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.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7769
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 28 Jul 2017 05:59

UB and Cosmo sir, please restrict Kaveri related "discussions" to this thread. Discussing on the gyan only thread will attract warnings. Please don't make me do that.

jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 400
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby jayasimha » 29 Jul 2017 15:29

Bit old,, but posting for records (MBD-if-RP).
---------
GTRE Setting up Twin Test Cell for developmental aero
gas turbine engines upto 130kN thrust class

Lot of things must have happened since 26th August 2016 1430 Hrs

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/drdojsp/do ... &p=RFI.pdf

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7769
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 30 Jul 2017 22:43

Post moved from gyan thread to here. Warning issued. Enough number of soft warnings had already been issued.

Saik wrote:have you guys read this?
http://defenceupdate.in/india-plans-use ... mki-fleet/

I want to read it as positive, but please tell me it is


Yes, it has been discussed here. Please go back a page in this very thread.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 07 Aug 2017 21:59

X-Posted...


Snippets from Force interview with drdo chief

Safran Aircraft Engine appears slightly reluctant to get into the Kaveri engine project (to power the LCA). They are keen to work with you on the M-88 technology that powers Rafale. What do you say to that?

We can use Kaveri engine core, but it will not cover the entire envelope. Therefore, the present thinking is to have the M-88 core but still more than 60 per cent will be Kaveri component and the entire engine will be made in India with our design rights.


Prasad wrote:OT for this thread but that means its a straight slotting in of the M88 core into Kaveri? Damn. What about our own engine program after that?!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 07 Aug 2017 22:05

Prasad, If you had followed the Kaveri story all these many years and the to and fro discussion this fact that Kabini core wont cover entire envelope was quite evident.
No one wanted to bell the cat till they had a fix in hand.
Personally I want the LCA powered by local made engine to get freedom from sanctions.
I hope the entire engine to be made in India includes the new core in all its entirety.
And the design rights allow modifications as needed.

BTW many batch-mates worked on this quest for Kaveri.

No one wanted to sy the core was not dong its job. Kept tinkering with after burner etc.

First mistake was naming it after a river.
It turned out like Sagara's descendents quest till Bhagirath got Shiva's blessings and we got Ganga.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Rakesh » 07 Aug 2017 22:16

Prasad: When Snecma-Safran agreed to get the Kaveri working, that is what they meant. What Dr Christopher is saying ties into that - the core will be from the M88. We will get no know how other than a working prototype by 2018 and final certification in the early 2020s. Nobody is going to give us engine tech.

The question the interviewer asked matters little...it is the answer that Dr Christopher gave matters most. If going by Dr Christopher's statement that that the entire engine will be made in India with design rights and that is the best one can hope for. The tech of the engine core will still remain with Safran though. Again, nobody is going to give us engine tech on a platter. Remember, until recently the entire program was put on the backburner.

The key point to remember here is HOPEFULLY we will have a working and functioning Kaveri engine. If that comes to fruition, why would you need the GE F404 or F414 for the Tejas?

Safran posted a job on it's website for a program manager for the Kaveri engine. That job has now been filled, but IDRW had an article dated Feb 2017 in which they did a cut-and-paste job of the job description from the Safran website. Link below;

Safran looking for program manager for Kaveri engine
http://idrw.org/safran-looking-out-for- ... ri-engine/
Ensure the control and coordination of all activities on the program, including consistent with the M88 program.

Safran has/had a job opening on its website (link below) for a M88 / Kaveri Military Engine Performance Engineer.
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... &sandbox=1

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 07 Aug 2017 22:28

So finally French are having their way after all...? So much for the French help. :lol: Go beg for key tech everyone will show only middle finger. With M88 core it will be a french engine, no matter how much sugarcoating we do to it. I just hope they don't scrap Kabini altogether (Hopefully Ghatak project will fund Kabini development).

Ramana, there is nothing particular saying Kabini core is not working as per its design intent that I have so far seen in public domain (don't know panwala account). "not covering envelop" can have many meanings, not necessarily Kabini is not working as per its design intent. We know that LCA itself have put on weight while Kaveri design was never adjusted for that. In fact all indicators pointed towards problems in the LP system/AB always. Not the core. (Remember the core is not state of the art. But at least 2.5-3 generations behind the current state of the art.) The other day I was talking to the Tejas FB page admin about Kaveri on LCA. He mentioned the same thing that I have been expecting. Its the rotor dynamics where GTRE is struggling. Fan would typically be more difficult than HPC in this respect due to longer blades. No books or research papers help you here. Simulations are of very limited help especially if you are dependant on Commercial SW. No one is ready to provide deep consultancy (know why), he said. Only way is to run the HW for thousands of hours, observe, learn and then do educated trial and errors. System Integration was one key are where GTRE was grossly lacking and is struggling big time.

Anybody knows when in the past French offered to put M88 core in Kaveri...? They have and our guys rejected the offer, is what i remember. I will try to dig out. But if anyone knows, please post.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Rakesh » 07 Aug 2017 22:43

JayS: What else were you expecting? :) I don't think anyone who was in Snecma-Safran and GTRE had any other expectation other than this. It will be a French engine onlee, but it is a much better situation to be in...rather than an engine program was comatose.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 08 Aug 2017 00:11

Yes the M88 core was offered in the past too but not taken as GTRE did not think they need it.
They focused on the LP/AB thinking they need to get more out of them.

If you note DRDO chief's statement 60% of new Kaveri will be GTRE.
So the LP/AB were not the problem. there is the ~ 60%.


If I had the decision making opportunity would have taken the M88 core and developed the Kabini core apart from the Kaveri program.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 08 Aug 2017 00:28

First page of this thread ten years ago to the month talk about Snecma.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3351

Note most of our members have been too kind with GTRE (GeT REst).

Read some of the comments in first two pages.

Every new CAG or MoD reports gives hopeful news and earnest please of success if only a few more rupees were spent.


Even vina was hopeful that they will succeed.
If it took ten years after K-9 to come to conclusion they need M88 core that gang needs to be retired.
Even a new college graduate would have come to the conclusion that it needs a re-jig.
All along they gave hopeful statements and delayed national projects.

Over feed on hope you die of starvation.

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 » 08 Aug 2017 05:32

Even a new college graduate would have come to the conclusion that it needs a re-jig..


Yawn.. I am an "old" college graduate and I am not even an Engineer, but a YumBeeYea, doing Phynance :roll: ..What will I know . But anyways, I did write this in 2010 :wink: ,

viewtopic.php?t=3351&start=1280#p1096060
Refer to the sermons in Pinglish by El-Enqyoob-Al-Gas-Turbiney many many moons ago on this topic and the mashawr-e-aam on this.

I do think that the core is a "oversized" , ie pye-bass is too low and while there is high specific thrust, the total thrust suffers because of that. Pye-bass needs to go up.. either Kabini goes tinku and chikna or the Yell-Pee spool needs to grow bigger to handle a higher mass flow to handle to make the pye-bass halaal and get the thrust of the engine up..

Sure, if you are going to decrease core flow and increase pressure ratios there, you need a higher TeT and the need for the materials from Frogistan.


viewtopic.php?t=5719&start=120#p974071

The current core is obviously too large and the core flow is too high , but with better materials and getting the pressure ratio and TET up, the Kabini core could become the "Gangotri" able to power a "Ganga" sized engine. Sure for for MCA/LCA kind of applications, using an off the shelf high tech /latest materials kind of tinku , chikna core should do the job, if mated to the existing Kaveri LP system.

If they do go with Snecma to come up with a Kaveri with the Snecma core, what I do hope is that the resulting engine has all blisk compressor stages, contra rotating LP and HP spools, latest materials and TB coatings and film cooling giving one highest TETs around and an overall pressure ratio of 30+. And oh.. don't go for a piddly 70/80 kn engine, go for a 110KN/125KN class engine, coming out in around 2015 time frame, if the babu monkeys sign off on 2011 or so and give the "No Objection Certificate" (got to hand it to 'em Yindoos, this No Objection business is profound, as profound and pill-o-soppical as the zero/shunya/nothingness. After all, it is only a culture that can imagine and invent zero can invent something like the "no objection", all others will have invented only an "objection certificate") in triplicate and laminate it and get it notarized by a govt officer notified in the presidential gazette.


The Yindoo - Excess Air - Dhoti Cooling Teknaalajee

Posting excerpts from that "Yindoo Dhoti Cooling Technology - Vina (tm) " link .. (do read in detail).. I wrote that in 2009 :shock:

3) Efficiency /Summing it up --(aka back to bell bottoms and 1970)

Now since LCA has been slurping up a lot of Ambalapuzha Payasam from the Krishna Temple near Enqyoob's home town , it has put on nice haunches like Tamil film heroines.. So , IAF says,
We need 20% more thrust from same airflow and engine size!



How do you do it ? . You basically have to increase the overall efficiency of the engine!. What the IAF is basically keen on is the high take off thrust so that the high payasam fed LCA can take off with all the sweets and ample belly filled with fuel for range.

Now that leads us directly to point number

1). Increase by pass so that the take off thrust is increased!.
so Ok.. now I do that and take the air that would flow to the core and route it using the fan , which leads us to point number
2) Now since there is less air (and hence less excess air) in my dhoti, the turbine will melt for the same power output as earlier!

So what to do ? Run to vilayat (or if you can kick DMRL's bottom and the come up with the materials by magic) and get the materials that will run at such high temperatures ! That is the solution. However, it is not so simple as just putting the new materials and things will be fine. You basically have to redesign the core for the lower air flow and higher power output. Hmm so a brand new core is required!.

The IAF is now breathing on my musharraf and saying I want it now!. So what do you do. Go to Vilayat for the new core that will work. So that is what GTRE did with the Snecma Eco Core !


All this was very clear to someone with even a half wit like me, sitting totally outside , with no knowledge of whatsoever going on in GTRE or any place and just connecting the dots of what is happening there.

It is a tribute the the incredible STUPIDITY of the Baboon & Mantri system that is so throughly and criminally incompetent that we are still discussing the exact same thing ( need for the M88 Eco-3 core or EJ200 core) for the Kaveri to meet the performance specs for the LCA. I really don't understand why we need a Kaveri class engine all NOW. The Baboons sat around with their thumbs up their a*ses , and didn't make any decision and the timeline for that is over. You need a 125KN class engine now (for the AMCA) .. and for that, what you need is "Ganga" with the the "Gangotri" (ie. Kabini core with new materials that can sustain the TET with a civilised bypass ratio) and an all new much larger LP system.

This Kaveri business is but just a glimpse of the criminal incompetence of the Indian Baboon-Mantri system. Multiply this kind of decision making across millions and millions of things large and small, inconsequential or hugely consequential, and you know why this country is so f*cked up and will remain so, unless the Baboon-Mantri-Sarkarki stuff is thrown out lock stock and barrel out of whole sectors of the Indian economy and polity where it entrenched itself thanks to the socialist command and control - "mixed economy" garbage of the ISI/DSE /Jawaharlal Nehru /Planning Commission ding-dongs , and the Baboon-Mantri combine are firmly restricted to managing the "Hindi Vibhaag" and "lets learn an new Hindi word everyday" kind of stuff.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 08 Aug 2017 10:33

Rakesh wrote:JayS: What else were you expecting? :) I don't think anyone who was in Snecma-Safran and GTRE had any other expectation other than this. It will be a French engine onlee, but it is a much better situation to be in...rather than an engine program was comatose.


I wasn't expecting anything as such. That was for those who were. :wink: I do not even expect Kaveri or this "Make in India French Engine" to fly on LCA before AI-2021. That too, given they sign a contract first in immediate future, or its already signed for all we know (I don't understand why GOI is being so secretive about it, and not forthcoming with any information). I have said this before as well, you can't take LP system of Kaveri and M88 core and expect it to work (without significant redesign and ground testing) and be flight-worthy in 2yrs. If you see any engine development program, when a new engine is made from existing core, just by re-designing LP system to change thrust class for example, or redesign of LP system for PIP, it take 5-6yrs minimum even for that. You can't just geometrically scale up or down a design. Heck, if we want to put M88 as it is on LCA, it will take more than 2yrs to qualify it on LCA.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 469
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby maitya » 08 Aug 2017 10:36

ramana wrote:Yes the M88 core was offered in the past too but not taken as GTRE did not think they need it.
They focused on the LP/AB thinking they need to get more out of them.

If you note DRDO chief's statement 60% of new Kaveri will be GTRE.
So the LP/AB were not the problem. there is the ~ 60%.


If I had the decision making opportunity would have taken the M88 core and developed the Kabini core apart from the Kaveri program.


Betw what the heck is this 60% business ... this is much simpler than that - we are capitulating and accepting that we do NOT have the tech for any 80KN military turbofan class - so, by corollary, there'll be no indigenous turbofan (of that or higher class) in future, period!!

Putting a core in a turbofan and then saying, oh we did great, because we will now screwdriver the core (by importing the entire castings as "sub-assemblies") and we will learn something - this is subterfuge of highest order.
(pls remember, until some years back, we used to import the whole turbine-blade-cores from Safran anyway).

How is this will be any different from Philip'sque rants like "thanks to mother Russia, we have learnt AL-31FP manufacturing etc"?

And what exactly the proposed licence-manufacturing of F414 be any different than this effort?

Ironically IAF is the only hope now ... last time they put paid to the exactly similar Eco-core tamasha which was been foisted upon us, hoping against hope they do again and stick to F414.


Betw Vinaji, not sure how and where to host an image and link it's URL from here ... (like I earlier used to do, before that site went kaput).
Your above thesis was backed by my back-of-envelope-simulator which showed Thrust growth options and corresponding impacts to TeT and OPR and Thermal efficiency etc.

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Marten » 08 Aug 2017 10:48

maitya sir, please follow this:
To upload an image on IMGUR and use the URL on BR.
1. Go to http://imgur.com/
2. On the top of the screen, click New Post.
3. Next, click Browse to select and upload the image.
4. After the image is uploaded, a dropdown icon will appear on the top right of the image. Click this downward arrow to view a menu with four options (Edit image, Get share links, Download, Delete image).
5. Click the "Get share links" option, then copy the link and use that URL within the img tags here on BR.

Code: Select all

[img]INSERT IMAGE URL HERE[/img]


If you need any further clarity, please do ask.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 08 Aug 2017 10:50

vina wrote:Yawn.. I am an "old" college graduate and I am not even an Engineer, but a YumBeeYea, doing Phynance :roll: ..What will I know . But anyways, I did write this in 2010 :wink: ,

<snip>
.


Why Kaveri has a low BPR is also as much obvious - Its Flat-rated. Once this was a design requirement, it necessitated lower BPR. Add to that the lower technological level of the core overall. TET of 1700K is too low when the engine needs to be of same T/W ratio as its global counter-parts while being flat-rated at the same time, when no other engine in the same class is flat-rated (that I know of). Physics doesn't change for yindoos. I don't know who the heck came up with this flat-rating requirement, or why GTRE persisted with the requirement until now. Simply removing that one constraint could have made life much easier.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 08 Aug 2017 11:00

maitya wrote:
ramana wrote:Yes the M88 core was offered in the past too but not taken as GTRE did not think they need it.
They focused on the LP/AB thinking they need to get more out of them.

If you note DRDO chief's statement 60% of new Kaveri will be GTRE.
So the LP/AB were not the problem. there is the ~ 60%.


If I had the decision making opportunity would have taken the M88 core and developed the Kabini core apart from the Kaveri program.


Betw what the heck is this 60% business ...


My next post was on that. But now that you have already said what needed to be said, I would skip it. We can give billions of dollars to outsiders to screw us royally time and again, but we can't give it to our own people and let them try. If GTRE is not working out for whatever reasons, open up the engine dev to private sector (if GOI thinks privatization is panacea to everything).

We need someone who understands this $hit and can take decisions and do whatever it takes to make them right. We have baboons and mantris running around like headless chicken when anything of technical complexity comes up. If they can't handle it at lease let it be handled by people who understand or at least appreciate 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 » 08 Aug 2017 11:05

JayS wrote: You can't just geometrically scale up or down a design.

Of course you can. In fact. Most, the overwhelming majority of engines are scaled versions of the core ,and lp system.This kind of mix and match happens all the time and that is how engine makers tailor and deliver an engine for a given thrust requirement.

Creating an all new centre line engine is very very rare indeed.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 08 Aug 2017 11:15

vina wrote:
JayS wrote: You can't just geometrically scale up or down a design.

Of course you can. In fact. Most, the overwhelming majority of engines are scaled versions of the core ,and lp system.This kind of mix and match happens all the time and that is how engine makers tailor and deliver an engine for a given thrust requirement.

Creating an all new centre line engine is very very rare indeed.


No. You can't. Same variants of a family of engines e.g. PW1000G series of GE90-GE9X family or Trent Family (not all but some of them), do share exact same core and different LP system. But the LP components have quite a lot of variations among themselves. I cannot tell exact details of some that I know of on public forum. But even as simple as static frames are far from being geometric scale up or down. There are a lot of component level factors (aero, structural, manufacturing, all sorts of stuff) which force designers to do a significant work to make them work. Designers would start with a geometric scaled up/down version of existing design as a starting point, but after 5-6yrs of work they end up quite different. Add to that the continuous improvement in technology and application of experience gained from previous designs, and the amount of changes goes even higher.

But doing it all to LP system is still comparatively easier. That's why OEMs prefer to make a core, fully certify it and use it on multiple engines without any or as less as possible changes and tinker with LP system to adjust thrust levels, by changing BPR mostly.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 08 Aug 2017 11:37

Last time DRDO tried to do that same kind of JV with Snecma, IAF didn't like it (as mentioned by Maitya above, they shot it down). The context is little different, however it does not change the fact that the resulting engine will still be 80-85kN class and would be almost useless for either as MLU for LCA or for AMCA. As vina said above, why do we need 80kN class engine now..? If it was a complete indigenous engine then it was something else. But what will we do with this new MII French engine..??

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 064_1.html
IAF feels DRDO fronting for French engine, citing ‘joint development’.

India’s Tejas light fighter is failing to meet performance targets, largely because of an underpowered engine. And, the Indian Air Force (IAF) believes the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is actively stalling the process of choosing a new engine.

A furious IAF, which urgently needs the Tejas to replace its retiring MiG-21 squadrons, has complained in writing to the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The IAF report says that even as the Aeronautical Development Agency, or ADA — which oversees the Tejas programme — is choosing between two powerful, modern engines from the global market, the DRDO has confused the issue by throwing up a third option: An offer to resurrect its failed Kaveri engine programme, this time in partnership with French engine-maker, Snecma.

The IAF report, currently with the highest levels of the MoD, makes two points. First, since the DRDO has been unable, for over two decades, to deliver a Kaveri engine that can power the Tejas, the ongoing procurement — of either the General Electric (GE) F-414, or the Eurojet EJ200 engine — should go ahead.

The IAF’s second objection is even more damning for the DRDO: Snecma, the IAF charges, has already developed the heart of the engine it is offering, an uprated derivative of the M88-2 engine that powers the French Rafale fighter. The DRDO, therefore, will not co-develop the engine, but merely provide Snecma with an indigenous stamp. In reality, the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), the DRDO laboratory that has laboured for decades on the Kaveri, will hardly participate in any “joint development”.

Further, says a top IAF source, a Kaveri engine based on Snecma’s new core will leave the Tejas short of performance, providing barely 83-85 Kilonewtons (KN) of maximum thrust. In contrast, the GE and Eurojet engines already short-listed for selection provide 90-96 KN, a significant advantage. The source says sneaking in the underpowered Kaveri-Snecma engine through the GTRE back door will damage the LCA project.

For the IAF, the performance of the new engine is crucial. It has agreed to accept the Tejas into service as soon as the fighter obtains its Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) in December, even though the Tejas does not yet fly, climb, turn or accelerate fast enough. The IAF’s accommodation is based on a promise from the ADA that a new, more powerful engine will overcome all the Tejas’ current performance shortfalls.

Senior IAF officers explain that the DRDO needs the Tejas project to endorse the Kaveri-Snecma engine because Snecma insists on a minimum assured order of 300 engines as a precondition for partnering GTRE in “joint development”. Since India’s futuristic Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) — the other potential user of a Kaveri-Snecma engine — has not yet been sanctioned, only the Tejas programme, with some 120-140 fighters planned, provides the numbers needed for satisfying Snecma.



Shuk-law ji's report of proposed GTRE-Snecma JV circa 2009. They claimed a more powerful 90kN class engine. But note the time required - 4yrs. Will be dragged to 6yrs easily.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.se/2009/12/k ... power.html


But, unexpectedly, the Kaveri has gotten off the floor. Business Standard has learned that the MoD --- apprehending that Eurojet and GE would hang back from providing India with critical engine technologies, even if Transfer of Technology (ToT) was mandated in a purchase contract --- now wants to co-develop an engine in India rather than manufacturing one under licence. The DRDO’s Gas Turbine and Research Establishment (GTRE), which has a design partnership with French engine-maker, Snecma, has been asked to design a more powerful Kaveri successor.

A Snecma-GTRE joint venture to develop the upgraded Kaveri is likely to be announced during President Nikolas Sarkozy’s visit to India in early 2010.

Minister of State for Defence, Dr Pallam Raju, has confirmed to Business Standard, “It is important for India to have indigenous capabilities in engine design. And having invested so many man-hours of work into the design of the Kaveri engine, it would be a national waste to fritter away or dilute those capabilities…. (Snecma) is willing to co-develop an engine with us; they are willing to go beyond just transfer of technology. It is a value-added offer that gives us better technology than what we would get from ToT from Eurojet or GE.”

Amongst the key engine technologies that India needs is that for Single Crystal Blades, which significantly enhance turbine performance within the incandescent confines of a jet engine combustion chamber. The MoD suspects that this technology, worth billions of dollars, will not be fully transferred by Eurojet or by GE. (But the French will gladly give it away to India, haan ji..? :lol: )

An MoD official, who is closely involved in deciding between the EJ200 and the F-414, explains this apprehension: “The tender stipulates that 50% of the technology must be transferred to India. But the vendor will lump together a bunch of low-end technologies that might add up to 50%. What we want is one or two high-end technologies.”

GTRE designers say that it would take about 4 years to co-develop an engine with Snecma, somewhat longer than the 3-year time frame in which the EJ200 or F-414 would start being delivered. Based upon the performance of the Kaveri flight in the ongoing flight tests in Russia, GTRE sources are confident that, “Snecma-GTRE is fully capable of producing an engine as good as the F-414 and the EJ-200.”

That will involve improving from the current Kaveri’s maximum thrust of 65 Kilo Newtons (KN), to the 95 KN that the EJ200 and F-414 develop.



Are the French trying to sell us M88-3..?? Develop it by using us as cash-cow to bankroll the development cost..? I don't think they have made this uprated version so far, which is in concept for 2decades now. But I may be wrong.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... m88-51979/
A further development, the M88-3, rated at 9.5t thrust, still awaits funding, but has been benchtested on a privately funded demonstrator. "We are proposing the M88-3 to the French government for the future standard of the Rafale in the early 2000s and to prospective export customers", says Massot.

The M88-3 features a new LP compressor with higher mass flow (from 65kg/s in the -2 to 73.4kg/s). A new variable stator vane stage has been introduced, permitting the engine to operate at optimum conditions through a much wider range, reducing part-power-specific fuel consumption and providing more operational flexibility to suit the Rafale's multimission role. The development comes out of Snecma's CENTOR LP compressor research programme and from other exploratory developments carried out by Snecma in recent years.
Last edited by JayS on 08 Aug 2017 11:40, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vina » 08 Aug 2017 11:37

JayS wrote:..... Same variants of a family of engines e.g. PW1000G series of GE90-GE9X family or Trent Family (not all but some of them), do share exact same core and different LP system.
... to make a core, fully certify it and use it on multiple engines without any or as less as possible changes and tinker with LP system to adjust thrust levels, by changing BPR mostly.


In Inglees, it means you can. You ispeak Yindee, I ispeak Inglees. :mrgreen:

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 08 Aug 2017 11:53

way I see it, Rafale is a tightly packed plane (due to naval parking limitations and no folding wing) with no more room to gain the kinds of bulges and increased waistline the slim hotrod F16 did over the years. and it was never designed as a a2a hotrod but a slippery smooth multi role jet that could work around its small radar aperture with AWACS support and good EW.

so it is unlikely to need a more powerful engine other than maybe advances that provide a significant fuel economy. even there it has 3 huge fuel tanks and CFT was also tested but not purchased by FrAF. the OSF IRST was also deleted on some units to save cost I think.

their Neuron UCAV is unlikely to need a very powerful engine.

India has to make a call if 2 x kaveri-snecma will be good for AMCA and COMMIT funds to it. it will be a 10 yr work to get it certified and ready for squadron service. just because hot section is ready does not mean engine is ready to roll. a huge system of parts making has to be setup and brought up to par.

also mate the current kaveri into a couple of Su30 or Mig29 2 seater with instruments in rear cockpit and gather the reams of in flight and service data that nobody else will 'teach' . HAL annually returns some 1.5b $$ of profit to FInMin. it can reward itself with 200 mil , build 2 more Su30 and hire a couple of retired pilots to run them out of ASTE. they do not need IAF permission to build Su30 - they make it themselves incl assembling the engine and avionics. only some initiative is needed to bell the cat

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 08 Aug 2017 11:59

when HAL is struggling to productionize a turbofan engine (throw and use onlee) for nirbhay, how much time it will take to design and develop a new hot section for the AMCA. to me the onlee realistic option if we want a AMCA proto flying in 2025 is

- mate whatever works from kaveri to M88 core
- develop own core in parallel and attempt to replace that in future tranches or if nothing else do a cheen style license and call it cloning. atleast we will learn something that playing in dark.

I dont think the americans will be interested at all. their own needs and budgets are so big, 150-300 engines is like drop in ocean for them and various laws and Congress make it very tough to work on joint projects for them. they do 'some' joint work with israel and nobody else.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 08 Aug 2017 12:00

vina wrote:
JayS wrote:..... Same variants of a family of engines e.g. PW1000G series of GE90-GE9X family or Trent Family (not all but some of them), do share exact same core and different LP system.
... to make a core, fully certify it and use it on multiple engines without any or as less as possible changes and tinker with LP system to adjust thrust levels, by changing BPR mostly.


In Inglees, it means you can. You ispeak Yindee, I ispeak Inglees. :mrgreen:


I don't know about that, but if you say "you can" then its over-simplification of the things. May be you know what you are talking about but not all who read might know that. A new LP system may take as much design efforts as that of the first LP system of the family designed from scratch, sometimes even more (well there is nothing like designed from scratch in engines, that first design would be based on some older predecessor or a TD program. But you get the drift I suppose.). When you start detailed design, what worked for previous version, the moment you scale up or down, typically does not work anymore. Then you seat down and do it differently. For a specific component in engines, that I have seen, I can tell you as many differences in the products of same family as there are among those from different OEMs. Everything looks same, when you think from conceptual or preliminary design perspective. But its not the same where the bulk of the work happens - detailed design and manufacturing.

That's why I never took seriously all this talk of "LCA flying with Kaveri by AI-2019". This kind of attitude is not good from Program management perspective. DRDO/GTRE is spreading this shit everywhere, and people are bound to get disappointed with this.

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 08 Aug 2017 12:04

without mass manufacture of even the LP and AB sections of Kaveri for AMCA m88ski engine we are NOWHERE in the game. production @ scale and quality , in flight data for million hours, service data ... NOBODY can teach or TOT us all these.

right now its a science project in a lab

this is where the cheen approach of persisting with inferior engines but USING them on 1000s of planes pays off. they have the data banks.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 08 Aug 2017 12:08

Singha wrote:when HAL is struggling to productionize a turbofan engine (throw and use onlee) for nirbhay, how much time it will take to design and develop a new hot section for the AMCA. to me the onlee realistic option if we want a AMCA proto flying in 2025 is


Which engine is that..??

Also keep in mind, miniaturization has its own challenges for jet engines - manufacturing is a key limiting factor. And the geometric design space is also limited. I have first hand experience on this. But now 3D printing is changing the scenario for small engines.

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 08 Aug 2017 13:24

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2012/06 ... bofan.html

i think they are attempting to make a turbojet (simpler but burns more fuel) and not a williams/saturn type turbofan which gives the huge range of the P2 cruise missiles

but even there seems to be no real movement :((

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Austin » 08 Aug 2017 14:04

At low altitude Turbojet should go well for Cruise Missile than Turbofan

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 08 Aug 2017 14:16

i thought turbojets do better at high altitude ? could be wrong ...

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Austin » 08 Aug 2017 18:38

wiki says this on turbojets

Turbojets are still common in medium range cruise missiles, due to their high exhaust speed, small frontal area, and relative simplicity. Turbojets have poor efficiency at low vehicle speeds, which limits their usefulness in vehicles other than aircraft.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 08 Aug 2017 19:37

Austin wrote:At low altitude Turbojet should go well for Cruise Missile than Turbofan


Singha wrote:i thought turbojets do better at high altitude ? could be wrong ...


Both Turbojets and Turbofans have very similar, almost the same, behaviour with changing altitude. In very simplistic terms

Thrust = mass flow rate * deltaV

Only thing that changes here with altitude is density. The effect would be very similar on both. For military jets the difference should be of no big consequence. For civil engines with very high BPRs we may see slight complications but again basic behaviour doesn't change.

But turbojets are fuel guzzlers a low speeds, so no one use them in airliners anymore. But at high speeds like M=2 they actually become more efficient than Turbofans (military versions, civil engines of this era won't be even reaching those speeds). That's why Concorde used those Olympus Engines. They were said to be most efficient jet engines ever. But on ground they would drink fuel so fast that Concorde was always given preference for TO to keep fuel consumption low during taxing.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 469
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby maitya » 09 Aug 2017 00:35

maitya wrote:<snip>
Betw Vinaji, not sure how and where to host an image and link it's URL from here ... (like I earlier used to do, before that site went kaput).
Your above thesis was backed by my back-of-envelope-simulator which showed Thrust growth options and corresponding impacts to TeT and OPR and Thermal efficiency etc.

Here it is ...
Image

Simply increasing the mass-flow will give higher thrust ratings but at the cost of propulsive efficiency (2nd and 3rd last rows) etc - which would mean poor SFS etc (but that's price to pay for "leaky-turbofan" type design, a la F404, presumably for achieving flat-rating requirement etc).

As always pls take the thrust figures with a pinch of salt as atrocious assumptions like 100% efficiency gains etc are assumed - but is a good tool for comparative analysis etc.
Last edited by maitya on 09 Aug 2017 22:58, edited 1 time in total.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13055
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby UlanBatori » 09 Aug 2017 02:17

AoA! At least the Kaveri injun PROGRAM is rotating: coming back to the same point time and again with absolutely no net displacement.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7769
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 09 Aug 2017 03:21

JayS wrote:Only way is to run the HW for thousands of hours, observe, learn and then do educated trial and errors.

What are you speaking of? If we allow a private sector company to license produce the F-16s/Gripens, in a few more steps we will be designing and building planes from scratch here.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 09 Aug 2017 11:07

Singha wrote:https://www.livefistdefence.com/2012/06/now-third-indigenous-uav-turbofan.html

i think they are attempting to make a turbojet (simpler but burns more fuel) and not a williams/saturn type turbofan which gives the huge range of the P2 cruise missiles

but even there seems to be no real movement :((


I get confused between these two always. Isnt this LaghuShakti same as Manek engine..? Or they are different..?

Given efforts on the HTFE/HTSE, HAL should be in a good position to make a smaller TJ or TF completely from 3D printing. But the thing is they have to fly whatever they come up with in first iteration. Even if it gives less than desired range. Can't wait till it becomes perfect.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7769
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 09 Aug 2017 11:31

Laghu Shakti and Manik are one and the same. It is a joint effort between HAL/GTRE/NAL with some inputs from Saturn.

Here is the list of small turbofan/turbojet engine projects in India

Indranil wrote:1. 0.30-0.45 kN : HAL (for Abhyas HEAT) and other UAVs
2. 1 kN (turbojet) : NAL
3. 2.75 kN (turbojet) : Upcoming RCI/NAL: This will be a formal step up , project completion of NAl's 1kN effort (part of the 12th 5-year plan)
4. Manik class: 4 kN - HAL/NAL/GTRE: For Nirbhay (formerly called Laghu shakti) upgradable to 7kN (according to SJha).
5. PTAE-7 engine : 4 kN (turbojet): HAL

Also, the Kalyani group is designing and testing engines of up to 2.5 kN class by using retired GTRE folks.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1249
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Gyan » 09 Aug 2017 11:53

25kn htfe
1200kw htshft
3 types of jet starter
Turbo chargers for piston engines

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1249
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Gyan » 09 Aug 2017 11:53

Some speculation about 8kn turbofan and 1200kw turboprop but unconfirmed.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7769
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 10 Aug 2017 02:33

I don't like this Snecma core stuff. I hope the India continues to work on the indigenous core in parallel.

However, this is a very low risk option. We might truly have a 90-110kN engine by 2019. GTRE is just flooding it out on the tenders front. From manufacturing of the fans, blades, stators, test stands. If all goes well,....

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 375
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Rishi_Tri » 10 Aug 2017 09:53

Some seriousness on engines. We have multiple engine programs running. Someone will be successful, at some point in time in all aspects.

Hopefully the french shall fall for Indian beauties and we shall have the core tech, aka the Chinese for submarines.

But hope we don't have to do it and someone somewhere is working on Kaveri while this Snecma story unfolds.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7385
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Prasad » 10 Aug 2017 11:35

Ramana saar
I get that our engine was falling short of what the current and future LCA will need. I assumed we would work towards bridging that gap or winding up the current program and work on a future engine for future needs. Right now, a non-AB version for the Ghatak is the likely and perhaps the only program for the Kaveri. What then. While we use the french core, will we make a desi one too? That was my question. Even if we do slot in F414 for the AMCA (thank god the IAF made up its mind on that), there will still be an engine mlu.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests