LCA news and discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2993
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby vera_k » 02 Aug 2009 06:42

Someone had posted about work done on CMC tech. Is that the plan then i.e. to skip the intermediate engine technology and jump directly to CMC?

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby enqyoob » 02 Aug 2009 06:55

Continuing... 8)

Now for the reality of the Kaveri engine. The bypass ratio is quoted as something <<1. For an engine to operate an aircraft that will spend most of its time in subsonic maneuvering or loiter, with an occasional transonic dash, maybe up to Mach 1.6.

WHY is this optimal? Any desi AEs here who can do that calculation, among all those giving advice and dropping fancy acronyms? As of the early 1980s, fighter engines, have, IIRC, bypass of around 0.3 - 1.0. OK, so should one blindly imitate this? No.... but one should do the calculation and check the reality of why this is the choice made for the Kaveri. The difference is in the fuel consumption rate, and hence in the range and the payload fraction, or, in the total weight of the aircraft for a given mission. The pressure ratio is nothing extraordinary, 20.5 is very normal (note that GE414 cites 29 and F-35 engines are around 30+), but the bypass ratio is a surprise. It seems like a value for an OLD technology engine from the 1970s. The difference in fuel efficiency (and noise, and infrared signature, come to think of it) is huge.

Basically, for the curious jingo, the bypass ratio is the ratio of the mass of air that goes through the Fan only (and does not have stuff burned in it under normal conditions) to the air that goes through the Core (including the rest of the compressor and the turbine). This also says how much of the thrust comes from accelerating a large mass of air through a small velocity change (fan) vs. accelerating a small mass of air through a large velocity change (compressor). If the bypass ratio is larger, the overall exhaust is much cooler and hence easier on ship decks, and shoots out much slower.

Noise is proportional to exhaust velocity raised to the power 6.

So why would one use low bypass ratio?
a) need to fly at extreme speeds (above Mach 3, say)
b) it is more mushkil to design a turbine for a bypass engine, because the turbine must work had enough to run both the compressor and the fan.
c) don't have enough frontal area to make the core small enough and accomodate a fan and still run it.

The reason I cite this is that in the above explanations, the IAF comes across as a customer who arrogantly jerks the engineers around by increasing gross weight by a lot just as the engine was ready. Could it be that the IAF is instead an incredibly patient customer, who finally lost patience and put their feet down, faced with a babucracy that was foisting a 1970 engine design on the IAF for Year 2012 delivery, when they can get at least a 1980s engine from phoren?

Why doesn't GTRE have a bypass ratio 0.35 or even 1.0 engine at least well past the "preliminary design stage", long since?

Ajay K
BRFite
Posts: 109
Joined: 04 Aug 2001 11:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Ajay K » 02 Aug 2009 07:42

Vikram_S Post subject: Re: LCA news and discussionPosted: 01 Aug 2009 02:10 pm
BRFite Joined: 05 Oct 2008 06:19 pm
Posts: 349 ^^ 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.

Vikramji, pls give us pointers to refer this paper in the web. Only closest reference found from the web was this and going by this power point there no patentable or "writing their own code" material worth to beat the chest about, just common material available on brochures of COTS s/w collated.
Is it too secretive to be made available in the public domain?

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3403
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby suryag » 02 Aug 2009 10:55

Why dont we consider introducing a new All India Service, Indian Technical services. Recruiting for this service could be done through the UPSC(preliminary) and an interview that would lay emphasis on knowledge in engineering or work experience in the field. Personnel from this service would then work on managing technical programs spawned by the government. Training for the personnel should include technical management with special emphasis on realising products and bringing them to the market/customer. This cadre could also draw up roadmaps in a more professional manner and carve out realisable goals for a program. Since on the mil forum we have long felt a need for professional program/product management this service could fulfill the same. When we have services to manage every aspect of governance, we could have this service too. My twenty paise !!

pgbhat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4079
Joined: 16 Dec 2008 21:47
Location: Hayden's Ferry

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby pgbhat » 02 Aug 2009 12:21

^^^^
I think we already have a IES (Indian Engineering Services).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Engineering_Services
Engineering Services are the Technical Services that meet the technical and managerial functions of the Indian Government. Government spending comprises more than 15 percent of India's GDP. Given the extent of tasks and functions managed by the public sector this extends to a fairly broad segment of the economy covering the Railroads, Military, Public works, Power, Telecommunications, etc.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16796
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Rahul M » 02 Aug 2009 12:31

there is already the Indian engineering services.

it's not having good selection process that is the problem, selection processes at places like DRDO/BARC etc are par excellence.

selecting the talent is not a problem, it's attracting and retaining the talent that is the problem.
if the pay improves and/or robust performance based incentives are given I'll bet my a*** that you will get much much better work from our current crop of scientists.

NOTE : talent doesn't mean IQ, IMO ability to work hard, attitude and motivation constitute 75 % of a person's talent.

to give a sad example, many BR members clearly have the qualification to work in desi defence sector and contribute substantially, yet very few are actually involved.

clearly, it's not a question of patriotism, many of these people would have overlooked a difference of 10-15% to work for mother India but if you offer them 50% or less of what they would have earned in pvt sector/abroad, then clearly, Kalam's words come to mind :
"if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys".

clearly, GOI wants monkeys. admitted there are some very good people working in DRDO et al for monkey-pay but you can't expect everyone to do that.
(OT, this is why I've tremendous respect for competent people who work in GOI R&D sector, their sacrifice to desh can't overvalued. this is especially true for the older gen, who joined when pay was shamefully low)

p.s. there are other problems too, red tape, babudom etc.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1113
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby RKumar » 02 Aug 2009 13:11

Vikram_S wrote: 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


Of course funding is the main thing. But another important thing is support and contiunes postive feedback of the user. Where user and developer work as team, not as a master n slave. And import lobby makes of puke :(

I hope that was meant by bala.

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby enqyoob » 02 Aug 2009 15:40

Just to remind myself and the jingo log:
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.


And to see why the IAF's engine specs suddenly increased by a huge margin when they started seeing the GE414 (for F/A-18) on offer, vs. the GEF404 which was the best offered before, see here and associated pages. This is of course standard Sanctions/ITAR tactics: when Kaveri started reaching F404, the F414 suddenly gets offered.... if Kaveri or Godavari reaches F414 level, suddenly the engines for F-22 and F-35 become available.

While the IAF is no doubt smart enough to realize the thinking behind this, they are also smart enough to argue that if these better engines can be obtained, one should obtain them. EUMA or not, one would hope that some knowledge transfer occurs if these things are taken apart by desi technicians, whether or not GTRE feels it can learn from reverse engineering.

For GTRE to remain relevant, at least they must have advanced CONCEPT engines way out ahead of the best in service anywhere in the world, well past preliminary design stages. If they simply cannot be anywhere near this, then they should take the "R" out of GTRE and substitute some other appropriate letter.
***************************

As for the pay issues etc., well... is GTRE really in a situation where they cannot get good engineering grads to apply? If so, then they should take in young IAF officers and train them, because these people have some sort of service requirement to stay for X years. Even X=4 is quite OK. But once on board, these folks should be busy thinking and working on the job, not :(( and seeking jobs outside, otherwise they need to be shown the door, pronto (many cannot find the door anyway, from what I have seen of them). Those who look on GTRE (also read ADA/HAL) jobs as "just visiting, I am too good onlee for this, I am on my way to phoren", should be kicked out IMMEDIATELY, even if they have to close the doors for a few months until they can get replacements. It is absolutely poison to have a "Research" establishment where you get less than 100% thought and effort from the "Researchers".

I would very much say that this is the unfortunate reality in a large part of Indian defense R&D.

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby enqyoob » 02 Aug 2009 16:35

Now for the :(( about testing facilities:

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 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.



1. There is an organization there in B'lore called National Aeronautical Laboratories, hey, where the specialty is strain measurement etc. What is the justification for NOT having Non Intrusive Strain Measurement (NSMS) tests" capability available?

2. The plant where engines were built under license in the Age of Dinosaurs, had at least TWO engine test cells. For that matter, many airlines have their own engine Test Cells, where they are able to test for stall. I know, I have been in one where we were testing out a wild technique to capture the full flowfield when a commercial engine was taken to stall. {Wonderful environment, if you want to know the classical environmental definition of Houristan. But I also knew that the people with whom I was working, specifically the 4'6' girl who led the team, thought it was a great privilege to be standing on a 10-foot ladder in a 40 deg. C concrete tunnel filled with the heavenly aroma of burnt jet fuel at 1AM, doing high-precision adjustments to align two intensified cameras to within 1 pixel accuracy, after a working day that started at 7AM, just to make sure that the last attempt to succeed that day worked. So it did. The whole place shook as if by an earthquake when the engine hit stall, but our cameras held on and did not fall over, and our data were good. After some ten dismal failures, following months of preparation, for something tried the first time ever. }

Not all chambers can be taken to low pressure (high altitude) I agree, but again, building such a facility is a matter of initiative, and some concrete and steel and plumbing, no need for World Bank or Technology Transfer. What was GTRE doing all these years if not banging on the GOI to develop such facilities for Gas Turbine RESEARCH? Why is it that only when the engine is ready for testing, after a decade of delay, do they go searching for such facilities and capabilities?

Bottom line appears to be that jet engine R&D in India is not taken seriously, and is left to some group that does neither R nor D nor even conceptual dreaming. They provide no leadership to the nation in what needs to be done to close the technology gap. The honest conclusion has to be that the gap is widening exactly equal to the passage of time.

arunsrinivasan
BRFite
Posts: 345
Joined: 16 May 2009 15:24

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby arunsrinivasan » 02 Aug 2009 17:31

After going through this very illuminating back and forth on LCA, IMVVHO, it does look like GTRE does suffer from lack of quality leadership and potentially poor organisation culture. With all the constraints, people have highlighted, I still think more could have been achieved if it had better leadership and better organisation culture. I think most Indian PSU, Govt. organisations have this problem just the degree varies, if we can find a way of fixing it, we can achieve great things.

I know a lot of people keep banging on about monetary compensation, & lack of funding / resources. If you create a culture that rewards, & celebrates, initiative, innovation & out of the box thinking, these organisations can work wonders, even with all these constraints. To create this kind of culture, one needs strong & capable leadership. My 2 cents

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Raj Malhotra » 02 Aug 2009 17:39

narayanan wrote:Now for the :(( about testing facilities:




Bottom line appears to be that jet engine R&D in India is not taken seriously, and is left to some group that does neither R nor D nor even conceptual dreaming. They provide no leadership to the nation in what needs to be done to close the technology gap. The honest conclusion has to be that the gap is widening exactly equal to the passage of time.



Agree

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby KiranM » 02 Aug 2009 18:11

Illuminating posts.. From my perspective, both Vikram and Narayanan are right about leadership issues. We need leadership at all aspects. Vikram is right about hard working, unselfish scientists slogging out in GTRE. They are technical mentors and guides for day to day work - in other words tactical leaders.

What we lack are strategic leaders in the field of GT Engines (or for that matter many other areas where we lag). By strategic leader, I mean a visionary who can chart the future course of direction, someone who can deal head on with the non-technical constraints faced, someone with just enough technical knowledge (engg/ basic science) and ample managerial, administrative, interpersonal, other non-technical skills to see to that the tactical leaders have their way. In other words India lacks technocrats.

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby enqyoob » 02 Aug 2009 19:07

I am not at all sure that India lacks people INSIDE the defence establishment, who have the necessary bloody-minded determination and leadership skills. The trouble is, when I look at how such people are used, it occurs to me that many of those promoted to "leadership" are like Sir Edmund Hillary - the first man to reach 29032 feet at the top of Mt. Everest. 29028 feet of mountain plus 4 feet of Tenzing Norgay's shoulders that carried him there.

Someone should check closely into the success story of the IGMDP. You don't hear THEM whining about Sanctions this and Lack of Facilities that and Didn't Occur To Us that Blades May Vibrate Until Phoren Tests Were Conducted Onlee. In 1984, they had close to nothing, and certainly not enough "experts" in the myriad aspects needed. So what? They had brains and initiative.

But as the programs "matured", the technical brains stayed in technical positions, while they were superseded for Leadership by the traditional scheme that we learned in the Eye Eye Tea:

u don't have to b a brain 2 b da boss
U just have 2 b an ********


Spend an hour with some of the real brains and you come away shaking your head in wonder.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16384
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby NRao » 02 Aug 2009 19:10

Bottom line appears to be that jet engine R&D in India is not taken seriously


Which has been my contention for years now. Primarily because there is no seriousness at all levels ........... some Indians are Desh Bhaktas, the rest are aya ram, gaya ram. And, seriousness is associated with a Kargil, then it fades.

Funding is an issue, no two ways about that. However, even with great funding, I am not so sure that the industries will be able to provide a steady flow of reliable core components - that go on to make proper systems. Nuts and bolts need to be farmed out.

shetty
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 15 Jun 2006 17:09

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby shetty » 02 Aug 2009 19:35

Not sure how Vinayak got the information but not so good news for LCA because of the delay for LSP-3 and the MMR.

Tejas IOC gets delayed again

Tejas IOC gets delayed again
BY : IDRW TEAM

India’s Leading Newspaper “The Hindu” recently reported that the, Initial operational clearance (IOC) of Tejas may be Postponed on the suggestion of the Indian Air force , Suggestion was put forward by IAF in the last “ Monthly Review Meeting “which was attended by the ADA and HAL officials ,Re-scheduling was suggested due to lack of Test flights and slow progress on the integration of the MMR Radar on the Tejas PV-3 which is holding back the Weapons Testing ,To Further understand possible reasons for this delays ,we are having a interview with the Vinayak Shetti who is developer of the www.lca-tejas.org ,A site which is provides lot of information on the Tejas fighter aircraft

IDRW: Will Re-scheduling of IOC hurt the Tejas Program?

VS: It will delay the induction of jet in the IAF; Program has already suffered lot of Delays further delays will only have adverse effect on the whole Program. It will also affect Tejas MK-II Program

IDRW: Lack of Pilots and Lack of aircrafts have been blamed for Low sorties, what’s your take on that?

VS; Regarding Lack of Aircrafts all blames goes to Hal, they took more then two years to setup Production line for Tejas even when the funds where provided to them, in last three years only two LSP (Limited series Production) Tejas have taken to air, and Tejas LSP-3 is already one year behind schedule. As per the original Schedule at least 5 LSP should have taken to sky by mid 2009 but Slow pace of work by Hal on Tejas LSP has kept the whole program waiting for the new aircrafts. Coming to lack of pilots it’s the responsibility of IAF to see that enough pilots are deputed to NFTC for the Tejas Programs, Lack of pilots is not a major issue here but lack of Aircrafts certainly is.

IDRW: HAL has blamed ADA for not providing crucial computers to be integrated for LSP-3 which resulted to delays.

VS: Many of the crucial components and avionics of Tejas have still not hit the production line and still manufactured under various labs which is causing delays in their manufacturing.

IDRW: Why are Avionics and other crucial components have not yet hit the Production line?

VS: Possible reason could be that Many of the current Avionics of the Tejas are for over haul and New Avionics are been designed by ADA, Each Aircraft have some new addition to its avionics system and after two Major change in its over all avionics, Tejas will See one more re-working on Avionics before it hits production line.

IDRW: What are the other possible issues which are delaying LSP-3 which will have first on-board Radar?

VS: There seems to be some glitches with the software, but now it seems most of the issues have been sorted and first flight hopefully will take by end of this year.

IDRW: You earlier mentioned Tejas MK-II, when are the possibility of its first flight?

VS: As per the original Schedule first flight is expected with in Next four years, but with little work on MK-II program done yet it seems we will see further delays there to, since lot of work has to be done in that front to, but the slow approach of ADA and HAL will not help the MK-II program at all.

IDRW: Recently IAF rejected proposal of JV on Kaveri Engine with French firm and GTRE, is this Dead end for Kaveri Engine?

VS: Not yet, IAF is still open to local Research in the development of the Kaveri engine, French could have offered us some TOT on certain Parts of the engine but could have kept critical Parts out of TOT Deal which might have prompted IAF to reject their proposal, since Kaveri has been detached from the Tejas Program it is advisable to work locally to further develop the engine.

Vikram_S
BRFite
Posts: 359
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 23:49

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Vikram_S » 03 Aug 2009 02:31

AjayK wrote:Vikramji, pls give us pointers to refer this paper in the web. Only closest reference found from the web was this and going by this power point there no patentable or "writing their own code" material worth to beat the chest about, just common material available on brochures of COTS s/w collated.
Is it too secretive to be made available in the public domain?


Sir

The paper is not available on the web but should be available via scientific publishing houses. Normally what happens is these papers are collated and published as meeting/conference proceedings. It will cost nominal amount of money (but more if it is part of a package with other submitted papers) but is defintiely open for access otherwise I would not have referred to it.

I would also request that you please look into what designing an entire gas turbine consists of, before we get into discussion of "beating ones chest" or not. As things do stand, there are only 5-6 countries in the world who have reached this stage, software or no software. Bespoke ie customized software was definitely developed for analysis for certain parts of project, but they also made use of commercial packages which are used industry wise. Important part is not what they used but that they learnt how to use it and have developed an engine. This understanding and the capability to actually see what and how an engine development program is done is what is invaluable and will be lost unless momentum is maintained.

Rest of discussion and questions raised/asked are interesting but I will have to take absence right now, because there is very little time on my end to answer with thought, apologies and I will try to check in later.

Shettyji,

It is a bit of joke really for IDRW, which actually copy pastes information from different websites to get eyeballs to conduct an "interview" with the owner of a fan website which is also not too reliable. Please check both websites and they are full of half reliable, half correct information.

There is nothing in that so called interview which is not a rip-off of the article from Hindu by Ravi Sharma, which article also has some usual "editorial" comments by Ravi Sharma to interpret facts.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7165
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby disha » 03 Aug 2009 06:49

NRao wrote:Bottom line appears to be that jet engine R&D in India is not taken seriously


To be fair, India is still a developing country. There is always resource contention. Do we provide more polio vaccines or fund SSBNs? How effective can be our funding? Or which research project to target and also note that we are still catching up on heavy industries. How easy is to say get liquid nitrogen in say Chennai or Mumbai?

Anyway, we can do our R&Dh (Rona & Dhona) or chew on this news item,

DRDO to put jets in tanks ... http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/News-By-Industry/Indl-Goods-Svs/Engineering/DRDO-to-tweak-aircraft-engine-to-power-battle-tanks-locomotives/articleshow/4850110.cms

So when are they going to put a delta wing on Arjun? :cry:

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby enqyoob » 03 Aug 2009 07:07

There is always resource contention.

Yes, and one sure way to waste resources and depress people is the way that jet engine R&D has been handled in India. Polio vaccine was developed elsewhere, so bringing that into this discussion is utterly irrelevant.

Pls check into the saga of the HF-28 NonAligned Airframe and Engine, and all the speed of the Kaveri project. From all I can see, especially the "0.18 bypass ratio), the Kaveri project should never have been advertised as a nationally-visible indigenous LCA mass produced solution, but as an academic exercise to learn how design/development is done, etc, etc. if there was no plan to allot the resources to develop an engine suitable for a Year 2012 combat aircraft. It appears that the IAF has been incredibly polite to-date, given what they have been pushed to accept here.

As for putting "jets" on tanks, gas turbine engines for tanks have been used for a long time. I believe that one reason for GTRE's rather "measured" progress on the Kaveri project is that they are tasked with other applications such as marine gas turbines, where the sponsors apparently got them to deliver good products (I haven't seen any critical analysis of that...) That's great, but it just shows that aircraft jet engine R&D keeps getting shafted in India.

Another point to make here is that the IAF is citing very very low numbers for the LCA fleet. How many MiG-21s were built/bought? And that in the ancient days. With today's SuperPower status, I estimate that at least 1000, hopefully 3000, LCAs / LCA derivatives must be built.

Each aircraft in its lifetime, will go through, say, 3? 5? engines.

If this fact is advertised, the amount of money involved in engine purchase can be seen clearer, and then it will become much more evident why this SHOULD be a national priority if anyone cares in the Indian establishment.


Unless India has soooo much spare $$$$$ around to go pay for the next 20 years of profits and R&D funding at some foreign design/manufacturing house.

The money spent on half a dozen of these gold-plated imports should pay for all the polio, HIV and bad-driver vaccines that the entire nation needs.

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby bala » 03 Aug 2009 07:26

One of things that is repeated here is poor pay. I find this as incongruous statement. What about the other Govt employees in ISRO, DAE, BARC, IAF, Navy, Army, HAL etc. They are paid based on grade levels that the Govt establishes, they get lifelong pension which is quite attractive. The recent 6th pay commission hiked up salary levels and retirement benefits. Not that this comes close to what is being paid by private IT companies, however, the total compensation package is not a small amount. If motivation is only salary then I think the employees in GTRE are in the wrong organization. Better to be elsewhere. When you work at GTRE the only goal is excel at your chosen profession and compete with the likes of other co-govt employees who launch Chandrayaan, Arihant, Brahmos, Agni, etc.

Talking about test facilities, the NAL has puny little wind tunnels. After having been inside NASA Ames, California huge wind tunnel facility wherein entire aircrafts/helicopters are placed inside and tested, India's testing facilities are meagre and inadequate. Building such facilities does not take much, only a lot of power to blow wind at high speed and at volumes.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16384
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby NRao » 03 Aug 2009 09:15

To be fair, India is still a developing country. There is always resource contention. Do we provide more polio vaccines or fund SSBNs? How effective can be our funding? Or which research project to target and also note that we are still catching up on heavy industries. How easy is to say get liquid nitrogen in say Chennai or Mumbai?


Hmmmmm......

With a parallel (underground) economy as large as the real economy how can there be a real resource contention? The resource contention you talk of is an artificial one - has always been. Part of it is also lethargy and inertia. Luckily Newton came along and sat under a tree, ................ else some Indian politician would have bumped into inertia and discovered it.

All that is pure BS. Let mush back in into Prez of Islamic state of Pakistan and let him start a few Kargils. All resources will come out.

At time I thin China should build an artificial nation in Indian Ocean. that is the ONLY way India will really wake up.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16384
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby NRao » 03 Aug 2009 09:41

I do not think funds, per se, are the issue. Nor are pay scales, etc.

The issue is risk averse-ness. NO ONE like to take a risk. How can one get to the top that way.

Risk taking is inherent to progress - no one can avoid it.

Recall the person who posted about stealth techs - one project got stuck for 15 years he says for lack of a material not found in India. To me it seemed that someone did not want to take the risk to find an alternative - in 10-15 years.

Dishaji,

There are PLENTY of Indians contributing all over the world - with very limited resources. Specially in this economy. Innovation - even at the smallest level (forget jet engines, etc) - demands risk taking. Else projects go nowhere.

Got to stick your neck out.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7165
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby disha » 03 Aug 2009 09:55

narayanan wrote:Another point to make here is that the IAF is citing very very low numbers for the LCA fleet. How many MiG-21s were built/bought? And that in the ancient days. With today's SuperPower status, I estimate that at least 1000, hopefully 3000, LCAs / LCA derivatives must be built.


Isn't that a user problem as well? LCA is no more an LCA, it is more like an NLCA [Non-Light Combat Aircraft]. If IAF had understood the "tranche" method of deployment, and replace their ageing Mig 21s for which anyway LCA was put in place, we would have seen progress. HF Marut ended up going to seed because the government did not want to spend some USD 65 Million dollars or so for the engine programme which became its achilles heel.

Each aircraft in its lifetime, will go through, say, 3? 5? engines.

If this fact is advertised, the amount of money involved in engine purchase can be seen clearer, and then it will become much more evident why this SHOULD be a national priority if anyone cares in the Indian establishment.


And whose job is going to be that? The problem is that IAF did not want to be a stake holder and thus Jet Engine became nobody's baby. It is just so easy to dump on GTRE.

The money spent on half a dozen of these gold-plated imports should pay for all the polio, HIV and bad-driver vaccines that the entire nation needs.


There is the classic dilemma about build vs. buy. Particularly getting the first build out is always a challenge since the outcome of the sinking that much money building it may not result in anything! Again Rona & Dhona is sooo much easier. Let's dump on GTRE.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7165
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby disha » 03 Aug 2009 09:58

NRao wrote:Dishaji,

There are PLENTY of Indians contributing all over the world - with very limited resources. Specially in this economy. Innovation - even at the smallest level (forget jet engines, etc) - demands risk taking. Else projects go nowhere.

Got to stick your neck out.


NRaoJi,

That does not happen in Government agencies and big corporates. Failure has no father! There are plenty of Indians and non-Indians alike all over the world in both Government and MNCs and big and small corporates who do not want to stick their neck out and get chopped. The culture of innovation is fostered after a culture of risk acceptance and failure management is put in place. Case in point - ISRO.

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby enqyoob » 03 Aug 2009 10:03

Est. cost per advanced fighter engine: $10M ($2M for the engine price to USAF, $3M export markup, $3M Training and Offsets, $2M Unofficial Offsets via Switzerland).

Lifetime Maintenance and upgrade packages per engine: $5M

Size of engine market: 3000 x 3 = 9000 engines x $15M per engine = $135,000 M or 6750,000 Million INR = 675,000 CRORE Indian rupess.

Rupees 6,750,000,000,000 per my madarssa math

FOR JUST THE LCA program.

This is the cost of NOT proceeding with indigenous fighter engine development on War Phooting per Blue Ribbon Commishun.

Now seriously, does anyone here believe that a gang who cannot develop a very moderately enlightened Light Combat aircraft engine can develop a super-duper Long Range MultiRole Combat Aircraft engine anytime in our lifetimes?

If the babu gang are allowed to slink out pleading "But LOOK what we LEARNED!" the cost is given above. Multiply by 10 when you consider all the other engine programs, and multiply by 100 for the lives and land lost when the war is lost because the foreigners slap sanctions any time a war starts, and more parts are needed in a tearing hurry.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7165
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby disha » 03 Aug 2009 10:03

NRao wrote:At time I thin China should build an artificial nation in Indian Ocean. that is the ONLY way India will really wake up.


Characterization of Threat is a good enough motivator. No threat no motivation, back to inertia and lethargy. The way I see it, GOI has not shied away from spending resources behind LCA. Yes it has not become a world beater, but even with kaveri in current form, it can be used! All IAF has to do now is learn to accept desi maal. Or go and have a beer with their naval compatriots and learn how those damn yindoos jumped a generation and built a Nuke Submarine without building any other submarine before!!

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby enqyoob » 03 Aug 2009 10:06

Let's dump on GTRE.


Oooh! NO!!! Let us all gather round and sing the praises of the Kaveri engine design. After all it is as old as our grandparents, and quite toothless, deserves a lot of respect and worship. 8)

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7165
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby disha » 03 Aug 2009 10:07

narayanan wrote:Est. cost per advanced fighter engine: $10M ($2M for the engine price to USAF, $3M export markup, $3M Training and Offsets, $2M Unofficial Offsets via Switzerland).

Lifetime Maintenance and upgrade packages per engine: $5M

Size of engine market: 3000 x 3 = 9000 engines x $15M per engine = $135,000 M or 6750,000 Million INR = 675,000 CRORE Indian rupess.

Rupees 6,750,000,000,000 per my madarssa math

FOR JUST THE LCA program.

This is the cost of NOT proceeding with indigenous fighter engine development on War Phooting per Blue Ribbon Commishun.

Now seriously, does anyone here believe that a gang who cannot develop a very moderately enlightened Light Combat aircraft engine can develop a super-duper Long Range MultiRole Combat Aircraft engine anytime in our lifetimes?

If the babu gang are allowed to drop this project pleading "But LOOK what we LEARNED!" the cost is given above. Multiply by 10 when you consider all the other engine programs, and multiply by 100 for the lives and land lost when the war is lost because the foreigners slap sanctions any time a war starts, and more parts are needed in a tearing hurry.


For all that, will the politico get money to fight elecshun? No? Then lets import!

Put it this way, if an Indian programme succeeds, all the babus, engineers, politicos and end users get 10% of the project each and if it fails then they all be made to pay 10% of the project. Then you will get the Chinese scenario where every project is a success. Go figure.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7165
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby disha » 03 Aug 2009 10:09

{Disha; please end your irritating practice of quoting entire posts - people can read the original post quite well, thank you. Please take the trouble to quote what you really must quote if you have something original to add}

There you go, started dumping on GTRE. Just so like the UndyTV - Shaandrayawn haz developed a major broplem, it is uzeless.

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby enqyoob » 03 Aug 2009 10:23

You have some points to cite in counter-argument, or you believe that the rest of us need your advice to become Desh-Snehi etc. etc? If you have valid points please do start posting those, never too late, u know...

Do you feel that my cost estimate for inaction that you quoted is wrong? Or my technical questions about bypass ratio and other design choices for the LCA engine proposed by GTRE? Or do you have something to contribute regarding proactive initiatives by GTRE, say to bring in university talent to complement their overworked and stretched-too-thin supertalents?

Otherwise, yes, by all means, stick to watching UndeeTV. Great stuff. Check out the comics too.

Ashutosh Malik
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Ashutosh Malik » 03 Aug 2009 10:42

A minor point because suddenly we seem to be getting into bread vs. guns kind of debate as well. My apologies for the OT nature of the comments but I thought it would be important from the point of view of perspective.

There is frankly no dearth of money for programmes on Polio, HIV etc. - Government of India (GOI) is spending huge sums on these. All this has happened because GOI tax collections have zoomed in the past decade or so because of growth of economy. And another thing which, on an average, we Indians do not seem to know - more than 95% of money spent on development programmes in India in health, education etc., now, is by GOI. GOI doesnt need international aid for its health, education kind of programmes any more - what it takes is largely piddly money for specific stuff like training, communication, specific stuff, etc. And therefore it picks and chooses - any country which acts funny in terms of commenting on our polices w.r.t to defence, foreign affairs etc, is asked to pack their bags. Money is no longer an issue - irrespective of whatever you may read in the so called liberal journals and press - just like in defence reporting the press in general is largely inaccurate in reporting on development programmes as well.

The issue that bedevils the programmes of polio etc is effectiveness on the ground, health and sanitation habits of people and amazingly ridiculous fears - which are also being tackled now using community leaders, particularly in UP and Bihar in case of polio for example.

vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby vasu_ray » 03 Aug 2009 11:14

with a demonstrated 2 * 1200 liter drop tanks fitted on Tejas, how difficult is it to mate 2-3 AADs on it? air to air refueling can help on range and endurance. is the AAD just too long?

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1113
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby RKumar » 03 Aug 2009 16:48

Finally good news IAF suggesting proven, flight worthy engine for LCA: Antony

Government today said DRDO has proposed to co-develop and co-produce an upgraded version of Kaveri engine with French engine manufacturers Snecma for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) but the IAF has suggested that aproven and flight worthy engine to be put on the aircraft.
......
"Indian Air Force (IAF) has suggested a proven engine that is already in production and flight worthy for meeting immediate requirements," he added.
Last edited by RKumar on 03 Aug 2009 17:04, edited 1 time in total.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1841
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Kakarat » 03 Aug 2009 16:50

LCA-Tejas has completed 1151 Test Flights successfully. (01-Aug-09).

* LCA has completed 1151 Test Flights successfully
(TD1-233, TD2-305,PV1-209,PV2-125,PV3-147,LSP1-52,LSP2-80).
* 209th flight of Tejas PV1 occurred on 30th July 09.

http://www.ada.gov.in/index.html

Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby Drevin » 03 Aug 2009 16:59

disha wrote:The culture of innovation is fostered after a culture of risk acceptance and failure management is put in place.


To put it more simply:
a culture of performance needs to be put into place. Ofcourse everything needs to be set into place to support that mindset.

For example scientists should be given ample training/retraining, including facilities like labs .... access to technical material. Build the right motivation thru employee support infrastructure.

Once this is in place start implementing a performance culture. The results will be truly magnificent. :twisted: Ofcourse this assumes proper feasible-but-aggressive goal setting is being done by the project directors for each phase.
Last edited by Drevin on 03 Aug 2009 17:42, edited 4 times in total.

rakall
BRFite
Posts: 795
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby rakall » 03 Aug 2009 17:00

Kakarat wrote:LCA-Tejas has completed 1151 Test Flights successfully. (01-Aug-09).

* LCA has completed 1151 Test Flights successfully
(TD1-233, TD2-305,PV1-209,PV2-125,PV3-147,LSP1-52,LSP2-80).
* 209th flight of Tejas PV1 occurred on 30th July 09.

http://www.ada.gov.in/index.html


count was 1147 for July2nd.. That is four flights "only" in a month..

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby enqyoob » 03 Aug 2009 17:11

"Indian Air Force (IAF) has suggested a proven enginethat is already in production and flight worthy for meetingimmediate requirements," he added.


Russian engine? What else is in production (in India) that can power a fighter?

Kaveri: Official specs
Specification (GTX-35VS Kaveri)

General characteristics
Type: Afterburning turbofan
Length: 137.4 in (3490 mm)
Diameter: 35.8 in (910 mm)

Dry weight: 2,427 lb (1,100 kg) [Production model goal: 2,100 lb (950 kg)]
Components
Compressor: two-spool, with low-pressure (LP) and high-pressure (HP) axial compressors:
LP compressor with 3 fan stages and transonic blading
HP compressor with 6 stages, including variable inlet guide vanes and first two stators
Combustors: annular, with dump diffuser and air-blast fuel atomisers
Turbine: 1 LP stage and 1 HP stage
Performance
Maximum Thrust:
Military thrust (throttled):11,687 lbf (52.0 kN) [Goal: 13,500 lbf (60.0 kN) ]
Full afterburner:18,210 lbf (81.0 kN) [Goal: 20,200 lbf (90.0 kN)]

Specific fuel consumption:
Military thrust: 0.78 lb/(lbf•h) (79.52 kg/(kN·h))
Full afterburner: 2.03 lb/(lbf•h) (207.00 kg/(kN·h))
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 7.8 (76.0 N/kg)

[edit]Engine cycle
Airflow: 172 lb/s (78.0 kg/s)
Bypass ratio: 0.16:1 [Goal: Between 0.3:1 & 0.4:1]
Overall pressure ratio: 21.5:1 [Goal: 27:1]
LP compressor pressure ratio: 3.4:1 [Goal: 4:1]
HP compressor pressure ratio: 6.4:1
Turbine entry temperature: 2,218-2,601 °F (1,214-1,427 °C; 1,487-1,700 K) [Goal: 3,357 °F (1,847 °C; 2,120 K)]

*********************************
Specifications (AL-31F)

General characteristics
Type: Two-shaft afterburning turbofan
Length: 4990 mm
Diameter: 905 mm inlet; 1280 mm maximum external
:(
Dry weight: 1570 kg(Russia standard), 1800 kg(French standard)
Components
Compressor: 4 fan and 9 compressor stages
Bypass ratio: 0.59:1
Turbine: 2 single-staged turbines
Performance
Maximum Thrust:
16,754 lbf (74.5 kN) military thrust
27,557 lbf (122.6 kN) with afterburner

Specific fuel consumption:
Military thrust: 0.67 lb/(lbf·h)
Full afterburner: 1.92 lb/(lbf·h)

Thrust-to-weight ratio: 8 (Russia standard), 7 (French standard)

rakall
BRFite
Posts: 795
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby rakall » 03 Aug 2009 17:24

narayanan wrote:
"Indian Air Force (IAF) has suggested a proven enginethat is already in production and flight worthy for meetingimmediate requirements," he added.


Russian engine? What else is in production (in India) that can power a fighter?
)


It did not say "in production in India"..

all it refers to is either the f414 or Ej2000

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: LCA news and discussion

Postby enqyoob » 03 Aug 2009 17:27

If the above is true, the Kaveri is planned to be a 1990s engine, but delivers like a 1970s engine. There is a huge difference between a turbine inlet temperature of 1730K (achieved) and 2120K ("planned"). Also,a reputation for "throwing turbine blades" cited in the article. I guess this is what they gently call "unconfined engine failure" as in blades slicing through the fuselage of the aircraft, separating the tail section. This should show why the bypass ratio cannot go much higher: turbine can't handle the work.

These are all problems to be anticipated, in learning how to get "up there". Point is, there is little evidence of effort to really solve these problems, as in major research to improve the turbine and other components, or bring in expertise, say from ISRO.

Honestly, one cannot expect the air force to accept operational aircraft with such an engine installed. HAL/ADA/DRDO need to reserve several LCA test models to fly engine derivatives until the engine comes up to modern competitive levels. This MAY be doable in 2 years per DRDO "war phuting" etc, but in the interim, the IAF is absolutely right in insisting on a working, proven engine. Realistically, do you see engine technology jumping from 1733K maximum, to 2120K, in 2 years? 400 lb being reduced from the engine? A successful jump from 0.18 bypass ratio to 9.5 bypass ratio?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests