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.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby NRao » 20 May 2016 19:29

AbhiJ wrote:Interview: GE CEO

Immelt: We're valuable because we make really difficult things. If you could make something with 60 people in a garage, GE shouldn't be doing it. But if you make a jet engine, there's only like one and a half people in the world that can make a jet engine. And we are really good at that. If you want to compete with that, you've got to put yourself on a wayback machine and go back 25 years and invest $1 billion here for 25 years and then maybe, just maybe, you're going to be able to compete with us.


Chinaman has taken him seriously.

There is no shortcuts no frugality, only hard cash on the table for decades.


Nope. Not cash.

The operative words: "then maybe, just maybe".


On China, they only recently took that seriously. They were under the impression that copy, copy, copy was the shortest way. But copying also is a difficult art. You got to get the copy right. Perfect. Not easy. In an engine, nearly impossible.

Morphing, perhaps.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1709
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Zynda » 20 May 2016 21:33

This is slightly OT but nevertheless interesting. I was talking last week to some one who has a good understanding of Engineering Services landscape in India. Per him, from an offshoring POV, the 2nd best competency of Indian aero engineers is Aero Engines!!

I was not willing to pry further on what level or in value chain, Indian engineers figure...but I was truly surprised to hear the above). I may meet him again in a few weeks and this time I will try to get more info.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21099
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Prem » 20 May 2016 22:34

Zynda wrote:This is slightly OT but nevertheless interesting. I was talking last week to some one who has a good understanding of Engineering Services landscape in India. Per him, from an offshoring POV, the 2nd best competency of Indian aero engineers is Aero Engines!! I was not willing to pry further on what level or in value chain, Indian engineers figure...but I was truly surprised to hear the above). I may meet him again in a few weeks and this time I will try to get more info.


Early this year there was news that head of F35 engine programme is a young Desi who could not join DRDO.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Gyan » 21 May 2016 13:31

I am sure very soon India will set up a committee to make plans for a special task force which will lay down the time lines and allocate funds for the team that will set up labs, test equipment and flying test beds for gas turbine engines.

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3632
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Neela » 31 May 2016 12:47

Indigenous aero engine stays on radar, says DRDO official

The last word may not have been said about an indigenous aero engine although the first effort, the Kaveri engine, didn't make it to powering the LCA light fighter plane.

New efforts, tweaks and hopefully a Rs. 2,600-crore grant are being explored to salvage 25 years of work and resources of over Rs. 2,000 crore spent on the Kaveri and use the engine’s derivatives in unmanned strategic projects of the future - probably with a different name.

‘Ghatak’

Already its spinoff version has been identified as the engine for ‘Ghatak’, a tentatively named future unmanned combat aircraft on which early studies have been taken up at two aeronautical labs based in Bengaluru.

“There is potential for derivatives of the Kaveri engine to be used for strategic purposes and other programmes. For anything in future that requires a 50-kilo-Newton engine [& its multiples,] here is a readily available one. Only a few engineering adaptations are required,” said K.Tamilmani, Director-General of DRDO’s Aeronautical Systems, who demits office on May 31 after about three years in the post.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36400
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 21 Jun 2016 20:44

IIT-Madras develops warning system for gas turbines

http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/ ... 489200.ece

The technology has found interest among some of the major players in the sector, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and our own Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8087
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Jun 2016 02:37

I have been saying for a while now, the 3rd GEW is further along than many think..

Three-Stream Engine Moves To New Phase

The U.S. Air Force is poised to award General Electric and Pratt & Whitney contracts for adaptive cycle technology development that will pave the way toward an active procurement program for a sixth-generation fighter engine as well as the potential reengining of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Contracts for the Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) are expected to be valued at up to $1 billion apiece for the two engine-makers, setting the stage for a 21st-century version of the “great fighter engine war” between GE and Pratt over dual-sourced engines for the F-15 and F-16. Although Pratt now runs both key U.S. military development programs with the F135 for the F-35 and the engine for Northrop Grumman’s B-21 Long-Range Strike Bomber, AETP opens up potential competition for both the reengining of F-35s as well as proposed sixth-generation fighters for the U.S. Navy and Air Force.

AETP is specifically aimed at maturing three-stream engine technology now considered vital to achieving the high-speed, long-endurance performance requirements of the Navy’s future F/A-XX and the Air Force’s F-X sixth-generation fighters. Although it remains unknown whether the F/A-XX will emerge as a twin-engine design, the three-stream concept is designed to be scalable across a wide thrust range. The AETP is, however, targeted initially at a 45,000-lb.-thrust-class engine baselined to fit within the existing confines of the F-35A engine bay. This makes it a contender to replace the F135 from the mid-2020s onward.AETP is scheduled to run through 2019 with several tests of full engines; it follows the Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) program that is helping prove the basic viability of the adaptive cycle. AETD, which is set to wrap up between now and early 2017 with a series of demonstrations by GE and Pratt, itself builds on Advent (Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology), the Air Force’s pioneering research effort into variable cycle architectures, three-stream flowpaths and adaptive fans, conducted from about 2007 on.

The third stream provides an extra source of air flow that, depending on the phase of the mission, is designed to provide either additional mass flow for increased propulsive efficiency and lower fuel burn, or additional core flow for higher thrust and cooling air. It also can be used to cool fuel that provides a heat sink for aircraft systems. The third stream can also swallow excess air damming up around the inlet, improving flow holding and reducing spillage drag.

At the heart of adaptive engines are variable-geometry devices that dynamically alter the fan pressure ratio and overall bypass ratio, the two key factors influencing specific fuel consumption and thrust. Fan pressure ratio is changed by using an adaptive, multistage fan. This increases fan pressure ratio to fighter engine performance levels during takeoff and acceleration, and, in cruise, lowers it to airliner-like levels for improved fuel efficiency. The third stream, which is external to both the core and standard bypass duct, is used to alter the bypass ratio.

“We have seen a huge amount of technology progress and a huge amount of risk reduction,” says AFRL Adaptive Engines program manager Matt Meininger. “The objective here is to burn as much risk down as you can before you walk into an acquisition program for a potential product in the mid-2020s. It is an exceptional accomplishment to not only demo the technology but to transition it as well. But we bridged that ‘valley of death’ [the gap between early prototype technology and readiness for further development] with AETD and the follow-on transition program, because adaptive engine technology was viewed as a significant capability and a cost saving for the future of the nation.”

AFRL paved the way for an early transition to procurement by partnering with the Air Force’s Life Cycle Management Center (LCMC) on AETD. “They are the development guys, if you will. If something is going to get out into the field, they will be the agents for that,” says Meininger. “As we move into the AETP program, which is an active procurement program, this transitions it out of the lab and into LCMC as the primary agency. They will mature this into a full design and deliver an engine to test.” To feed more technology into AETP, AFRL is also pursuing a follow-on effort called the Air Dominance Adaptive Propulsion Technology (ADAPT) program (see related story). The involvement of LCMC is key to transitioning the adaptive engine from research to full-scale development because currently the technology, or an engine incorporating the technology, “is not really a program of record. This is still all technology maturation and risk reduction,” he says. “The beautiful part is we are transitioning it to LCMC. Normally we would do a demo program, and when we are done it either sits on the shelf or works its way into a program of record.”

Meininger also notes, “We started this program together by developing a set of requirements that were robust and comprehensive. But we could not have done that without the partnership of the LCMC guys because they were worried about life cycle, and we worry about making it work. It has been a real education for our team.” The cooperation affected the trade studies for the life, cost and weight of the engine. “They are all as highly prioritized as meeting the performance requirements,” he adds.

GE, which concludes its AETD work in the coming months with a fan rig test and a core engine test in the third quarter at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, says it “remains very engaged” with the Air Force on the AETP program and its timing. GE believes the program “would certainly include more design work, maturing the design to a Detailed Design Review (which is the next formal design milestone), and we envision several full-up engines being tested in the AETP program.”The company enters the AETP phase with confidence, having successfully passed through a gauntlet of sophisticated tests for AETD. These included completion of two combustor sector development tests, third-stream cold flow and jet effects testing at NASA Glenn Research Center, advanced lightweight fan stator hardware evaluation and runs of an F414 with flaps and seals made from an oxide-oxide (ox-ox) ceramic matrix composite (CMC) material. Other components tested included an advanced heat exchanger and an F414 fitted with second-stage low-pressure turbine blades made from CMCs. Various rigs have also been run to test an advanced augmentor assembly, bearings, mechanical systems and a high-pressure compressor.

“Next year is a big one for AETD,” says Jimmy Kenyon, senior director of Advanced Programs and Technology at Pratt & Whitney, which is also undertaking AETD testing. The company demonstrated a three-stream fan in a rig in 2013. In early 2017, “We want to take the next step and demonstrate that in an engine environment, so that we get interaction between the fan and engine,” he says. “So we are taking the fan off an F135 engine, [then] putting the three-stream fan in its place and simulating three-stream flow back to the back.” Pratt also plans to demonstrate a “very high-efficiency core” on a test stand early next year, he adds.

“AETP will mature that design and go to a series of tests where we will ring out the engine in a true prototyping sense of the word,” says Kenyon. “We will mature it to put some time on it and that will be a huge risk reduction for any sort of follow-on EMD type program.”

AFRL also notes the different approaches taken by GE and Pratt, particularly on materials. “GE has made a big bet on CMCs for low-density, high-temperature materials as well as other areas, and Pratt is leveraging all their combat experience. They are leveraging what they have done in the past and evolving that through the AETD program. So we have two unique approaches to the core and material set and also two unique adaptive fans,” says Meininger.


USAF Details Sixth-gen Combat Engine Research Plan

As procurement plans begin for the next-generation fighter engine, the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) is launching a supporting initiative to gain maximum performance from all available avenues of adaptive engine technology, particularly the largely unexplored potential of the core.

The Air Dominance Adaptive Propulsion Technology (ADAPT) program builds on almost a decade of variable engine research at AFRL, beginning with the Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (Advent) program, which started in 2007. These sought to reduce average fuel burn by 25% and engine cooling air requirements by using a third air stream to enable longer-range missions in cruise mode and higher Mach speed in combat mode.

Advent, and subsequent efforts such as the Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) and follow-on transition program are focused primarily on developing this multirole capability by varying the low-pressure spool of the engine using an adaptive fan. ADAPT, on the other hand, will focus on developing adaptive features in the high-pressure spool, as well as a means of integrating the core within the overall variable cycle operation of the engine.“ADAPT is another spiral back into the science and technology environment,” says AFRL ADAPT program manager Jason Parson. “We are going back to where Advent was, but with additional technologies and, in particular, we are going to bring adaptive features back into the core—the compressor, combustor and high-pressure turbine. We already have adaptive features in the low spool, but we want to bring those features into the core,” he adds.

In addition, ADAPT provides a pathway into a potential production adaptive engine for newer technology that was not available a few years ago. “Some of these just were not at the right maturity level to bring into AETD. There were a lot of higher-temperature and higher-strength materials that needed a few more years of maturing in the lab before they were ready to progress to a TRL [technology readiness level] 6 demonstration,” says Parson, referring to the point at which a technology is considered ready for prototype demonstration prior to full-scale development. “We have had that opportunity, and now we are going to bring those back in, so that we continue to mature technology and make it available for the next generation of engines.”

ADAPT is targeted specifically at additional fuel burn reductions on the order of 5% in cruise mode, as well as higher thrust capability for supersonic operation. It will also include technologies for ensuring support of high-power systems such as directed-energy and other weapon systems. “The ultimate goal is that you would end up with adaptive features throughout the engine that would be usable depending on the needs of whatever system the Air Force decides is appropriate,” says Parson.

The program will be challenged by the higher temperatures and pressures in the core. “There is a level of difficulty that is associated with variable features in the core, although it is not the first time we have looked at this,” says Parsons, referring obliquely to earlier variable-cycle engines such as the Pratt & Whitney J58 turbo-ramjet used in the Lockheed A-12/SR-71. “But one of the things we are benefiting from is that Advent and AETD allowed us to learn how to use the variable features in an architecture. Instead of a one-off variable feature that is constrained by the rest of the engine, we are learning to put them together smartly. That learning gives us confidence we can take that and put the same thing into the core now that we better understand how we [can] control these features.”Although the physics of the higher-pressure core leads to harsher conditions in the gas path, AFRL’s approach to varying the cycle is analogous to the methods used for controlling the third stream passing through the bypass and low-pressure spool in the Advent/AETD engine. In this scenario, a variable area nozzle works in conjunction with a variable fan to split the flow and alter pressure ratio, depending on the thrust requirement and operating mode.

“The core of the turbine functions as the same thing. It is a nozzle, so I can change the flow and pressure ratio going through that core essentially with a nozzle,” says Matt Meininger, AFRL Adaptive Engines program manager. “There may be other ways to do it, but fundamentally the two things you are trying to decouple [are] the flow and pressure ratio through the core. Right now you increase or decrease the speed, and that is basically how you move the flow and pressure ratio, but they are closely related. If you can decouple those through variable features, you may be able to change the flow without changing the pressure ratio, or vice versa, and alter the pressure ratio without changing the flow significantly.

“We are going through a technology concept exploration to decide what is going to be in and what is going to be out,” says Meininger. AFRL has “just started the conceptual design of these demonstrators so that will help narrow down exactly which technology we will have in there. The variable turbine is certainly a technology of interest that we think is very powerful,” adds Parson.

General Electric and Pratt & Whitney are among the companies working on the early stages of ADAPT. Pratt expects to leverage its ongoing studies with the U.S. Navy on the Variable Cycle Advanced Technology (VCAT) program, which is designed to identify and mature adaptive-cycle turbine propulsion technology for future carrier-based tactical, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems. The VCAT program, which is aligned with AFRL’s variable-cycle work, is a partnership effort between the Office of Naval Research and the Navy’s Energy Task Force and is focused on turbine-based adaptive cycle technology.

“VCAT is working on component technologies that are a strong part of adaptive engines, so the opportunity to work that across into ADAPT is something we would like to do,” says Jimmy Kenyon, senior director of Advanced Programs and Technology at Pratt & Whitney. “We are on contract to the Air Force for some early studies and design work, but we are also in discussion with the Air Force as they plan the next phase of their science and technology enterprise. [We want] to see what the right next step is in terms of the next technology demonstrator. What role does Adapt play in that, and what should that demonstrator look like?”

malushahi
BRFite
Posts: 351
Joined: 16 Jul 2008 03:08
Location: South of Berkshires

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby malushahi » 22 Jun 2016 03:26

^^^ please consider writing a blurb for tech-and-time-challenged people like me who don't have a clue about how the above 2395 words relate to kaveri.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11417
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 22 Jun 2016 09:55

Think it is very important at least today we start building wind tunnels, have test bed aircraft purchased, some Mig-29's and IL -76's for future engine development, so we dont need to run to Russia and waiting for results.

So that developers can quickly come up with changes improved designs and get feedback on the Kaveri engine quickly.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8087
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Jun 2016 21:33

General Electric Prepares to Launch localization programme in South Korea





General Electric (GE) has outlined an expansive localisation programme to support its pending contract to supply F414 turbofan engines for the Republic of Korea Air Force's (RoKAF's) Korean Fighter Experimental (KFX) aircraft A GE spokesman told IHS Jane's on 21 June that although the F414 purchase contract is still being negotiated the company's initial defence offset proposal includes a plan, which is still subject to change, to build more than 50% of the powerplant's components in South Korea.

South Korea's military procurement agency, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), announced in late May that it had selected GE to power the twin-engine KFX with its F414-GE-400, which powers the BoeingF/A-18E/F Super Hornet. GE was selected ahead of its European rival Eurojet, which had offered the EJ200, the powerplant of the Eurofighter Typhoon. The value of the engine contract has not been disclosed.

DAPA said the decision on the KFX powerplant was taken in collaboration with the RoKAF; Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI), the prime contractor on the USD15 billion KFX development project; and Hanwha Techwin, South Korea's main aero-engine producer, which is expected to partner GE on the F414 programme. DAPA hopes to finalise negotiations with GE on the purchase of the engine as well as the defence offset package in the next few months.

The GE spokesman said this offset package would reflect the company's intention to "put the utmost effort into localisation to help the indigenous Korean industry grow". He said the proposed offset package features a plan to transfer manufacturing technology as well as maintenance, repair, and overhaul capability.

He added, "GE is committed to support Hanwha Techwin, KAI, and RoKAF by providing engine localisation options that meet or exceed the request for proposal requirements in excess of 50% for both the EMD [engineering and manufacturing development] and production phases [of the KFX programme]."

The localisation package features the entire fan and low-pressure turbine (LPT) module for the production phase of the KFX programme. Additional parts featured in the package include blisk, blades, and disks, including the high-pressure turbine, and many critical high-volume rotating parts.

GE said, "These types of component manufacturing methods and super-alloys will continue to expand Korea's engine technology base in the areas of manufacturing and know-how." In terms of the EMD phase of the KFX, GE said that it has developed unspecified engineering work packages that will be implemented in collaboration with Hanwha Techwin and South Korean industry.

The proposed F414 offset programme continues GE's strong industrial ties with South Korea industry and with Hanwha Techwin in particular.

KAI's single-engine T-50 Golden Eagle advanced jet trainer and its derivatives are powered by GE's F404-GE-102 turbofan. This powerplant is produced through a collaborative programme, also under defence offset, with Hanwha Techwin. GE said it is also supporting KAI to export the T-50 to customers including Indonesia, Iraq, and the Philippines as well as its bid to supply the aircraft to the US Air Force in its USD8 billion T-X competition.

GE and Hanwha Techwin are also teamed on the programme to build and supply the GE T700-701K turboshaft engine for South Korea's Surion light utility twin-engine helicopter, which is operated by the Republic of Korea Army and was developed and produced by KAI in collaboration with Airbus Helicopters.

GE said the total value of its investment in industrial engagement programmes in South Korea is worth more than USD3 billion.

South Korea's defence offset policy calls for foreign contractors to engage with local industry in contracts worth more than USD10 million. The offset obligation is, in principle, "more than 50% of the estimated main contract amount" but can be adjusted on a case-by-case basis.

The policy, which was last updated in 2015, prioritises what it terms as "Class A" offset returns, which include the transfer of "core" technologies to support the manufacturing and export of parts and components, and joint research and development programmes.

In terms of priority technologies, DAPA outlines a requirement to acquire what it has termed "target-oriented" capabilities, which are intended to advance the capabilities of the local industrial base as well as the Republic of Korea Armed Forces.

Technologies related to military aero-engines such as the F414 fall firmly within the scope of these priorities and Seoul's stated commitment to elevate the capability of the country's military-aerospace industry and, over time, reduce reliance on imports. While the country's naval shipbuilding and land systems producers have achieved a relatively high level of self-reliance, South Korea's military aerospace requirements are still, to a large extent, fulfilled by foreign technologies.

This is also reflected in the KFX. KAI is prime contractor but is being assisted in the programme by Lockheed Martin, which is transferring technologies and know-how based on an offset agreement linked to the RoKAF's procurement of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft.


Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Gyan » 22 Jun 2016 21:44

I think that we should not try to aim for unobtainable with AMCA. We should design AMCA around AL-31 with the aim to field a completely indigenous AL-31 improved version by 2030, by when serious production of AMCA might start.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8087
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Jun 2016 22:59

The AL-31 is a much bigger, and higher power engine for a twin engine medium weight multi-role fighter. The medium class fighter needs something in the EJ200, RD-33, F414 etc weight class with higher thrust to compensate for the ‘cost of low-observability’. With a twin AL-31 you’d end up with a much larger vehicle to support that. A move from an F414 to an AL-31 adds 900 kg of engine weight alone. On top of that you will have to adjust the design weight to compensate for a larger engine and the associated fuel load to compensate for more thrust (and weight). This has been discussed in the past in the AMCA thread. There are design implications for choosing heavier, higher thrust engines that need to be compensated for. The GE F414 EPE would deliver between 110kN to 120kN thrust and this is a more optimized solution for medium weight fighter. That 20-30% extra thrust requirement, is essentially your margin as you take a non-stealthy medium class aircraft like the Rafale and carry all mission specific internal fuel, and add a weapons bay. Go really big on thrust while still keeping a twin setup and you end up with a heavy like the F-22, not something that is at or slightly below the empty weight of an F-35.

Moreover from a design perspective, since the AMCA is being designed by the same organization that designed the LCA MK1, and MK2 the easiest and lowest risk choice from integration and design pov would be the F404, or F414 given past experience of integrating the engine. Both the EJ200, or RD33 could be looked at although it would require lots of time and money to bring those engines to the performance level of what the F414 EPE can achieve with about 4 years of remaining development. I think there may need to be a concurrent strategy to get an engine, and obtain relevant technology. Keep in mind, that what you get in return for the engine is closely related to what the deal for that engine is and what performance you are getting as well since the higher you demand, the less options you have. IMHO there is quite a bit of leg work to be done to shore up both capability (higher thrust performance from baseline F414, EJ200, M88 or RD33) and transfer of know-how. If they are working at that in a global engine market than I wonder what sort of design freeze timelines the designers are looking at since you can’t do it until you know what engine, and what charecteristics. Its difficult, costly and time-consuming to tinker around with propulsion.
Last edited by brar_w on 23 Jun 2016 01:45, edited 1 time in total.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2543
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Cybaru » 22 Jun 2016 23:47

I think sticking to the F414 will allow it all that is needed for AMCA. Lots of thrust, commonality, doing what the koreans are doing by localization and ability to get reasonable discounts for large volumes, higher uptimes and a very decent engine to boot.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8087
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Jun 2016 01:55

The only propulsion program that has the diversity in need that it can leverage to fund a significantly more advanced engine, and has a lot of the leg work on that upgrade already behind it is the F414. The rest need institutional support backing up to create that business case. The KF-X, USNs F/A-18 fleet, SAAB Gripen NG, LCA MK2, and possibly USN CBARS, and the AMCA are all programs of record with a vested interest to improve engine performance and reliability for decades to come. The only thing that can tilt the equation in favor of the RD-33, EJ200 etc is some last minute extended offer on TOT. Its going to cost more in terms of capital and time to get those engines to the performance level of the EPE but of course if there is the right offer India could probably absorb a 6-8 year delay in the AMCA program. I don't think the european consortium partners have the cohesion however to all agree to co-fund this with India (they can't really agree on anything on the typhoon) so it may just be the F414 or a long protracted development project with Russia or France.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby NRao » 23 Jun 2016 02:03

I very much doubt that India will go away from GE. Just too much risk, not worth it.

IMO, India came fairly close, through the DTTI route, to getting her hands on a high tech machine, but fell a wee bit short (I think). GE was unwilling to part with certain techs, that even the GOTUS had acceded to. But, that only means no "co-design, co-develop", it does not close the door on some form of funding assistance to design+develop pretty much the same engine for the AMCA.

My feel is that the US is just too far ahead of the rest of the competitors. The rest can perhaps provide thrust, etc, but I very much doubt the efficiencies of their grow models.

Let us see.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8087
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Jun 2016 04:26

A lot will be known once the GE's initial deal for GE F414 is finalized, if EVER (in the form that it was announced). That deal was supposed to deliver a few engines starting last year. We haven't seen anything in the media stating that delivery. GE continues to deliver engines to the US, and Swedish programs so its quite likely that it is still stuck or pushed forward till such time as the MK2 comes closer to programatic start. The sequence would very much be F404 bulk orders (for all those MK1+'s) and then the 99 F414's. That will allow a relationship to develop at least in the assembly, and MRO side of things to allow for progresively greater transfer of technology. If the bulk orders of the F404, and the long acknowledged contract for F414 sees significant delays, I think GE will take a more cautionary approach to committing something that may be a decade or more down the road. The Koreans have partnered with western firms and have generally been looking to field complementary capability to their F-35's by late 2020's and have an incremental path to developing the KF-X. I think they in contrast will move much faster through the acquisition cycle. Plus they have a longer term relationship with GE with their T-50, and F/A-50 programs so the industry and government level partnership already exists with GE.

A quick IHS search shows that the MOD/DRDO's engine selection committee headed by Dr S Prahlada selected the F414 for the MK2 in 2010, with first deliveries for the test jets expected around Q4, 2015 with more later, with domestic production (assembly). In August, 2015 Jane's reported that the MK2 plans were to fly the craft in 2019, for an IOC of 2024. If they stick with sort of timeline, then I'd think that there is plenty of time for them to develop the relationship for the AMCA even if they select an engine now. You can then port over to the Kaveri offshoot whenever that engine's 110kN version is ready. I think folks here generally tend to underestimate the significance of shoring up propulsion prior to design freeze and how program managers and designers rely on propulsion targets to deliver specification. That relationship and comfort level is extremely important and often not spoken enough. GE has worked with multiple design teams with the F404 / 414 family. From tactical bombers, to carrier aircraft, UCAV's to single engined fighters and even tech demonstrators. I still think that the F414 has the best shot for the AMCA given that familiarity for the design team. Others do have a chance but they would really have to offer up the crown jewels to replace GE. They are already working with he engine on the MK2, so there would quite a bit of competency and expertise developed on integrating it with an aircraft, with an existing relationship with the OEM to troubleshoot and problem solve. It would be a significantly easier process compared to working with a brand new OEM, with a new engine.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 472
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby maitya » 23 Jun 2016 13:14

malushahi wrote:^^^ please consider writing a blurb for tech-and-time-challenged people like me who don't have a clue about how the above 2395 words relate to kaveri.

It is quite tempting to create a write-up to what brar_w is alluding to, of course in lay-man words, but the level of bandwidth required for that is not permitting me to even attempt it.

However, key sentence, in his quotes, is
... At the heart of adaptive engines are variable-geometry devices that dynamically alter the fan pressure ratio and overall bypass ratio, the two key factors influencing specific fuel consumption and thrust ....


And quite a bit info is scattered here and there in the Kaveri Sticky Thread as well.

If those and the "Turbofan back-of-the-envelope Performance Estimator" (found in that thread) are played around with, a lot of it will make sense as to where the current turbofan giants are aiming for.

So I will stop ... but do consider the following high-level deductions if you attempt to do the deductive analysis yourself:
1) The sledge-hammer way of increasing the thrust-level (dry) is by increasing the mass-flow

2) The mass-flow can be increased by tinkering (read increasing in mm level) the inlet diameter - so overall airframe compatibility, inlet design etc needs to be taken into account.

3) Increasing the mass-of-air thru the core - will reduce BPR - aka you are slipping back to turbojet territory

4) But plain-vanilla increasing mass-flow thru core will impact engine efficiency (read thermodynamic efficiency) - piss poor "dry SFC", leading to complaints like "fuel guzzler" etc.
As more work being extracted at HPT - will lead to reduction in work available for extraction in LPT (which drives the fan) - even more impact in stagnation pressure recovery before combustion etc.

5) The elegant way out of it is increase the OPR (actually the SPRs of both the Fan and the Compressor stages) - so that you skirt this reduction-of-stagnation-pressure-recovery issue.

6) But OPR increase will require more extraction of work at BOTH HPT (for the HPC stages) and LPT (for the FAN stages), so that the rotational energy available for these compressor stages are more than what is it now.

7) Increase in work extraction at the turbine (bot HPT and LPT) stages, means higher TeT - so better material (from thermo-mechanical efficiency stand-point), next-gen manufacturing processes (SC blades and vanes) and next-gen cooling techniques (TBC, serpentine paths for convective cooling etc)

BACK TO SQUARE ONE ... Turbofan 101 issues.

8 ) So some wise folks went and did a statistical study of which part (and what %) of a typical military flight profile is high-thrust demanding ones - and arrived at a classical contradiction of average performance vs peak-performance trade-offs. This is a pretty clever attempt to minimizing that performance gap.

Wrt Kaveri - well, these are all fancy-book stuff, as the dal-chawal basic turbofan configuration is itself not flight-qualified. :((

malushahi
BRFite
Posts: 351
Joined: 16 Jul 2008 03:08
Location: South of Berkshires

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby malushahi » 23 Jun 2016 16:49

maitya wrote:...

just the crisp explanation i was looking for. thanks maitya, mucho appreciated.

maitya wrote:Wrt Kaveri - well, these are all fancy-book stuff, as the dal-chawal basic turbofan configuration is itself not flight-qualified. :((

is this thread intended to be kaveri-related, or a general poop-all thread catching all and sundry about advances in powerplants? if the latter is the case, it should be renamed "General (International) Aero-engine Discussion" in order to be fair to people like me who visit brf strictly for news and discussion about bharatiya materiel development. i personally steer clear of "international" threads and spare myself the long-winded, esoteric gyan that i would much rather hear from the horse's mouth elsewhere on the web.

mods, please take note.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4448
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 23 Jun 2016 17:58

brar_w wrote:
fundamentally the two things you are trying to decouple [are] the flow and pressure ratio through the core. Right now you increase or decrease the speed, and that is basically how you move the flow and pressure ratio, but they are closely related. If you can decouple those through variable features, you may be able to change the flow without changing the pressure ratio, or vice versa, and alter the pressure ratio without changing the flow significantly.

The variable turbine is certainly a technology of interest that we think is very powerful


Interesting....Very interesting. :idea:

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Hitesh » 23 Jun 2016 19:31

Cybaru wrote:I think sticking to the F414 will allow it all that is needed for AMCA. Lots of thrust, commonality, doing what the koreans are doing by localization and ability to get reasonable discounts for large volumes, higher uptimes and a very decent engine to boot.


I disagree. We need to design the AMCA around Kaveri, shortcomings and all. There is really no other way than this to establish your own independence on engine technology. You need an incubator program to make the Kaveri program succeed. Look at the past programs of USAF where they tried out like probably a gazillion models or programs before they finally acquired the know how and base of knowledge to create a cutting edge engine.

If you are not willing to do that, then do not bother calling yourself a great power to be reckoned with. We need to make the Kaveri engine program work and that means sponsoring a program and throw the whole gamut at it instead of doing it piecemeal by piecemeal on a shoestring budget.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Hitesh » 23 Jun 2016 19:36

malushahi wrote:is this thread intended to be kaveri-related, or a general poop-all thread catching all and sundry about advances in powerplants? if the latter is the case, it should be renamed "General (International) Aero-engine Discussion" in order to be fair to people like me who visit brf strictly for news and discussion about bharatiya materiel development. i personally steer clear of "international" threads and spare myself the long-winded, esoteric gyan that i would much rather hear from the horse's mouth elsewhere on the web.

mods, please take note.


Then you would do well to examine the top portion of the military forum and look for the kaveri sticky. This is a discussion thread where it runs the risk of going off topic or tangent bearing some relationships to the Kaveri program. So chill and take it easy. If you can't be bothered to skim and get to what you want, that is your issue, not ours.

malushahi
BRFite
Posts: 351
Joined: 16 Jul 2008 03:08
Location: South of Berkshires

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby malushahi » 23 Jun 2016 20:41

^^^

who is "ours", coz i see only one gripe case here. my post was for the mods, in case you did not notice. suggest you go back and read my posts before jumping in, arm flailing, begging for attention. in any event, a mere glance at your last two posts in this thread, and the use of the word "bother" therein, demonstrates a lot about you.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby NRao » 24 Jun 2016 03:29

Look at the past programs of USAF where they tried out like probably a gazillion models or programs before they finally acquired the know how and base of knowledge to create a cutting edge engine.


Invested a lot of time. Funds. And lives.

AMCA cannot afford any of that. A Kaveri for AMCA class is perhaps 25-30 years out. Somewhere between $10+ billion. That would be pretty cheap. And you would get a few gen behind the leader.

I think it has to be done in parallel.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 472
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby maitya » 24 Jun 2016 09:06

Guys, take a chill pill - no need of fratricide, on such small issues!!

brar_w does bring a lot of interesting nuggets on various frontiers of international (read US, the leader by a gazillion miles) military technology thinking - that's a very valuable contribution in itself.
Minor nitpick that I've always had with his style of posting is not breaking up the contents into readable paragraphs (and maybe some more highlighting etc).
Those posts needs to be read carefully and analysed even more carefully to get that glimpse - ofcourse, it's not easy, but then that's the nature of the breast.



Anyway as I've said before, a very minuscule % of a typical military flight profile requires your TeT, OPR etc levels to be reaching their max design values - where the wear-and-tear (and thus the TBO) is exponentially higher.

But that peak performance can't be wished away, as those peak perf figures are matter of life and death - this is not some civilian application, where you have the luxury of designing less than optimal backup solutions and get away with it.

So the current focus is to make the whole thermodynamic and engine-aerodynamic regimes as adaptive as possible.

For example, why design the HPC/LPC stages need to always work on a typical mass-flow value ... it can still achieve a certain Thrust value with much lesser mass-flow value and bypassing a higher mass of air. So your HPT extracts less work while your LPT extracts more.

i.e. if in a typical thermodynamic cylce, the HPT is extracting 70-75% of work while the remaining 25-30% is left to LPT for all kind of flight regimes and thrust setting. Instead for a lower thrust requirement, let the HPT stage extarct 50% of work while LPT scale-up to 50%.

So the rotational energy available to the Fan is much higher than before - so that it can energize more the bypass air (increased bypass mass) and extract more thrust out of it, then it would normally do. Similarly due to lower mass-flow through core it's contribution to overall thrust reduces.

But the benefit is core-life has gone up many-fold, as the entire core now is deliberately performing at an sub-optimal levels etc.

Sounds simple ... nothing but!!

As it requires very very very careful re-designing of the whole thermodynamic cycle ... if the OPR contribution of the HPC stages too low, the combustion itself will suffer (lower than normal stagnation pressure recovery etc) and the TeT will also suffer. Resultant would be very drastic drop in thermal efficiency etc, and the whole thing goes into a downward spiral.

So, the grand-mullah enquoobuddin-al-turbini once sermoned, many many many moons back, that there's no easy path in any serious turbofan development (PissBUH). :P

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4243
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 24 Jun 2016 11:30

Hitesh wrote:
I disagree. We need to design the AMCA around Kaveri, shortcomings and all. There is really no other way than this to establish your own independence on engine technology.


This suggestion will be a killing blow to AMCA. It sounds very patriotic and all.

But this will actually make both the AMCA and Kaveri the punchbags for our anti-indigenous media. With every delayed timeline, every hiccup will be magnifyed zillion times and presented as if only and only Bharat is struggling with such an easy jobs as designing an air force fighter jet and its engine.

We will be forced to go more more fgfa and f 35s.

Perfect situation = AMCA with Kaveri both performing to best of expectations.

Ok situation = AMCA with foreign engine and both performing to best of expectations.

Bad situation = AMCA design and a/c works fine but Kaveri doesn't work as expected so both go down together, along with "....ok we kalurams can't design these things, so better give up and go to russians and americans and french and south koreans and japanese and french only..."

or swedish !

Kaveri should be continued for AMCA and UCAVs. But AMCA should not be tied down solely to Kaveri.

Else you will be writing on how Vayu Sena has no choice but to go for more fgfa and f35s.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4448
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 24 Jun 2016 13:17

maitya wrote:However, key sentence, in his quotes, is
... At the heart of adaptive engines are variable-geometry devices that dynamically alter the fan pressure ratio and overall bypass ratio, the two key factors influencing specific fuel consumption and thrust ....


How is Fan PR changed?? More aggressive Variable geometry stators than what we have already??

Later added: May be its variable speed Fan.

maitya wrote: Turbofan 101 issues.


Surprisingly enough I have seen that even many of the engineers who are working on Jet engine components for yrs in industry don't understand how High BPR actually helps in better efficiency. I find it easier to explain them with the help of simple thrust equation (neglecting mass of fuel added, difference in pressure at front and back).

T = (mdot_out * V_exit) - (mdot_in * V_in)
energy_out = 0.5 * mdot_out * Vexit^2

Basically you add energy/momentum to incoming air with incoming energy/momentum using chemical energy and then extract that momentum in terms of a force i.e. thrust. Now the efficiency depends on how well you can extract the added energy into useful work i.e. how less is wasted energy. Since incoming momentum (mdot_in * V_in) is a fixed quantity under given conditions, to maximize thrust you need to maximize outgoing momentum (mdot_out * V_exit). So given incoming momentum and required Thrust value, your outgoing thrust is fixed. Now to increase efficiency at this thrust you need to minimize the energy thrown out which is (0.5 * mdot_out * Vexit^2). If one observes, there are two variables in momentum and energy equations - mass and velocity. To maintain thrust you have to maintain certain exhaust momentum - but the same level of momentum can be gained with either mass or with velocity at each others expense - momentum is directly proportional to both of them. OTOH the energy waste is directly proportional to only mass but proportional to the ''square'' of Velocity. So if you want to achieve certain thrust - you can either move more mass with smaller velocity or you can move smaller mass with higher velocity. But the energy wasted is much more in the later case.

For example - if you want 3 units of thrust and the incoming air has 1 unit of momentum with it, you need to add 3units of momentum to it making exhaust momentum 4unit. Now you can get this 4 units either with 1unit of mass going at 4 units of velocity or with 4units of mass going at 1unit of velocity. Thrust will be same but the energy loss in first case will be 2units while for the later it will be 8units..!! (extreme cases just to emphasize the point) That is first way of getting thrust is less wasteful i.e. more efficient. This is high BP approach and the later case is the low BP approach as far as turbofans are concerned. The higher the BP, higher is the mass being moved with lower velocity at same thrust level. Obviously it will be higher in efficiency.
Last edited by JayS on 24 Jun 2016 19:57, edited 1 time in total.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Hitesh » 24 Jun 2016 18:00

Dhananjay wrote:
Hitesh wrote:
I disagree. We need to design the AMCA around Kaveri, shortcomings and all. There is really no other way than this to establish your own independence on engine technology.


This suggestion will be a killing blow to AMCA. It sounds very patriotic and all.

But this will actually make both the AMCA and Kaveri the punchbags for our anti-indigenous media. With every delayed timeline, every hiccup will be magnifyed zillion times and presented as if only and only Bharat is struggling with such an easy jobs as designing an air force fighter jet and its engine.

We will be forced to go more more fgfa and f 35s.

Perfect situation = AMCA with Kaveri both performing to best of expectations.

Ok situation = AMCA with foreign engine and both performing to best of expectations.

Bad situation = AMCA design and a/c works fine but Kaveri doesn't work as expected so both go down together, along with "....ok we kalurams can't design these things, so better give up and go to russians and americans and french and south koreans and japanese and french only..."

or swedish !

Kaveri should be continued for AMCA and UCAVs. But AMCA should not be tied down solely to Kaveri.

Else you will be writing on how Vayu Sena has no choice but to go for more fgfa and f35s.


I am sorry but there are no shortcuts to get the engine we want. The F-16A/Bs suffered engine problems in the beginning of their lives and people were calling F-16s a joke and a waste of money but the US stubbornly stuck with the program and the engine program and now it is a great platform. Same thing with F-4 Phantoms. Result? Cutting edge programs like the F-22 plane and JSF with extraordinary engines.

To get the engine we want, we need an incubator program that offers a host for the kaveri engine warts and all and allow the designers and engineers to iterate better designs along the way until we get what we want. Otherwise, we would be stuck waiting forever for the engine we want like the poor bums waiting for godot not knowing if he would ever come.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1954
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Kakarat » 15 Aug 2016 01:48


SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36400
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: #Kaveri & aero-engine discussion #IPR

Postby SaiK » 15 Aug 2016 09:34

not spending money should take lower priority than not owning the IPRs.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1954
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Kakarat » 15 Aug 2016 10:32

In my opinion a Partly French Kaveri is better than a fully American engine, it would be even better if GOI pushes French for 100% TOT and Make in India for the French developed parts of Kaveri without stopping the other ongoing engine development efforts

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 472
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby maitya » 15 Aug 2016 13:42

^ Depends ... if this is another back-door attempt to implement Eco/M88 etc core while retaining the FADEC algo etc, then we are back to square one as far as developing indigenous turbofan development and manufacturing capability is concerned.

However, if it's all about taking the Kabini core and introducing more mature technology (mostly manufacturing) to take it to a 30+ OPR and >1800K TeT regimes, and thus incrementally improve the thrust levels, I'm all for it.
Higher thrust versions can be built around this core as well, by slightly increasing the mass-glow-thru-core by tinkering with the inlet diameter etc. - that'd be the natural progression in the dev work.

But I seriously doubt the French would barter away their hard earned turbofan tech in doing so (for reference GEs refusal to take the bite in-spite of F404 and F414 lic manufacture offers etc.).

Let's wait and watch!!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby NRao » 15 Aug 2016 17:02

BK observes:

The French negotiating strategy is plain enough in retrospect. This is because soon after Rafale’s selection, SNECMA called off the negotiations, begged off the deal. Now to get the Rafale over the finish line, they are falling back on the same old tactics. This time another French firm promising to get the Kaveri off and running just so long as Delhi signs on the dotted line. Obviously, the day the Rafale ag is initialed is when Safran will withdraw its offer. What’s the sacrifice of $1.4 billion—assuming a penalty is imposed should Safran fail to deliver as inevitably it will—if it fetches $30+ billion in return?


The $30 billion - is the projected life time cost of purchasing the Rafale.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2171
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Vivek K » 15 Aug 2016 21:52

India needs to attach more funds for the Kaveri program development and use its indigenous industrial base. This will take time. All TOT is a lie meant to fool the public and get the contract. The French wouldn't give this tech to their mother so the question of passing that to SDRE Indians does not even arise.

Shake up GTRE and put a good leader as its head (maybe from HAL's Engine Divisions). Provide more funding for testing facilities (flying testbed or testbeds), recruit aggressively (look for expats also), consider reverse engineering.

This lie about 25-30% behind is in contrast to 5% lag in the thrust.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7865
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 15 Aug 2016 23:00

GTRE has put out a tender for setting up of Twin Test Cell for developmental aero gas turbine engines upto 130kN thrust class.

There are some interesting details of the engine and the facility.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7865
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 16 Aug 2016 01:18

Unfortunately, I missed out saving the tender that HAL put out for the production of parts for the HTFE and HTSE engine. That tender spelt out the basic features of both the engines in development within HAL.

However some more tenders for HTSE.
CASTINGS FOR NGV & REAR BEARING SUPPORT
SUPPLY OF SINGLE CRYSTAL BLADES

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7865
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 16 Aug 2016 01:18

According to NAL's annual report, its rotary engine has been uprated to 65 hp (from the current 55hp) for use in the Panchi UAV.

Will
BRFite
Posts: 637
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Will » 17 Aug 2016 02:26

They seriously need a flying testbed along with associated facilities.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7865
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 18 Aug 2016 23:12

Flying testbed for what kind of engine?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8125
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Pratyush » 19 Aug 2016 11:32

At minimum Kaveri and it's future derivatives family.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4448
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 20 Aug 2016 19:42

Thanks a lot IR for the updates. These HAL guys are unbelievable. They have given out drawing with aerofoil co-ordinates in the tenders. Tomorrow when HAL becomes lead integrator and outsource all parts from outside, will the be publishing entire engine design like this in various tenders??

The specs given in test cell tender looks quite close to Al-31FP engine apart from the much higher dry thrust. Have they just given out the new Kaveri engine that they started designing?? If so then the dry thrust rating is fantastic, I would say.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: nam, uskumar and 68 guests