LCA News and Discussions, 22-Oct-2013

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Jan 2014 11:57

A 404 equivalent is not going to cut it on LCA. This is not so difficult to grasp, or is it?

Stick it in Tejas trainers, USAVs. Make a marine variant, put it in a loco, create a high-bypass and stick it in passenger jet. But not in an LCA.

vic · Post by **vic** » 10 Jan 2014 12:16

I think that we should design AMCA with GE-414-EPE in mind and our next 75/110kn engine should be intended to a drip in replacement (if possible).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Jan 2014 12:28

There seems to be acute paralysis on the engine front after Kaveri was dumped for the LCA,failing to make the grade.The engine problem has affected other projects like the IJT as well,Jags need to be re-engined too.Even with the ALH there was an engine crisis.One would've expected an urgency in the MOD to rectify the situation ,where all our current and future progammes will be held hostage to the selection of the right "foreign" engine,especially if just one engine is used in the prototypes.

Kaveri has been officially touted as however going to power our UAV/UCAVs,and used in warships in a marine version,but there appears to be little progress despite a few years having passed since these announcements were made.The setting up of a new engine R&D outfit that can design,develop and manufacture the entire range of aircraft and rotary engines ultimately is a huge yawning gap in our indigenisation ambitions.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 10 Jan 2014 13:14

aeroengine engine design and development is very very challenging and only a few have mastered it, it is not an easy task - and takes decades to build up the capability

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Jan 2014 13:17

vic wrote:I think that we should design AMCA with GE-414-EPE in mind and our next 75/110kn engine should be intended to a drip in replacement (if possible).

This is exactly my thought. It will reflect a lesson learnt from the Tejas, IJT experience.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Jan 2014 13:39

From AeroMag asia 1-2013 (AeroMag is a SIATI run publication and has articles from official sources).

The coherent pulse-Doppler Multi Mode
Radar is designed to operate equally
effectively in the Air to Air and Air to
Surface domains. Jointly developed as
an Indian – Israeli venture, it features
multi-target Air to Air Track, Hi Resolution
Synthetic Aperture Mapping and
specialized Air to Sea modes.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 10 Jan 2014 14:40

I like the idea of putting a EJ2000 inside Tejas and testing it out, GE414 was chosen because being L1 and not because of the rest of the marketing crap they doled out claiming least structural changes ityadi ityadi. IIRC ADA had done study on both the engines and the necessary changes required in Tejas and was ready for anyone winning the bid. I was sincerely hoping that America won't get it but at the end of the day GoI had to show where it's loyalty lies.

Plan B is to reduce the weight of Tejas on a fast track basis and get Kaveri meet it's damn design values. They are trying to create new alloys to reduce weight but there is no public indication of the same so I guess it's not in the priority list which should have been the case.

member_25400 · Post by **member_25400** » 10 Jan 2014 18:48

Sagar G wrote:GE414 was chosen because being L1. IIRC ADA had done study on both ... and was ready for anyone winning the bid. I was sincerely hoping that America won't get it .

Agree that choice was on L1. initially, I thought Ej200 (being an advanced & lighter engine (+cooler/low MTBO), may get us better ToT). OTOH, EJ200 is only used on the Typhoon, in limited numbers, and dealing with a consortium is rather unwieldy. The two together would have limited investment into the engine and the roadmap.
However, GE414 is very widely used, pretty good, already navalized, and the investment made by the US (&GE) under the ADVENT/AETD programs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_ ... plications ) have a potential of paying off for future evolution.
Plus there may be better commonality with the GE404 powered mark 1's.All in all, not unhappy with the selection even on non-political/non-cost basis also.

All too often there is a knee-jerk anti-Americanism in our responses. While in many cases,even a dispassionate judgement would leave the US on the outside, there's no denying the fact that the US has the best technology , by and large.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 10 Jan 2014 19:23

barath_s wrote:All too often there is a knee-jerk anti-Americanism in our responses. While in many cases,even a dispassionate judgement would leave the US on the outside, there's no denying the fact that the US has the best technology , by and large.

Just tell me your plan B if US strikes down the GE 414 deal, then what will you do with the "best technology" propaganda ???

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Jan 2014 19:42

To keep the IAF fleet operational, considering all possible factors is knee jerk anti Americanism? Waah re waah.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Jan 2014 20:26

Sagar G wrote:
barath_s wrote:All too often there is a knee-jerk anti-Americanism in our responses. While in many cases,even a dispassionate judgement would leave the US on the outside, there's no denying the fact that the US has the best technology , by and large.
Just tell me your plan B if US strikes down the GE 414 deal, then what will you do with the "best technology" propaganda ???

Fair enough. But, is EJ-200 a real plan B?

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 10 Jan 2014 20:31

indranilroy wrote:Fair enough. But, is EJ-200 a real plan B?

Can be if we work towards it along with reducing the weight of Tejas and making Kaveri meet it's designed specs then no need to look outside for engine.

venkat_r · Post by **venkat_r** » 10 Jan 2014 21:26

indranilroy wrote: Fair enough. But, is EJ-200 a real plan B?

How can EJ-200 be a plan B. Holier than thou EU is going to reject it even before US sanctions GE414. There might however be few options like - France's Senecma, Russia's Saturn.

My favorite options for backup are China or Pakistan. We should have referendum in India on which engine to choose.

Do it yourself or be a slave to the powers that have it. What is plan B for FGFA, Eurofigher, Raffale Grippen or J-10?? Aren't we getting a bit paranoid with this?

Jayram · Post by **Jayram** » 10 Jan 2014 22:05

A little off topic but needs to be said..
Seems like we need to approach the Kaveri problem differently. There are a lot of retired Engine designers in Russia and US who can be tapped to provide consulting in Engine and Metallurgy. Bring them here pay them enough dollars as consulting fees only and go from there. No shame in getting help to catch up. Engine technology while critical is not associated with red flags in the media like Nuclear bomb tech or sensitive aerospace tech. Need imagination only from Govt not self flagellation and finger pointing. Be pragmatic not too patriotic..

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Jan 2014 22:30

Sagar G wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Fair enough. But, is EJ-200 a real plan B?
Can be if we work towards it along with reducing the weight of Tejas and making Kaveri meet it's designed specs then no need to look outside for engine.

For making Kaveri a viable option (when it becomes ready) Tejas has to lose about 700 kgs. That is more than 10% of it's current weight. And this after they have gone through 1 round of weight reduction already. If that was easy they would have made Tejas Mk2 lighter and gone with the 404 (because Kaveri is not ready yet). It would have saved them a lot of trouble.

srin · Post by **srin** » 10 Jan 2014 22:41

The Kaveri itself should lose a couple of hundred kilo's, no ? I think that is far far more challenging.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Jan 2014 22:49

The point to be noted is not about kaveri making to production variant of LCA when it does not meet requirements. The point is all about demonstrating the capabilities to what we have made kaveri thus far. This is not V&V-ed yet on a flying platform for production use that would satisfy the needs with the current K capabilities. Hence, what Brando suggests makes sense in giving the baby an opportunity to be considered via a PLM approach. Only when it gets used, it shall walk to a more robust component for the future.

Is that difficult to do? [after proving Kaveri on IL platform in Russia]. There is a plan, but we don't hear of it much. It may sound OT, but an essential core requirement for the future. Strategically as well.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 10 Jan 2014 23:21

From Raffy thread:"The payload is a function of the design, materials and thrust." : thrust affects payload is perhaps why we need 1x2Kaveri for LCA and see how much it would affect specifications, including maximum loaded weight, etc. Raffy has 2xSnecmaM88-II and may be that is a factor in increasing payload.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Jan 2014 01:29

EJ-200 was always stated to be developed with an upgrade intended to uprate its thrust by upto 20%, a 10% increase itself could presumably meet our requirements. For those stating that EU will easily sanction India..not necessarily. Some there would jump at the chance to make money at the expense of the Khan. India purchased Hawks with all US made kit replaced with European made gear for instance.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Jan 2014 07:01

Niranjan wrote:A nice recap:

Tejas :: The Indian Light Combat Aircraft

Agree. Wish they had that bullseye hit with the bomb that was shown in the forum

vic · Post by **vic** » 11 Jan 2014 08:35

Plan B for LCA Mark-3, AMCA and UCAV has to be non after-burning version of AL-31

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Jan 2014 08:58

Doesn't work. Will make the planes heavier and fatter. Both are detrimental.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 11 Jan 2014 09:40

Why is even LCA Mk 2 being thought of? I would say just build 1oo+ Mk1s first.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Jan 2014 09:57

vic, that is a different class of engine.

mk-2 was being thought of because IAF became later enterant as stakeholder to LCA. Be happy LCA Mk2 specs are clear and solid.

vic · Post by **vic** » 11 Jan 2014 10:16

SaiK wrote:vic, that is a different class of engine.

mk-2 was being thought of because IAF became later enterant as stakeholder to LCA. Be happy LCA Mk2 specs are clear and solid.

I know, kindly note, I was referring to future projects other than Mark-2.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Jan 2014 10:24

If they ever have to use AL-31 series engine then it wont be the LCA it would be a clean new design ... more in F-16 class ....even the MCA is designed around M88/F-414 class engine.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Jan 2014 10:40

vic wrote:I think that we should design AMCA with GE-414-EPE in mind and our next 75/110kn engine should be intended to a drip in replacement (if possible).

Memories can be short ....we already got shafted once via sanctions by US and got the Tejas program delayed .....if we use another American engine and end up on the wrong side of US Foreign policy we would get shafted 2nd time.

Better to stick with Western Engine..Snecma or Euro Engine ..with ultimate goal to build our own engine .....considering we are opting for Rafale ..M88 series engine would be a good place to start for AMCA.

Bottom line is Dont Repeat the Same Mistake Twice.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 11 Jan 2014 10:55

Sagar G wrote: ...
Plan B is to reduce the weight of Tejas on a fast track basis and get Kaveri meet it's damn design values. They are trying to create new alloys to reduce weight but there is no public indication of the same so I guess it's not in the priority list which should have been the case.

SagarG-ji, what is required urgently is reduction of Kaveri weight to it's desired design goal (950Kg - it's currently 120-150Kg or 12-15% overweight) an achieve the 76N/Kg TWR as it was originally envisioned. LCA airframe weigth reduction etc, if it happens, is well-and-good but Kaveri in it's present form will not make it to LCA - maybe, optimistically a Kaveri MK-II for LCA Mk-II later stages, but we will cross that bridge once we reach there.

Currently, one path is to pursue this Kaveri engine weight-reduction which in itself is an extremely challenging task - as such large-scale weight reduction means playing around with the Core both material-wise and design-wise.
For example, the heaviest part of a turbojet is its compressor stages, specifically the Fan stages (LPCs). Reducing a stage there would surely ensure the weight being bought down drastically but the basic engine performance would also takes a nose-dive as the Overall Compressor Pressure Ratios (total of Stage PRs of each of the stages) will also reduce significantly.
(pls note, the totaling of Stage Pressure Ratios across various Compressor stages is non-linear totaling - aka something like summing a Geometric progression).

So the trick is reducing a stage without reducing the Overall Compressor PR - which essentially means increasing the SPR of the remaining Stages from the current level. And there are 3 ways of achieving this:
1) Higher blade speed - maybe in the realm of 1.5-1.6M
2) Low aspect ratio (aka wide chord) blade design
3) Multi-circular arc profile compressor blades

Pls refer to this post of mine on Compressor Blade Design and Manufacturing aspects for further details.

But the above three would mean developing/acquiring manufacturing capability of increased blade strength and loading – by usage of blisk manufacturing, higher thermal loading metallurgy, High speed milling, Electro-Chemical machining, Linear friction welding etc. etc.
Absolute cutting-edge of material and manufacturing technology (technology which nobody will part with), and we are simply not there.

A related detailed post of mine on this can be found here.

And before CPNs (Cut-Paste Ninja's

) like Philip takes this post and diabolically does a very-carefully-selective cut-paste (along-with Google-search based irrelevant dumps) for another series of stinks (which he calls posts) berating GTRE et all, the current Russian progression path of 117 Series to T-50 2nd stage engines is just that (from atleast last 10-odd years, and are still 5-6 years from achieveing it). Take that!!

The other option path (iterative) is,
1) to keep the engine core as-is and first flight qualify it - this will baseline the basic engine Core Aerodynamic and Thermodynamic design (and it's other performance parameters).

2) Then go for a slightly higher core inlet dia (so increased mass-flow), larger Compressor and larger Turbine stages (so increased weight) and brute-force increase the Thrust levels (both dry and wet). At this stage vital parameters like OPR, SFC, TeT etc may not have improved significantly (though the Thrust and weight levels would have increased).

3) Then try and improve the Compressor and turbine efficiencies (maybe drop a compressor stage etc) by incorporating higher blade speed, Low-aspect-ratio blades, Multi-circular-arc blade profiles, 4th Gen SCB etc.

4) And finally go for Ceramic Matrix Composites (CMC - for the hot sections like Turbines etc) and Polymer Matrix Composites (PMC for the cold sections like the later-compressor stages) based improvements.

Pls note these phases are not strictly sequential as achieving each phase goals would require some aspects of Pt3 and Pt4 above realizations.

A variable-cycle engine can come thereafter.
A good 1-2 decades of solid R&D with almost unlimited funding - or be dependent on 100h-TBO hand-me-down stuff.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 11 Jan 2014 11:41

indranilroy wrote: Fair enough. But, is EJ-200 a real plan B?

There is no fcuking plan B. If the US decides against supplying additional GE404s (we haven't ordered for enough engines for the second batch of 20 Mk. 1 Tejas - IIRC 24 were ordered) or blocking the supply of GE414s for the Mk. II we will be in deep shit. That is what comes of a policy of allowing every other country to hold your balls in their grip in the aero gas turbine domain. Its criminal to not have a national program and get the best brains, put in enough money and support to get a contemporary engine out even if not cutting edge.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Jan 2014 12:32

We should thank our stars that the first sanctions ensured that a lot of the stuff which was to be sourced from the US was replaced by local/other equivalents in the LCA. The engine is the last "big" holdout, along with the Moog actuators IIRC. The latter are very reliable and won't require many changes/replacements, perhaps we can build an inventory of excess engines & spares for the engines. Not that the IAF will have planned for this, but (IMHO) they should.

Yugandhar · Post by **Yugandhar** » 11 Jan 2014 12:46

Saw one of the birds flying back home at around 12.30 noon today. It had an IFR probe sticking out of its nose.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Jan 2014 12:50

sure, that was not a Mirage?

Yugandhar · Post by **Yugandhar** » 11 Jan 2014 13:18

Indranil, now you have successfully sown the seeds of doubt. I think it was the LCA. I have never seen the Mirage coming in to land/take off near the ORR area. But it is surely tricky to say with 100% certainity. I am reasonably sure it is the LCA.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Jan 2014 13:43

I hope you are right. You would make my day.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jan 2014 13:58

M2k/su30 is only seen in blr around aeroindia times. nowadays its rare even to see a jaguar. not sure how much real work ASTE has at present.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 11 Jan 2014 14:55

Karan M wrote:We should thank our stars that the first sanctions ensured that a lot of the stuff which was to be sourced from the US was replaced by local/other equivalents in the LCA. The engine is the last "big" holdout, along with the Moog actuators IIRC. The latter are very reliable and won't require many changes/replacements, perhaps we can build an inventory of excess engines & spares for the engines. Not that the IAF will have planned for this, but (IMHO) they should.

We are already developing our own actuators, with the rudder actuator undergoing certification (as of AI2013) but who knows how long that will take or even what is the roadmap for leading edge slat, elevon and airbrake actuators. But some sort of start is there even though as you say the Moog ones should be reliable.

What bothers me is the current radar and of course the engine. The Israelis will also be very, very susceptible to US pressure once the shit hits the fan and of course the radar processor for the Tejas is a black box.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Jan 2014 15:42

http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/ ... 955174.ece

“We want to take up the Indian weapon integration as a parallel programme, which is progressing as per our plan. In military aviation, the modern thought process is to share the strength. No country makes every component all alone in a fighter plane. So to say that Tejas is not 100 per cent Indian, doesn’t hold any ground. We want to take the indigenous content in Tejas to 80 per cent from the current 60 per cent. It is an achievable target and we have the strength,” he said.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 11 Jan 2014 15:58

merlin wrote:... What bothers me is the current radar and of course the engine. The Israelis will also be very, very susceptible to US pressure once the shit hits the fan and of course the radar processor for the Tejas is a black box.

merlinji, radar is lesser of an issue - true, there is an order of magnitude of difficulty betw developing land-based (and sea-based) radars and a deployable airborne-radar. But basic building blocks of the FCR (both hardware and software) are available in-house.
True, we screwed up by entrusting HAL to develop airborne FCR - and thus got rewarded with the DSP fiasco forcing the "Hybrid" route - anyway it's getting rectified now by entrusting it to LRDE.
And in the interim, we have relied on Israeli's - but push come to shove an airborne FCR can be developed fairly quickly. Yes, it maynot be a true-blue X-band AESA, but a coherent PD MMR is very much within our capability.

Engine is the true reason to worry ... as the technological capability wise we are atleast 1-gen (maybe even 2-gen in the Compressor part) behind. Bridging it would be very difficult and needs very serious hand-holding on multiple aspects (which nobody wants to do, as it'd be akin to handing over very hard earned/learned crown jewels).

Let me ask a rhetorical question - if tomorrow GE offers a full ToT, deep enough to transfer complete manufacturing knowhow of F414 HPT/LPT and LPC/HPC stages (which incidentally were promised by the Russians on the AL-31F ToT but they eventually didn't - forcing us to import full blades and discs and basically do screw-driver-giri with those imported blades/discs), what would we do - refuse them just becuase they are sanction-prone?
We saw how the French basically offered us to import the M-88 core and then ToT on the other insignificant aspects of the engine. Why do we think AL-31F is not similarly sanction-prone (after all we are well too aware of the CUS saga, isn't it)?

Fact remains we need to develop these technologies indigenously, and in the interim, grin-and-bear these sanctions - and maybe try and find ways of mitigating the impact (e.g. en mass import of discs and blades etc, if possible and allowed).

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Jan 2014 18:31

Maitya, agree, its the darn engine which is the biggest problem. Push come to shove and we dont have our own radar, we can even turn to Russia for a Zhuk ME derivative, but an engine exactly per LCA specs..hard. Plus we have made considerable progress in radars in the past few years, we can make our own..

Merlin, hope they dont stop at the rudder actuators. We are making a bunch of actuators for so many programs, if they focus on it and get funded, they can get the LCA actuators done too..hope they do plan for that.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Jan 2014 19:08

It amuses me to see some beings start firing salvoes at me when I'm not even on the scene!

And before CPNs (Cut-Paste Ninja's ) like Philip takes this post and diabolically does a very-carefully-selective cut-paste (along-with Google-search based irrelevant dumps) for another series of stinks (which he calls posts) berating GTRE et all, the current Russian progression path of 117 Series to T-50 2nd stage engines is just that (from atleast last 10-odd years, and are still 5-6 years from achieveing it). Take that!!

Well,there's this old saying,"the guilty flee when no man pursueth!" I've yet to see a single variant of Kaveri aboard any Indian aerospace ,or marine for that matter,programme successfully.

The hard facts are that Kaveri was touted by the GTRE as "just months around the corner" over a decade ago, fooling even poor APJAK ,who was warned by a former VCoAS that the GTRE crowd were lying with their teeth.APJAK then went on to make his famous statement in 2003 that "200 LCAs would be built by 2010".Engines went to Russia for testing and blew up every time.The failure to set up at BLR an engine testing centre is another weakness.So the less talk about Kaveri the better.Its failure seriously delayed the entire programme.

Now this has been our fundamental weakness right from HF-24 days. "A chain is as strong as its weakest link".We have progressed marvellously in composites,software,etc.,but are still afflicted with the engine malady.The malady cuts across ALL aircraft and rotary programmes.However,it is a mystery why we have been so lackadaisical about this key issue when we've over 60 years been building under licence,Orpheus,Adour,plus a variety of Russian engines for various MIG types and Sukhois.Even today we are building RD-33-3 engines for MIG-29s licence given in 2007,and an estimated 920 AL-31FP turbofans are to be manufactured at HAL's Koraput Division for the MKIs.
These aircraft,Fulcrums and Flankers,the cutting edge of the IAF, have been flying for decades with these engines without any major problem.So much for the feeble arguments of the anti-Russian pipsqueaks.

Seriously,With such a history of licence engine manufacture,why have we ignored setting up a comprehensive engine R&D centre and obtained from both east and west whatever assistance for the same? Has our imagination been limited to just one engine ,Kaveri?! Writing in Vayu about the Gorshkov and Varyag rebuilding and modification,Adm.Arun Prakash has this to say about the success of the Chinese in their huge achievement in repairing and modernising the Varyag rustbucket into the Liaoning.
"The success of the project cannot be attributed only to the sound industrial-defence base and vibrant shipbuilding industry.The long-term vision of the Chinese leadership and a corresponding deficit in India has to be recognised."
I posted a few posts ago,yet again how even the efforts of Dr,Kalam to get the LCA on track by pushing hard for the long delayed appointment of a highly reputed AM (responsible for the Jaguar Darin project and head of ASTE,first Indian pilot to fly the MIG-25) as the DG ADA, was repeatedly scuttled by babudom who didn't want a DG with overall power to lead and execute the programme successfully.The post has yet to be filled! Result,we lost another decade.

I give you another true story.When the Arjun was being developed,the Germans refused to sell us the engine on the Leopard.However,when a desi engine was successfully tested,the Germans promptly offered the MTU. Money talks! If India were to set up such a comprehensive engine R&D centre with a vision and goal to make us self-sufficient in all kinds of engines in the future,it will happen.Western manufacturers (barring SAAB) are heading for the "soup kitchen".Rafale production is to slow down,C-17 closing,Euro-Farter in a vertical dive,and the US desperately hunting for JSF orders from allies. The Russians and Chinese are pouring huge amounts into their defence industry to modernise,expand thanks to their energy sales and eco success respectively. By comparison,look at the success of our missile and civilian rocket engines.Here we are truily focussed.We have scaled cryo-engine heights! We are developing in a JV with Russia the hypersonic version of Brahmos which will be a world first.Surely a suitable engine for the AMCA,LCA,etc. can be similarly developed-with some assistance if need be if the will and focus is there ? The decision to reject the import of the BMP-3 in favour of an Indian MICV from pvt. industry is to be welcomed,even if all pvt. industry contestants are getting collaborators from abroad.The ultimate result will be Indian.Where we have to be exceptionally careful is to see that these collaborators will not shaft us like the US did with the LCA and other key projects (cryo engine) when it imposed sanctions after P-2.A P-3 cannot be ruled out especially if a strong nationalist govt. at the centre takes charge in 2014 or afterwards, which is inevitable during this decade.We must therefore have alternatives available for all programmes dependent upon firang help.