AMCA News and Discussions

Locked
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

The argument being made is a "kata or a country pistol is good enough when one gets close enough !"
The issue is it is going to be difficult to get near enough to fire a country pistol!!
Precisely...Do you want to base the entire chance of success on dodging a few missiles, living and then lining up your own weapons and counting on the fact that your enemy that flies a superior aircraft has inferior countermeasures in addition to you having superior weapons.

Not saying that old aircraft cannot get kills on much younger aircraft, its just that you wouldnt be betting an entire air campaign on fighters 3-4 decades older trumping modern aircraft.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5554
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by srai »

+1 Deejayji

Well said!
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by shiv »

deejay - good points. But I will not poop on this thread. :D There are a few points that I need to make which I will make by and by on the AMCA whine thread or elsewhere
saumitra_j
BRFite
Posts: 381
Joined: 24 Dec 2005 17:13
Location: Pune, India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by saumitra_j »

Deejay sir, based on my interactions at AI 15 with GTRE folks, the K9/K10 engines had done about 3000 + hours of ground testing. They need to do about 4000 hours before they are allowed to put it in a twin engine jet for testing and another 1000 hours on that before the engine is allowed to be put on a single engined jet. Kaveri is being tested successfully on the ground with original performance albeit it is overweight. Single crystal blades etc are at least 5 years away..... we need to get the present one certified and as far as I know, that is how it is proceeding. I also hear talks about airframes not being available but I suspect that is not the case....they need to do certain number of hours on the ground before they are allowed to install it in an airframe which I suspect will be made available once GTRE is ready....TIFWIW....
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19313
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

^^^^^

1) I was under the impression that Kaveri project was closed. No?

2) On SCB, was it someone from GTRE state that? If so that seems a long time to absorb a tech. ?????
member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by member_28108 »

Kaveri is not closed.It is realigned.

Problem with SCB is getting a manufacturer to do it in such low quantities.
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by deejay »

saumitra_j wrote:Deejay sir, based on my interactions at AI 15 with GTRE folks, the K9/K10 engines had done about 3000 + hours of ground testing. They need to do about 4000 hours before they are allowed to put it in a twin engine jet for testing and another 1000 hours on that before the engine is allowed to be put on a single engined jet. Kaveri is being tested successfully on the ground with original performance albeit it is overweight. Single crystal blades etc are at least 5 years away..... we need to get the present one certified and as far as I know, that is how it is proceeding. I also hear talks about airframes not being available but I suspect that is not the case....they need to do certain number of hours on the ground before they are allowed to install it in an airframe which I suspect will be made available once GTRE is ready....TIFWIW....
Thank you for that update. Also, please drop the Sir.

This K9 / K10 development sort of silently crept up on me. 3000+ hours of testing and had not even heard of it. I must have been sleeping. :-o
maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 725
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by maitya »

deejay wrote:^^^ NRao ji, Thank you. Good digging for nuggets.

I was specially intrigued by the K9, K10 engine terms as a future development of Kaveri Engine.

Quoting an excerpt and calling attention of Maitya ji, Vina ji, Karan M, Ramana Sir and other gurus to look at this link:
<snip>
and this just on propulsion. It is pretty detailed and needs to be looked at by respective domain experts.
deejay-ji, I'll be responding shortly ... to provide a little through answer, I need to update the turbofan chart a bit more (SFC bit needs including, as if supercruise etc needs to talked about, these things are vitally important), host it and then link to the post etc ...

Just give me a day or two ...

[Added Later: Text is ready ... so posting it (4 part series) - will come back and plug-in the chart in the placeholder later, if the forum software allows me to do so :cry: ]
Last edited by maitya on 07 Jul 2015 09:03, edited 1 time in total.
maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 725
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by maitya »

deejay wrote:^^^ NRao ji, Thank you. Good digging for nuggets.

I was specially intrigued by the K9, K10 engine terms as a future development of Kaveri Engine.

Quoting an excerpt and calling attention of Maitya ji, Vina ji, Karan M, Ramana Sir and other gurus to look at this link:
Propulsion

AMCA will be a twin-engined design using an K 9 or K 10 engine which are successor to the cancelled Kaveri engine. While K 10 Program is a Joint Venture (JV) partnership with a foreign engine manufacturer. K 10 program engine will be final production standard Kaveri engine and shall have less weight and more reheat thrust along with certain other changes to meet the original design intent. Both the engines are being designed by ADA and developed by GTRE. On 19 February 2015 at the Aero India 2015, Director of DRDO Dr. Tamilmani told reports that a tender of joint venture on development of the engine is issued with General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls Royce, Snecma, Eurojet, NPO Saturn, Klimov and IHI to use current engine technology by combining Kaveri engine technology with JV engine to produce an engine capable of producing thrust of 110-125 kN. Full development of the K 9 and K 10 engine would be completed by 2019. While AMCA Test Demonstrator would be powered by an existing 90 kN thrust engine.
and this just on propulsion. It is pretty detailed and needs to be looked at by respective domain experts.
Deejay-ji, don't know what to say, as frankly all these sound too good to be true. If you'd looked a couple of pages back in the LCA thread, you will see something very similar being postulated by me. Anyway here goes (in a 4 part series) ...

[Part-1: Challenges and Options]
The step-1, there-in is basically what is being tried currently - where-in the thermodynamic and aerodynamic technology of the existing Kaveri/Kabini (not sure what they call it nowadays - it used to be called as K9 etc, couple of years back, not sure now) as is where is, via flight-testing it (they still haven't completed the mandatory ground runs of the engine before CEMILAC would allow them to mount it on a twin-engine aircraft).

As they are yet to finalise which is that twin-engined platform which will act as the engine FTB - earlier the talk was to get an IAF MiG-29 which IAF flatly denied, then there was talk about directly importing from GFRE/MiG and finally, fairly recently, there have been some media reports of getting a Su-30MKI from the current production line of HAL and converting it.
After that comes actually flying in a single-engine aircraft like LCA TD-1/2 or a couple of the PVs (but do note the almost all baseline technology validation and parametric setting/upgrade etc would be complete in the twin-engined FTB testing regime itself).

The step-2 indicated there-in is what GTRE is trying to uprate Kabini via an increased mass-flow and improved fan assembly, as posted by indranilroy - here - Breaking News: GTRE's next engine. They have requested private participation here, and any of the global turbofan powerhouses can very easily partner and help (no significant IP gets divulged because of this).

But Step-1 needs to happen first before they can move to Step-2 (it not actually serial, as getting an improved fan doesn’t require Step-1 completion etc – but, with the new Fan, there’ll be repetition of many test points in the subsonic and supersonic regimes of the FTB phase.
Last edited by maitya on 07 Jul 2015 09:32, edited 1 time in total.
maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 725
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by maitya »

[Part -2: Analysis of Increasing Thrust via Mass-Flow]
Now before we proceed further, pls refer to the 6th and 7th columns of the “improved” desktop-turbofan-perf-chart below.

Image

This business of increasing the mass-flow artificially via slightly increasing the inlet dia (to F414 levels) is covered, in the 1st two red columns of the following table. But there’s a Hobson’s’ choice there … what should be done after allowing an increased mass-flow via a larger inlet and more efficient fan.

There are two choices (controlled by the BPR) … bypass the additional delta-mass-flow outside of the core (6th column) or allow a certain % of the increased mass-flow through the core (7th and 8th column).
Problem is, this uprated engine while meeting the higher-thrust level, would lower the efficiency values (refer to the estimated SFC rows, and the three "efficiency rows" of the table).

Before I proceed further, let me explain the diff between the 6th and 7th column … you’ll notice that both those columns are producing higher thrust-level all-right – but if you minutely look at the efficiency and the SFC rows, towards the bottom of the chart, you’ll see quite dramatic difference.
The 7th column is an academic exercise, to illustrate what would have happened, if you "force-feed" the core with high mass-flow but all other performance aspects of the core remains as it was before. You will notice there's dramatic efficiency reduction (and SFC increase). Shows how delicately balanced the thermodynamic cycles are in a modern turbofan (increased massflow, increasing mass-velocity, not good for the combustor as it itself works best with “near-static” airflow etc - remaining explanation of all these are in the Kaveri sticky thread).

So the 6th column is the case where you have an improved fan, but do NOT touch the core at all - i.e the mass-flow thru the core remains same as it is now, but a higher mass-flow is bypassed around the core. And this is where a good baseline design helps – a properly matched Thermodynamic cycle would ensure such kind of thrust-growth headroom via such non-risky avenues.

Fan being not part of the core, you can tinker around all you want provided, you have sufficient torque available via the “LP shaft” from the LPT … but dginn tech aside, amount of work extracted by the LPT is directly proportional to the efficiency of the design (primarily) and not so much on the exotic metallurgy of the blades and disks (they are exotic allright, but less exotic than the HPT ones). That again is directly linked to the amount of work extracted by the HPT from the expanded mass-flow in the combustor (and of course its efficiency).


Do note that the above simple model doesn’t differentiate between the work extracted by the HPT and LPT, it gives a total value – a “better” chart should cater to it, but then again it’s already looking non-layman-ish, so beyond the scope of a forum like this.
Last edited by maitya on 07 Jul 2015 10:49, edited 2 times in total.
maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 725
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by maitya »

[Part-3: Problem Summary]
Coming back to the topic, summary of all of the above is, such stunts like newer fan etc would mean Kaveri –II, K10, Ganga, whatever you decide to call it, would crank out higher thrust (upto a certain level), but at the cost of the efficiency (aka SFC takes a hit).

And there-in lies the crux of the problem …

This kind of an arrangement, though sufficient to uprate Kaveri still wouldn't work ... as, if supercruise etc becomes an must-have requirement, one of the critical parameters would be the dry-SFC levels achieved for thrust required to sustain the transonic and low-supersonic (say between 0.9M to 1.2M levels) regime – and if max-dry-thrust SFC levels are not dramatically better than those required for current wet-thrust levels, there's little justification for acquiring supercruise capability etc.
(other significant difficulty is to control the air-inflow-pattern-at-the-fan-face across a sustained transonic-supersonic regime, so that airflow thru the core-engine and around it as well remains subsonic throughout the regime – but that’s a separate discussion altogether).

So long story short, I seriously doubt, such stop-gap arrangements would cut it.

The holy grail is combination of Step 3 and 4 listed in that post ... i.e. you open-up the core and start "improving" the basic aspects via infusing next-gen technological advances like wide-chord compressor blades, 4+ Gen SC blades, compressor blisk stages, Ti-Al based last 3-phases of the HPC, advanced thermal-barrier coating, CMC for turbine-rotor parts etc etc etc ... all very tightly controlled technological crown-jewels of these established global engine development houses.

The last column of the desktop-turbofan-perf-chart actually brings out these performance figures quite succinctly - now those are the thrust-cum-efficiency figures needed to achieve a true-blue supercruise-capability etc which, it seems, going to be must-have feature for AMCA.
(you may also want to compare it with those in the 5th (deep blue) column – which is basically a scenario where if we just improve the core and do nothing with massflow and the BPR and leave them as it is – aka the epitome of Kaveri technologically etc).
Last edited by maitya on 07 Jul 2015 10:46, edited 1 time in total.
maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 725
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by maitya »

[Part-4: Probable Solution]

But how to go about all these …

Only a fully-entrenched team from GE or other some other vendor, working in a full co-operative mode with GTRE folks (who understand the Kabini core – it’s almost impossible for experts et all to just take a turbofan and “understand” it) can achieve this.
Fat chance of that happening, until and unless they are convinced of a significant assured revenue-line that they wouldn't get otherwise somewhere else (IOW, financial writing-off of a large chunks of their R&D and capital expenses that they had already incurred developing them - or by some quirk fate some head-of-government decides to lean on them to part their knowhow - ofcourse for some other strategic pound-of-flesh).

Do note, even if all of these things happen magically, there'll still be a lot of investment required apply these incremental technological aspects and then just to set-up a production line for involving such technologies.

So in all, my view is quite simple really ... de-link but pursue both the paths.

Something like, let GE (or whoever) be given an indent for deep lic-production of LCA Mk1 and Mk2 engines – with an added agreement to setup a deep lic-prod facility for a newer higher thrust engine for AMCA (the parameters that IAF sets up for them). GTRE (and ofcourse IAF) can be part of that AMCA-engine development team, but it will be a clean sheet F414 EPE based AMCA engine development effort.

And parallely, another global engine firm to partner with GTRE and further develop the Kabini core for the newer gen Kaveri, as outlined above.
(betw, why not Klimov, if they are willing to partner in the 3D TV side – why is this fetish to go for only western engine behemoths? But would have preferred NPO Saturn-Llyuka though as they are already in with their AL-31Fs and will be in via AL-41F for the FGFA).

Expensive? Yes, prohibitively, but what other option is there. Last thing you want is you have a platform (AMCA) overweight due to scope-creep (inevitable in such programs) or some POTUS waking-up from a wrong side of the bed in US, and with no fallback option (that has significant indigenous involvement) available – thus resorting to import and more import. :cry:
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33582
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by chetak »

maitya wrote:[Part-4: Probable Solution]

But how to go about all these …

Only a fully-entrenched team from GE or other some other vendor, working in a full co-operative mode with GTRE folks (who understand the Kabini core – it’s almost impossible for experts et all to just take a turbofan and “understand” it) can achieve this.
Fat chance of that happening, until and unless they are convinced of a significant assured revenue-line that they wouldn't get otherwise somewhere else (IOW, financial writing-off of a large chunks of their R&D and capital expenses that they had already incurred developing them - or by some quirk fate some head-of-government decides to lean on them to part their knowhow - ofcourse for some other strategic pound-of-flesh).

Do note, even if all of these things happen magically, there'll still be a lot of investment required apply these incremental technological aspects and then just to set-up a production line for involving such technologies.

So in all, my view is quite simple really ... de-link but pursue both the paths.

Something like, let GE (or whoever) be given an indent for deep lic-production of LCA Mk1 and Mk2 engines – with an added agreement to setup a deep lic-prod facility for a newer higher thrust engine for AMCA (the parameters that IAF sets up for them). GTRE (and ofcourse IAF) can be part of that AMCA-engine development team, but it will be a clean sheet F414 EPE based AMCA engine development effort.

And parallely, another global engine firm to partner with GTRE and further develop the Kabini core for the newer gen Kaveri, as outlined above.
(betw, why not Klimov, if they are willing to partner in the 3D TV side – why is this fetish to go for only western engine behemoths? But would have preferred NPO Saturn-Llyuka though as they are already in with their AL-31Fs and will be in via AL-41F for the FGFA).

Expensive? Yes, prohibitively, but what other option is there. Last thing you want is you have a platform (AMCA) overweight due to scope-creep (inevitable in such programs) or some POTUS waking-up from a wrong side of the bed in US, and with no fallback option (that has significant indigenous involvement) available – thus resorting to import and more import. :cry:
With every body casting covetous and downright avaricious eyes on the $350-360 billion reserves that we have, we will never get a political deal from anywhere, leave alone russia.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12688
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Pratyush »

The most surprising part of the problem is that we know that the engines are the weak links, and yet we have not seen a national effort to design a jet engine on a war footing. Whit the DRDO labs partenering with pvt industry and hand holding them.

Sure the first few attempts will fail, but the subsequent effortss should suceed.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10428
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Yagnasri »

Only now we have a PM who has some will to do proper things and make some of the things within India. Last 10 years are wasted. Let us wait and see how the Defense Minister and the PM will take things forward.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19313
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

Moving along .............

From Tejas to AMCA
This fortnight the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which is responsible for the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) project, will brief its new boss on a project that will shape the future of the Indian Air Force (IAF) --- the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), an indigenous “fifth-generation” (Gen-5) fighter more advanced than anything on the IAF’s inventory. After briefing Dr S Christopher, the new Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) chief who is also ex-officio director-general of ADA, the AMCA proposal will be taken to Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, who has specifically asked for a briefing. After Mr Parrikar’s green light, the DRDO will seek $4 billion (currently Rs 25,000 crore, but this would fluctuate with the rupee) to design and develop the AMCA, build and test-fly prototypes, and give the IAF a Gen-5 fighter within 15 years.

Knowledgeable insiders say the AMCA will be a single-pilot, twin-engine, medium (20-25 tonnes) fighter with a highly stealthy design. This would be invaluable in the first days of a major war for targeting enemy war-waging infrastructure -- roads, railways, airfields, radars, headquarters and depots --- when conventional, non-stealthy fighters would be detected by the enemy’s air defence radars and shot down by fighters, missiles and guns. In such a “dense air defence environment”, stealth fighters would be able to degrade the enemy’s air defences, opening the window for our non-stealthy fighters, like the Sukhoi-30MKI, to strike with large loads of externally mounted ordnance and fuel. Stealth is central for a Gen-5 fighter, and is achieved by shaping aircraft surfaces to scatter radar waves, using radar absorbent materials and paints, and using internal fuel tanks, sensors, antennae and weapons carriage and ordnance.

Alongside stealth, a Gen-5 fighter incorporates super-cruise (flying supersonic without an afterburner); super-manoeuvrability (with thrust vectoring engines and an unstable design); advanced avionics architecture and sensors that enhance the pilot-vehicle interface (allowing a single pilot to fly and fight the aircraft); and extended target detection and engagement ranges. In an ideal combat engagement, a Gen-5 fighter would detect an enemy fighter and fire his long-range missile well before the adversary’s radar detects the stealth aircraft.

“Ho-hum! ADA can never do this”, the import lobbyists will say --- self-appointed patriots who see no irony in their advocacy of expensive foreign weaponry at the expense of Indian R&D and defence industry. Their critique of the Tejas is well worn. Arguing (fallaciously) that the DRDO has taken 33 years to deliver the Tejas, they will (incorrectly) extrapolate that the more complex AMCA will take even longer! Their persistent allegations about the Tejas’ performance shortfalls are now being exposed. As flight-testing expanded the Tejas’ flight envelope, it became evident the LCA far outperforms the MiG-21BISON, the most advanced of the fighters it was built to replace, as well as any Pakistani fighter except the latest F-16 Block 50/52. The upcoming Tejas Mark II --- with a more powerful engine, upgraded avionics and better air-to-air missile --- could be built cheaply, overwhelming even more sophisticated opponents with numbers. This would requires Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) to galvanise its production line, but that is a management issue, not a delay-inducing technology challenge.

With the Tejas’ performance now demonstrated, critics have shifted their fire to delays in the project, a more credible complaint. Even so, it is false to date the start of the LCA project to 1983, as is commonly done; the project really began a decade later. In 1983, the LCA was allocated Rs 560 crore for “feasibility studies and project definition”, and for creating developmental infrastructure. Only in 1993 was development funding allocated (Rs 2,188 crore, including the Rs 560 crore allocated in 1983). This was for building two “technology demonstrators”, the first of which flew in 2001. Taking 1993 as the base year, the Tejas took just eight years to fly, and will have taken 23 years for “final operational certification” (FOC) which is anticipated by March 2016. This is comparable with international time lines for fighter aircraft development, including the Rafale and the F-35 Lightening II.

Encouragingly, the AMCA will enjoy an impetus the LCA never got, now that the IAF has thrown its weight and support behind the AMCA programme. While the IAF stood aloof from the LCA, participating only as a critic, it has joined hands with ADA in formulating the AMCA’s configuration, and is deputing pilots and engineers to work alongside ADA as it designs the fighter. It is unclear what is driving this dramatic change in the IAF’s approach to indigenization. It could be the realisation --- stemming from the Rafale fiasco --- that India simply cannot afford to import sizeable numbers of modern fighters. It could be the positive example of the navy, which has wisely steered the process of designing and building warships in India. Or, in an organisation that is shaped by the personality of the top man, it could just be that the current IAF chief favours indigenisation.

While the IAF will be praised if the AMCA meets its objectives, credit should really go to the unfairly vilified DRDO-HAL-ADA combine for leapfrogging three generations of technology in developing the fourth-generation Tejas fighter. In this process, the LCA project has catalysed an aerospace eco-structure, and a design experience that will be the essential springboard to the AMCA.

A range of fighter aircraft technologies is already mastered. These include: a sophisticated “unstable configuration” for extra agility; quadruplex digital flight control system; light composite materials for the aero-structures; glass cockpit with digital instrumentation; an environment control system with an on-board oxygen generating system (OBOGS); and advanced avionics that allow the pilot to switch quickly between air-to-air and air-to-ground roles. With much of these Gen-4 technologies currently being refined for the Tejas Mark II, the AMCA team can focus on the Gen-5 challenges.

In sum, the LCA project has created Indian design expertise, design tools and test facilities. It has allowed ADA to gain expertise in the processes of flight-testing and certification, and in prototype development. In designing, building and certifying the Tejas, ADA and the defence ministry have painstakingly woven together a countrywide network of technical and engineering institutions, laboratories and facilities. ADA calculates that 149 work centres in 28 cities have directly contributed to the LCA programme. These are now networked and available for the AMCA project. True, there are shortfalls, such as the fact that India has just one wind tunnel, essential for simulation studies in designing airframes and structures. Before the AMCA gets under way, ADA should holistically identify and make up such deficiencies as part of a national eco-system for future aerospace projects.


The IAF’s future lies in its own hands. At the recent Paris Air Show, the Pakistan Air Force displayed its new Sino-Pakistani fighter, the JF-17 Thunder. Countries like Myanmar and Sri Lanka were reportedly making purchase enquiries. While significantly inferior to the Tejas in technologies and performance, the JF-17 was better in one crucial respect --- it was steadfastly supported by its home air force. Perhaps the IAF could draw a lesson from that.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19313
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

maitya ji,

I think your posts are more appropriate in the "Kaveri" thread.

It is my understanding that the AMCA will be powered by an imported engine. They are expected to issue a global tender and make a selection by the end of this year.
maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 725
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by maitya »

NRao wrote:maitya ji,

I think your posts are more appropriate in the "Kaveri" thread.

It is my understanding that the AMCA will be powered by an imported engine. They are expected to issue a global tender and make a selection by the end of this year.
NRaoji, threads etc doesn't matter ... will link it from there as well.

What matters is, what is our outlook to develop self-sufficiency wrt military turbofan technology and what our broad level goals are for this:
1) Most people may not agree, but with the Kaveri programme a 3+ gen turbofan technology is on the verge of being baselined - and more relevant, for the topic in hand, is how does this programme takes it forward.

2) But at the same time, it'll be unfair to IAF, to make the parent-program hostage to this self-sufficiency (wrt military turbofan technology) attainment goal - this is so, because, the baseline programme itself not being usable to IAF currently.

3) The other problem is some degree of sanction-proofing required for such critical technological aspects. As you are aware no amount of Lic Mfg stuff, however deep (which mostly is a hogwash e.g. AL31F "manufacturing" by HAL) this is advertised to be, will remove this critical dependency.
As long as critical components (e.g turbine vanes, blades, disks, HPC blades and disks, compressor lining etc etc) are not manufactured in India (even if the design itself is imported) from basic raw materials, this dependency (and thus susceptible to blackmailing) will remain.


You may have noticed by now, how contradicting all these above-mentioned 3 goals are - so what can be the mitigating steps:


So I'd proposed (for what it's worth anyway) delink it at the outset ...

1) Let GE setup a deep lic-manufacturing facility in India. They are anyway agreeable to it because of the F414 and F404 manufacturing required for the LCA program. But make it conditional that they will bring their 414EPE tech and do a clean-sheet design for an AMCA engine.
GTRE and IAF needs to participate in it, but the closely-guarded IPR aspects, can still be protected by GE, that way.

Since the chances of success of uprating 414EPE to what is required for AMCA is quite high, it de-risks the parent program - but the downside is self-sufficiency would not be achieved, but still the level of lic manufacturing the key components in India will be met
(So Goal/Risk 1 and 2 covered).


2) Let some-other engine powerhouse come and partner GTRE and uprate the baseline Kaveri itself (basic uprating is not that hard thanks to the soundness of the base design itself, pls refer to my earlier post, but meeting the efficiency figures would be quite difficult).
And depending upon how hungry the foreign partner is, some of the key/core turbofan technological aspects would have to be shared to achieve the performance level that will be required.
Also GTRE folks, at the minimum, would get the required hand-holding and consultancy and also access to validating and testing infra etc for various such tech.

Chances of success here is pretty slim, no doubt, but it's still much more than a 0 level given where the program itself is headed - and even if this doesn't cut it, and the Kaveri-II etc falls short of what GE et all will be able to produce, a host of turbofan technology would have got developed indigenously.

And in a push-come-to-shove situation, there'll be atleast a fall-back (albeit less efficient) option available - (Gola/Risk 3 covered).
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19313
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

maitya ji,

Do we REALLY want to link the AMCA to an "engine"?

India tried and got nowhere (so they are issuing a "global tender")

I think/feel that the issue of getting a good/great engine for the AMCA and getting techs to solve the problems faced by an Indian engine are two diff topics and need to be addresses as such.

IF things work out where both birds are killed with one stone - great. But to keep the risks low there needs to be two independent teams make these decisions (there is more to this for sure, but that is the skinny).
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5369
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by ShauryaT »

Maitya: Understand your two pronged approach. The second approach has to be to further indigenous development and not as a backdoor to another vendor to establish its own revenue lines. The consultancy with the outside partner has to be just that a consultancy. Also, I do not think this type of consultancy will be made available by a foreign private company, unless backed by its sovereign power. So, it essentially has to be a geo-political trade.

E.g: One of the things the new ADA chief was able to achieve was to get the "assistance" of the US Navy with the concurrence of the Pentagon to build some aspects of the NLCA.

Just as an ask, why have you not put a completely "indigenous" effort on the table as an option. If you respond on this question, if you can list the areas in which you feel we are deficient, it would be helpful to understand the risk and effort involved and justify the options you have put on the table.

Added: In the first approach, better to do that with an Indian private company rather than GTRE/HAL and ask them to up the indigenized content over time, provide R&D credits and assured revenues with timelines. Have always believed that the huge needs of the country cannot be banked upon with a reliance on only one entity.

Thanks.
Last edited by ShauryaT on 07 Jul 2015 19:46, edited 1 time in total.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19313
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

Very well put.

Is there a place for me on the dark side? Something in the air out there I bet.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60012
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

Maitya, I also think the AMCA will succeed or stall because of the engine. And relying on foreign technology won't cut it in the out years (15+ today i.e. 2030) for who knows how the political situation will be.

From what I know the Kaveri troubles are combustion instability i.e. on the high pressure side.
They think the core is fine.
When they started they had no core no low or high pressure side.

Lots of attention on ADA but not much on GTRE.

Need someone to focus on GTRE present and future developments.

Not many people understand engine technology like you do.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

We need a high power BRF representation - {Maitya, UB sahib, ramana garu, shiv ji as core}.. and take up a RIT on GTRE org to know more about their status.. The oped and public info source is kichadi at best. We can't let the Kaveri technology not going into one of the LCA TDs. We need to up the ante to get some fruits out of gtre basket., should that mean even sacking a few chieftains there.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by abhik »

shiv wrote: Deejay in two separate links that I read along with the intense forum discussions recently I got the following information
...
2. More recently, when the IAF wanted a follow on fighter - an MRCA, the IAF did not ask for 5th gen technology. It was the DRDO that inserted the idea that the new fighter should have "5th gen" technologies
The IAF did not ask for '5th gen' technologies from the AMCA? Did the IAF ask for '4th gen' technology? This is news to me.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20834
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

A note on India's Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) project
Posted on: 12:12 PM IST Dec 27, 2014 IST
Geek At Large
Saurav Jha

@SJha1618

The Chinese today are flying two fifth generation fighter prototypes, at least one of which will enter series production sometime in the next decade. It of course remains to be seen whether the Chinese J-20 design will ultimately be powered by a Chinese low bypass turbofan engine or not. India meanwhile is still haggling with Russia on work share and tech share issues before it inks the final development contract for the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) that will be based on the Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA baseline. Regardless, it has been clear for some time now that India will have to mount a serious fifth generation effort of its own in order to both free itself from dependency on any other country as well build its aerospace sector on the foundation created through the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) program. For that purpose the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) that oversees the LCA program has now increased the pace of activity with respect to the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) program. However for the AMCA to reach fruition in a timely manner, the government of the day would do well to invest more in creating deeper aerospace development infrastructure.

The LCA program has taken the time it has to mature precisely because there was a hiatus in domestic fighter aircraft development post the HAL HF-24 Marut that was India's first homegrown jet fighter. No timely follow on programme to the Marut meant that both human and capital resources had to be built up concurrently even as the LCA program progressed contributing to delays. Today however via the LCA program India has a National Flight Test Centre to carry out flight testing with mobile telemetry stations, system design & evaluation facility for model based evaluations, a virtual reality facility to study assembly, accessibility and other related aspects, a lightning test facility and an explosive atmosphere test facility. However all this is not nearly enough for India to scale up its aerospace sector and take it to the next level.

For one, India is woefully short of wind tunnel facilities at the moment. Internal ADA projections reveal that as opposed to an emerging requirement of 8000 load outs a year, India has the capability to service only 1500 load outs annually through existing facilities. This lack of capacity is one of the reasons why the AMCA has had to undergo wind tunnel testing at the Calspan Wind Tunnel in the United States of America, before its final aerodynamic layout was frozen. Also, the dimensions of the current wind tunnel facilities at the National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL), Bangalore, can accommodate only rather smallish models. Calspan's dimensions allowed larger models of the AMCA to be tested than what could be done at home it seems.

The AMCA is obviously larger than the LCA and is in the 'medium' category with a max take off weight (MTOW) of 25 tons. The fighter will have the usual roster of what is typically considered 'fifth generation' including obviously stealth, supercruising ability, an active electronically scanned array (AESA) fire control radar, thrust vectoring for super manoeuvrability, networked data fusion etc. and will allow modular construction.

The state of technology in what goes into making a fifth generation fighter is unevenly developed in India at the moment. Take stealth for instance, while Indian designers certainly know how to build a stealthy airframe in terms of pure aerodynamic shaping, Dr K Tamilmani, Director General (Aero), DRDO says that much work remains to be done in areas such as radar absorbent materials, conformal antennae and flush air data sensors etc. in order to achieve near all aspect stealth. In domains such as coatings that reduce exhaust exit temperatures, India has some experience having developed the same for the Advanced Light Helicopter program and more work is underway at IIT Mumbai.

Moreover, even as various aspects of stealth technology are being worked upon, the fact remains that the AMCA test vehicles will be powered by imported low bypass turbofan engines. According to Dr Tamilmani, an engine selection process is not just underway, but is actually being hastened. Six engine original equipment makers (OEMs) have been sounded out for what is essentially an upgraded & up-rated version of an existing engine that could provide 110 kilo newton (KN) of wet thrust. "The RFPs will be sent out by April 2015, and in another eight months we will firm up our choice of engine to power the AMCA," says Dr Tamilmani. "We however have to do a lot work on our own to develop thrust vectoring for the AMCA," he adds.

At the moment, the greatest hypothetical weight configuration of the AMCA design (with fuel and a certain weapons mix) has been calculated to be around 24.2 tons and ADA designers are confident that even with 105 KN engines, the AMCA would be able to meet design aerodynamic parameters. However given the experience with the LCA program, ADA this time really wants that 5 KN margin in order to be safe rather than sorry. It seems that the AMCA will also have an unusually large internal weapons bay that will have the capacity to accommodate around three tons worth of weapons. The AMCA will also feature six underwing pylons for externally carried weapons.

The total spend on the programme so far has been under Rs 100 crore. The project has been taken up on the basis of a preliminary staff qualitative requirement from the Indian Air Force (IAF) and is currently in the project definition phase. Dr Tamilmani believes that for around Rs 4000 crore it would be possible to build 3 or 4 flying prototypes, the first of which should take to the skies by 2020-21.

Follow Saurav Jha on Twitter @SJha1618.

http://www.ibnlive.com/blogs/india/saur ... 48657.html
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60012
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

KaranM So the bench mark is 110 Kilo Newton wet thrust. Does this mean with afterburner or non after burner?
Sorry for not being in the jargon.
Am old school onlee.

its now July 2015. Have the RFPs been sent out?
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19602
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Rakesh »

^^^Wet thrust is with afterburner on. Pls see below.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterburner
Pilots can activate and deactivate afterburners in-flight, and jet engines are referred to as operating wet when afterburning is being used and dry when not. An engine producing maximum thrust wet is at maximum power, while an engine producing maximum thrust dry is at military power.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60012
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

Rakesh thanks.
Anyone know what dry thrust they want as that determines the supercruise capability?

Meanwhile:
ramana wrote:Brar_w, and Maitya, Can we develop a QFD for the AMCA engine based on open source information?

What are the musts that any engine has to meet? Thrust, weight, maintainability, reliability, min time between overhauls,,,,,,
What are the desirables or goals?
We can follow up this in the AMCA thread....

And add intangibles like TOT. level of technology, past supplier country history.

Cost and Schedule to support FSED and production phase.
Full blown QFD process description

Can do with partial for this purposes.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19313
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

Engine :: Dry :: Wet

EJ2000 :: 13,500 lbf (60 kN) :: 20,250 lbf (90 kN)
Snecma M88-2 :: 11,250 lbf (50 kN) :: 17,000 lbf (75.6 kN)
General Electric F414-GE-400 :: 14,000 lbf (62.3 kN) :: 22,000 lbf (97.9 kN)
Klimov RD-33MK :: 11,900 lbf (53.0 kN) :: 19,800 lbf (88.3 kN) (IN not IAF)

From: (http://www.sps-aviation.com/story_issue.asp?Article=731)

The GE F414-EPE is supposed to improve by 20%. So, I assume it has a dry around 74 kN and we know it has a wet around 116 kN.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

The Dry thrust performance of enhanced variants of these engines is likely to be closely held to the chest by the OEM and not shared by them through the media since there are competitions ongoing in India, Turkey and South Korea and the fact that developmental projects can have OEM funded components that allows the OEM to not have to go through the general disclosure requirements.

For the Maintenance data on the Life time support for the EPE/EDE I have a series of quite detailed posts on that topic in the Indian R&D thread...Basically the EPE/EDE are what you want them to be..Want to run the higher performance you have two distinct options -

* Run the engine hotter and reduce life of certain parts
* Spend more money to develop parts that are more durable despite of the higher temperature

GE has solutions in place for both. EDE to EPE is a FADEC controlled process (software), and if you want to gain back turbine life they just showcased the first CMC incorporated F414 and set a new record for the hottest temperature through ADVENT. Those dynamics do not change whether you run the F414 to go from 22,000 lbs of thrust to 25-26,000 pounds of thrust, or whether you up the M88 from 17000 to 25000, or the EJ-200 from 20,000 to 25,000 pounds of thrust.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6866&p=1851310#p1852735
The GE F414-EPE is supposed to improve by 20%. So, I assume it has a dry around 74 kN and we know it has a wet around 116 kN.
How much increase is dry thrust is possible on a budget is anyone's guess. I'd be cautious in assuming anything at this point. All GE has spoken about is max thrust and that is all we have to play with. Max. possible thrust from the EPE is 26,400 pounds.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

ramana, 110kN is max wet thrust. so it must be afterburner if I am right.

also, in addition to T:W, dry thrust and advanced controlled engine, we would require reduced drag air-frame, wing design and least payload and their shapes for supercruise at mach 1.2 or greater.

IIRC/
Last edited by SaiK on 08 Jul 2015 00:29, edited 1 time in total.
maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 725
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by maitya »

ShauryaT, Nraoji, ramanaji pls note as much as I or you want everything to be developed indigenously, the current technology gap is just too large to bridge in next decade or so - by the time AMCA would need a definitive power-plant solution implemented and deep into flight-testing.

I'll try and expand this technological gap aspect tomorrow, but in the interim you can get a glimpse of a couple of such gaps described here - focus on Step 3a and 3b specifically.

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.

Rest tomorrow ... time permitting!!
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60012
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

No. Because 84KN wet thrust won't cut the mustard for the Tejas.


I agree they need a local solution and have ~ ten years to get there.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by shiv »

Here's a bet. Call me out if I am wrong.

India is going to get an uprated Eurojet engine for AMChA combat aircraft
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by shiv »

ramana wrote:KaranM So the bench mark is 110 Kilo Newton wet thrust. Does this mean with afterburner or non after burner?
Sorry for not being in the jargon.
Am old school onlee.

its now July 2015. Have the RFPs been sent out?
Wet thrust is with afterburner - fuel is pissed into the exhaust - hence "wet"
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19313
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

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?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60012
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

NRao we both are voting for a new Indian developed engine.. Maitya is going to vell how it can be developed based on Steps 3a and 3b.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

anyone in dilli during 16, 27th july'15.. please take this oppty to dig IN!
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease. ... lid=123044

IN is the way to go for AMCA then.
maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 725
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by maitya »

ramana wrote:No. Because 84KN wet thrust won't cut the mustard for the Tejas.


I agree they need a local solution and have ~ ten years to get there.
Ramanaji, yes and no … yes because if 84KN of F404 is Mk1 why not it is applicable for Kaveri?

No, because even if it’s achieved today, CEMILAC (or for that matter any other certification agency) would want ~2K hrs of platform and power-plant (in this case Kaveri) integrated FTP, to allow it anywhere near operational flying. So instead of FOC, we’d now be talking of IOC-III and maybe even IV etc., delaying the program further.

And since F414 is nothing but an “uprated” F404 – for MkII, a Kaveri-II (or K10 is it?) can be worked upon (in say 5-7yrs) to produce the F414 thrust level etc.
------------------------------------------
(Note: Between baseline F414 and F404, the technology itself is approx. 1 gen more advanced, so maybe “uprated” is too strong a phrase to use – but F414 is an “evolution” F404, where the core changes are not minimal but still within the reach of any respected design-house. The actual path-breaking stuff is in the 414 EPE/EDE series, but that’s a diff discussion alltogether).
maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 725
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by maitya »

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).
Locked