LCA news and discussion

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 31 Jul 2009 20:14

Lack of news on Tejas' is bad. Would it help say we call ADA's office and ask them to update status, until then zamzam cola and relax

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 31 Jul 2009 21:02

After Aero-Inida-2009, there was not a single official news on Tejas. Earlier we used have some news (good or bad whatever it be) with an interval. But there is no news in last 4 - 5 moths. I wonder if they want to keep this in secret or this is an utter failure ADA-HAL combo.

I wish ADA-HAL people are reading our thread and will give us some good news soon .....

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 31 Jul 2009 22:38

PratikDas wrote:Sir, I am no Aero guru and hence my question. My interest stems from
Bobs @ 9:33pm wrote:if the LCA had chosen those square intakes we would have by now stopped buying fighters........but the french snechma made a big fool of ADA............that news is 100% correct....i can confirm that as someone who has been associated with the program for sometime.....some of you might be surprised to know that the original LCA design incorporated the use of box intakes....and the frenchies redesigned it to suit their tastes at our expense....no wonder our a/c ,which was designed to reach Mach 2.2 ,just manages to reach M 1.8...

Now compare the intakes of the older hornet and the new one...and you get the picture.

First of all, I'm no "sir". I somehow don't buy the argument that just having a box shape alone is going to make the all-important change in thrust or that the current shape is the cause for the thrust shortfall. the Rafale has semi-circular intakes and fares just fine and so does the Mirage, although it does have the "mouse" that regulates air flow at different airspeeds.

regarding what the gentleman on Livefist wrote about the LCA being designed for Mach 2.2 and being restricted to Mach 1.8- what restricts the LCA to a lower than Mach 2 speed is the boundary layer splitter that is located right next to the intake and divides the intake from the fuselage. its job is to maintain turbulence free air into the intake at all speeds and conditions. by making it fixed (as with all 4th gen fighters), you take away one complicated design and make it easier to manufacture, easier to maintain and that much less prone to failure. besides, a Mach 2 dash is very rarely used nowadays anyway and uses up a lot of fuel because the afterburner is required.

inlet design is a very complicated inter-disciplinary process and the presence of experimental data from previous designs is a very big help. of course, with the advent of CFD, flow modelling is easier, but nevertheless, this is the first time in India that anyone has attempted something of this nature. I do know that ADA made use of the high speed supersonic wind-tunnel in France and that they had to book it more than a year in advance- and that developmental work prior to that had to be scheduled based on the date for the wind-tunnel testing. I don't think however, that the French simply offloaded their design onto the LCA, or that in some way, they shorted the LCA by using an inferior semi-circular design instead of a "box" shaped design.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Jul 2009 22:52

I don't remember reading ever that LCA had originally planned to have boxy intakes. I've a lot of old mag articles on LCA (and I mean really old, from early/mid 80's) and I've never come across such a design.

it is a fact however that the original LCA design had foreplanes and plain delta wings before they shifted to the current canted delta without foreplanes.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 01 Aug 2009 03:16

Kartik wrote: inlet design is a very complicated inter-disciplinary process and the presence of experimental data from previous designs is a very big help. of course, with the advent of CFD, flow modelling is easier, but nevertheless, this is the first time in India that anyone has attempted something of this nature.

Exactly this is the point ... we simply do not have experience/data/knowledge ... so we have to built it. I don’t understand what is stopping IAF to replace MIG-21bis with Tejas. As I read it will take at least 2 years for any plane to become operational. Sooner the better.

I know from my personal exp., we can make plan and develop all systems with user inputs, but when the system is in production there are always short-comings and periodic enhancements are requested. It is easy to enhance the system once we know user is using a system and they know what exactly they want. So we have to concentrate on short-comings/enhancements. Of course until we implement such things, user continue using the system with the help of workarounds (themselves invented or with developer helps). Sometime user get tired of these cycles especial with any new system as new system requires many more iteration then enhancements on top of the existing system.

We as developers don't expect that user will accept it in first few tries, because we know system is far from perfect. But to make it perfect we need continues feedback from the user. If we don't get support/feedback from user during development or introduction of new system, we also let the things fall free. As neither we are the users nor do we have telepathy to know user requirements. In rare cases, to teach a lesson to user, by delaying the product so those users continue using existing substandard system. On top by not offering enhancement/better options when they are quite easy to implement.

I guess that is the problem with defense personals and development agencies. These are normal with so many people involved. But the cost and consequences are too fatal for the country. I am sure there is common understanding and compromises along with differences. As without positive critique there is no development. As our goal is same; to serve the nation, may be our means are different. Require bit more self-confidence, trust and common understanding among us.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 01 Aug 2009 06:41

if the LCA had chosen those square intakes we would have by now stopped buying fighters......

Yup!

Would have stopped flying them too. In fact, a boxy shape to the entire airframe would have made the LCA much more useful as competition to the Tata Sumo.

The "boxy intake" is a quick way to make a variable-geometry inlet with ramps, and becomes a good idea when you have to get up to Mach 3+, and think you are going to spend a lot of time at those conditions. At low dash Mach numbers like on the LCA, this is a total waste of weight, and for the transonic condition, it is an absolutely terrible idea. Where do people GET these notions, I wonder?

Back to the BENIS thread. At least there the Mullahs are knowledgeable...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Aug 2009 06:44

^^^
and when is that article on LCA coming ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Aug 2009 06:46

SanjibGhosh wrote:After Aero-Inida-2009, there was not a single official news on Tejas. Earlier we used have some news (good or bad whatever it be) with an interval. But there is no news in last 4 - 5 moths. I wonder if they want to keep this in secret or this is an utter failure ADA-HAL combo.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 19#p629519
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 95#p690895

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 01 Aug 2009 09:41

and when is that article on LCA coming ?

Good question, and since the pooch comes from an Adminullah, I shall jawaab, hujoor, pls don't ban me 4 the flammenfest that I shall proceed to ignite:

So here is the article, By Yuwar Commaaaaand! Beer Reviews welcome.

1. There are now plenty of articles on the LCA, so it is a tall order 4 Les Ignorantes to add anything new and valid.
2. I am not happy about the long delay in mass production and deployment. Best "excuse" I can think of, is the lack of engines, which of course makes me much madder.
3. I am of course not happy about the failure of the kaveri engine to demonstrate acceptable performance. Come on, they need to get it to the point where at least it can be used in 3 tech demonstrator LCAs safely, so that the engine can then be refined. Instead all I hear is yada yada yada about GTRE "waking up". This needs "War Phooting Blue Ribbon Commishun" etc; more to the point, they need an Abdul Kalam Mark IV who will set up his cot on the grounds and live there day and night until the buggers get the damn thing working. If GTRE had been running the IGMDP, India would only have Powerpoint Missiles today.

Look, elsewhere I saw that India manufactures the engines for the Mig-29 and maybe for Su-30MKI. OK, how tough is it to either (a) adapt the LCA to use one of these engines or (b) steal the technology from these, maybe entire components, and solve whatever the heck is hindering performance of the Kaveri?

I have heard the following about the Kaveri's problems:

A. High altitude performance lacking. To me, this means that the thrust lapse rate is too bad. This probably means that (a) the compressor can't produce enough pressure ratio, (b) the combustor can't operate efficiently because the pressure in the chamber is too low, and so the reaction rate is too low for complete combustion. (c) turbine blades failing, can't withstand combination of temperature and rpm.

(a) is because
(i) the blades stall: poor stage design / poor blade surface contouring
(ii) rotating stall / surge : similar reasons to the above
(iii) transonic, shock-in-rotor design produces too much loss due to rotor/stator interaction. Poor CFD code validation, and/or sloppy stage fabrication. Both likely. Instead of doing physics-based CFD codes, I have reason to believe (Ignorance Zindabad!) that GTRE gives grants to ppl to go buy 6th rate scam commercial codes from you ess ay or maybe ees ra yel that I wouldn't trust to get it right whether the flow is going from left to right or right to left. This is not R&D, it is sheer laziness.

(iv) labyrinth seal design to keep the flow from leaking back upstream near the blade roots/ shaft bearings: maybe friction is too high. Maybe film design is poor (there is a field called Tribology which apparently has nothing to do with Waziristan). OK, STEAL good designs from the RD-series Russian engines, or from the Mirage engines, what's so tough about this? Can I believe that a nation that operated MiG-25s to 100,000 feet for years in the 1980s, can't figure out why those engines worked to such heights?

Ok, consider that the engines on those saath-saath-saath havaii jehazes being serviced every day in Mumbai, have compressor pressure ratio of something like PACCHAAS! Their seal technology must be something, so STEAL, dammit!

(b) is because
(i) combustor design is poor - again, see above re: 6th-rate codes, this time from UQ sources, I believe. Come on, those codes don't work unless you have really good data from really good experiments. What the heck are all those pee-ech-dees at the ai-ai-teas doing in Knick-Knack Cafeteria instead of getting these done? Why hasn't GTRE got these things solved through determined progress through the years?
(ii) failure to use things like plasma ignition and flameholding
(iii) if all else fails, put some speakers ducting high-intensity sound into the combustors and increase the efficiency. You can get very nearly 100% that way.

(c) STEAL single-crystal turbine technology, or just redesign the turbine to take the blades from Russian engines produced in India. What are all those Metallurgy weanines doing in the ai-ai-teas if they can't figure out how single crystal blades are made? The technology is now 30 years old!

B. Low thrust-2-Weight Ratio: See above re: compressor pressure ration and combustor efficiency

C. Insufficient transonic thrust: See (B).

4. Corollary: I see that Indian cruise missile development and mass production is hindered by lack of progress towards micro turbofan engines a la Williams.

Again, all I can say is, they needed moi 20 years back (i.e., in the days when I still did useful work).

5. LCA production. I had (and still have since i don't know if these were listened to and acted upon) a few comments about the production and manufacture of the composite panels of the LCA that I do not want to publish, but conveyed to the "right" people. I would have thought these should be obvious, but I am afraid to look now because I think I'll find that they are still scratching around blaming the engine thrust and aerodynamic drag prediction when all they need to do is open their eyes.

6. Unfortunately I have developed the Spinster ailment: first-hand observation of how things are done. This takes all the fun out of writing admiring articles, which requires a fine dedication to ignorance. Hence I have been trying to keep mouth and fingers quiet.

7. No one is saying that the LCA should be cancelled, any more, so in that sense we have won.

On the other hand, no one seems to care if the LCA is cancelled or not any more, which depresses the heck out of me.
By this time, I would have expected 20 prototypes to be flying, testing out 6 different engine choices, and 10 different airframe configurations/ instrument-weapon-mission packages.

I don't think the issues are aerodynamics or propulsion any more. Would welcome collaborashun with some production/ deployment/armament experts to write an article, if any, but it may have to recommend disbanding GTRE and the production wing of whoever is supposed to perfect the production of the LCA.

I think the LCA program needs good management - the Big Guys who had the vision and determination seem to have retired.

Some recommendations:

1. War-footing project to solve the kaveri's problems. Develop 7 different test programs:
a) Very High Pressure Ratio Compressor stall alleviation.
b) Very High Pressure Ratio Stage facility
c) Low pressure combustor
d) high pressure combustor
e) High-temp turbine
f) High-rpm turbine (incl, microturbines to 300,000 RPM)
g) High rpm seals

2. Manufacturing:
a) composite panel iterative pre-design to achieve perfect fit and finish, first time, in manufacturing.
b) Rapid production demonstration facility: to achieve scalable rate, upto 50 aircraft a week and 100 engines per week.

3. High Reynolds Number Flight Test facility: to reduce drag.

4. Computational Fluid Dynamics Center: To develop PHYSICS-BASED ("ab initio") prediction codes, validated for every step through experiments.

(of course I would be happy to set all these up in a weekend.

)

And MOST ESSENTIAL:

A state of the art Inverse Design Facility (super-secret of course) equipped with the latest in measurement, imaging, holographic reconstruction, chemical and metallurgical testing, software testing, etc, etc, TO STEAL STUFF, REVERSE ENGINEER IT, FIGURE OUT WHY IT WORKED, AND COPY AND VALIDATE IMITATIONS!

All is, Tall, Fair and Lovely in War, as they say. Eeph u don't think the Bhesht does this, check into what is called the "Foreign Technology Division" at one of the labs there, say, Wright-Patterson AFB or Dryden Flight Test center. The FIRST thing one has to do in military research is steal everything that everyone else has, to figure how to do as well, and then beat it.

munna · Post by **munna** » 01 Aug 2009 09:49

^^ There goes my raaton ke neend! Good and informative article N cube ji although I must say very depressing only.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 01 Aug 2009 10:14

Much easier to take bribes and order MRCA!

narayanan wrote:
and when is that article on LCA coming ?
Good question, and since the pooch comes from an Adminullah, I shall jawaab, hujoor, pls don't ban me 4 the flammenfest that I shall proceed to ignite:

SNIP SNIP SNIP

ology Division" at one of the labs there, say, Wright-Patterson AFB or Dryden Flight Test center. The FIRST thing one has to do in military research is steal everything that everyone else has, to figure how to do as well, and then beat it.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 01 Aug 2009 10:57

Trouble with ordering MRCA is that it comes with EUMA, and all such other hangups. If India were China, this would be no problem at all, but India being India...

In the year 5077 BCE, when I was an undergraduate on Tour to the Engine Phaktory at Bangalore, Kerala, I asked this question, on why India could not build indigenously designed engines, when turbine blades were so visibly being manufactured and measured down to the finest detail in tolerance, right there, for the British engine being manufactured under license.

Everything is under license onlee, we cannot copy from them, it is prohibited onlee!

IOW, Indians even then were great at following BLUEPRINTS supplied by gore log, but could not go to chai in the evening and sketch out on a newspaper how the bloody things worked to the SDRE chankians with the dark glasses? Wow!

Surely that cannot be the reality of how defense R&D works, but I have to wonder why, 1,700,000 years later, GTRE right next door does not seem to be any further along with the (YES, KAVERI!) engine whose model was sitting in the glass case there then.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 01 Aug 2009 18:50

This forum must be dead, if THAT did not bring rebuttals/ hate posts.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 01 Aug 2009 19:08

Harsh reality has left us numb.

Ajay K · Post by **Ajay K** » 01 Aug 2009 19:28

I second you Narayanji, GTRE is squarely to be blamed for the failure of the Kaveri engine project. I remember some so called scientists from the same unit were busy show casing the CAD and CFD modeling done in the project quizing the software vendor whether it could do this, that instead of rolling up their sleeves and writting their own code. I am sure those folks might have moved on to more coosy MNC jobs in gee ee doing the same quality of work. May be a CAG/ISRO style audit of this organization will go miles in securing engine research projects in India. A detailed audit with finding as to why this project failed and learnt can be many lessons that would not be repeated.

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 01 Aug 2009 19:40

^^ This rant above lowers the quality of any forum. Amount of real information = zero. Incorrect stomach bile and acid = 100.

Reality is that kaveri exists and GTRE has done its mandate to make certain class of engine per required specs. For more details on entire design process and "writing their own code", please refer to "Simulation technologies and testing methodologies applied to development of aero gas turbine" working paper presented by TMRao, SK Kumar, U Chandrashekhar, TN Suresh, in Quarter 1 2009.

The information provided clearly shows the effort to develop the complete AG Turbine, and achieve the design goals as specified.

About reverse engineering, the path was explored and dropped when it was made clear that all it would give was a copy of original GE series engine and that too, it would not provide "know why".

Current LCA MK2 weight has now been revised by > 1.5T (MTOW) according to IAF revised specification. This is out of control of GTRE or ADA, and clearly there is no time for another engine project, so a license produced engine will be used.

Kaveri (original) will still be useful for various other aircraft project in India & its core can also be used for other programs which are now going on. I would not say that it will be allowed to go away. R&D developmnent and continuation is all about money. Thanks to indian economic boom, for first time projects are taken to logical conclusion and further development and not just put in cold storage.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 01 Aug 2009 19:44

My complaint is that "they" (meaning the entire establishment, not GTRE) is being ALLOWED to claim "failure" as in "let's go shopping!!!" instead of being told that in the Soviet Union, they would have had a choice. Siberia or success. This might serve to focus their minds wonderfully.

There is NO alternative to an excellent indigenous capability to build military aircraft engines. Note that ISRO is building cryogenic engines with turbopumps that run at hajaaaar RPM under extreme conditions and extreme weight constraints. WHAT is the problem with the Kaveri project that cannot be solved by honest hard work and thought?

I was just going to celebrate Vikram_S's post when I noticed the explanation:

it would not provide "know why".

Not without some intelligent, hard work it wouldn't, so that in itself tells us how much of that is going on, and about the willingness to persist. Very simple way of looking at it (sure, zero information!)

1. Use that famous Modeling and Simulation capability with accurate models of the deconstructed component/part/assembly.
2. PREDICT the performance of parts/assembly.
3. COMPARE against actual testing (there is no shortage of GE engines to test, hey?)
4. VALIDATE, and see if the prediction is close enough to resolve the uncertainties.
5. Iterate on this loop, and now instrument the components and look real carefully at the prediction vs. reality at every step and part. Find out what is working better than present indigenous design/prediction

This is the way that 'reverse engineering' is made to work. If everything possible has been learned, then the prediction and simulation must be 100% accurate.

Then what is the problem designing the Kaveri and making it perform?

OK, from above I see that the Kaveri project is perfectly on schedule etc.
Why are there no Indian engines being manufactured for the LCA? Or, why aren't Indian engines meeting whatever spec the IAF wants for the LCA?

Or, even better yet, pls tell me that I am completely wrong, and 1000 LCAs will be in the IAF in the next 6 months to counter the rising Chinese threat. The Pakis claim to be assembling Thundaars, hey?

clearly there is no time for another engine project, so a license produced engine will be used.

That single statement confirms everything I suspected, hey? Why does this not generate bile? Sounds like there was no upgrade path planned - though GTRE is down the street from ADA? Why isn't this a copout to Go Shopping? What is the point of further R&D since the New Indian Economy allows the luxury of jerking the specs around when there is "no time left" to rule out indigenous engines?

The other side of what I posted above is that what is attributed to "insufficient engine thrust" is really poor aerodynamic performance due to poor assembly / structure building, rather than poor aerodynamic design or prediction.

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 01 Aug 2009 20:00

narayanan wrote:My complaint is that "they" (meaning the entire establishment, not GTRE) is being ALLOWED to claim "failure" as in "let's go shopping!!!" instead of being told that in the Soviet Union, they would have had a choice. Siberia or success. This might serve to focus their minds wonderfully.

There is NO alternative to an excellent indigenous capability to build military aircraft engines. Note that ISRO is building cryogenic engines with turbopumps that run at hajaaaar RPM under extreme conditions and extreme weight constraints. WHAT is the problem with the Kaveri project that cannot be solved by honest hard work and thought?

Sir, you have to understand India.

GTRE has limited resources and ambitions which are set by DRDO which are set by its political master (MOD) which also include inputs from the end user (the Indian Air Force).

Now, it is a matter of fact, that the the R&D effort in India is treated with contempt - troika of media, some end user types for various reasons and establishment figures use media effectively.

When any ambitious attempt is made - there is no scope for understanding failure or even delay.

Recent article on IAF rejecting Safran bid to make a Kaveri Mk2 was presented as "we dont want to diminish local efforts, however meager". Note, last two words. This is how the entire creation of AG Turbine was treated.

In this environment, DRDO/GTRE never put their heads up or publicize successes, since they are afraid that a series of leaks and media attacks will then be used to humiliate them. Instead, they lay facts on table before powers that be in MOD and others and hope for best.

The Kaveri, is successful- it has met, moreorless, most requirements of original LCA engine expected & GTRE aims to conclude project by putting it on one of older LCA's, and finishing final stages (integration and operational testing).

There are no multiple reports about this because of what I have stated above. Instead, you will see scientific papers with minor publicity, for GTRE to inform peers in establishment that they have fulfilled mandate. The Paper I mention in Q1 2009 does that only. It talks of entire engine and design process (software) adopted - this is all they can do. More publicity and you will see media attacks about how the useless fool in DRDO betrayed the country etc.

But why is the present Kavery not good enough. This is another story.

But in 2005, IAF has come out with new requirements for the LCA. In 2005-07, these were formally agreed by ADA & HAL.

ADA and HAL have no choice. IAF is end user and if they want LCA to live, they have to agree. According to this, the LCA MTOW has gone up by around 1.5 T.

Now IAF has gone to LCA team and asked for higher thrust engine, which GTRE cannot develop in timeframe (they want LCA MK2 to be available operationally by 2012-13).

So GTRE tryed one last thing. They offered the IAF choice of using Kaveri-Snecma M88 hybrid for the LCA MK2. The IAF rejected this. (And you had some media attacks about that attempt also)

Let me state one last "joke" - sometime last year in Industrial seminar, one of our prominent youth politicians, with background in education abroad was around. He was loudly questioning all attempts to make everything locally, as "why re-invent the wheel".

But everything is not all gloomy. The MCA program has been technically given initial go ahead by a more reasonable AHQ (nowadays). And in my estimation, Kaveri Mk2 may be cleared, but given recent days and parliamentary pressure, it may be the new famed "solve everything" method of JV.

At the end it is all money. Since India is buying so much stuff from abroad, the influence groups are not directly threatened by further development of Kaveri or new Kaveri Mk2, so the project will very well still be cleared. However, there will be attempt to make it a JV and other stuff. If DRDO/GTRE resist, you can see more attack in media.

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 01 Aug 2009 20:10

narayanan wrote: Not without some intelligent, hard work it wouldn't, so that in itself tells us how much of that is going on, and about the willingness to persist. Very simple way of looking at it (sure, zero information!)

1. Use that famous Modeling and Simulation capability with accurate models of the deconstructed component/part/assembly.
2. PREDICT the performance of parts/assembly.
3. COMPARE against actual testing (there is no shortage of GE engines to test, hey?)
4. VALIDATE, and see if the prediction is close enough to resolve the uncertainties.
5. Iterate on this loop, and now instrument the components and look real carefully at the prediction vs. reality at every step and part. Find out what is working better than present indigenous design/prediction

It is not that simple sir. Handful of GE military engine were delivered to India, and each was worth it weight in gold for establishment. Only 1-2 were fully instrumented for use in actual test flying and these were kept carefully for actual test flying program.
When attempt to follow your 1-5 step method were followed, it became clear that reverse engineering was absolutely wrong method beyond giving some basic understanding.
At end of day, reverse engineered GE404 was doubtful to meet IAF requirement, most of process & manufacturing was impossible to recover but could only be estimated to nearby standards, and also, timeframe was not correct (Kaveri baseline design was done midway). So this approach was given up.
We may see that even Chinese attempt to make reverse engineering engine has not succeedded, and at end they also took Lyulka Saturn help.

This is the way that 'reverse engineering' is made to work. If everything possible has been learned, then the prediction and simulation must be 100% accurate.

Then what is the problem designing the Kaveri and making it perform?

OK, from above I see that the Kaveri project is perfectly on schedule etc.
Why are there no Indian engines being manufactured for the LCA? Or, why aren't Indian engines meeting whatever spec the IAF wants for the LCA?

Or, even better yet, pls tell me that I am completely wrong, and 1000 LCAs will be in the IAF in the next 6 months to counter the rising Chinese threat. The Pakis claim to be assembling Thundaars, hey?

Sir, this is given in my previous post. The LCA MK2 has been designed for a new 1.5T extr MTOW and IAF says it wants state of art tech for "new engine" with much more thrust. They also want fully reliable, certified engine - this is not possible to achieve via a remanufactured redesigned Kaveri. New engine development to meet IAF demand is not possible in just 4 years by which time IAF want LCA MK2

In AeroIndia archives there is post on Kaveri by KPrasad which examines other issues in detail, you will probaly find that of interest also.

clearly there is no time for another engine project, so a license produced engine will be used.

That single statement confirms everything I suspected, hey? Sounds like there was no upgrade path planned - though GTRE is down the street from ADA? Why isn't this a copout to Go Shopping? What is the point of further R&D since the New Indian Economy allows the luxury of jerking the specs around to rule out indigenous engines?[/quote]

It is the way things are.

The new engine project will have to be pitched for MCA project but not LCA MK2.

IAF has laid down timeline/operational specification for MK2 that are already challenging to meet.

The good part of "new Indian Economy" is that since there is so much money, our great Indian dalaal wont attempt to cancel such a project totally, since enough money is going for all other projects to US, Russia, Europe. But they will try and push for JV in "interest of time since GTRE is failure".

All I will say is - let us not believe everything media writes about Kaveri or GTRE when decision time looms.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Aug 2009 20:17

n^3 ji, I am mighty glad that my query has at least managed to lure you into this thread !!

coming back to your sober assessment, AFAIK, the kaveri has in fact managed to reach its original design goals of 52 kN/80 kN or nearabouts. unfortunately it is the LCA project itself that has undergone a considerable scope creep due to new IAF specifications. can't blame them too, it has been a while !

last we heard it was to go to russia for high altitude tests and we have had no further news of that event. the failure you are talking about (I think) is in a similar event in 2004.

as of now we know for sure only that original thrust requirements have been met, information about reliability, hi-alt etc is not available. our AI09 sleuths might correct me on the details.
also, GTRE is not sure if the thrust of kaveri can be improved, hence the need for foreign engines.
any comments ?

p.s. lastly, they had plans to mate the kaveri with LCA sometime in Dec' 09 according to wiki.

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 01 Aug 2009 20:22

One last thing to add, comparing ISRO to DRDO is not really valid, because ISRO is not really facing the nexus of import lobby, media, and end user preference for foreign, DRDO is facing. ISRO sets own goals with DOS, and can go for them.

Almost everything DRDO is doing, is facing above challenges and they are dancing to end user requirements and changes, plus facing the anger of import lobby. If small sensor on Chnadrayaan fails, ISRO can release press release saying "we have fallback it will work", which is not mocked.

If there is one software issue in one product of DRDO, then there will be 1000 article on how DRDO has betrayed indian military by giving junk. there is simply no comparison unfortunately. Also, in this environment, ISRO can publicize every success attempt made, DRDO cannot.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 01 Aug 2009 20:38

What N3 is saying is easily possible provided we pay for :-

SALARIES, LABS, Multiple Designs all of which require money.

The budget for Kaveri is pathetic. From open source Snecma was asking US$ 2 Billion just for providing its HP Core which would be integrated to GTRE LP. So the cost of problem solving with proved components was US$ 2 Billion. Compare this with GTRE budget. Even now there does not seem to be any attempt to build the required labs & test facilities.

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 01 Aug 2009 20:45

when last time attempt was made to ask for funds with long term development in mind, within few days of this happening, indian express, with aroor as journalist ran series of articles on drdo. one headline was reading:

6000 cr wasted, 10-yr delay & they want 150000 cr more

so there will be no huge "attempt to build the required labs & test facilities" or increase salary and all, because the game players have enough aroor type to push for certain opinion at correct time.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 01 Aug 2009 23:07

Thanks, Vikram, patient "faith-keeping" is so much harder than armchair ranting, I know. It's actually great news that a Kaveri engine WILL be put on an LCA and flown.

From all I see of Indian senior diplomats (not much, BTW, but maybe related to the nuclear establishment) I have always been impressed by how sharp they are in comprehending Indian interests. So it is quite incredible to me that there can be anything less than that in the critical area of defense procurement.

I don't see anything wrong with, say, the first 200 LCAs off the line flying off with imported GE or SNECMA engines (why not the Russian engines I wonder, since those are made in India now). Because the LCA production line IMO should go on for 1000 - 2000 craft and many years of evolution. Engines have very finite lifetime, so in its lifetime each craft should see maybe 3 generations of engines if not more. So the engine market is truly huge, and this is why there MUST be an Indian design/manufacturing bureau dedicated to it.

If GTRE is simply too small / demoralized / too understaffed etc. etc., they should either be expanded hugely, or converted to a design bureau that outsources all other functions. Then maybe they can have several different engines getting developed simultaneously.

But the other side is that the outside world must know WHY these things are turning out the way they are, so that sharp criticism can be delivered where it is really deserved.

That 1.5KN thrust increase demand, and the news about the max Mach underperformance, are linked IMO, and are related to the disconnect between produced vehicle and analyzed vehicle. Enough said. IMO, I think that should be fixed pronto and is fixable pronto.

BTW, it is a bit incredible that a craft has a max speed of Mach 1.05. If you can get there, you should be able to get to Mach 1.2 or 1.3 without too much trouble.

The other complaint I have is that we hear of "problems" with the Kaveri engine, but then nothing else. If it is now getting the desired pressure ratio and thrust-to-weight ratio and altitude performance, maybe those items, and even how those were solved, should be given a bit of publicity. How else can morale improve?

About the Indian defence forces and defence R&D, it is easier to find out from foreign public-domain literature (often quoting Indian experts) than from Indian sources. Why is this so? Why not take the trouble to educate Indians?

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 01 Aug 2009 23:30

Sir

there are certianly decision makers are smart, intelligent patriots because of which we are still "somewhere" but there are many others busy spinning gandhi charka of peace (dont spend on defence) and other decision makers do not understand amounts required, others choose not to understand.

only hope is india expands economically to the point where civilian sector and the "profit outlook" has enough for everyone to understand

sir, about LCA MK2:

That 1.5KN thrust increase demand, and the news about the max Mach underperformance, are linked IMO, and are related to the disconnect between produced vehicle and analyzed vehicle.

let me explain -

the basic LCA MK1 is also overweight by some amount, but this weight can be reduced over time, and that was the plan.

but the IAF has given requirement for lots of new items to go into the plane which will raise weight.

they do not want to specify all items in public because then TSP people and RIZALD will also know but overall weight (MTOW) has gone up by 1.5T (tentative).

LCA MK2 has to include AESA radar also (which is normally heavier from Mechanical antenna one).

this has affected projected performance of LCA especially in hot and high condition, so IAF specified brand new engine with substantially more thrust and "growth potential" - for new variant.

current orderbook plan for LCA MK2 is minimum 5 squadron of planes. IAF has 20 planes per squadron so that is 100 planes.

orderbook for LCA MK1 is 40 planes including 8-12 trainers.

Navy has asked for 2 squadron which is 40 planes at maximum or 20 (taking limited 10 per navy squadron).

this gives total production run of 160-180 planes for IAF and IN.

but more order can be expected (if we see Jaguar case, MKI case, IAF places follow on orders).

maximum speed has been achieved close to design limit of Mach 1.6, the thrust - to-weight problem will affect maximum payload carried which is the issue for IAF since they dont want to compromise on payload versus perfoemance (turn rate, acceleration and other things)

PS Subramanyam of ADA says that LCA growth plan till 2018 is well funded and cleared. this clearly also includes LCA MK2, which is intended for around 2013.

after that, let us see and hope for best.

but on optimistic side, funding to LCA has been improved, and many bottleneck have been removed in past few year.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 01 Aug 2009 23:46

Vikram_S wrote:when last time attempt was made to ask for funds with long term development in mind, within few days of this happening, indian express, with aroor as journalist ran series of articles on drdo. one headline was reading:

6000 cr wasted, 10-yr delay & they want 150000 cr more

so there will be no huge "attempt to build the required labs & test facilities" or increase salary and all, because the game players have enough aroor type to push for certain opinion at correct time.

Wasting of 6000 crores is too less, first we have to waste 60,000 crores and then next 6000 crores will give good results. We need to increase R&D budget by atleast ten times.

bala · Post by **bala** » 02 Aug 2009 01:36

kaveri exists and GTRE has done its mandate to make certain class of engine per required specs

Yes I believe the above but the statement perhaps embodies what is wrong with GTRE. The fact is that Kaveri as an air-worthy engine does not exist. At last count the high altitude test in Russia failed, which prompted a 2 year redesign effort. We don’t know the exact status of the redesigned engine. My hunch is that the main engine core blades/compressor was okay but the accessories that supply other vital needs failed at high temperatures/pressures. GTRE has not produced any aircraft engine worthy of its 50+ year existence, the only engine it has thus far is for an unmanned small aircraft.

There are several problems with GTRE and they include what I call the “Big Head Small Hands (BHSH)” syndrome, poor management and vision, lack of adequate testing facilities and lastly poor pay and thus high turnover. Most of the people at the top are the BHSH kind, completely divorced from practical hands-on experience, they do not have the capability to fix their own scooter/car engine. Big head, yes, all the theory, Navier-Stokes, CFD, etc is all well known. The top management is without leadership and vision, we have high turnover at the director level job, every two years we see a new face/name at GTRE.

I also have a slight disagreement on those who say we can learn from the Su-30, MiG, Jaguar, Mirage manufacturing experience. The ToT is misleading. What happens in practice is that HAL fails to manufacture critical components that pass QA. At the end of the year they come to a grinding reality wherein production quotas are missed. The Troika of HAL, IAF, DRDO/Defence huddle together and the Babus always win the argument. They make a call to Russia/Britain/France and have the critical part shipped to HAL, production quotas are met and the whole charade moves forward.

The only way the project will move forward is to have the attitude of the Indian Navy. Pin down all the players and make it a do-or-die mission. Involve the private sector like L&T, Walchand, Kirloskar and others including foreign aircraft engine experts. Plough ahead despite the failures and setback but eventually like the Arihant Nuclear Submarine launch the working Kaveri.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 02 Aug 2009 01:54

^^

The Navy also has been more realistic about what can be built locally in the timeframes available unlike the ADA which started working on localizing all components of the LCA.

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 02 Aug 2009 02:16

bala wrote:Yes I believe the above but the statement perhaps embodies what is wrong with GTRE. The fact is that Kaveri as an air-worthy engine does not exist. At last count the high altitude test in Russia failed, which prompted a 2 year redesign effort. We don’t know the exact status of the redesigned engine. My hunch is that the main engine core blades/compressor was okay but the accessories that supply other vital needs failed at high temperatures/pressures. GTRE has not produced any aircraft engine worthy of its 50+ year existence, the only engine it has thus far is for an unmanned small aircraft.

Sir, almost everything in your post is not correct, including your hunch. To get more details please read the data on Kaveri from AeroIndia where GTRE gave full disclosure on technical data achieved so far from the Kaveri. Air worthy engine exists and will be integrated on the LCA for the project to be completed.

What GTRE is also now justifiably focused on now is the future! KAVERI MK1 is done, and its derivative growth path (for Marine, industrial) is also ok but for any future engine, development has to start now, not 10 years from now when babu decide that MCA is required and give GTRE 5 years for "engine development". That is the problem in India.

50+ year existence is standard Indian joke. Giving lab a building, some chaprasi and handful of staff and saying it exists is nothing but petty fogging which Indian bureaucracy is been doing since 1950s including famed VK Menon. What matters is funding and long term vision. In China, RUssia, many projects were launched, most were failure, they had "success" in third attempt. In India, one project is usually launched, and only then every thing begins, including building for basic infrastructure. Then claims are made why nothing is done and why it is taking so long. This is usual process.

There are several problems with GTRE and they include what I call the “Big Head Small Hands (BHSH)” syndrome, poor management and vision, lack of adequate testing facilities and lastly poor pay and thus high turnover. Most of the people at the top are the BHSH kind, completely divorced from practical hands-on experience, they do not have the capability to fix their own scooter/car engine. Big head, yes, all the theory, Navier-Stokes, CFD, etc is all well known. The top management is without leadership and vision, we have high turnover at the director level job, every two years we see a new face/name at GTRE.

No sir, for perhaps some people in every organization your words may apply but not all. The people at GTRE top are not always BHSH or whatever funny management acronym, but the endurers who endured being in Govt set up, with low salary and high expectations and have finally seen end of a very long journey. Point is to retain them and talent pool which has been made and not to throw them away as we did with submarine manufacturing (HDW sub line ---> Scorpene delay)

Also truth is there is a key shortage of professional who can do engine development at the level GTRE needs and training personnel to standards required is very time consuming since many leave to take IT job for much higher salary. If you see where GTRE is located you woudl understand

Hiring foreign consultants is also not perfect, as they are only limited in assistance.

I also have a slight disagreement on those who say we can learn from the Su-30, MiG, Jaguar, Mirage manufacturing experience. The ToT is misleading. What happens in practice is that HAL fails to manufacture critical components that pass QA. At the end of the year they come to a grinding reality wherein production quotas are missed. The Troika of HAL, IAF, DRDO/Defence huddle together and the Babus always win the argument. They make a call to Russia/Britain/France and have the critical part shipped to HAL, production quotas are met and the whole charade moves forward.

I dont know year when your data is from, but such is no longer the case. FYI, it is impossible to do what you suggest now since production abroad and in India is done in advance and getting parts at last moment is next to impossible. Also with CAG audit, overstocking for risk management is also not possible, as ADA has discovered when it ordered extra unit of one avionics item and was given complaint for that too.

The only way the project will move forward is to have the attitude of the Indian Navy. Pin down all the players and make it a do-or-die mission. Involve the private sector like L&T, Walchand, Kirloskar and others including foreign aircraft engine experts. Plough ahead despite the failures and setback but eventually like the Arihant Nuclear Submarine launch the working Kaveri.

It is now surprising to see one high profile project with publicity now suddenly brought out as example of success. Till date, ATV project was cited as example of failure, non accountability, and now with one boat launch (and trials ahead), it is example?

ATV project has received uninterrupted, almost unlimited (by Indian standard) funds and huge amount of foreign technical assistance to level that 100+ Russian engineers attended launch function. This is the kind of standard taken for granted in most foreign defence projects but which is very unusual for Indian condition

Such assistance is nowhere there for any other Indian project so far. Kaveri in comparison is project that has seen funds come, funds go, and funds come. Consultancy has been ad hoc. Design assistance limited. Clearly, there was no strategic assistance by foreign partner or "blank cheque" from local political establishment to make Kaveri succeed.

Even then ATV project was launched in 1984 and first ship is available now. With original "aims" to have a nuclear sub in 1970's. In fact, one can say Kaveri development was marginally faster with more constraints.

If ATV level of help is given for every project, then things will be different. But that level of help is not there in India for many reasons and will not be either. So let us be realistic.

Complaining about people and this and that is not the issue. Long term vision to build engines in India is the issue.

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 02 Aug 2009 02:22

vera_k wrote:^^

The Navy also has been more realistic about what can be built locally in the timeframes available unlike the ADA which started working on localizing all components of the LCA.

One must see strategic aim of LCA project versus strategic aim of Navy. Navy has been building ship constantly since 1970's timeframe (including when plans started).

In case of LCA if this was the case, then ADA does not need to start localizing components. The LCA was made because there was over decade plus gap in fighter aircraft in India.

So the comparison is not totally correct

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Aug 2009 02:33

V.good discussion this. Thank you Rahul M, N3 and Vikram. Even though jingos have been starved to near mindlessness by a dearth of reports on the LCA iof late, this discussion is a good (not nearly enough of course) substitute.

Raj M,
I'd agree - pour in the $$$s for local R&D.

CM.

bala · Post by **bala** » 02 Aug 2009 02:58

Vikram_S wrote:Air worthy engine exists and will be integrated on the LCA... KAVERI MK1 is done ..

Unless you have inside information, all of the above observations need to be made public and shown as a demo, until then skeptics like me and others continue to disbelieve the statement.

Another thing that is hard to swallow, in your defence of GTRE, is that the GTRE establishment and its personnel are okay and it is the media and skeptics are wrong. The track record of GTRE is not stellar and its current effort has no tangible product either. We all know that it is underfunded and lacks leadership. The zeal of mission accomplishment is missing. N^3 has presented a practical way to achieve the mission of creating an airworthy engine. I see nothing of the sort either in literature or news that indicate such an effort. The IAF attitude for indigenous development is also poor, lately they seem to co-opt with responsibility. If there is blame, then all these entities including the Govt need to share in the blame.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 02 Aug 2009 03:00

Welcome back Bala garu.

I concurr with you on the core competency of GTRE.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Aug 2009 04:22

For those who worry that the LCA has too many rivets and the composites are not noticeable:

Gripen C/D: (30% composite structure)

Tejas Trainer: (45% composite structure)

A larger image is available here:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Image ... 2.jpg.html

Btw, they mention the Gripen's RCS to be quite low (0.1 msq)!

CM

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 02 Aug 2009 04:55

bala wrote: Unless you have inside information, all of the above observations need to be made public and shown as a demo, until then skeptics like me and others continue to disbelieve the statement.

Sir All the statemetns have been made public in various places in both 2008 and 2009. It is a different matter that horse can be led to water but not made to drink which is often case with media and skeptics. That is not in GTREs hands. It is usually the case with most things in India so we shoudl be used to it by now!! Arjun is in production, ready for trial with T-90 and there is rtd guy on TV show saying "it is still not in production". RVV-AE missile is fixed, but CAG is telling us of problems from years past. Such is reality.

Anyways further evidence is below and I have also given citation of a public available article which I have accessed and read and which you also can.

1.Another thing that is hard to swallow, in your defence of GTRE, is that the GTRE establishment and its personnel are okay and it is the media and skeptics are wrong. 2.The track record of GTRE is not stellar and its current effort has no tangible product either. 3.We all know that it is underfunded and lacks leadership. The zeal of mission accomplishment is missing. N^3 has presented a practical way to achieve the mission of creating an airworthy engine. 4.I see nothing of the sort either in literature or news that indicate such an effort. The IAF attitude for indigenous development is also poor, lately they seem to co-opt with responsibility. If there is blame, then all these entities including the Govt need to share in the blame.

The statements "hard to swallow" and "defence of GTRE" indicate a combative post.

In that case I have nothing further to add, as winning internet arguement is not my point here, but to just lay out the reality as it is currently, for better or worse.

I have put your statements in numbered format, and I will answer according to them.

1. First you say I need to have "inside information".

suppose i say I do using some "chaiwallah claim", then does my saying this automatically make me believable versus plain logic?
let us leave all this inside information out of the reality for now.

i have also backed up my statement with public record. you are welcome to try for exact article i have given citation for, because it shows complete track of designing an Aero Gas Turbine and path taken by GTRE.

2.Track record is "not stellar" -? In previous post you were quoting ATV as example of "success" - now is India's track record in ATV manufacture stellar?

This is also not correct, right.

If org or person is given one task to do and funded for one task with severe operational constraint, then how can the person be said to be stellar or not stellar on basis of that task? because the conditions were not optimal also.

GTRE performance can only be judged over a longer period, when it is given access to funds and has other requirements beyond one engine. whether GTRE is stellar or not stellar is going to be clear over next few projects if cleared.

Right now, they have done their job, and saying that is just giving their due.

3. We can claim it is "underfunded" to some degree (but it is reality for most defence projects) but how do "we know it lacks leadership"?

Similarly, evidence needs to be provided about "establishment and personnel" and BSHS. Yes, I have seen these personnel and I find many of them to be good, normal people.

Again, please apply same standards, insider information or not. some people in any organization are (words not to be printed) but to say all, are, is generalizing too much.

4. if you see nothing of sort in news or literature to indicate an effort, then you should search this forum itself to save time. because on this forum, using search function on this forum itselfs, i could find this:

1. February 2009:

k prasad wrote:Ok.... this is the GTRE story - (someone come up with sad music plz).... from the Aeroseminar.

An overview of the Kaveri situation was provided by the GTRE director, T. Mohan Rao, who was accompanied by his senior scientists. The hall was packed, and the language and tone of his speech was sadly self-depracating and pleading. Almost as if DRDO has also started losing faith - he had to explain whats going on and why its happening. Sad to see, but there are clear silver linings in the story.

1. He pointed out that the change in IAF requirements and the increase in all up wt by 2 tons killed the Kaveri as they knew it, simply because it could not in any way be able to achieve the new requirements... he was quite angry that they had been blamed for what was obviously not their fault, ie, a low-performing Kaveri for the updated reqs. Bypass Ratio is 0.16 to 0.18... he pointed out that if it had to meet the new stds, the bypass would have to be at least 0.35 to 0.45.

2. 4 Cores and 8 Kaveris built, 1800 hrs testing done.

Thrsut demonstrated: 4774 kgf dry (design value reached). 7000 kgf reheat (2.5-3% shortfall)

3. Pressure ratio - 21.5 overall.

Fan - 3 stage, 3.4 pressure ratio, Surge margin>20.
Compressor 6.4 pressure,Surge>23.
Combustor - efficiency >99%, high intensity annular combustor. Pattern factor of 0.35 and 0.14

Note: These are ACHIEVED values.

4. The present Kaveri will not power combat LCAs, although it will be fitted to an LCA within 9 months. The new program, which is the Kaveri with Snecma Eco core of 90kN will be used. The preslim design studies and configuration have beeen completed.

5.Birdhit requirements of 85% thrust after hit at 0.4-0.5 Mach have been shown and achieved.

6. He pointed out the major factor in delays being them not being given enough infrastructure and testing facilities - Govt has not given funds, babus have sat on them. Instead, they have had to go to CIAM in Russia and Anecom in Germany for tests.

He mentioned that this was the biggest problem - one of the issues they have was in engine strain and the blade throws - they tried to isolate all the causes for 3 yrs, but only when they took it to CIAM for the Non Intrusive Strain Measurement (NSMS) tests did they realize that there were excess vibrations of the 3rd order of engine frequency being developed.... imagine if the facility was there in india.

Then, the compressor tests also, it was only at the Anecom that they could see that the 1st 2 stages were surged by 20%, while the rest were "as dead as government servants" (his quote - shows how low on confidence they are i guess). He pointed out that that would have saved a lot of time and money if that facility was in india. They have since fixed the issue.

Then, the afterburner tests, (the much highlighted high altitude failure) at CIAM - the reqt is for 50% thrust boost over dry thrust at 88% efficiency. The K5 prototype failed in 2003, after working perfectly in the GTRE. They realized that they could not achieve lightup at high altitudes (Dry thrust worked ok).

They took anothe new engine block and the afterburner worked perfectly and has been certified to 15 km.

7. The good news..... they will conduct complete engine trials in CIAM in March. If these trials are successful (and they are highly confident), the Kaveri will be integrated on the LCA within 9 months.

The KADECU FADEC system with manual backup has also been fully certified.

8. The bad news again - The present requirements would need the core to pump out 15-20% more power, which is impossible... hence the eco. Not that there is anything wrong with the core.

He mentioned that otherwise, the Kaveri has met the original requirements, or will meet within the next month, and is good for all other uses except a "combat LCA" - ie, CAT, LIFT, LCA Trainer, etc.

9. When asked where we lack, he mentioned 4 key areas

a. BLISK - integrated single Blade and Disk
b. Single Crystal blades - he categorically said - We do not have that tech at all.
c. Thermal Barrier Coatings - TBC - very critical for high temp engine operation. A talk on this by an American Indian prof attracted a house full audience. He mentioned that this is highly critical and export controlled, so they dont have it.

The last two points were mentioned by Dir, DMRL as one of their areas of research, but I was not able to quiz him on it. PLEASE QUIZ ANY DMRL GUYS U MEET ON THIS.

Mohan Rao appealed that people should realize that this tech takes time, and money, and more importantly, willpower and support.... its not being given by foriegn nations, so if we have to develop, it needs support. This stance found strong support from Saraswat, Sundaram and Selvamurthy in the closing ceremony.

They are not looking at TVC just yet, and it is in the hands of other labs at the moment.

However, the ADE presentation on UCAVs showed a future Indian UCAV (2015) with no tail (MCA design), a non-conventional wingform, and a 3 axis TVC.

10. OK, some nos....

Fan - Successful tests at CIAM
Compressor: (nos in brackets are design values)

6 stage axial flow, 3 stage variable vanes with IGVs.
Corr. tip speed ~370 m/s
Inlet diam: 590 mm

Mass flow: 24.13 kg/s (24.3)
Pressure: 6.42 (6.38)
Efficiency: 85.4% (85%)
Surge %: 21.6 (20% designed)

Combustor:
Has undergone aero testing at CIAM
K8 V4 combustor is close to design.

Turbine:
Pressure = 3.6
Mass flow function= 1.1
Isentropic eff = 85%
Max. TET = 1700K

Is a success, has met design.

11. Future uses:

Navy - KMGT - 1 MW for small ships being developed, 5-6 MW KMGT is a sucess and runs on Diesel, instead of the usual kerosene aviation fuel.

The railways also wants a 7-8MW CNG run engine, which will be a challenge in terms of fuel supply, rather than teh combustion itself, which shouldn't be a problem.

Any qns???

2.
In March 2009, there were the news reports of Kaveri being sent for trials. Google search with time function (it has this) will give news reports.

3. In recent months, June-July, there were the report of IAF saying "no" to the Safran-Kaveri hybrid.

So there is enough evidence for whatever I have said, rest you can come up with colorful acronym, but it is not reflection of the reality.

As things are today, Kaveri is done, it is time to accept it and move on. But point remains, what is to be done after Kaveri and for long term contribution to Aero Gas Turbine industry in India.

That is the core challenge. Not about how we can increase DRDO fund to 10X (it will not happen) or how some magic people will change thing in India (it will not happen) or other things.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Aug 2009 04:58

Vikram,

Thx.

However:

The new engine project will have to be pitched for MCA project but not LCA MK2.

1) When you say "new engine", are you referring to a new Indian engine - an upgraded Kaveri of sorts?

2) It appears that the engine is the major road-block to any Indian efforts to build a viable aircraft

3) Any news on UAVs? LCA and MCA are fine, but there has to be a greater emphasis on UAVs I would imagine. And, if true, the present Kaveri should actually suffice. Any thoughts?

And, TIA.

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 02 Aug 2009 05:10

NRao wrote:1) When you say "new engine", are you referring to a new Indian engine - an upgraded Kaveri of sorts?

Sir, there were/are two plans for the engine. Plan was to use for both LCA MK2 and MCA.

One is to build entirely new engine with derived Kaveri tech +new tech (either alone or via part JV)

Second, is to use core of proven higher performance engine and combine with Kaveri tech

In interest of time, since LCA MK2 is wanted in next four years, GTRE offered second approach with Safran. Now IAF has said no (for now).

So we have to wait and see how and which approach is taken for follow on to Kaveri. Issue is of funding and time.
if there is ample funding and time, then approach 1 is still possible otherwise another version of approach 2 will come up.

2) It appears that the engine is the major road-block to any Indian efforts to build a viable aircraft

Sir, only if we want "full Indian aircraft" then this is problem. Otherwise, we can work with Russia to use next gen Russian engine or derivative also. if we see, Gripen is perfect example of how to make a success with >50% from ww OEM.
our own HAL Dhruv has foreign engine and is now export to South America.

But usually GOI aim is more with such projects and making all things here - to be "world power" at "third world funding". which is something not realized yet.

3) Any news on UAVs? LCA and MCA are fine, but there has to be a greater emphasis on UAVs I would imagine. And, if true, the present Kaveri should actually suffice. Any thoughts?

And, TIA.

Sir, there are plans for making MALE UAV which is RUSTOM-H. (Demonstrator is called RUSTOM-1). they will not talk publically about weaponising it, but it is possible.

also, there is talk for making unmanned derivative of LCA (operational need of end user will also matter)

and yes sir, the current Kaveri can be used for several purposes. only issue is if we have foresight and vision to leverage properly from GOI end. there is also plan to build powerplant for "advanced air vehilce" which is euphemism for CM.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Aug 2009 05:22

Vikram_S wrote:But usually GOI aim is more with such projects and making all things here - to be "world power" at "third world funding". which is something not realized yet.

Well said! 1st world hardware @ 3rd world funding. And still they have something to show for it - Akash, Arjun and LCA.

CM

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Aug 2009 05:46

Thx VS,

A slightly different question.

Let us assume that the GoI provides proper funds, the question I have would be, at what stage is the supporting structure, in India - to make the next gen engine "happen". (I am trying to find facts ....... curious.) Understandably India will need some consulting, but how much of it? In short will the MCA have a viable Indian engine - with proper growth potential (without going the Grippen way for sure)- when the time comes?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 02 Aug 2009 06:03

Vikramji:

( Wish u wouldn't call me "Sir" it reminds me of the TSA..

)

Thanks again for the patient points. Please note one thing: I cannot speak for the DDM, but my purpose here, if any "paper" results, is to lay out for the "higher-ups" why they need to stop playing with the interests of the Indian nation and get serious about engine capabilities in India. It is NOT to poke fun at the hard-working public servants of GTRE or HAL or ADA. If you read my previous writeup on LCA (at a time when the arms dealer lobby was screaming for its cancellation, or my unkind treatment of postors here who

about slow progress in Indian R&D, you will find that all those points about poor level of funding, recognition, salaries are all "preaching to the choir", I recognize all those very well.

HOWEVER, the reason I have been quiet on the MIL Forum on these issues for some time now, is
a) Indian defense R&D has "come of age", and does not need such unofficial cheer-leaders, IMO.
b) I don't want to be accused of using what I have seen of the reality, and making my hosts of that time wish they hadn't let me in. IOW, I have no wish to be a Barkha Dutt.
c) I am intensely aware that these are all people who "light a candle instead of cursing the darkness".

But today the "Indian Economy" is zooming, and complacency is very evident in Defense acquisitions, especially with all the lovey-dovey phoren collaborashuns and Joint Exercises ( yes, I browse the BR main page) and with reports of even PRC engineers working with GTRE (???) to co-develop the combustor for the Kaveri engine (which I see has achieved 99% combustion efficiency - any correlation?)

On any given day inside the closely guarded inner sanctums where top-of-the-line Indian defense systems are developed, you find Israeli, Polish and maybe now Chinese(??) technical experts.

But with all this, India is a good 30 years behind in engine technology, and what I read from the GTRE Director's presentation is basically a manager's lament, not a story of bloody-minded determination to innovate and win. Please compare my initial post here with the points in that presentation, and now I can note without fear because I am citing the GTRE Director Himself:

1. India still has not got its act together on single-crystal turbines or "BLISK". These were on US engines circa 1985. That's a 25 year gap already. WHAT is GTRE doing about this? Let's talk about the ONE FUNCTION that is entrusted to GTRE by the people of India. The name of the establishment is Gas Turbine RESEARCH establishment. To me, that means at minimum, that this is the establishment which is RESPONSIBLE for the state of knowledge on Gas turbines.

What is GTRE's relationship with universities, to develop critical know-how?

Same with the "American Indian Prof"'s presentation on some Export-Controlled technology. HOW do American universities do these? Their research manpower pool consists of students graduating with basic degrees (in fact many even starting from freshman year). They also start with published papers. There is no magic there. They they bust their butts working 13-17 hours a day for decades, to the point where, to quote someone who is in US computational R&D:

your ass has the shape of your chair, permanently

The lab equivalent is worse, I am not going into that because that is my background.

The GTRE completely missed the point of the "American Indian prof". If s(he) just gives away papers. reports, codes etc readymade for "technology transfer" s(he) can look forward to a long jail sentence for the rest of his/her life. No kidding, check Google with "Tennessee Professor plasma China ITAR jail" and you will see that I mean. So this professor was walking way out on a limb, begging Indian "researchers" to use their brains and get off their butts and INNOVATE - at least after KNOWING that there is a useful answer, which is something few of us get to do when we are out searching into the unknown.

Let me guess the results that this professor got: Five wheedling, whiny emails with attached CVs from GTRE "scientists" begging to be taken into graduate school so they can escape the "tough conditions in India". OK, let me stop here ... need to run, and anyway this should be enough for a lot of "Incoming".