology that went in the “evolution version” (F414) of this engine, is exactly what would have helped Kaveri development not only reach it’s goal but also provide the quick growth options to Kaveri-II etc
Back to late 1980s again – so a national programme called LCA is being about to be launched and there are five critical technologies to be mastered of any hope of meeting the ASR – Unstable (actually relaxed stability) design, FBW control, CFRP structure, MMR and a world-beating 80KN turbofan engine.
All had their own set of challenges, but there’s near unanimity that the most riskiest/challenging would be the 80KN “world-class” turbofan development piece.
But this “ekla chalo re” mode* decision then, has landed us wrt those 5 points mentioned above.
---------------------------------
(
*Note - ShauryaT, note almost all world-class turbofan engine development establishments were involved in providing consultancy at various stages of the program – and frankly, many US and France based ones did bail us out with materials – details in the Kaveri sticky thread).
Anway, hindsight is always 20-20, but what would have happened if the decision taken back then was the following:
1) Ask GE to uprate F404 from 78KN to 84KN class (and 46KN (dry) to 52KN(dry)) and setup a Lic Mfg centre for a 200-odd engine initial order in JV mdoe with HAL engine div
2) Get Snecma to partner GTRE and help jointly develop a 80KN class turbofan based on the GTX-37-14UB and GTX-35 series (mentioned above)
-------------------------
(
Note: Snecma had successfully migrated M53-5 to M53-P2 version for their M2Ks, which were to be introduced in India, then. Further note, there was no chance of getting such co-operation from Russia, as until then they were in the cuckoo-world of being sole-supplier etc having successfully sold the RD-33 lemon to SDREs)
Now let see, what would all these *may have* resulted to:
1) Wouldn’t it that all these nakhra wrt Lic prod of F414 etc passé now?
2) Wouldn’t there
be a minimal manufacturing base in India, that has not only the required hardware but also have developed expertise on stuff like EBM, VIM furnaces, LFW, CIM - ceramic injection moulding and all such alphabetical soup, to help GTRE for Kaveri-II etc.
3) And today if we do something strong with our western neighbour and as a knee-jerk consequence, F404 lic mfg stops, will not there be a fall-back option of Snecma-GTRE version available as well?
I hope you have got the idea … now pls scale the above to 1-1.5 decades later, on the AMCA front, and all that I’ve said, wrt those 3 goal/risks above, makes some sense atleast*, isn’t it?
(
*Note - To make full sense, I need to write-up the some technological barrier related details that we are facing, which needs importing to make it applicable for supercruise-enabled engines).
There are a few points that I need to make which I will make by and by on the AMCA whine thread or elsewhere
]