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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Arunkumar » 04 Jan 2013 20:17

JTull wrote:
No one is asking you to steal an engine.


The US even did that to get a look into Tumansky R-15 on mig-25. (Victor Balenko incident).

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36299
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 04 Jan 2013 20:22

Who is stopping you to do it? If DRDO wishes, every engine can be lined up for dissection. Assimilation is different though.. if the end product is an exact copy, "then onlee" it is a copy. Else, it is all R&D.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2595
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Sagar G » 04 Jan 2013 21:01

What is the fetish with "stealing" engine tech ??? China tried it and has failed why shall we also do the same thing when we know that the end result will be failure. We have to keep going, doing R&D in this front till we achieve breakthroughs only that is going to produce a home grown engine for India. We have a working engine but now what we need to do is make it better. If DRDO is asking for funds, do it give them the funds they are asking for it might take two more decades but so be it till we don't achieve solutions to our problems we mustn't stop.

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.


So I guess we have developed SC tech but it is still in the labs, we haven't yet figured out how to take it to the production floor. No problem keep pushing we will figure it out eventually.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1387
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Kersi D » 04 Jan 2013 21:19

I visited the Eurojet stall at DefExpo in 2010. I asked the gentleman at the stall "How much would it cost to develop an entirely new jet engine, form the scratch " and "How much time would it take to develop an entirely new jet engine, form the scratch ". This gentleman just laughed at me and said that "Nobody would attempt to do such a task" !!!!

He then replied that to develop a entire new jet engine, from the scratch

"It would take about 5 billion Euros"

"It would take about 5 years to have the first prototype and production could take another 2 - 3 year"


Gurus

How does that compare with our GTRE and Kaveri and Kabini and ......

Kersi


P.S. Just for your information Eurojet's shareholders are Avio (Spain), MTU (Germany) and Rolls Royce (UK) !!!!

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2171
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vivek_ahuja » 04 Jan 2013 21:23

Kersi D wrote:How does that compare with our GTRE and Kaveri and Kabini and ......


I think the number he quoted you was assuming all the fundamental R&D work has already been done at the start of project, technology exists and production experience is there.

And then it takes 8 years according to him.

If you don't have the above items I mentioned, add another 10 years to the mix, if not more.

JMT

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36299
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 04 Jan 2013 21:32

I am strongly on the opinion that GTRE and their men lacked vision in terms of working to specifications, especially given their expertise and knowledge, and funds. One way is to muharramize and claim voila! in-spite of our conditions, we made a lower thrust engine version that is baseline-able. Agreed.. but forgotten would be the mistakes, where they failed to keep the baseline to specifications.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2595
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Sagar G » 04 Jan 2013 21:35

SaiK wrote:Agreed.. but forgotten would be the mistakes, where they failed to keep the baseline to specifications.


Nobody is forgetting anything GTRE director is very frank on the issues we are facing.

“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

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36299
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 04 Jan 2013 23:26

That would not be a solution to the failure.. The solution would be doing it all by ourselves. This is a big failure to engage a firang company, especially when the project is delinked and given enough time.

Quite frankly, they are giving up
!?

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2595
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Sagar G » 05 Jan 2013 00:04

If they are going in for a firang company let them try that as well but they are surely not giving up on Kaveri DRDO has already pitched in strongly for Kaveri.

The DRDO has moved a paper to the MoD that strongly backs the Kaveri programme as the foundation of aero engine development in the country.


I guess evil yindoos are up to something on this aero engine front :twisted:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16239
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby NRao » 05 Jan 2013 01:01

The problem with India starting with a WW-II engine tech is, in 15-20 years:

DRDO is struggling in developing the Nickel and Cobalt superalloys


They will reach that point and will not be able to overcome it.

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 » 05 Jan 2013 05:38

NRao wrote:
DRDO is struggling in developing the Nickel and Cobalt superalloys


They will reach that point and will not be able to overcome it.


Trouble with the likes of Shook-Laws and In-Laws and their ilk is that they mix up multiple things and make a "Kichdi" out of it.

Lets try to get some "facts" that Shukla seems to have gleaned and let us unscramble the "Shukla isms" layered on top of it.

"Fact" as far as I can make out from the article.
1) Kaveri seems to be within striking range of achieving (around 95% to 98%) of design dry thrust
2) Wet thrust has around 10KN shortfall from the design target of 80KN ?
3) Single crystal turbine blades are still some way off ..

Now that we have unscrambled the Shukla-isms and got to the core facts, let us put the thinking caps on and speculate.
1) Dry thrust is good news. The design tweaks /performance shortfalls will be fixed that can achieve it's design goals.
2) Wet thrust.. Now, the afterburner is an add on piece. It is designed such that the turbo machinery upstream simply never feels it and has no bearing whatsoever whether it is on or off. So if there is a wet thrust shortfall, all that needs to be fixed is the after burner .
a) Will need to find out the root cause of performance shortfall. Could be multiple things.. flow losses, combustion losses, combustion efficiency .. etc etc. , or simply bad design , so that the turbo machinery feels back pressure from afterburner and chokes (this is too simplistic..but cant rule that out.. this is something like the back pressure from the tuned exhaust expander in the two stroke motorcycle engine being used to stop the incoming charge from flowing into the exhaust.. I think GTRE would be well adviced to do a good analysis of the vibration and acoustics of the afterburner pipe and check out the harmonics).
b) Good news here is ,after burner stuff is much less complex to fix than the core engine.. no moving parts, math and physics modelling is much easier for this and so is testing , tweaking and fixing.
3) This Single Crystal is not relevant at all to the current Kaveri thrust short fall if the dry thrust is nearly there (read again about afterburner and no effect on turbo machinery). Yes.. To get a full 110 to 120KN version going with the required T:W ratio of current engines, you need it. No getting away from it. But that can wait for a few years and is not needed right now, once the decision to de-link Kaveri from LCA is made.

4) Yeah, once you make the engine for AMCA decision, you are looking at a 125KN class engine (I had said this long long ago... in one of my earlier posts in this thread, do look back, to delink Kaveri from LCA and go for a 125KN class engine for AMCA.. that is the right thing to do and it has finally happened), yes, with the engineering and turbo machinery base we have from getting the Kaveri to this stage, we can make the jump to the higher thrust class. For that.
a) The materials program in DRDO/Midhani matures and we get the materials
b) We get the materials and the subsystem and testing/bug fixing help from a partner and we are plugged into the global supply chain for gas turbines.

So I think 4 (b) is the better bet. If Midhani finally comes up with the materials, future versions can get progressively more indigenous. The trouble with going forward with designs without the indigenous material and R&D base will see a 20 year project, as seen from the IGMDP programs and also the Kaveri itself.

And oh, maybe the DRDO are better off talking to these small "jugaad", highly skilled engineering guys who upgrade and maintain gas turbines, rather than the global biggies out to get their pound of flesh. These guys will jump at an opportunity for large business, will be more flexible and will be easier to work with and have fewer conflicts.. from a quick Google search, sort of like this,this and this.. Notice how between the three of them , the small guys have a complete ecosystem of being able to come up with a material, fabricate it and then replace the OEM hot section and test it out and put it back in the field.

This is exactly the kind of thing the Nehruvian socialism and the Public Sector only fetish and everything driven by Baboo(n)s, supplemented by Natasha driven "Screw Driver Indigenization" and killed in India and drove the folks who could have done stuff like this abroad for 50 years.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66605
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 05 Jan 2013 07:17

>> once you make the engine for AMCA decision, you are looking at a 125KN class engine (I had said this long long ago... in one of my earlier posts in this thread, do look back, to delink Kaveri from LCA and go for a 125KN class engine for AMCA.. that is the right thing to do and it has finally happened

the AMCA did not look large enough in the models to warrant such a powerful engine . sure if you want to make a raptor out of it, then we need such as F100 engine type stuff, but my understanding was a 75KN wet thrust model in the M88 mould would be enough being twin engined for adequate a2a perf and good strike perf. this level of performance already seems to be in current Kaveri. the foreign collab might increase the dry and wet thrust somewhat and maybe some upsizing could be done to increase the dry value and tuning to improve the fuel consumption which is vital to the viability of the engine as a fielded product (no discussion on that at all so far vs the M53/M88 values)

ofcourse this will limit the size of the AMCA to about the size of the rafale .... is that ok?

125kN engine would be a entirely new project and no amt of tuning the current model will extract such thrust without
physical changes I think. the 404 and 414 are same size with 100kg gain in weight, but the wet thrust was upped from 78 to 98, a gain of 25%. so from 72 we might expect the final kaveri to reach atmost 90 if everything goes well but thats it for this engine architecture and size.

for EJ200 it seems to be not the big dogs RR and MTU who do the afterburner section, but lesser know Avio and ITP though the big dogs are surely intimately there in overall design

Table 1 Eurojet GmbH organisation[2]
Partner company Development share Production share Responsibilities
Rolls-Royce 33% 34.5% Combustion system, High pressure turbine and engine health monitoring system.
MTU Aero Engines 33% 30% Low pressure and high-pressure compressors, system design responsibility for the Digital Engine Control and Monitoring Unit
Avio 21% 19.5% Low-pressure turbine, reheat system, gearbox and air/oil system.
ITP 13% 16% Exhaust nozzles, jet pipe, exhaust diffuser, by-pass duct and external dressings.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16239
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby NRao » 05 Jan 2013 07:53

Vina ji,

Thanks. Yar, iss age me itna padna mushkil hai bhai.

Anyways, if I may I would like to trouble you with a question or two:

1)
Good news here is ,after burner stuff is much less complex to fix than the core engine.. no moving parts, math and physics modelling is much easier for this and so is testing , tweaking and fixing.


IF that is true (I have no reason to doubt it), then why would they seem to act as though they are abandoning the Kaveri-LCA link and moving to a Kaveri-UAV link?

Also, after burner seems to mean (to this lay man reading at random on the internet) increase in speed of gas flow OR increase in volume of gas flowing OR some combination of the two. Since these options do not seem to be a problem (If it was it seems to me that the fix is rather tame) I SUSPECT the problem lies prior to the after burner. Now IF that is true, then the fix is way beyond repair - it should mean a redesign of the engine itself (possible, but time consuming).

The Kaveri-UAV talk - to me - seals this thinking. I just cannot get myself to believe that the solution is that easy.

2) SCB/BLISK/Alloys is serious business - ONLY because they become a tool that allow one to actually solve complex problems. IMHO, the problem India (and perhaps China too) faces with engines is just that. India has not many high slung options to solve problems OR the solutions they have are so low tech that these techs cannot solve ANY meaningful problems.

It is like working with handheld ratchets vs. compressed air ones. There is only so much you can do with the prior (I know).

I just do not see how India can progress without mastering - not just paying a partner to get them - such technologies. Forget 125 Kn engines, they will not meet the current recs.

I feel/think they could really do with one or two of these techs now.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66605
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 05 Jan 2013 08:08

yes without producing a decent 90Kn wet thrust engine from what is the current kaveri, there is no point starting a new proj given limited manpower resources for a 125kn engine.

if the AMCA designers really want a 125knx2 engine they should look at some F-100/F-110 engine or AL31 derivative because no euro fighter engine is in that band. if they want 90x2, there are options like F414, EJ200, EJ220, M88-4 if the kaveri effort fails...so they can hedge their bets a bit.

that part should be clear enough if AMCA design is finalized.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19306
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 05 Jan 2013 09:28

Sagar G wrote:
SaiK wrote:Agreed.. but forgotten would be the mistakes, where they failed to keep the baseline to specifications.


Nobody is forgetting anything GTRE director is very frank on the issues we are facing.

“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



As opposed to needing a "foreign partner" in the initial stages of developing the Kaveri?? Much time and treasure has been lost in the meantime. The more things change the less they change.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36299
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 05 Jan 2013 10:24

Getting 125kN with +/-100kg similar to GE 414 technology specs is not a joke, with the kind of effort and investments GTRE is doing & given the schedule and plan. They have repeated said openly in public that they will go with a foreign help, even when delinked from LCA for sometime now.

So, without any foreign help, please tell me what is GTRE's plan? I like to know that. And Snecma, the chosen company to collaborate with has no proven GE 414 speced engine yet. If they will, then it will be on Indian tax payer money. M-88core whatever version has not even reached the 100kN wet mark, let alone T:W ratio.

So, if GTRE-Snecma is going to spending $3billion on Kaveri, why not a re-organized GTRE (call it something else), get it done with just another billion moolah only? Tell me we are not lacking engineers. We might lack expertise, but given a basis of Kaveri as is, is enough expertise to chart on further enhanced program.

Something really wrong here.

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 » 05 Jan 2013 11:57

Singha wrote:was a 75KN wet thrust model in the M88 mould would be enough being twin engined for adequate a2a perf and good strike perf. this level of performance already seems to be in current Kaveri

Yeah... A 125KN engine for an AMCA would be too much of a Shakinah and that probably is my power trip running loose.

But, yes, if you want a all stealthy, internal weapon, Rafale/Typhoon sized stealthy plane, with supercruise and a higher fuel fraction that it will entail, it is going to be "fatter" than a Rafale/Typhoon and will need around 65KN to 75KN dry thrust and some 100 to 110KN wet thrust.

Singha wrote:......125kN engine would be a entirely new project and no amt of tuning the current model will extract such thrust without physical changes I think. the 404 and 414 are same size with 100kg gain in weight, but the wet thrust was upped from 78 to 98, a gain of 25%. so from 72 we might expect the final kaveri to reach atmost 90 if everything goes well but thats it for this engine architecture and s
..........yes without producing a decent 90Kn wet thrust engine from what is the current kaveri, there is no point starting a new proj given limited manpower resources for a 125kn engine.


See, if you go back and read the sermon of El-Enqyoob-ud-Din-al-GasTurbine, some things are very clear. My take is that the current Kaveri config is designed around the limitations of the materials of circa mid 70s that are available to India. The very low bypass ratio (some 0.16 or something) harks back to a near full turbojet cycle going back to nearly WWII. It is very clear that two things need to happen. The bypass ratio goes up to something like 0.35 to 0.6 (depending on the thermodynamic cycle they finally settle on) and the turbine entry temp needs to go up. Both are related.

As things stand, yes,with current materials and config, the design of 80KN or whatever is the max possible. Two routes are possible going forward to achieve the two things that need to happen.
Route 1 : Replace the current core with a tinku sa-chikna sa core with the latest materials , keeping the low pressure spool from the current Kaveri, this in essence was the Snecma proposal (probably core from the M88-3), and presto..you get a 90KN Snecma-Kaveri with all the boxes for performance , durability and fuel burn ticked..

Route 2 : Keep the current core (the current core is oversized for the engine.. that is the reason why the bypass is low, refer to dhoti cooling in the said sermon), get the latest materials into it, so that it can tolerate a much higher TET than it currently can, and scale the current Kaveri's low pressure system and wallah, you get a 125KN engine with all the boxes for all ding dongs checked.

So whichever way they decide to go, you really have an option for two engine classes, with some work and of course testing and hopefully less of heartbreak and learning curve, now that they have sweated blood and tears to get this far. Route 1 will need a new core. Route 2 will need a new LP system. But both routes will need new and cutting edge high temp materials. There is no getting away from that. The good thing is both the 90KN and 125KN will be derivatives of existing stuff and not altogether new centerline design. That is exactly how everyone goes about in this business. Use existing artefacts and proven stuff to mix and match to come up with new(er) stuff. Very little ab-initio design like what we had to do with kaveri.

But right now, they are correctly working on perfecting what they have got (including flight testing on LCA) to get the baseline in place and proven. Hopefully in another 3 to 4 years, the high temp materials are in place (JV, Midhani, from the Jugaad folks like I mentioned.. why not just invite such companies to set up shop in India and make them for you, I wonder, rather than have a fetish of I will make it everything inhouse in the name of "self sufficiency" / wherever) and we can move to the next level. That in my opinion seems like a practical plan.

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3371
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby suryag » 05 Jan 2013 13:09

I think the "directionally solidified" stuff came from DMRL based on the techfocus article below

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfocus/2 ... il2011.pdf

Vinaji just curious how were the jet engines of the 70s and 80s achieve such high thrust without single crystal blades? Were they inefficient or were they huge?

If i understand your post correctly there is still some work left to be done in the cold section to improve the compression ratio?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66605
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 05 Jan 2013 13:35

folks the F414 is a wet thrust 98kn engine, dont mistake it for a 125kn engine....GE is doing work on EPE no doubt under federal funding but in the end its the EDE which might see service to reduce lifecycle costs over their huge fleet of Shornets. upto 20% thrust increase was claimed on paper which would make the F414-EPE a 120kn engine.

far more mature and proven are the F100/F110 engines from GE & PW that power the F16 and F15 and which are solidly in the 120-130kN range. the only in-service peer worldwide is the AL-31F family ... these might see technology backported from the F119 and F136 engines as the F16/F15 will be in service for atleast 2 more decades yet...so EDE, less fuel burn, lighter weight is very much on the cards.

based on design of AMCA they must have a big call on the size of plane which will decide choice of engine -
-- if its a big plane, then the su35bm engine 117S / pakfa engine 117 / derivative of the F100/F110 are only games in town. kaveri in any redesign cannot make it that far.

-- if its a medium plane - kaveri might make it eventually if we get the right help. other solid choices are M88-4 / EJ220 / F414-EDE

wrt to internal munitions given our lack of portfolio they better ride the coat tails of the PAKFA and size the internal bay exactly as the PAKFA and not smaller, to take advantage of the internal munitions adapted to or developed fresh for the PAKFA. we dont want to be caught with pants down on that front. just licence the internal adapters and pylons inside that bay from the front bay of the PAKFA for commonality and make sure stuff like astra can also find a home.

bmallick
BRFite
Posts: 303
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 20:28

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby bmallick » 05 Jan 2013 20:55

Couple of questions come to my mind:

a. As is said, we would go for a foreign collaboration for injecting tech into the Kaveri Engine programme. Since, there are a handful of companies in the world which make jet engines for fighter aircrafts, why the heck would they help us learn the tech from them and become a competitor to them 10 years down the lane. As long as India does not learn to make an engine, it would continue to buy engine from them and keep their cash register counting. So why would the present engine manufacturers do harakiri.

b. It is now being touted that the UCAV being designed by DRDO, would be powered by Kaveri. Question. The UCAV is basically going to be a bomb truck for us, going deep inside enemy territory and rain havoc. Which means long legs. Also, the UCAV, probably would also be a high-subsonic beast, non-after burning Kaveri engine, an indication of the same. So, for high sub-sonic and long range, why not a medium to high by-pass engine rather than the low-bypass Kaveri?

Please note, that I am all for the support needed for the Kaveri engine as it would truly make us non-dependent on others for good, but the above two questions just came to my mind.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16239
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby NRao » 05 Jan 2013 21:02

A wet dream if anyone is expecting any aerospace company to part with core technologies. Cannot happen.

India needs to light that fire and make it into a huge bonfire. Only India can do it, no one else can. It will mean plenty of funds for sure.

Single crystal, N-axis milling machines, alloys.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5337
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vishvak » 05 Jan 2013 22:14

That 15 or 20 or 50 years are going to come and go is not an issue. Govt can create RnD Zones for certain technologies, on the path of SEZs.

An example of SEZ I have to give something that Gujarat can’t offer: Prithviraj Chavan. E-paper link clicky.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9917
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby sum » 05 Jan 2013 22:22

a. As is said, we would go for a foreign collaboration for injecting tech into the Kaveri Engine programme. Since, there are a handful of companies in the world which make jet engines for fighter aircrafts, why the heck would they help us learn the tech from them and become a competitor to them 10 years down the lane. As long as India does not learn to make an engine, it would continue to buy engine from them and keep their cash register counting. So why would the present engine manufacturers do harakiri.

Have always wondered on the same lines whenever reports come out of Snecma or GE offering to help in "deep ToT" for our aero-engines!!

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2435
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby abhik » 05 Jan 2013 23:02

One thing that will greatly improve the indigenous aero engine efforts is to have an distinct entity whose sole role is to manufacture and then at a later stage develop Aero Engines. The global norm is that the same company never makes the aircraft and the engine. The current structure in India where HAL does both, I believe will stymie growth of the sector in the long term. HAL will simply look at the engine as another thing it can simply outsource instead of taking the pain to developing one on its own. Even when an foreign model is is to be license made here it may just be content on "assembling" it here rather than really "manufacturing" it here(Which is the case with a lot of what the DPSU are producing). May be its time to split HAL and form a Hindustan Aero Engines Limited.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2187
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 05 Jan 2013 23:39

I wonder why the fetish with GE or Snecma for the engine. Why not the Russians? Given the nature of the relationship with them (with collaboration in strategic & sub-strategic systems, as Ajai Shukla calls it), ask them for help in the specific areas where we lack - like metallurgy, manufacturing etc. It may not be as cutting edge as the GE, but who cares as long as it helps us make the leap.

Make it part of the PAKFA or MTA program

All these are Plan B of course. Plan A would be to prepare the groundwork for a long haul, blood & sweat

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 05 Jan 2013 23:58

What is important is not to develop 'an engine' but to develop 'an engine company'.

It is difficult to develop tech in isolation unless you commit to spend obscenely massive sums on it.

If you want to truly develop your own capability in something you need a consistent market that provides both funding and incentive to continually incrementally improve.

Start with a small/niche market that the traditional players either ignore or don't really care about. Maybe a really cheap model for drones or perhaps APUs or even emergency turbine generators. But get a foothold in the market and then expand it. We have seen the same strategy repeated many times in markets around the world from cars to ships to video cards.

You don't need to be the 'best' to do this, just 'good enough' to make your cheaper price tag attractive.

Then as your company and marketshare grow, you have a firm base to incrementally include tech developments and before you know it (relatively speaking), you're producing engines that are competitive with anyone in the world.

I'm not saying to ditch Kaveri, but perhaps use tech from it to seed a parallel effort to establish an engine company (perhaps under the umbrella of someone like Reliance or Tata) that will potentially deliver far more important benefits in the future.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16239
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby NRao » 06 Jan 2013 02:03

Theory and practice are two different things.

India NEEDS an engine - NOW. No two ways about that. The question is who si going to provide one .......... more than likely (understatement of the century) a foreign entity. Kaveri is not "Now".

Kaveri can be a prototype with potential (I doubt that, but will give benefit of doubt).

Then comes ..... more than an 'engine company', an engine base, multiple companies.

This is a strategic product, so cost should not be a factor. Even if an Indian engine is more expensive a foreign one should not be used (assuming that the Indian entities put best foot forward ----- yeah, hahahahaha). The mentality has to be no foreign engine fro 2020 onwards. OK, 2025. OK, 2030.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2595
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Sagar G » 06 Jan 2013 02:22

chetak wrote:As opposed to needing a "foreign partner" in the initial stages of developing the Kaveri?? Much time and treasure has been lost in the meantime. The more things change the less they change.


"Foreign Partner" in initial stages ??? Was even any entity ready to help India to come up with an aero engine ??? Wasn't an engine effort for Marut in partnership with Egypt scuttled by foreign powers ??? I am myself doubtful about this foreign partner thing at this stage but if DRDO believes that they can bring some amount of tech or knowledge that we currently lack then let them try this route as well. Our indigenous R&D related with aero engines isn't being put on a back burner it will continue in parallel but with the proposed partnership they are trying to cut down the time in developing Kaveri so as to achieve it's full potential and then further leverage the knowledge gained in the process.

bmallick wrote:Couple of questions come to my mind:

a. As is said, we would go for a foreign collaboration for injecting tech into the Kaveri Engine programme. Since, there are a handful of companies in the world which make jet engines for fighter aircrafts, why the heck would they help us learn the tech from them and become a competitor to them 10 years down the lane. As long as India does not learn to make an engine, it would continue to buy engine from them and keep their cash register counting. So why would the present engine manufacturers do harakiri.


As long as India wasn't able to make an engine foreign aerospace companies were pretty comfortable in there sweet little world but since SDRE nation has now developed the capability to make an engine there sweet comfy world has started to rattle. Now they know very well that it is only a matter of time before we complete the last leg and come on par with them they would be now falling over each other to resort to other methods of making peace with the new entrant like by forming a JV so that they are also assured a piece of pie which will keep there bread and butter safe. The Kaveri programme has provided us with a leverage to deal with the foreign aerospace giants on our own terms. The article by Shukla say's that DRDO has calculated our jet engine requirements in the range of 1,60,000 Cr. If foreign aerospace companies refuse to provide us with the tech now, they will surely loose a lot more than they are set to gain by forming a partnership with us. This doesn't take an Einstein to figure out.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2016
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Vivek K » 06 Jan 2013 02:31

Why does the first Indian engine need to be at par with the state-of-practice? India needs to learn to walk (in engine tech terms) before running. Therefore if an engine is developed with lower mtbo but with acceptable dry and wet thrusts that would be an acceptable solution. The Kaveri needs to be looked at from that perspective. SC tech will come in time till then what can be done to learning from "use" of the kaveri?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16239
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby NRao » 06 Jan 2013 02:46

If foreign aerospace companies refuse to provide us with the tech now, they will surely loose a lot more than they are set to gain by forming a partnership with us. This doesn't take an Einstein to figure out.


It is one thing for India to produce an engine and another for India to make an engine for current on-going Indian military needs and totally different for India to catch up with them.

The first may be doable.

The second is nearly impossible in the next 10 years or so.

And, they must be betting India will never catch up with them - like ever.



On a different note, we must all realize that achieving the state-of-the-art requires a great deal of risks. India is risk averse by nature and likely to take very very low risks, which is why I feel India will not catch up - ever - in all areas.
Last edited by NRao on 06 Jan 2013 02:46, edited 1 time in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36299
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 06 Jan 2013 02:46

^these business are well said than done.. especially when the project was not chartered correct and ill-funded, then the correction needs to happen. Kaveri is now in a state to be fitted with prototype LCA vehicles. That must happen for the learning to mature, and make the company that does jet engines.

Get the business going for trainer jet engines, while work on the advanced versions. Lot of R&D is required... which can be done, but current GTRE is either not doing it correct or not funded or not doing their job.

India needs to be at par with GE 414 because IAF wants it.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16239
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby NRao » 06 Jan 2013 02:53

R&D is pure risk. The likes of GE bet on products that are very, very, very high risk. And they do not back down when they encounter failures, in fact that is when they double their efforts.

India typically produces that kind of an effort - only - when India faces a Kargil type of a situation.

Not other wise.

The Indian space program seems to be an exception.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2595
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Sagar G » 06 Jan 2013 02:54

NRao wrote:The second is nearly impossible in the next 10 years or so.

And, they must be betting India will never catch up with them - like ever.


Yeah they also bet that India will not become a nuclear armed nation, that unkil can threaten us with there carriers/ nookes and India would stay silent, that they can bog down India with sanctions and India would meekly follow etc. etc. and by going against all these bets India came up with a big _|_ to answer all of them. So yes I sincerely pray that they keep betting against us :twisted:

NRao wrote:On a different note, we must all realize that achieving the state-of-the-art requires a great deal of risks. India is risk averse by nature and likely to take very very low risks, which is why I feel India will not catch up - ever - in all areas.


LCA, Arjun, IGDMP they all go against your feeling and that's why I beg to disagree with you.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16239
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby NRao » 06 Jan 2013 03:03

Sagar G wrote:
NRao wrote:The second is nearly impossible in the next 10 years or so.

And, they must be betting India will never catch up with them - like ever.


Yeah they also bet that India will not become a nuclear armed nation, that unkil can threaten us with there carriers/ nookes and India would stay silent, that they can bog down India with sanctions and India would meekly follow etc. etc. and by going against all these bets India came up with a big _|_ to answer all of them. So yes I sincerely pray that they keep betting against us :twisted:


You JUST proved my Kargil point.

True, in addition to the Space program the nuclear one also deserves merit.

NRao wrote:On a different note, we must all realize that achieving the state-of-the-art requires a great deal of risks. India is risk averse by nature and likely to take very very low risks, which is why I feel India will not catch up - ever - in all areas.


LCA, Arjun, IGDMP they all go against your feeling and that's why I beg to disagree with you.


(I am glad you do disagree. Should provide for a good discussion.)

Again, true. However, for one, it has been stated what might happen if one LCA were to crash - most have felt that the program would end.

For another, again true, these products are a matter of great pride as they should be. But, I would not put them in the same class as the space program nor the nuclear effort you mentioned.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2595
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Sagar G » 06 Jan 2013 03:18

NRao wrote:You JUST proved my Kargil point.

True, in addition to the Space program the nuclear one also deserves merit.


Kargil was a huge learning experience our strategic community, scientists, defence forces have learned very well that when it comes to our interests we can't trust anyone but us only.

NRao wrote:
(I am glad you do disagree. Should provide for a good discussion.)

Again, true. However, for one, it has been stated what might happen if one LCA were to crash - most have felt that the program would end.

For another, again true, these products are a matter of great pride as they should be. But, I would not put them in the same class as the space program nor the nuclear effort you mentioned.


For me they are even greater feats than our space and nuke efforts both of which had super maibaaps in the form of Bhabha and Sarabhai. Who was there to look out for LCA or Arjun ??? Even then both have turned out to be a success. I am not demeaning our efforts in space and nuke arena but they have always been an apple of the eye of our political class (Thank God) but such has not been the case with LCA or Arjun.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16239
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby NRao » 06 Jan 2013 03:27

Kargil was a huge learning experience our strategic community, scientists, defence forces have learned very well that when it comes to our interests we can't trust anyone but us only.


I am not sure that experience has reached the engine. But sure hope that you are right and I am wrong.

both of which had super maibaaps


So very true.

Now if every strategic product could have a maibappa, India could achieve a lot in a short time.

Those lobbies are also a problem - a -ve maibappa.

Anyways, I think I am done on this topic.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2595
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Sagar G » 06 Jan 2013 03:36

NRao wrote:I am not sure that experience has reached the engine. But sure hope that you are right and I am wrong


That is a work under progress.....

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/index.jsp?pg=moredetails_thrustareas.jsp#gasturbine

Some more info.... GAS TURBINE ENABLING TECHNOLOGY (GATET) INITIATIVE

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 06 Jan 2013 07:58

Discussion that may be of interest:
Could Other Players Enter The Engine Market?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16239
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby NRao » 06 Jan 2013 08:34

Perfect storm.

Technically too many items to invent and then they all need to come to maturity at the very same time.

India has funds, but not much time.

Pratt spent decades and tons of money to get the GTF ready for launch.


DecadeS.

tonS of money.

An engine it seems is unlike any other item out there.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36299
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 06 Jan 2013 09:47

There is no product without risk. Risk is what the challenge is after all, and the main denominator for all innovation.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kakarat and 51 guests