LCA News and Discussions

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 18 Sep 2010 12:58

Kartik wrote: I'm not sure if faulty is the way to describe it. But they're taking the chance to improve upon the existing aerodynamics.

The way you put it, the Gripen NG is "improved" because the C/D is faulty ? or the C/D was done because the A/B was faulty ?

Don't bother to troll here.

Yes, I think the Gripen A/B/C/D were faulty in terms of the amount fuel it could hold. By just moving the landing gear the NG can carry much more fuel, the designers should have thought of that already back in the 80´s. Even though it met the specifications of the SweAF more fuel and greater range is not a bad thing.
You can´t compare AB to CD. When Gripen was designed no one knew that the Soviet would fall and Sweden would be an official partner of NATO. The C/D version is just a NATO-fied (or export version) A/B...

The reason I asked was (not trolling) if they are gonna redesign the fuselage of the Mk2, why not make those changes right away, into the Mk1? It has´nt even gone into production yet so there are still time to make changes...

Wickberg · Post by **Wickberg** » 18 Sep 2010 13:02

Arya Sumantra wrote:
Does Grippen having better aerodynamics mean Viggen and Draken were "faulty"?

Are you serious? Comparing 1950´s designs to Gripen? Why not go back further? You can always compare the SAAB 1930s designs or the predecessor to SAAB that built aircrafts in the 1920s.
Were they faulty? No, not with the technology available at that time....

vishnu.nv · Post by **vishnu.nv** » 18 Sep 2010 13:20

Harry was a class apart, could never compare his articles with any of this DDM masters. Ajai shukla and anathkrishnan is better compared to the likes of suman Sharma and shiv aroor.

Wonder what they r doing now in goa…

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 18 Sep 2010 20:16

Wickberg wrote:The reason I asked was (not trolling) if they are gonna redesign the fuselage of the Mk2, why not make those changes right away, into the Mk1? It has´nt even gone into production yet so there are still time to make changes...

Guess the "Design Freeze" for Tejas MK-I has happened and they are going in for IOC by 27 th Dec, 2010.

So, is there any point in redesigning the Tejas MK-I now ? Also, don't think they probably found anything faulty with Tejas MK-I (probably the 1428 + test flights proves that).

Its only incremental improvements and redesign of fuselage for a bigger engine is only in their mind for Tejas MK-II.

JVKrishnan · Post by **JVKrishnan** » 18 Sep 2010 23:57

Sorry, if these are often repeated questions! Appreciate if somebody with intimate knowledge can answer......

1) How many Tejas IAF version & INS version are we planning?

2) What is our production capacity/year if Tejas gets IOC on Dec 27, 2010? Are there any further clearences needed before Tejas can be deployed at an AFB or is called "combat ready"? (I am assuming 40 Tejas/year)

3) Looking at the progress of Kaveri, don't think it will be production grade power plant for another 5 years! Are we sticking with GE404 meanwhile to continue Tejas?

thanks

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 19 Sep 2010 00:22

Reports give IAF requirement as 40 mk1+ 86 mk2=126 nos.

While Indian Navy requirement as 56 nos. May be including or with additional 16 trainers, not sure about it.

Reports have given a production rate of 20 LCAs/year. I think production is unlikely to be more than 24/year with two production line of 8/year each (expandable to 12/ year each) as only 182 nos are planned.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Sep 2010 01:52

JVKrishnan wrote:Sorry, if these are often repeated questions! Appreciate if somebody with intimate knowledge can answer......

1) How many Tejas IAF version & INS version are we planning?

2) What is our production capacity/year if Tejas gets IOC on Dec 27, 2010? Are there any further clearences needed before Tejas can be deployed at an AFB or is called "combat ready"? (I am assuming 40 Tejas/year)

3) Looking at the progress of Kaveri, don't think it will be production grade power plant for another 5 years! Are we sticking with GE404 meanwhile to continue Tejas?

thanks

I don't want to do a policing here. But here is a humble request.

Please read up the thread before posting. Or you could have just googled this out. Or at least if you yourself find it naive, please ask in the newbie thread. Such questions do nothing but dilute the other discussions on the thread. There was a time when senior posters would have roasted you for asking such questions. Unfortunately such policing has gone down and so have the quality of posts.

It is not a reflection on you Krishnan, but just an observation of many such posts that I find every now and then.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 19 Sep 2010 05:16

Air Force says DRDO stalling Tejas fighter engine

And, the Indian Air Force (IAF) believes the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is actively stalling the process of choosing a new engine.

A furious IAF, which urgently needs the Tejas to replace its retiring MiG-21 squadrons, has complained in writing to the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The IAF report says that even as the Aeronautical Development Agency, or ADA — which oversees the Tejas programme — is choosing between two powerful, modern engines from the global market, the DRDO has confused the issue by throwing up a third option.

Some good pictures of LCA in the artical

Nirmal · Post by **Nirmal** » 19 Sep 2010 15:49

VinodTK wrote:Air Force says DRDO stalling Tejas fighter engine

And, the Indian Air Force (IAF) believes the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is actively stalling the process of choosing a new engine.

A furious IAF, which urgently needs the Tejas to replace its retiring MiG-21 squadrons, has complained in writing to the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The IAF report says that even as the Aeronautical Development Agency, or ADA — which oversees the Tejas programme — is choosing between two powerful, modern engines from the global market, the DRDO has confused the issue by throwing up a third option.
Some good pictures of LCA in the artical

Isn't this a very OLD article???

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 19 Sep 2010 17:24

Nirmal wrote: Isn't this a very OLD article???

The Article is from Asian Defence News, dated September 18th, 2010.

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 19 Sep 2010 18:09

Exactly. Its an old wine in a new bottle.

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 20 Sep 2010 04:27

Ajay Shukla writes : Eurojet pips GE in LCA engine bid

Also posting in full as Business Standard articles disappear over time

Business-Standard.com /Ajai Shukla / New Delhi September 20, 2010, 23:35 IST wrote:Europe has an edge over the US in the tightly-fought contest to sell India a next-generation engine for the homegrown Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA). Informed sources have told Business Standard that when the bids were opened last week, European consortium Eurojet bid $666 million for 99 EJ200 engines, against US rival General Electric, which quoted $822 million.

Both engines had been earlier adjudged technically suitable to power the Tejas Mark-II. Therefore, according to the ministry of defence’s procurement rules, the vendor offering the lower price is to be handed the contract.

But the champagne corks aren’t popping yet at Eurojet. Both engine-makers have been asked for certain clarifications by Wednesday, and senior Eurojet executives are worried that Washington could pressure New Delhi to opt for the US engine in the interregnum.
At stake here is far more than a few hundred million dollars. Industry experts say India’s choice of engine for the Tejas would significantly shape the choice of a medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA), an $11-billion contract for which the Indian Air Force is evaluating six fighters. Of these, the Eurofighter has twin EJ-200 engines, while GE F-414 engines power the US-built F/A-18 and Sweden’s Gripen NG fighters.

Says Air Vice Marshall (Retd) Kapil Kak of the Centre for Air Power Studies, the IAF’s official think tank, “It is as clear as daylight. Selecting the EJ200 for the Tejas would boost the Eurofighter’s prospects in the MMRCA contest.”

“Its engines, which form about 15-20 per cent of the cost of a modern fighter, would be already manufactured in India for the Tejas. For the same reason, rejecting the GE F-414 would diminish the chances of the two fighters that fly with that engine,” he added.

In its tender for the Tejas engine, the defence ministry has specified that only ten engines could be built abroad. All subsequent engines must be built in India, with the vendor transferring technology for their manufacture. If the EJ200 were built in India for the Tejas, Eurofighter would benefit from a fully amortised engine line and also be entitled to offset credits for the ‘made-in-India’ Eurofighter EJ200 engines. This would lower the price of the Eurofighter — a huge advantage for an aircraft regarded as high performance, but expensive. Logistically, too, the IAF would prefer an MMRCA with engines that were already in its inventory.

Selection of the GE F-414 engine, on the other hand, would provide all these advantages to the vendors of the F/A-18 and the Gripen NG fighters. This is a key reason why Eurojet and GE have conducted their Tejas engine campaign so competitively.

Furthermore, the order for 99 engines for the Tejas Mark-II is just a foot in the door to the Indian market. Given that each fighter goes through two to three engines during its operational lifetime, the four to five planned squadrons (84-105 fighters) of the Tejas Mark-II would actually need 200-300 new engines. The 126 MMRCAs could use several hundred more.

Business Standard had earlier reported on the European aerospace industry’s plan to enhance its presence in India’s military programmes through Eurofighter and the MMRCA contest. The first move by EADS was to provide consultancy to accelerate flight-testing of the Tejas; now comes the second move: bidding aggressively to win the Tejas engine contract.

Defence ministry sources have expressed surprise that Eurojet bid 20 per cent cheaper than rival General Electric, which is widely regarded as a cost-effective manufacturer. In fact, conversations with EADS executives reveal that this is a well-considered business strategy.

Sources in the Aeronautical Development Agency confirm that both GE and Eurojet engines fully met the technical requirements to power the Tejas Mark-II. The EJ200 — which IAF favours — is the more modern, lighter and flexible engine with greater potential for growth. The GE F-414 is heavier, but provides a little more power.

Eurojet is a consortium between Avio (Italy), ITP (Spain), MTU Aero Engines (Germany) and Rolls-Royce (UK), which was set up to develop the EJ200 engine for the Eurofighter. It is headquartered in Hallbergmoos, Germany.

neeraj · Post by **neeraj** » 20 Sep 2010 04:51

^^^^^^^
I hope the TOT given to india is not the usual screw driver technology. We need deep TOT including SCB

http://www.8ak.in/8ak_india_defence_new ... india.html

Eurojet management today confirmed that if required they are willing to transfer single crystal turbine blade technology. This is currently not under the scope of the LCA engine RFP and a separate commercial agreement would have to be signed.

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 20 Sep 2010 06:50

The EJ200 — which IAF favours — is the more modern, lighter and flexible engine with greater potential for growth. The GE F-414 is heavier, but provides a little more power.

While reading this, it reminded me of american car engines vs european (eg german) car engines. The american engines are simple, easy to service and powerful, however their gas mileage is poor. The german engines are lighter, more technically advanced/complex, fuel sippers.

vic · Post by **vic** » 20 Sep 2010 08:08

aditp wrote:Ajay Shukla writes : Eurojet pips GE in LCA engine bid

Also posting in full as Business Standard articles disappear over time
Business-Standard.com /Ajai Shukla / New Delhi September 20, 2010, 23:35 IST wrote:Europe has an edge over the US in the tightly-fought contest to sell India a next-generation engine for the homegrown Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA). Informed sources have told Business Standard that when the bids were opened last week, European consortium Eurojet bid $666 million for 99 EJ200 engines, against US rival General Electric, which quoted $822 million.

Defence ministry sources have expressed surprise that Eurojet bid 20 per cent cheaper than rival General Electric, which is widely regarded as a cost-effective manufacturer. In fact, conversations with EADS executives reveal that this is a well-considered business strategy.

Sources in the Aeronautical Development Agency confirm that both GE and Eurojet engines fully met the technical requirements to power the Tejas Mark-II. The EJ200 — which IAF favours — is the more modern, lighter and flexible engine with greater potential for growth. The GE F-414 is heavier, but provides a little more power.

I hope EJ gets the contract and from the money saved and with some additional money we build more labs for GTRE + get tech for TBC, SCB, Blisks, Powder metallurgy, high tech welding etc

This clearly shows that bidding has its benefits compared to Single vendor contracts,

Europe's defence exp is falling and they will sell products + TOT at very cheap rates, if we willing to buy it.

I hope that the prices of Eurofighter is equally competitive

vic · Post by **vic** » 20 Sep 2010 08:29

Further EJ has made a intelligent choice as I continue to believe that LCA production for Mark2 will be IAF=200, IN=50-60, Trainer using EJ derivative 100, UCAV using EJ derivative 100, AMCA using EJ derivative 300x2=600 engines etc. So the opportunity is to get something like 1000 engines contract apart from MRCA contract which can go upto 300x2= another 600 engines

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Sep 2010 10:30

aditp wrote:Ajay Shukla writes :

Says Air Vice Marshall (Retd) Kapil Kak of the Centre for Air Power Studies, the IAF’s official think tank, “It is as clear as daylight. Selecting the EJ200 for the Tejas would boost the Eurofighter’s prospects in the MMRCA contest.”

“Its engines, which form about 15-20 per cent of the cost of a modern fighter, would be already manufactured in India for the Tejas. For the same reason, rejecting the GE F-414 would diminish the chances of the two fighters that fly with that engine,” he added.

[/quote]

I am not at all sure that the logic is as clear as the Air Marshal says.

Yes I am certain that it would make some economic sense. But at a higher cost it would make Geostrategic sense to get one engine for the LCA and another one for the MRCA if need be so that every team is happy and earning their daily bread courtesy India. neither can sanction us completely and both can be pressurised to take our side.

It's like China paying for a port or pipeline that is costly but makes strategic sense for them and India losing the same deal because India did not see profitability. We must have all those jokers in our pockets. Where is chankya when you need him?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 20 Sep 2010 10:36

shiv wrote:
aditp wrote:Ajay Shukla writes :

Says Air Vice Marshall (Retd) Kapil Kak of the Centre for Air Power Studies, the IAF’s official think tank, “It is as clear as daylight. Selecting the EJ200 for the Tejas would boost the Eurofighter’s prospects in the MMRCA contest.”

“Its engines, which form about 15-20 per cent of the cost of a modern fighter, would be already manufactured in India for the Tejas. For the same reason, rejecting the GE F-414 would diminish the chances of the two fighters that fly with that engine,” he added.
I am not at all sure that the logic is as clear as the Air Marshal says.

Yes I am certain that it would make some economic sense. But at a higher cost it would make Geostrategic sense to get one engine for the LCA and another one for the MRCA if need be so that every team is happy and earning their daily bread courtesy India. neither can sanction us completely and both can be pressurised to take our side.

Totally agree. Going for both LCA and MRCA for GE engines makes half our fleet sanctions prone. If we have at least the LCA with EJ, then even if we go with US planes, relatively less aircraft will be grounded in case of sanctions too. It is better to hedge our bets with EJ for LCA.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Sep 2010 10:57

I confirms what I've been saying for quite some time that a deliberate effort si on to sabotage the LCA through the engine decision which will impact upon the MMRCA decision.It is very easy to see who is doing the sabotaging! ASk the Q,whom does scuttling the EJ engine beenfit? The DRDO is yet again trying to sell the disgraced Kaveri,which failed many a time when tested in Russia,so that it can be assured of huge funds to squander,plus any EJ acquisition will fully expose its mismanagement of the entire project,especially due to the failure of pefecting/selecting the engine.The IAF is spot on and should be congratulated for exposing the connspiracy o sabotage the LCA programme after it (and the IN) has thrown its full weight behind the aircraft.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 20 Sep 2010 11:35

GE will be a very unwise choice. Like the unkil's birds, it too may have attained it's peak potential and obviously will come with lesser so called TOT, will be sanction prone etc etc.

The EJ on the other hand has a lot of growth potential and better versions may be available at the time of replacement. It being somewhat lesser prone to sanctions is an added advantage.

As far as AFs complaint on DRDO is concerned, what can one say

Kaveri in it's present form is not suitable for LCA - any MK. period.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 20 Sep 2010 12:25

Once selected, will the engine be 100% made in India?

manum · Post by **manum** » 20 Sep 2010 12:53

JimmyJ wrote:Once selected, will the engine be 100% made in India?

It'll be 100% assembled in India...

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 20 Sep 2010 13:15

[quote="Business-Standard.com /Ajai Shukla / New Delhi September 20, 2010, 23:35 IST"]Eurofighter would benefit from a fully amortised engine line and also be entitled to offset credits for the ‘made-in-India’ Eurofighter EJ200 engines. This would lower the price of the Eurofighter — a huge advantage for an aircraft regarded as high performance, but expensive. [/quote]

If setting up engine plant in India lowers the cost of an engine, then why dont they set it up here to lower the costs, irrespective of whether they win or not.
That will help their bid aswell as their overall business elsewhere too

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 20 Sep 2010 14:26

^^^

Philip,

I have a different take on the matter of engine selection. Perhaps the DRDO is confident of getting the Kaveri to work as intended thus eliminating the need for an import.

The October high altitude tests are close. Only then will we know the true picture as far as the Kaveri is concerned.

JMT.

jai · Post by **jai** » 20 Sep 2010 15:04

The October high altitude tests are close. Only then will we know the true picture as far as the Kaveri is concerned.

Pratyush,

This looks very unlikely - in light of the following..

http://www.india-defence.com/reports-4526

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 20 Sep 2010 15:35

The biggest favor the DRDO can do the LCA now is to announce Eurojet as the winner (if they actually did bid lower) at $666 million. This would mean that Unkil has minimum ammount of window to exert any sort of preassure on GoI to reverse their decision.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 20 Sep 2010 16:39

EJ has made an offer that India can not refuse.

Better engine, lesser price, full ToT - now the only thing separating them from the contract is some huge kickback. IMHO even Uncle's lobbying might not be enough.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Sep 2010 16:52

True.As for the "Kaveri-wallahs",how many Kaveris have been flown successfully to date,how many have blown up/failed may one ask and that too after how many years of development? How many yet gan can be built per year as well? In comparison with the EJ flying in so many arcraft,the Kaveri is a non-starter and if tall claims ae being made yet agan by the GTRE,then if the engine fails again,the head and entire team should be arrested for decades of "sabotage" of this crucial system of India's defence and the GTRE disbanded to be replaced wih a new Aero-Engine R&D set up to make a whole range of engines from turbo-props to jets.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 20 Sep 2010 20:12

Philip wrote:True.As for the "Kaveri-wallahs",how many Kaveris have been flown successfully to date,how many have blown up/failed may one ask and that too after how many years of development? How many yet gan can be built per year as well? In comparison with the EJ flying in so many arcraft,the Kaveri is a non-starter and if tall claims ae being made yet agan by the GTRE,then if the engine fails again,the head and entire team should be arrested for decades of "sabotage" of this crucial system of India's defence and the GTRE disbanded to be replaced wih a new Aero-Engine R&D set up to make a whole range of engines from turbo-props to jets.

Oh Kaka cool down .... have a beer and chill.

What is your alternate planning to develop an engine?
Should keep importing engines as we have non developed and put people behind bars for trying to a develop one?
Are these guys having magic wands using which they can pull latest engine out of thin air?

Go outside in the fresh air and have a break...

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 20 Sep 2010 20:37

Philip,

We cannot stop developing engine whatever it takes...EJ cannot be permanent solution... We have already decoupled LCA with kaveri, but that should not stop development of gas turbine in country...

With respect to disbanding GTRE with new set up, who will be manning the institution? They will be same GTRE guys who have now somewhat understanding in gas turbines... Effectively it is only restructuring that will be done which can be done in GTRE itself, if need be, without disbanding the institution

Rather we should increase our research infrastructure.. A lot of delay is attribute to lack of critical testing facilities available in the country for which Kaveri needs to be taken to Russia. Such facilities should be brought up... Help from educational institutions and private sector (although don't know if they can really do) can be taken...

I also feel some initiatives have already been taken in that direction by establishing GTET...

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 20 Sep 2010 21:42

RKumar wrote:
Philip wrote:True.As for the "Kaveri-wallahs",how many Kaveris have been flown successfully to date,how many have blown up/failed may one ask and that too after how many years of development? How many yet gan can be built per year as well? In comparison with the EJ flying in so many arcraft,the Kaveri is a non-starter and if tall claims ae being made yet agan by the GTRE,then if the engine fails again,the head and entire team should be arrested for decades of "sabotage" of this crucial system of India's defence and the GTRE disbanded to be replaced wih a new Aero-Engine R&D set up to make a whole range of engines from turbo-props to jets.
Oh Kaka cool down .... have a beer and chill.

What is your alternate planning to develop an engine?
Should keep importing engines as we have non developed and put people behind bars for trying to a develop one?
Are these guys having magic wands using which they can pull latest engine out of thin air?

Go outside in the fresh air and have a break...

Why even develop an engine ? Throw peanuts at R&D and expect miracles and when they don't happen, curse those who made the mistake of staying on with lower wages when they could've flown to greener pastures.

Anyway, in this particular case, the Ej200 has to be announced as the winner and the Tejas Mk2 has to progress further with that in mind. There is no time to lose at all and while I am all for getting the Kaveri up and running, the Tejas Mk2 program cannot be held hostage to its development time-frame. Otherwise, whatever chance the Tejas has of seeing extensive service with the IAF may also disappear.

I hope that there is no hanky-panky in this case, otherwise it will be the biggest shame that even with having won the L1 tender, the Eurojet Consortium may end up losing (or worse still the entire deal being re-tendered) due to buffoons in politics.

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 20 Sep 2010 21:44

nrshah wrote:Philip,

We cannot stop developing engine whatever it takes...EJ cannot be permanent solution... We have already decoupled LCA with kaveri, but that should not stop development of gas turbine in country...

but for how long mate,we decoupled kaveri and LCA and LCA MK-II,can we hope that it wont be repeated for MCA?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 20 Sep 2010 21:52

narayana wrote:
nrshah wrote:Philip,

We cannot stop developing engine whatever it takes...EJ cannot be permanent solution... We have already decoupled LCA with kaveri, but that should not stop development of gas turbine in country...
but for how long mate,we decoupled kaveri and LCA and LCA MK-II,can we hope that it wont be repeated for MCA?

As long as it takes. We cannot expect cutting edge turbofans to be developed with drip funding. Those who are cribbing about how much has been spent on the Kaveri need to go take a look at what has been spent on the various engine programs the world over, over decades in R&D, testing, and manpower.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Sep 2010 21:54

The Kaveri can wait. Lets equip the Tejas trainers with it if induction is so important. Or build a variant for the IJT. The Tejas programme needs to be completely decoupled from it. Until the Kaveri can match the EJ-200's thrust (unlikely), the IAF cannot be expected to accept a under par aircraft even if its truly desi.

With regard to the EJ-200 pipping the GE-414... <lungi dance>Go Eurofighter Go!!!</lungi dance>

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 20 Sep 2010 23:22

please use the whine thread.

yantra · Post by **yantra** » 20 Sep 2010 23:32

Kartik wrote: As long as it takes. We cannot expect cutting edge turbofans to be developed with drip funding. Those who are cribbing about how much has been spent on the Kaveri need to go take a look at what has been spent on the various engine programs the world over, over decades in R&D, testing, and manpower.

In my opinion, it is exactly this attitude of our establishment that has led to callousness towards indigenous engine development. Funding for Kaveri has to be upped substantially once it is proven (underpowered alright). We should not decouple LCA from Kaveri at all, but roll out a new line of LCAs powered by Kaveri - call it Tejas - INK or something. The point is, parallel thrust to acquire indigenous capability should continue without let-up. Well, who said you cannot dream

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 21 Sep 2010 01:23

How can the kaveri become anequal of the EJ200? The Kaveri was designed with a lesser set of parameters and thrust goals for what was initially the needs for the LCA. The LCA ha since become heavier with more capabilities added onto it and has some weight issues to deal with too.
The Kaveri seems to be getting close to its design parameters and inspite of the shortfall will be a great achievement by GTRE.
India has really underpaid its engineers and scientists, and GTRE and the Kaveri program remains somewhat underfunded. Add to this, one sarkari babu at GTRE having to deal with another sarkari babu in GOI, and the problems and the sarkari inertia that has to be overcome - you all know what I am talking about.
Then add to this the fact that there is tech denial and the sad fact that the alloys and other components that are needed are not made in India at all, and no one seems to have the tech to do so within the country either.

For sure, if a Tata, Birla, Godrej or a Reliance had been running a GTRE and developing a Kaveri, we would probably have gotten rid of the sarkari inertia part, there would be more dedication to the project perhaps, vendors and suppliers would have been lined up much quicker, yes the Kaveri would probably have arrived by now.

But the fact is that the folks at GTRE stayed the course and are close. How can we not appreciate what they have achieved?

vina · Post by **vina** » 21 Sep 2010 10:50

Umm. Shukla says that EJ-200 is the front runner aye ? Well, gotta say that the EJ200 is a pretty impressive piece of engineering, cutting edge in many respects. All blisk 3 stage fan with wide chord blades and without a inlet guide vane, just five compressor stages

and cutting edge materials in turbine and hot section , with a thrust to weight ratio of better than 9:1. Hmm. Not sure if it is contra rotating like the F-119 , that seems to only thing "lacking" in it. I guess if we get full ToT to that engine and license manufacture it there really is no "need" for the Kaveri in it's present form anymore. The LCA power plant requirement will have been taken care of for good.

But sure, given the Kaveri's outsized compressor as it exists, with the better materials from the EJ-200, if we can put a new larger counter rotating LP system around it we can get a 130 to 150 odd KN "Godavari" out of it

for stuff like AMCA and even maybe the PAKFA , sort of inverse of what the GTRE is planning to do right now , by taking the tinku sa, chikna sa M88-3 Snecma Eco core and putting it in the current Kaveri's LP system. Maybe, they ought to do the reverse now by taking the existing large core from the Kaveri, infuse it with the EJ200's materials and build a new larger than current LP system to get a bigger and higher thrust engine for future applications.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Sep 2010 10:55

I must go back to a conversation wih a former VCoAS,who gave me a low down account of how several programmes,including Kaveri were run during his days in service,allowing such "drift" n the LCA project.He also point blank asked Kalam if the GOI was really interested in the LCA when a GTRE boffin lied at a mtg. saying that Kaveri "would be ready in 3 months".Now if you do your calculations you would see how long ago that was!
The sad fact is that here has been no overall holistic approach to building up an indgenous aero-space industry in the country because the IAF are never in the loop of development (until now),HAL and the DRDO "plough their lonely furrows" and despite several projects on the anvil,from basic traines,IJTs,AJTs.LCs,MCAs,what have you,plus all the helo projects,we have not set up a unified engine development centre with simultaneous programmes to design and develop engines for the mulitude of projects in hand,that too after decades of building under licence a host of aero-engines! Therefore we run from "pillar to post",to France,then to Russia,then to the US,then to Europe,then back to the GTRE and Kaveri,like clowns running round in a circus ring!

The LCA programme must be given the concerted focus it demands,having spent so much of taxpayers money and decades in time.There are just two contenders,Kaveri must be firmly kept out of it as it has been an abject faliure o date with not one engine perfected as yet.I'm still waiting for the perfection of the much touted "marine" version of Kaveri for the IN's warships too! As my friend,former VCoAS often said to the IAF/MOD/GOI,"the programme is hostage to the speed of its engine development",That statement still holds good.The sooner the GOI takes a decision,the faster will the LCA project bear fruit.No wonder then that the IAF has come out with its open statements accusing the decisonmakers of draggng their feet.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 21 Sep 2010 11:26

if the kaveri fails, someone needs to be shot