Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby shiv » 26 Dec 2012 20:08

You know, I though that if you simply inject fuel into an exhaust pipe and light it you get an afterburner. The underperformance of Kaveri's afterburning shows how complex the tech must be. We need to keep working on the Kabini core and make an aviation engine out of it. Meanwhile, nothing like an UAV/UCAV to use the Kaveri.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 26 Dec 2012 21:30

if we compare to the Snecma M53 engine on our own M2K, dry is 54, wet is 86.
then without changing the dimension they somehow moved the dry to 64 and the wet to 95!!

looking at the 49 and 70 of the kaveri and assuming the dimensions and airflow to be about the same, looks like we have a lot to learn both in the 'core' and 'afterburner'

our tech is not matching up to stuff the french had mastered around 25 yrs ago in this dept.

and this is at best late 80s tech applied to the Mirage2000C

specs of M53
Length: 5,070 mm (199.60 in)
Diameter: 796 mm (31.33 in) inlet
Dry weight: 1,515 kg (3,340 lb)
Compressor: 8-stage axial compressor
Overall pressure ratio: 9.8:1
Bypass ratio: 0.36:1
Specific fuel consumption:
0.90(kg/daN.h) Dry engine thrust
2.10(kg/daN.h) military thrust
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 6.5

Kaveri
Length: 137.4 in (3490 mm) - shorter
Diameter: 35.8 in (910 mm) - fatter
Dry weight: 2,724 lb (1,235 kg) [Goal: 2,100-2450 lb (950-1100 kg)] - lighter if the weight is true

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 960
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby sivab » 26 Dec 2012 22:15

Singha wrote:
our tech is not matching up to stuff the french had mastered around 25 yrs ago in this dept.


Kaveri tech is behind but not in the way you put it. Thrust to weight ratio is the parameter to compare two different engines. For M53, that is 6.5, or ~95kN for 1500Kg weight.

For kaveri thrust to weight ratio of 6.5 translates to 70kN at 1100Kg weight or Thrust to weight ratio of 7.5 at 81kN. So they were aiming higher. They almost got there for the funding they got.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 26 Dec 2012 22:40

sivab wrote:They almost got there for the funding they got.


Now, this is a heck of a problem!! if what you are saying is true, then we are idiots not funding for the right specs. If one look at IAF requirements, how in the world one can reduce that funding?

Graduation is fine, but one can't complain on funds. If needed more, then they have to ask... but can't cut the requirements to trash. Why do we need to reduce the specs in the first place? reason? this funding funda is gone numb to me...

They are not copying anything here.. and doing by first principles right?

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Vipul » 27 Dec 2012 06:27

India's Kaveri Engine - Good For Something?

India's indigenously developed Kaveri engine may be unfit to power the country's Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) - itself not a stellar performer - but it has found a new home.

On Dec 10, in written reply to a parliamentary question, defense minister AK Anthony says a derivative of the Kaveri can power India's Unmanned Strike Air Vehicle (USAV), planned to enter service by 2020.

According to the Business Standard, India has no choice but to use a dry (unreheated) version of the Kaveri in the USAV because the international Missile Technology Control Regime bars the export of engines for unmanned aircraft with ranges more than 300km.
Under development by India's Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), the Kaveri's afterburning thrust is less than designed and well short of that needed to power the overweight LCA, but its dry (unreheated) thrust is adequate to power the under-10-tonne USAV, the report says.

The Business Standard says tests at Russia's Gromov Flight Research Institute, mounted on an Il-76 flying testbed, showed the Kaveri's afterburning thrust is 15,800lb, versus the planned 18,200lb. But dry thrust was almost 11,100lb, close to the planned 11,500lb.

The Kaveri has been under development at the GTRE since March 1989. Anthony, in his written reply, says 2,200hr of ground and altitude testing have been completed on nine Kaveri prototype engines plus four Kabini core prototypes. In Russia, the engine was flown to Mach 0.7 and almost 40,000ft over 27 flights totalling 57hr.

Development was scheduled to be completed in December 1996 at a projected cost of $69.5 million (Rs.382.81 Crore). But because of technical failures and delays, the program was extended and its cost revised to $515 million, of which $362 million has been spent so far, says Anthony.

Because of the Kaveri's failure, the Tejas Mk1 is powered by an imported 19,000lb-thrust GE F404-IN20. But the aircraft is overweight and underpowered, so an enlarged Mk2 version is planned powered by a 22,000lb-thrust GE F414-INS6.

India's USAV, meanwhile, looks a lot like Europe's Dassault-led Neuron unmanned combat-aircraft technology demonstrator (below), which made its first flight in France in early December. The Neuron demonstrator is powered by a 9,000lb-thrust Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10009
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby sum » 27 Dec 2012 09:08

Comment on broadsword:
The info given to the author, is not only flawed, but also contradictory. The Kaveri engine designed for the Tejas was to be tested in Russia over a decade and a half ago on a Tu-16. Since the Kaveri was not ready, the Indian govt paid hefty sums to keep the Tu-16 fly worthy, till that was no longer feasible. Eventually, the IL-76 had to used, with no accountability for the millions of Dollars spent on the upkeep of the Tu-16. Has this expenditure been factored into the design and development costs? I suspect not.
The inability to use this engine on the LCA was not only because of the unacceptable thrust developed, but the size of the engine required a redesign and modification of the Teja's airframe. The engine is also over-weight, which would add to the woes of the LCA. Now that GTRE proposes to use the LCA PV-1 as a test vehicle, it will be interesting to know if the airframe would be redeigned and more so, how would the aircraft take off in dry power, which is even below the design requirement for the LCA. After burners are always used for takeoff in fighter aircraft to ensure both take-off performance and safety. In exceptional cases if the aircraft is light (as with less fuel/no external tanks/armament) and the engine is very powerful (MiG-29) a 'dry' take off can be done. The figures given in the article belie any such performance.
Finally the USAVs performance and armament carrying capacity will be a direct function of the engine weight and power. Unless both these are vastly improved, we will not get the UAV with the desired performance.

The commenter is listed as Parvez Khokhar and IIRC, he was a ex-IAF Commodore.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vina » 27 Dec 2012 09:11

then without changing the dimension they somehow moved the dry to 64 and the wet to 95

That is when the single crystal blade and high temp materials of the French matured (basically developed for M-88) and they then applied the tech back to M-53 to increase thrust.

The French made that jump, while we haven't (atleast open source). But somehow, there are no news about whining about materials. Either we now have the required materials base or we are able to get it manufactured by some 3rd party for us .. That will be interesting to know when that bit of news is finally out. I will hazard that a major "materials" draw back is largely overcome (that could be the reason why the Snecma contract has not been signed). Now it is a question of iterative design, testing, and perfecting the design and engineering and manufacturing cycle.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 27 Dec 2012 09:50

>> Finally the USAVs performance and armament carrying capacity will be a direct function of the engine weight and power. Unless both these are vastly improved, we will not get the UAV with the desired performance.

I dont know why he expects a fighter type performance from a body stealth subsonic ucav whose main defence will be stealth and it will not have a manned pilot doing evasive manouvers. the neuron ucav is powered by the same engine as our jaguar the adour per above (this has HALF the dry thrust around 27kN reported for the Kaveri 49kN at slightly more than half the weight....which looks like a apples:apples deal)

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ima ... 005_lg.jpg

lets not raise the bar so high as to setup for a failure. payload can be 2-3 x 1000lb PGMs to start with...a good modular adaptors inside could permit down to 250lb SDB type PGMs in quantity.

give people some room and they will demand a UCAV
- that flies like the rafale
- costs like a kiran
- carries the payload of a f15e
- can be repaired by roadside mechanics
- datalinks like a E3
- and VLO as the B2 :mrgreen:

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 27 Dec 2012 10:02

the neuron carries a pathetic looking payload of 2x500lb if wiki is to be relied on. we should ensure our baby can cart around 6x500lb even if losing some raw performance.

Crew: 0
Length: 9.5 m (31 ft 2 in)
Wingspan: 12.5 m (41 ft 0 in)
Empty weight: 4900 kg ( lb)
Gross weight: 7,000 kg (13,000 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Rolls-Royce/Turboméca Adour / Snecma M88, 40 kN ( lbf) thrust each
Performance

Maximum speed: 980 km/h ( 608 mph) km/h ( mph)
Service ceiling: 14000 m ( 45,900 ft) m ( ft)
Armament

2 x 500lbs guided bombs

chiragAS
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 16 Nov 2006 10:09
Location: INDIA
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chiragAS » 27 Dec 2012 11:02

NRao wrote:
chiragAS wrote:First to rectify design flaw which they noticed while testing in Russia(as is mentioned in that article), will require some serious amount of time and then ground tests and then tests in Russia :(
IMO GoI won't move an inch on clearence for testing on Tejas till all the tests are positive.


THESE flaw rectifications, re-test in Russia and test in a LCA has nothing to do with the IOC/FOC that is being pursued.

These tests are associated with developing an engine for an UAV.


NRaoji I am talking about kaveri being tested on LCA. (i am talking about the engine testing not LCA!)
I am well aware LCA MK1is having GE404 IN20.

The article says GTRE is waiting clearence from GoI to test their current config Kaveri engine on LCA! and then later on to mate in the USAV.
GTRE has a three-fold plan for perfecting the Kaveri for the USAV. First, it will remove the design flaws that were detecting during testing in Russia in 2010-11; then, after ground testing in Bangalore, the Kaveri will undergo a round of confirmatory tests in Russia; finally, it will be fitted on a Tejas fighter for flight tests.


“We will take 48 months from the date we get clearance from the government, for completing 50 hours of testing the Kaveri on the Tejas LCA.


In other words they plan to test kaveri engine on LCA platform before they can go for mating /testing on USAV.
Now GoI giving clearence to Flight test Kaveri on LCA IMO will only be done when GTRE demonstrates Kaveri performance in Russia and in banaglore after removal of so called design flaws!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby NRao » 27 Dec 2012 20:48

Mating the Kaveri to the LCA, prior to mating it to a UAV, is ONLY to ensure it is air worthy. Nothing else. They could have used a MiG-21 to accomplish what they wanted to instead of the LCA. The PV-1 was designed for the Kaveri and thus seems to be a natural. Just want to make sure that this LCA-Kaveri test is not the real LCA-Kaveri test that we all have been dreaming about.

BTW, it is the wet reading of the Kaveri that is goofed up, the dry is very, very close. IF they can rectify the wet results the Kaveri could replace the 414s I would imagine.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 27 Dec 2012 22:32

^much more than that in terms of MTBF etc. An UCAVs loss is not the same as losing a pilot with an advanced A/c.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21807
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 27 Dec 2012 23:52

sum wrote:Comment on broadsword:
The info given to the author, is not only flawed, but also contradictory. The Kaveri engine designed for the Tejas was to be tested in Russia over a decade and a half ago on a Tu-16. Since the Kaveri was not ready, the Indian govt paid hefty sums to keep the Tu-16 fly worthy, till that was no longer feasible. Eventually, the IL-76 had to used, with no accountability for the millions of Dollars spent on the upkeep of the Tu-16. Has this expenditure been factored into the design and development costs? I suspect not.
The inability to use this engine on the LCA was not only because of the unacceptable thrust developed, but the size of the engine required a redesign and modification of the Teja's airframe. The engine is also over-weight, which would add to the woes of the LCA. Now that GTRE proposes to use the LCA PV-1 as a test vehicle, it will be interesting to know if the airframe would be redeigned and more so, how would the aircraft take off in dry power, which is even below the design requirement for the LCA. After burners are always used for takeoff in fighter aircraft to ensure both take-off performance and safety. In exceptional cases if the aircraft is light (as with less fuel/no external tanks/armament) and the engine is very powerful (MiG-29) a 'dry' take off can be done. The figures given in the article belie any such performance.
Finally the USAVs performance and armament carrying capacity will be a direct function of the engine weight and power. Unless both these are vastly improved, we will not get the UAV with the desired performance.

The commenter is listed as Parvez Khokhar and IIRC, he was a ex-IAF Commodore.


Air Cmde Parvez Khokhar, now retired, was a past commandant of the ASTE.

He should most certainly know what he is talking about.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8049
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 28 Dec 2012 00:24

Ajai Shukla's reply to the above.

@ Parvez Khokhar

I don't see where the contradiction lies.

You're probably correct in assuming that the DRDO would not have factored into the Kaveri budget the cost of keeping the T-16 in service. But that's accounting jugglery, not a substantive issue to do with the Kaveri's performance.

More relevant is your point about fitting the Kaveri into the Tejas. I am told by ADA that PV-1 was built to cater for the Kaveri... and that there are existing modifications for the Kaveri that are already built and kept. They will need to be fitted to accommodate the Kaveri.

As for how it will take off only with dry power... no, it won't. The Kaveri being tested on the Tejas will have dry and wet power, but the dry power part will be tested with the USAV in mind.

And whether the Kaveri would be sufficient for the USAV... if the DRDO says it would, I'll take their word because I doubt whether they would endanger a project as large and prestigious as the USAF, just to provide a rationale for the Kaveri.

Nitesh
BRFite
Posts: 899
Joined: 23 Mar 2008 22:22
Location: Bangalore
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Nitesh » 04 Jan 2013 10:24

Seems like we are back to square here, but good to see that long term plan is there for the engine
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2013/01/d ... witterfeed

The defence ministry (MoD) will no longer ask French aircraft engine builder Snecma to help in resurrecting the indigenous Kaveri jet engine, which has reached a dead end in development.

Instead major global aero engine manufacturers will compete in a global tender to partner the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) --- the Bangalore-based DRDO engine laboratory --- in refining the Kaveri engine to the level where it can power the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), an indigenous, fifth-generation fighter that is on the MoD’s long-term horizon.

“We are abandoning the plan for co-development with Snecma. We still need an overseas partner. But it will not be Snecma on a single-vendor basis. We will select our partner through competitive bidding,” says Dr CP Ramnarayanan, Director, GTRE.


To develop a more powerful Kaveri engine quickly and to become self-reliant in engine design, we need a foreign partner who can bring in core technologies. Otherwise the next cycle of engine development could take another 15-20 years,” admits Ramnarayan frankly.


DRDO is struggling in developing the Nickel and Cobalt superalloys for the Kaveri’s turbine, where temperatures of 1,600 degrees Centigrade warp normal metals.

Shaping the alloys into engine parts is an equal challenge. GTRE has learned how to make “directionally solidified” turbine blades; but it has not mastered the making of “single-crystal blades”, which are now standard.


Major aero-engine development facilities are being set up in Chitradurga, where a 5,600-acre hub of strategic industry will house R&D, testing and production units of the DRDO, Department of Space (DoS) and Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). These will include an official altitude test facility for aero engines, which US defence major Boeing is providing as an offset in India’s Rs 22,800 crore ($4.12 billion) purchase of ten C-17 Globemaster III transport aircraft. So far, GTRE has had to do all its testing in Russia.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 04 Jan 2013 10:37

er, but wasnt Snecma chosen as the last man standing because GE did not show any interest neither did Saturn.
other than united tech (P&W) , Klimov and RR there is nobody else left in the game. RR makes only the hot section of the EJ200. MTU makes the cold section and hispano suiza the afterburner iirc.

I very much doubt anyone will be willing to sell these crown jewel tech at any price....?

and global tender means another 3 yrs wasted in arriving back at the same point.

ofcourse if Snecma is not bringing anything good to the table, we have no option, beggars cannot be choosers.
hope its not a case of snecma being willing to share the crown jewels but some cost conscious official putting a brake on it.

I think this just about seals the deal that AMCA will be powered by either M88-x or F414 depending on its weight and size.

member_23455
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby member_23455 » 04 Jan 2013 12:46

Nitesh wrote:Seems like we are back to square here, but good to see that long term plan is there for the engine
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2013/01/d ... witterfeed



Yes...GTRE/DRDO have a long term plan to safeguard their turfs and deny an objective review of their capabilities, and they will continue to be funded by the taxpayer even though the end-users have just been told 10k Crore is no longer available to them. :roll:

Arunkumar
BRFite
Posts: 643
Joined: 05 Apr 2008 17:29

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Arunkumar » 04 Jan 2013 13:33

I think GTRE should be asked to reverse engineer Rolls-royce nene first!!!. Centrifugal should be easier than axial.
The saddest part of Kaveri development is lessons learnt would probably never be made public. I mean, there is no Air marshal Rajkumar type book on kaveri.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 04 Jan 2013 13:49

what they are doing is guaranteeing themselves funds to keep tinkering around for another 10 yrs until the AMCA proto is almost ready and then saying oops we need n=n+5 more yrs , the new global tender is being done with full knowledge nothing will come of it, and will take 3-4 yrs easy to officially conclude on that.

they will never deliver a working product. even for the UCAV we better have some other thing like Adour 811 or Honeywell F125 lined up.

pray let it be explained why snecma was found lacking and what inviting a global tender will bring to table and how the snecma aided re-engineering of the hot section is different from that now proposed.

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 607
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby k prasad » 04 Jan 2013 13:57

The good news about that report is the setting up of the altitude test centre... if you remember, there was a lot of cribbing by the GTRE Junta and Saraswat at AI09 (especially the seminar and the closing discussion there), where they all lamented how MoD Babus were scuttling much needed testing infrastructure. This new test facility certainly augurs well for our engine development and testing.

The other bit about Single Crystal blades is again something Malkondaiah (DMRL Dir) had mentioned at AI09. Looks like much hasnt changed since. Seriously speaking, we need

1) 5th Gen Superalloys
2) Thermal Barrier Coatings (TBCs)
3) SC Tech

If we can develop these three and, more critically are able to productionize them to a high level of QA, it'll give a good starting point to develop the next gen engines, esp if we can also develop BLISKs (Integrated SC Blade and Disks). Add to that the testing centres, and continually improved FADECs, and we could just look to catch up with the top engine makers in 10-15 years.

AmitG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Dec 2010 07:08

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby AmitG » 04 Jan 2013 14:12

Why cant the DRDO/IAF/ADA decide on the engine now...Kaveri surely is under powered as it was not considered for LCA...am not too sure if twin Kaveris will be good enough for the AMCA...

Also, why cant we use the AL-31FP engines that currently power the SU-30MKI. We have a huge fleet of SU-30MKIs (proposed to grow to 272) and having the AL-31FP on the AMCA might as well reduce the timeline to develop and fly the AMCA...cannot be bogged down by Kaveri for AMCA....

On another thought, I am sure the engines powering the MiG-21, Jaguars, Mirages, MiG-27, MiG-29 are underpowered as compared to Kaveri...so why is it that there is objection on using Kaveri for LCA....

Sorry, if my comments appear to be naive...

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby merlin » 04 Jan 2013 14:20

Singha wrote:what they are doing is guaranteeing themselves funds to keep tinkering around for another 10 yrs until the AMCA proto is almost ready and then saying oops we need n=n+5 more yrs , the new global tender is being done with full knowledge nothing will come of it, and will take 3-4 yrs easy to officially conclude on that.

they will never deliver a working product. even for the UCAV we better have some other thing like Adour 811 or Honeywell F125 lined up.

pray let it be explained why snecma was found lacking and what inviting a global tender will bring to table and how the snecma aided re-engineering of the hot section is different from that now proposed.


Snecma probably asked for an arm and a leg on top of demanding GTRE's first born as wages for helping. If they are the last man standing, they can ask whatever they want.

No way should GTRE be asked to do this again. They had their chance and blew it, now it should be someone else's turn. Perhaps HAL. With a time bound program with funds released every time a milestone is met and butts kicked every time it isn't. Let them come up with a realistic plan and have an audit of that plan from a timelines perspective and then let them get cracking.

No GTRE.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vina » 04 Jan 2013 14:35

Perhaps HAL

You gotta be kidding me. Those jokers cant find their a**ses with their two hands as far as engines went.

The only thing that can be done is a "national program" with a multiple teams trying different approaches , drawn from all major national institutes (IIT, IISc, NAL, GTRE and of course HAL engine division), along with access to the global ecosystem of suppliers for engine accessories and fabricators for global biggies (basically folks supplying to RR, Snecma, MTU, GE,PW,Honeywell/Garrett, Williams etc) . Have two teams work on it .

AmitG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Dec 2010 07:08

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby AmitG » 04 Jan 2013 14:37

Why not involve private sector with a tie-up with a foreign player...GE, Saturn, Snecma...

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2400
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Yogi_G » 04 Jan 2013 16:11

merlin wrote:No GTRE.


Unfortunately GTRE is the only org in the country which has the capability to build an engine from scratch up. Private sector without foreign help would not even have been able to come up with an engine equivalent to the current Kaveri.

Private sector with foreign help is another story and a lot of funds need to be diverted by the govt to engine building ASAP. Pump more money into GTRE with a big re-org and more academics-industry integration and work on solving the Single crystal blade problem ASAP.

Incentivize private industry to come up with 90KN engine with a partner of their choice and of course the condition is that the IP should rest with the local private player. Some HAL lab can then work with this private player to set up production line etc.

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby krishnan » 04 Jan 2013 16:17

Will prvt sector with foriegn partner really help ???

1. WIll the foriegn partner give key tech to the prvt partner if not it will end up like our PSU's ??
2. What are the chances that the product will be bought in numbers to justify the money that prvt partner will put??
3. Will the ability of the prvt partner to bribe have any impact on whether govt will buy from them ??

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 04 Jan 2013 16:42

angered by the failure of their various engine projects to deliver something even equivalent to the RD33 or AL31 as a product, cheen has apparently allocated $16b war chest to develop/steal/clone/vandalize anything needed to make the final push to the summit and get themselves engines at par with the world standards. it is being taken up from highest levels probably with a single reporting chain to the "alpha dog" in the hall of people itself.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/ ... 7B20121029

much of engine perf apparently cannot be cloned by geometric copying but is inherent to the materials and the procedure used to fashion the parts...much like the power of a virginia class sub lies latent and hidden behind its plain black hull.

one thing is apparent from Cheen failure on engine front - just throwing money at same problem using various teams is no guarantee of success. we must not repeat the same mistake

what seems to me
- need global ecosystem plugin to get the low volume but specialized parts needed cheaply without spending yrs reinventing every wheel.
- need the highest caliber of senior people in the field (this we unfortunately do not have as such people few as they were, left for videsh decades ago)
- need access to the specialized machines needed to build the highest tolerance and costly parts - this again is under some form of hidden sanctions

I offer no solution because the 3 problems above do not seem solvable to me in our current economic condition.

if we had a economy 3X our size, with a thriving domestic airline industry we could via the big plane makers develop links with their ecosystem via projects like RTA etc. we goofed up there. we are not even collaborating with brazil on its mil airlifter , instead choosing the carcass called the MTA so that HAL can get easy and guaranteed assembly work. embraer is the one 'outsider' and 'brown skinned' who has broken into the 'system' and been given a seat at high table...rest there is not even one non-gora/honorary gora(japan mitsubishi) co in this field

Cheen has made a good bet on the C919 and GE and honeywell are fawning all over it.

as for people , unless a unlimited budget is doled out to hire the best and brightest young or old tall of short, there is no getting past that.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2733
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JTull » 04 Jan 2013 16:52

Beg, borrow or STEAL.

Brits, Germans (in WW2)
US and USSR (Cold War)
China (now)

All have done it. Why not us?

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vina » 04 Jan 2013 16:54

much of engine perf apparently cannot be cloned by geometric copying but is inherent to the materials and the procedure used to fashion the parts...much like the power of a virginia class sub lies latent and hidden behind its plain black hull.

To get as close as possible to theoretical "physics" based performance, your engineering should approach the "ideal".. Surfaces as smooth as Hema Malini's cheeks for the blades.. blades being infinitely stiff in the heat and forces generated due to rotation, zero tip losses etc. etc.. . very easy to do in one line as a mathematical assumption as a theoretical problem, but try doing it in real world and engineer it, that takes some doing. Cloning the geometry and getting the material composition by some mass spectrometer or something is easy, but actually manufacturing and doing it is tough.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vina » 04 Jan 2013 16:55

JTull wrote:All have done it. Why not us?

Well, you can beg, borrow and steal a WW_II tech engine. Trouble is you want a GE-414 equivalent in thrust to weight and that uses materials ported back from PW-119 class!

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 04 Jan 2013 17:02

apparently the Rus post ww2 managed to clone the B29 by taking it apart to nuts and bolt level ... but not sure what they put in for the engine. they must have their own engine projects during ww2 for their bombers and fighters.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby merlin » 04 Jan 2013 17:06

vina wrote:You gotta be kidding me. Those jokers cant find their a**ses with their two hands as far as engines went.


At the time GTRE was created, HAL certainly had more experience than GTRE.

vina wrote:The only thing that can be done is a "national program" with a multiple teams trying different approaches , drawn from all major national institutes (IIT, IISc, NAL, GTRE and of course HAL engine division), along with access to the global ecosystem of suppliers for engine accessories and fabricators for global biggies (basically folks supplying to RR, Snecma, MTU, GE,PW,Honeywell/Garrett, Williams etc) . Have two teams work on it .


That may well end up as the only approach left for India.

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3635
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Neela » 04 Jan 2013 17:41

vina wrote:
JTull wrote:All have done it. Why not us?

Well, you can beg, borrow and steal a WW_II tech engine. Trouble is you want a GE-414 equivalent in thrust to weight and that uses materials ported back from PW-119 class!


There is a great advantage when you develop->produce->deliver->refine product->produce->deliver from version v1.0 to v200.0 . You have customers for the product from v1.0 itself and that itself adds a sustaining dimension to the product. IOW, the luxury of organic growth was not there with India/GTRE. When you have no product from v1.0 to v200.0, the costs in developing v201.0 directly is all under the expenses head and you will see no incomes as there are no customers.....of course it is going to look big and scary.

For comparisons, what you should be counting is not YEARS but MAN-YEARS for developing the product. And I doubt if during the WW2, cold war times , people would have been working 8-hour days to develop the engine. India did not have these catalysts then. These situations will also avoid a babu sitting on file which has high altitude testing labs' financial clearances in it.
This is a long hard road. You are either in it or out. It will guzzle a lot of money. It will. When the president P.Patel can spend 200 karores on foreign travel and clearances are done with a mere glance of an eye, I am sure somethign as important as this should be done in a more streamlined process. Instead what do we hear ?" No GTRE" :rotfl: ....and then do what? Eat chole-bature and then power LCA?
See you either believe GTRE and Midhani or do not. It is tough. Just a P.Subbu talked about LCA clearing a 40 year tech gap, the Kaveri Marine cleared a significant margin too. That I see as the consolidation phase. Somehow, when we could do a Vikas and the CLAW team could do a Ironbird , I do not think this is beyond us. It is just that it is elusive. That is the part we are in right now.
Last edited by Neela on 04 Jan 2013 20:38, edited 2 times in total.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vina » 04 Jan 2013 18:03

Singha wrote:apparently the Rus post ww2 managed to clone the B29 by taking it apart to nuts and bolt level ... but not sure what they put in for the engine. they must have their own engine projects during ww2 for their bombers and fighters.


During and before WW-II Russian engines sucked. During WW-II, the brits exported fighter engines at great human and material cost to Russia via the Northern Murmansk convoys which were without fail brutally attacked by the Germans sitting in Norway.

After WWII, Russian engines improved dramatically. The secret? They rounded up all the Germans they could lay their hands on with engine experience and carted away entire plants back to Russia.. The Germans were put in the Gulag and told to get on with it or told really bad things will happen to them. That gave them the entry into engines..

Arunkumar
BRFite
Posts: 643
Joined: 05 Apr 2008 17:29

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Arunkumar » 04 Jan 2013 18:19

Russian entry into good jet engines was through Great Britain. After the war , under the 1946 UK-USSR trade agreement, Clement Atlee as a goodwill gesture (Prithviraj chauhan anyone??) transferrred several Rolls - Royce nene jet engines to Soviet Union. Nene itself saw limited production in UK. However it was reverse engineered by the soviets to produce the Klimov VK-1 that went to power the Mig-15. The exploits of Mig-15 in North Korea is well known.
This transfer is still regretted in west.

Even if we start with nene today, we might still reach there in 20 years time. I assume it would only be using mild steel and duralumin in construction.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby merlin » 04 Jan 2013 18:28

Neela wrote:
There is a great advantage when you develop->produce->deliver->refine product->produce->deliver from version v1.0 to v200.0 . You have customers for the product from v1.0 itself and that itself adds a sustaining dimension to the product. IOW, the luxury of organic growth was not there with India/GTRE. When you have no product from v1.0 to v200.0, the costs in developing v201.0 directly is all under the expenses head and you will see no incomes as there are no customers.....of course it is going to look big and scary.

For comparisons, what you should be counting is not YEARS but MAN-YEARS for developing the product. And I doubt if during the WW2, cold war times , people would have been working 8-hour days to develop the engine. India did not have these catalysts then. These situations will also avoid a babu sitting on file which has high altitude testing labs' financial clearances in it.
This is a long hard road. You are either in it or out. It will guzzle a lot of money. It will. When the president P.Patel can spend 200 karores on foreign travel and clearances are done with a mere glance of an eye, I am sure somethign as important as this should be done in a more streamlined process. Instead what do we hear ?" No GTRE" :rotfl: ....and then do what? Eat chole-bature and then power Kaveri?
See you either believe GTRE and Midhani or do not. It is tough. Just a P.Subbu talked about LCA clearing a 40 year tech gap, the Kaveri Marine cleared a significant margin too. That I see as the consolidation phase. Somehow, when we could do a Vikas and the CLAW team could do a Ironbird , I do not think this is beyond us. It is just that it is elusive. That is the part we are in right now.



Ok, then. Yes GTRE and no usable engine for the next 20 years also :rotfl: :rotfl: . Usage in non-fighter applications does not count.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vina » 04 Jan 2013 18:29

Russian entry into good jet engines was through Great Britain. After the war , under the 1946 UK-USSR trade agreemen

They rounded up every german they could lay their hand on. That gave them the engineering base.

Even the french did that. The Atar engine of the Mirage III series are a direct descendent of the BMW Jet engine of WWII..Atar became the M-53 ..

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 04 Jan 2013 18:29

We still could have better strategies.. from first principles to chinese xerox.. just heard yesterday's copy news about architectures and new and next generation in copying technology.. see that is advancement. Chinese pay for the firang concepts.. invite them for drawing board and diagrams and techniques... and get this their own IPR, on contract. They have their own design institutes to finish up the jobs.

What I am saying, everyone has an approach they focus on. We are not funding enough.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 04 Jan 2013 18:42

Cheen has been trying to climb the summit throwing a lot of money and even must have tried to recruit ukrainian and russian designers for the job. either ukr/rus is doing a good job of keeping their engine designers inhouse or atleast the good ones prefer to work in home country...else they should have managed the WS-10 == AL31F bit by now with such help and money.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2733
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JTull » 04 Jan 2013 19:33

Human race has progressed this far by "learning from others". Tech is hidden because the developer doesn't want others to have it so he can have a monopoly on supply. That doesn't mean others don't want the tech if it were available freely. In-between truth is that the developer hides the tech because there are others who want to steal it. You're just joining the queue of wannabe's. Otherwise you'll only get discarded stuff that has no value to the giver.

No one is asking you to steal an engine. But if alloys are an issue then there are hundreds of labs across the globe that may not have adequate security. Stealing tech requires systematic and coordinated effort. USSR and China have employed it. First identify the problem areas then find the potential sources. The engine will be no less Indian if we "took" a little help. Ajai Shukla's article implies that GTRE have tried it but are stuck somewhere. You just need enough "help" to get over the hump.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w, Rakesh, ravikr and 58 guests