MRCA News and Discussion

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 16 Jun 2009 21:23

Omar wrote:
TOT for MRCA won't help much in developing MCA/LCA mk2 ,you all will know
Right but when the German and Spanish governments have already permitted EADS to part with the technology needed for the Tejas programme that the US wouldn't or when EADS says it wants to partner with India in developing and marketing the Tejas, definitely helps in developing MCA/LCA mk2. Even now, EADS and DRDO are jointly co-developing products that definitely helps India develop future weapon systems. Examples are more plentiful when consider long history of successful Indian and Russian defense R&D collaboration such as Brahmos. Americans haven't even tried in this regard and when they have, their government imposes sanctions.

ok spanish and german govt have given green signal for LCA programme but again this tech doesn't becomes ours,these countries will always have their right over this because this tech is not developed in home

just see if india wants to sell LCA to a certain country and for selling LCA india need to get permission from these countries cuz its their tech and they have right over this wether to allow or no to allow,just like SAAB needs for gripen

and this is not making india self reliant

these tech transfer help if india has successful history of making hardware to be able to fully exploit that tech but the truth is opposite

like US/RUSSIA/EUROPE which produce defence stuff they can exploit foreign tech (if they have access) quickly as they have experience in producing this stuff but in indian scenerio its different

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 16 Jun 2009 21:24

kmkraoind wrote:http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/jun/ ... -fleet.htm

Though not related to MRCA, but upgrading MCU of Jaguars shows GOI leaning towards to an US aircraft. With this future MRCA and Jaguars can fire US AAMs. Only small doubt, does Mirage M2K can fire AIM-9X and AMRAAM or it needs some modification.

nowdays india leaning toward US for everything

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jun 2009 21:25

Andrew,

You are right about the past - about ToT not making any/too-much diff in the progress within India.

But, do you think with MRCA ToT + offsets the situation in 15-20 years will be the same?

Consider current status of LCA, proposed FGFA and MCA.

The situation should be far better.

The ONLY concern I have is that Indian ability to keep up - due to a total lack of R&D within India. What India really needs is ToT of R&D.

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 16 Jun 2009 21:41

NRao wrote:Andrew,

You are right about the past - about ToT not making any/too-much diff in the progress within India.

But, do you think with MRCA ToT + offsets the situation in 15-20 years will be the same?

Consider current status of LCA, proposed FGFA and MCA.

The situation should be far better.

The ONLY concern I have is that Indian ability to keep up - due to a total lack of R&D within India. What India really needs is ToT of R&D.

offsets are just paper thing i will say,when you look at the different deals which included OFFSETS policy you will know that these firms do not comply for offsets.
poland bought f16 in hope for offsets but after sales it vanished

TOT for mrca won't help india as TOT for MRCA won't be much different than TOT for su30
and these MRCA aircrafts are not much different than su30.

and after 15-20 years this situation won't help either ,thing is that even for future upgrade of MRCA we have to be dependent on the selling country ,example mig29,mirage upgrade.

mig29,mirage upgrade also have 30% offset policy

india can't even produce even a pulse doppler radar let alone producing aesa,pesa so india will be dependent on foreign stuff after 15-20 years

india can't produce aero engines and this situation not going change
and for engine TOT no one means no one will allow core/hot section tech transfer,
rd33 and al31 engines assembled in koraput the core and hot section parts comes directly from russia and they are just assembled in india

just see france refused to share engine core tech for kaveri developement ,so if france/russia don't share this tech then no one going to share this

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 16 Jun 2009 22:07

offsets are just paper thing i will say,when you look at the different deals which included OFFSETS policy you will know that these firms do not comply for offsets.
poland bought f16 in hope for offsets but after sales it vanished

TOT for mrca won't help india as TOT for MRCA won't be much different than TOT for su30
and these MRCA aircrafts are not much different than su30.

and after 15-20 years this situation won't help either ,thing is that even for future upgrade of MRCA we have to be dependent on the selling country ,example mig29,mirage upgrade.

mig29,mirage upgrade also have 30% offset policy

Russian ToT is different from the actual ToT. Their ToT is 'Transfer of production Technology' not the developmental technology.

india can't even produce even a pulse doppler radar let alone producing aesa,pesa so india will be dependent on foreign stuff after 15-20 years

It's seems like this belongs to the

thread!

india can't produce aero engines and this situation not going change
and for engine TOT no one means no one will allow core/hot section tech transfer,
rd33 and al31 engines assembled in koraput the core and hot section parts comes directly from russia and they are just assembled in india

I agree with 'india can't produce aero engines' but, 'this situation not going change' seems a little too overwhelming. Kaveri has come a long way since it's inception. It seems a bit pessimistic to think that all this effort would be bring nothing.

just see france refused to share engine core tech for kaveri developement ,so if france/russia don't share this tech then no one going to share this

Not necessarily. France is no Angel. EADS/Rolls Royce have already promised full ToT of the EJ200 including the core technology. The link is somewhere in the LCA thread.

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 16 Jun 2009 22:20

KrishG wrote:
offsets are just paper thing i will say,when you look at the different deals which included OFFSETS policy you will know that these firms do not comply for offsets.
poland bought f16 in hope for offsets but after sales it vanished

TOT for mrca won't help india as TOT for MRCA won't be much different than TOT for su30
and these MRCA aircrafts are not much different than su30.

and after 15-20 years this situation won't help either ,thing is that even for future upgrade of MRCA we have to be dependent on the selling country ,example mig29,mirage upgrade.

mig29,mirage upgrade also have 30% offset policy
Russian ToT is different from the actual ToT. Their ToT is 'Transfer of production Technology' not the developmental technology.

india can't even produce even a pulse doppler radar let alone producing aesa,pesa so india will be dependent on foreign stuff after 15-20 years
It's seems like this belongs to the thread!

india can't produce aero engines and this situation not going change
and for engine TOT no one means no one will allow core/hot section tech transfer,
rd33 and al31 engines assembled in koraput the core and hot section parts comes directly from russia and they are just assembled in india
I agree with 'india can't produce aero engines' but, 'this situation not going change' seems a little too overwhelming. Kaveri has come a long way since it's inception. It seems a bit pessimistic to think that all this effort would be bring nothing.

just see france refused to share engine core tech for kaveri developement ,so if france/russia don't share this tech then no one going to share this
Not necessarily. France is no Angel. EADS/Rolls Royce have already promised full ToT of the EJ200 including the core technology. The link is somewhere in the LCA thread.

who is sharing developemntal tech,TOT for f18e/16,rafale,typhoon is just transfer of production technology which is same like su30 TOT

kaveri needs a foreign partner to make it fly worthy and their is day and night difference between a flying engine and a engine in developemt.anf if GTRE is allowed to develop on their own don't know how long they will take?

and could we develop kaveri engine faster by using tech transferred for al31 or rd33 engine ,all know the answer

and EADS said they will transfer core tech but think again india had adour engine tech for jags but india still dependent on more powerful engine for jaguar upgrade.

so did that tech transfer help india if it did then why india still dependent on foreign firms for new engine?????so what kind of engine tech transfer from EADS going to help this time.

and we are still dependent on foreign country for jaguar upgrade whether its engines,targeting systems for weapons,pod mounted radar coming from israel and so we will be dependent on foreign country for MRCA upgrade too

did jaguar tech helped us in being self reliant, no

moreover we are not even able to upgrade it without foreign help

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Jun 2009 22:33

EADS's offset understanding is entirely pushed into participation and joining their program for the current and future projects. I am not clear on how does that justify the offset requirements in terms of localization.

This is the other factor that EADS needs to explain better along with an acceptable price factor. If one goes by how they priced for the Arabs, then we are at quite a distant with EADS. Long way to go, and if things are clearly mentioned as to how 30->50% offsets could make them winner, imho.

The offsets could also if they mean the EJ200 engines.. but wouldn't that coming in a different deal altogether. If that was the plan, then we could have all the 4 major engine manufacturing nations prescribing their offsets pertaining to engine colloborations, and tech transfer costs.

If supplier nations are allowed to delink contract offsets to other contractual obligations, then it could also mean how we can leverage those funds into existing projects that needs support - clearly Kaveri [$2Billion].

If EADS gives EJ200 tech tansfer as offset equivalent, and their price is at comparable range to Rafale and SH, then we are talking., In addtion to joining them with the FGFA technologies that we could jumpstart on to.

imho, advantage EADS for now per the above assumptions.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jun 2009 22:39

Andrew,

You do have a point, however, it is not as bad as i appears.

However, for the most part it is a matter of cost. Not that India does not have the technology or the capabilities to do so. (Have talked with plenty of experts on such matter - like tank engines - who made those statements. Se below for my concerns.)

Also, there are few holes in your arguments. For instance:

did jaguar tech helped us in being self reliant, no

Yes, because it did allow India to build as many as she wanted and as she pleased. I am not sure if the Jag was meant to make India a powerhouse in building aircrafts - did India buy "ToT" for that purpose (I do not know)?

The question I have is how close is India to being self sufficient to building ACs. I think she is fairly close (we have been through these discussions many a times - so please let us not reopen the discussion, only because India is closer today than when we had this discussion last). In fact - as I stated earlier - some techs India developed are in the MKI and proposed to be in the FGFA.

Concerns: It is disturbing to know - IF true - that India will be dependent on such things as the radar and engines even after 15 years from now. Am no expert, but I would have thought and still do that India will be self sufficient in those fields in the next 5 years - again, to Indian recs, not some other country recs.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 16 Jun 2009 22:41

and EADS said they will transfer core tech but think again india had adour engine tech for jags but india still dependent on more powerful engine for jaguar upgrade.

so did that tech transfer help india if it did then why india still dependent on foreign firms for new engine?????so what kind of engine tech transfer from EADS going to help this time.

and we are still dependent on foreign country for jaguar upgrade whether its engines,targeting systems for weapons,pod mounted radar coming from israel and so we will be dependent on foreign country for MRCA upgrade too

did jaguar tech helped us in being self reliant, no

India received the Jaguars in the early 80s. The GTRE was itself set-up in 84 or something. At that time there wasn't enough R&D in that sector for the Jaguar ToT to result in indigenous engine. The situation at present is completely different considering the fact that we are already in the advance stages of development of Kaveri. Whatever issues there are, full ToT from EJ200 for example can fast-track the whole development process. The Adour ToT could well have helped in the development of Kaveri. Although the Adour ToT didn't instantly result in an indigenous engine, it could well have helped in the development of Kaveri and the same is the case with the MMRCA engine.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jun 2009 23:18

Both the LCA and the Kaveri - the original set of people were brought to India from outside the country - they were all considered experts enough for foreign vendors to have standing offers to them. The point being, they were never tasked to rely in any shape or form on ANY ToT. That was NEVER expected from day one. There are reasons why they did not deliver. PART of it is politics - the teams were dismantled for various internal reasons.

On MRCA ToT, there are other things - specifically supply chain, that WILL help India a LOT.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jun 2009 23:22

IJT is proof enough that India has come a long way in the design/dev of ACs. Granted that much work needs to be done. That India will be self sufficient is not an issue. The issue is how advanced will India be WRT "self" sufficiency.

It has been rather well documented, on BR too, that foreign vendors do not part with latest UNTIL India makes advancements - then India gets it for peanuts to undercut Indian efforts.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 17 Jun 2009 00:15

Andrew DeCristofaro wrote:
kmkraoind wrote:http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/jun/ ... -fleet.htm

Though not related to MRCA, but upgrading MCU of Jaguars shows GOI leaning towards to an US aircraft. With this future MRCA and Jaguars can fire US AAMs. Only small doubt, does Mirage M2K can fire AIM-9X and AMRAAM or it needs some modification.
nowdays india leaning toward US for everything

---------------------------------------------------------------
andrew ji please control
---------------------------------------------------------------

HariC · Post by **HariC** » 17 Jun 2009 00:46

India received the Jaguars in the early 80s. The GTRE was itself set-up in 84 or something. At that time there wasn't enough R&D in that sector for the Jaguar ToT to result in indigenous engine.

GTRE was set up and have been sitting on their a***s since 1959. the most they were able to do was do some improvements to the Orpheus engines and thats all.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/ ... _1938.html

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 17 Jun 2009 01:15

NRao wrote:Andrew,

You do have a point, however, it is not as bad as i appears.

However, for the most part it is a matter of cost. Not that India does not have the technology or the capabilities to do so. (Have talked with plenty of experts on such matter - like tank engines - who made those statements. Se below for my concerns.)

Also, there are few holes in your arguments. For instance:

did jaguar tech helped us in being self reliant, no
Yes, because it did allow India to build as many as she wanted and as she pleased. I am not sure if the Jag was meant to make India a powerhouse in building aircrafts - did India buy "ToT" for that purpose (I do not know)?

The question I have is how close is India to being self sufficient to building ACs. I think she is fairly close (we have been through these discussions many a times - so please let us not reopen the discussion, only because India is closer today than when we had this discussion last). In fact - as I stated earlier - some techs India developed are in the MKI and proposed to be in the FGFA.

Concerns: It is disturbing to know - IF true - that India will be dependent on such things as the radar and engines even after 15 years from now. Am no expert, but I would have thought and still do that India will be self sufficient in those fields in the next 5 years - again, to Indian recs, not some other country recs.

yes we can produce as much jaguars as we wanted but again can we modified it,

can we produce engine for jaguar upgrade on our own,can we upgrade it on our own.
DID this tech transfer really helped

we had tech transfer for adour engine but we could not modify it so that it can produce higher thrust??? and thats why we are still dependent on rolls royce for new more powerful engine

and same thing will happen with EJ2000 tech transfer we can produce as many of them as we want but we will not be able to further develop it make it to produce higher thrust and or use this tech transfer to produce other engines on our own or become self reliant in engine technology.

ok we had al31,rd33 engine tech could we use that tech in kaveri or for that matter could GTRE was able to use tech developed for kaveri in rd33,al31 engines to make them lighter and more reliable answer no,and for this we still have to depend on russia

even if GTRE exploit this tech transfer and produces a air worthy engine but even that engine will not be competitive when it comes to total life hours of engine and its MTBO but this too is highly unlikely,but by the time this happens others will have newer and more efficient engine tech

look at BAE HAWK hal produced it in home with TOT but can this TOT is of any use for HJT36 to make its development faster??

did adour tech transfer helped in producing engine for hjt 36,

we have to buy AL55 engine with TOT from russia for hjt36.

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 17 Jun 2009 01:15

Samay wrote:
kmkraoind wrote:http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/jun/ ... -fleet.htm

Though not related to MRCA, but upgrading MCU of Jaguars shows GOI leaning towards to an US aircraft. With this future MRCA and Jaguars can fire US AAMs. Only small doubt, does Mirage M2K can fire AIM-9X and AMRAAM or it needs some modification.
nowdays india leaning toward US for everything

---------------------------------------------------------------
andrew ji please control
---------------------------------------------------------------

no one except god is in control,so i am mere human being,so you are right too

on one side govt importing asraam on second side they want to spend money to buy short range missile from different vendor and on third side R73 can be fitted on jaguar

it seems peculiar that india invited raytheon,israel for this even when there is no need to.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jun 2009 01:33

yes we can produce as much jaguars as we wanted but again can we modified it,

can we produce engine for jaguar upgrade on our own,can we upgrade it on our own.
DID this tech transfer really helped

I am repeating myself: was there intent to "modified it" or "upgrade it on our own"?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jun 2009 01:35

we had tech transfer for adour engine but we could not modify it so that it can produce higher thrust??? and thats why we are still dependent on rolls royce for new more powerful engine

Because it is cheaper.

Omar · Post by **Omar** » 17 Jun 2009 01:37

but again can we modified it

Yes, its called the DARIN II upgrade.

To extend the operational life of Jaguars by perhaps another two decades, further improvement of avionics suite is now in progress under project DARIN II.... Twin mission computers developed by DRDO's Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE) are installed, providing much better redundancy than in the original DARIN refit. An Israeli HUD from Elbit replaces the Smiths' one and an indigenous Rear Warning Radar the original Marconi's. ...etc. etc.

Link: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Info/ ... 25Yrs.html

The point is that ToTs had some role in helping India establish whatever military-industrial base currently existing. For the past 50 years or so, our defense labs have attempted to fill gaps by developing some technologies not readily available to us. Now we are beginning to reach a point where our labs are develop new and novel technologies that will be integrated with future defense systems. ToT will remain crucial to India's development strategy in defense technology until the products and research from our own defense labs mature for the services to accept.

even if GTRE exploit this tech transfer and produces a air worthy engine but even that engine will not be competitive when it comes to total life hours of engine and its MTBO but this too is highly unlikely,but by the time this happens others will have newer and more efficient engine tech

So do you suggest that GTRE not pursue any research in developing a jet engine because any engine we produce will 'not be competitive' and that India continue to rely on importing jet engines? Seriously we have no other alternative but to learn what we can from foreign partners and develop these technologies on our own if we want to self-sufficent in all aspect of military aviation design and development.

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 17 Jun 2009 01:55

tech development and license production of that tech with production TOT are two different things.

tech development is much harder than license production of the same thing

and ej2000 tech transfer will be more like license production of engine with technology developed by EADS and license production is much easier to do than developing ej2000

but from where GTRE will bring the elusive experience knowhow and hurdles crossed in development of ej2000 or other civilian engines which rolls royce/snecma,ge,p&w have that which design works which doesn't ,metallurgy to be used TO make air worthy reliable and fuel efficient engine.

and GTRE doesn't has this experience and this very experience is needed to be self reliant in engine technology or for that matter further development of engines.

thinking that india will be self reliant in engine tech transferred for ej2000 is mere daydreaming

first you should see what happened with the tech transferred for al31,rd33,adour,al55 engines
and could india produce a air worthy engine with this tech on its own

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jun 2009 01:55

Andrew,

I c.

I agree.

India is no Boeing or Lockheed Martin.

OK. Thanks. Back to the thread.

Omar · Post by **Omar** » 17 Jun 2009 02:02

ok spanish and german govt have given green signal for LCA programme but again this tech doesn't becomes ours,these countries will always have their right over this because this tech is not developed in home

It depends on the nature of the joint venture. Usually when technology is jointly developed it means that we will jointly market the product as India and Russia are doing with the Brahmos.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 17 Jun 2009 02:05

Italy: Too Late for E-scan Radar on Eurofighter

http://www.defensenews.com/osd_story.ph ... &i=4139303

As Eurofighter partners discuss building an e-scan radar for the third tranche of the fighter, a senior Italian official has said the talks are too late and that Italy will stick with the mechanically scanned version for the first of its tranche-three aircraft.............."Eurofighter should have started work sooner on an active electronically scanned array [AESA] radar and partners are running late in developing one," said Gen. Giuseppe Bernardis, deputy chief of staff of the Italian Air Force. ................................Bernardis said Italy did not rule out the use of Eurofighters for air-to-ground missions, "since they have this capability," but viewed them as "a backup" aircraft for the mission, cost permitting, and assuming the ability to use air-to-ground weaponry held in the inventory for other aircraft.

Well, Captor-E induction would be pretty late for MMRCA according to me. It seems like a blow to EF and it's backers for MMRCA.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Jun 2009 04:48

imhf, ej200 augmented drawings for Kaveri Mk II impressed our gtre folks. chai+biskoti speak., and btw, many a deals were won in India from chai+biskoti sledges.

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 17 Jun 2009 06:23

SaiK wrote:imhf, ej200 augmented drawings for Kaveri Mk II impressed our gtre folks. chai+biskoti speak., and btw, many a deals were won in India from chai+biskoti sledges.

let GTRE first complete kaveri mk1 with foreign help.

and mk2 is far

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 17 Jun 2009 07:22

Well, Captor-E induction would be pretty late for MMRCA according to me. It seems like a blow to EF and it's backers for MMRCA.

I think rfp includes aesa. So if typhoon wins the contract, caesar is guaranteed. Don't worry.

Also mrca is 2014-15 timeframe. That's 5 years from now!! By then even the LCA Mk1 will have an indigenous world-class aesa.

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 17 Jun 2009 07:44

Drevin wrote:
Well, Captor-E induction would be pretty late for MMRCA according to me. It seems like a blow to EF and it's backers for MMRCA.
I think rfp includes aesa. So if typhoon wins the contract, caesar is guaranteed. Don't worry.

Also mrca is 2014-15 timeframe. That's 5 years from now!! By then even the LCA Mk1 will have an indigenous world-class aesa.

its true and not only typhoon all other means rafale,mig,gripen will have aesa

but for LCA its going to be built by the help of israel.

Omar · Post by **Omar** » 17 Jun 2009 08:22

thinking that india will be self reliant in engine tech transferred for ej2000 is mere daydreaming

Nobody said that. The point was ToT will give some technologies that are currently unavailable to us. Our defense labs will have to fill in the gaps.

and GTRE doesn't has this experience and this very experience is needed to be self reliant in engine technology or for that matter further development of engines.....first you should see what happened with the tech transferred for al31,rd33,adour,al55 engines
and could india produce a air worthy engine with this tech on its own

Kaveri engine is a decent engine even its current state. Here's a comparison between it and the RD33:
Klimov RD-33
Length: 4,250 mm (167.3 in)
Diameter: 1,040 mm (40.9 in)
Dry weight: 1,055 kg (2,325 lb)
5,098 kgf (50.0 kN, 11,230 lbf) military thrust
8,300 kgf (81.3 kN, 18,285 lbf) with afterburner

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_RD-33

GTRE GTX-35VS Kaveri
Length: 137.4 in (3490 mm)
Diameter: 35.8 in (910 mm)
Dry weight: 2,427 lb (1,100 kg)
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)]

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTRE_GTX-35VS_Kaveri

The point I'm making is that GTRE has created an engine with grossly equivalent performance, dimension, and weight specifications to the Klimov RD-33. While it still requires further testing, one shouldn't assume GTRE has none of the "elusive experience knowhow."

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 17 Jun 2009 08:40

Omar wrote:
thinking that india will be self reliant in engine tech transferred for ej2000 is mere daydreaming
Nobody said that. The point was ToT will give some technologies that are currently unavailable to us. Our defense labs will have to fill in the gaps.

and GTRE doesn't has this experience and this very experience is needed to be self reliant in engine technology or for that matter further development of engines.....first you should see what happened with the tech transferred for al31,rd33,adour,al55 engines
and could india produce a air worthy engine with this tech on its own
Kaveri engine is a decent engine even its current state. Here's a comparison between it and the RD33:
Klimov RD-33
Length: 4,250 mm (167.3 in)
Diameter: 1,040 mm (40.9 in)
Dry weight: 1,055 kg (2,325 lb)
5,098 kgf (50.0 kN, 11,230 lbf) military thrust
8,300 kgf (81.3 kN, 18,285 lbf) with afterburner

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_RD-33

GTRE GTX-35VS Kaveri
Length: 137.4 in (3490 mm)
Diameter: 35.8 in (910 mm)
Dry weight: 2,427 lb (1,100 kg)
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)]

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTRE_GTX-35VS_Kaveri

The point I'm making is that GTRE has created an engine with grossly equivalent performance, dimension, and weight specifications to the Klimov RD-33. While it still requires further testing, one shouldn't assume GTRE has none of the "elusive experience knowhow."

ok as i already posted there is difference between a flying engine and a engine in development

rd33 is being used for over 25 years and now russians have rd33mk engine producing thrust of 89kN

but what will be kaveri engine reliability even if it comes on time compared to rd33mk mean ability to produce required thrust quickly,total life hours,MTBO

even russian still struggling in these last 2 parameters compared to western engines,

but russians engines are almost 3 times cheaper than similar western engines

and by the time kaveri completes russians will have further development of rd33mk in next 5 years.

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 17 Jun 2009 08:57

SaiK wrote:imhf, ej200 augmented drawings for Kaveri Mk II impressed our gtre folks. chai+biskoti speak., and btw, many a deals were won in India from chai+biskoti sledges.

nowdays our babus/mantries like american timhorton's cofee+chocolaty kukees rather than indian chai+biskoti

Omar · Post by **Omar** » 17 Jun 2009 09:04

Clearly the Kaveri is in development while the Klimov has been in service. I acknowledged that in my post comparing the two engines. But your original assertion that GTRE lacks ''knowhow'' is far from the truth or that we have gained nothing from previous ToT with regard to other engines such as Klimov or Adour.

and by the time kaveri completes russians will have further development of rd33mk in next 5 years.

And secondly that's point of ToT-so that we catch up in some areas of engine development such as improving MTBO, etc.

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 17 Jun 2009 09:22

Omar wrote:Clearly the Kaveri is in development while the Klimov has been in service. I acknowledged that in my post comparing the two engines. But your original assertion that GTRE lacks ''knowhow'' is far from the truth or that we have gained nothing from previous ToT with regard to other engines such as Klimov or Adour.

and by the time kaveri completes russians will have further development of rd33mk in next 5 years.
And secondly that's point of ToT-so that we catch up in some areas of engine development such as improving MTBO, etc.

main thing here is no one willing to sought out the problems in the design which GTRE guys developed so that GTRE can come to know where they need improvements????

all these EADS,snecma offering their already built designs for core/hot section developed by them.

and this very knowhow is most important for further development and this doesn't come from already built designs produced in home with TOT

yes they have knowhow for this but can they bring kaveri to operation
and by the time they do others will leap frog in engine tech and GTRE will be sitting over there same as it is now

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 17 Jun 2009 09:26

Andrew DeCristofaro wrote:american timhorton's cofee

There are only 5 things that will provoke a Canadian into punching you in the face.

Calling Tim Hortons American is one of them.

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 17 Jun 2009 09:48

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Andrew DeCristofaro wrote:american timhorton's cofee
There are only 5 things that will provoke a Canadian into punching you in the face.

Calling Tim Hortons American is one of them.

agreed

[offtopic] tim hortons isnt canadian owned anymore, its owned by the same people who own wendy's [/offtopic] sorry for going off topic

Ashutosh Malik · Post by **Ashutosh Malik** » 17 Jun 2009 09:53

I have been going through Mr. DeCristofaro's posts about how India lacks this, that and what not. Very educative. But I thought we already knew that we have long distance to cover before we reached maturity on this. The reactions to his posts seem to bring about rather defensive posts on how we aren't all that bad!

We learnt how to make rockets and we will learn how to make aircrafts, period. We will need to learn from the Russians, the Americans, the Europeans and so on as much as we require. The world learnt from each other. The Russians and the Americans could not wait to get their hands on the German Scientists and research during and after WW II, to get on their rocketry going! Even if it meant that they overlook the so called Nazi past etc. etc.

So what is the big deal if Indian's are looking for ideas!

Bottomline again, will be to get our act together, make people answerable, and go the whole bloody hog!

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 17 Jun 2009 13:14

Well Put Ash....

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 17 Jun 2009 17:31

its true and not only typhoon all other means rafale,mig,gripen will have aesa

but for LCA its going to be built by the help of israel.

-Taking Israel's assistance was a master move .....
-And making it compulsory for all mrca contenders to offer a mature aesa is a chanakyan move that can't get enuf praise
-Also stressing that only one aircraft will be finally chosen is just superb for logistics managers and more importantly, pilot training ...

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 17 Jun 2009 18:10

Drevin wrote:
its true and not only typhoon all other means rafale,mig,gripen will have aesa

but for LCA its going to be built by the help of israel.
-Taking Israel's assistance was a master move .....
-And making it compulsory for all mrca contenders to offer a mature aesa is a chanakyan move that can't get enuf praise
-Also stressing that only one aircraft will be finally chosen is just superb for logistics managers and more importantly, pilot training ...

all aircraft will have mature aesa in 2014

and considering a fighter superb for logistics managers and more importantly, pilot/technician training then nothing beats mig35 in this as IAF,IN already have mig29,29k and infrastructure

but the fact that only one fighter going to win this contract but it doesn't mean other fighters are inferior specially as seen in mig35 and mostly the thought has been that mig35 is good in nothing and worse in everything but this holds no ground on reality and it shows as if mig never knew how to make fighters

someone is buying gripen,someone buying typhoon,someone buying f18/16/15 someone buying su30 but it doesn't mean both rafale and mig35 are inferior

and this is my 102 th post

kit · Post by **kit** » 17 Jun 2009 18:25

Somethings are worth emulating

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdi/j ... _1_n.shtml

This strategy, which has since been refined and enhanced by DAPA, has partly resulted in South Korea becoming the third biggest importer of materiel since 2004 with a 6 per cent share of all global arms imports behind China and India It has also seen the development of one of the most demanding offset policies in Asia.

According to figures published by the US government in December 2007, for instance, South Korea's offset demands reached an average of 58.5 per cent of the value of deals with US companies

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jun 2009 18:58

I have been going through Mr. DeCristofaro's posts about how India lacks this, that and what not. Very educative. But I thought we already knew that we have long distance to cover before we reached maturity on this.

15 minutes of fame, telling everyone that the sun rises from the East.

Omar · Post by **Omar** » 17 Jun 2009 19:25

The reactions to his posts seem to bring about rather defensive posts on how we aren't all that bad!

The posts are trying to clarify misconceptions about where Indian organizations related to aircraft design/manufacturing have made or are making progress. As NRao stated earlier, HAL/ADA/GTRE isn't a Boeing/Pratt & Whitney. But just because they aren't doesn't mean that these entities aren't pushing the boundaries of where Indian aerospace currently stands.

but can they bring kaveri to operation

Remains to be seen, but three words: LCA trainer integration.