Kaveri & aero-engine 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.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5403
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Rakesh » 11 Feb 2018 06:20

BTW, the M88-4E is the latest variant of the M88 turbofan. As per the M88 wiki page —> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snecma_M88

The M88 Pack CGP (for "total cost of ownership") or M88-4E is based on a study contract, development and production reported in 2008 by the General Delegation for Armament and is to introduce technical improvements to reduce maintenance costs. The purpose of this release is to reduce cost of ownership of the M88 and longer inspection intervals of the main modules by increasing the lifetime of the hot and rotating parts. It has been tested in flight for the first time March 22, 2010 at Istres, the Rafale's M02 CEV.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6731
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 11 Feb 2018 06:26

Rakesh wrote:^^^Higher the BPR, the greater the fuel consumption.

It depends. But typically, it is the opposite. Higher BPR, lower fuel consumption for same power. But more lethargic is your engine response.

Rakesh wrote:BRF sorely lacks an engine guru to decipher all this.

There are gurus. They limit themselves to dung collection these days ;-)

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5403
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Rakesh » 11 Feb 2018 06:29

From Safran’s own website —> https://www.safran-aircraft-engines.com ... rcraft/m88

To further improve fleet dispatch reliability, in 2012 Safran Aircraft Engines introduced a new production standard, the M88-4E, also dubbed the "TCO Package" (total cost of ownership), featuring critical parts with longer lifespans. The mean time between overhauls was increased from 2,500 to 4,000 cycles, or a 60% jump in time on wing. All modules on the M88-4E are fully interchangeable with those on the M88-2.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 11 Feb 2018 09:09

Rakesh good job even if not an engine guru!


Also from the wiki link above, “The normal definition for the bypass ratio (BPR) of a turbofan engine is the ratio between the mass flow rate of the bypass stream to the mass flow rate entering the core. A 10:1 bypass ratio, for example, means that 10 kg of air passes through the bypass duct for every 1 kg of air passing through the core.

Again from the wiki link above...

- the M88 has a BPR of 0.30:1,
- the F404 has a BPR of 0.34:1
- the EJ200 has a BPR of is 0.4:1


Google Chacha says F414 has a BPR of 0.25:1

Kaveri - as per design specs - has a BPR of 0.16:1


So once again facts speak. Kaveri design objective was 0.16:1 while all rest are above 0.2:1.

Again shoot for the stars not just the moon.

If the M88 core pushes the BPR by double it still pretty good.



This will get the thrust levels to what's needed.
IR

What am I missing here?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6731
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 11 Feb 2018 11:26

They would get the thrust, but that's it. We need know-why of the core. That we have to develop ourselves, which our MoF doesn't have the vision to fund. They are currently just loosening the strings to allow for salaries. Under such conditions only a miracle can give us our core.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 11 Feb 2018 11:34

What would be the BPR for Kaveri with the M88 core? Core has to be made in India.
Whats lacking in Kabini core? Compared to M88?

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 236
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby dinesh_kimar » 11 Feb 2018 20:20

^ If France helps us in areas like consultancy, materials and manufacturing for problems not related to core, it is still welcome.

Compressor blade vibrations and afterburner efficiency are known problems on the Kaveri, after all.

If we really want to build everything ourselves in-house, we need a foreign team for Version 1.0, similar to what France did for the ATAR and Egypt for Helwan.

Some retired dude from USA, UK , France or Russia who has made it happen in the past. Its useless contacting companies directly, seeking TOT.

We need to identify retired people, and bring them here. Bradner, Otto whatever and Stanley Hooker type of gents. Pay them their price and get the show on the road.

We need our own Operation Paperclip.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5403
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Rakesh » 11 Feb 2018 22:07

Indranil wrote:
Rakesh wrote:^^^Higher the BPR, the greater the fuel consumption.

It depends. But typically, it is the opposite. Higher BPR, lower fuel consumption for same power. But more lethargic is your engine response.

Exactly the reason why we need engine gurus. Thank you for pointing the error I made. My apologies to everyone. Tell the gurus to the stop their dung collection ;)

Indranil wrote:They would get the thrust, but that's it. We need know-why of the core. That we have to develop ourselves, which our MoF doesn't have the vision to fund. They are currently just loosening the strings to allow for salaries. Under such conditions only a miracle can give us our core.

+108. This is a funding issue. The sooner that gets resolved, the better. This is India's LAST hurdle - a certfied, flying turbofan.

But like I have said in the past...I use the Shakti model as a reference. I am not sure if India can build a turboshaft like the Shakti and obviously Turbomeca has not given HAL anything on a silver platter. However that has not stopped India from producing the HAL Dhruv with the Shakti engine. There are no IP or geopolitical issues that India has to deal with vis-a-viv France. We are gleefully screwdrivergiring that engine and Turbomeca gets to keep her IP. If the Kaveri88 does fly and get certified, it will be the same scenario.

I am happy to know about the RR-GTRE collaboration on the AMCA project as well. The same with license production of the F414 engine as well. The next couple of years (2019 and 2020) and even 2018 as well, are very important for the Kaveri88 and Kaveri200 programs and engine development in general. If both programs are succesful, we could potentially use them on a variety of platforms - Tejas, MiG-29K (Kaveri88) and Su-30MKI, AMCA (Kaveri200).

For India - at this point in time - engine collaborations are the way to go. But, no one is going to give India anything of value. However we learn as much as possible and apply that - as best as we can - to our own engine programs. Failure is not an option here. Failure = Foolish Imports, like SEF.

The Kalyani Group has developed a 150 kg thrust engine for UAVs and are targeting now for 400kg. They are also working on a helictoper turboshaft at 1,100 kg. Now that is impressive for a company that has never developed anything of this magnitude before.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5403
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Rakesh » 11 Feb 2018 22:14

Rolls-Royce bets big on gas turbine engine technology with DRDO
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/com ... 866339.ece

“As a gas turbine engine company, naturally we are in constant discussion with DRDO on possible opportunities for technical collaboration in gas turbine technology. The UK government stands fully behind in transferring gas turbine technology to India. It is where we see our long-term future with regard to technology collaborations. We look forward to generating intellectual property in creating gas turbine technology in India,” Glenn Kelly, Vice President Customer Business – Defence, Rolls-Royce India, told BusinessLine.

Kelly said gas turbine engine technology is going to be separately categorised under the Strategic Partnership Policy. Hence, the company is “closely” watching how the policy evolves.

Translation: We will provide the core (hot engine). But we will not tell you how the core is made. You can screwdrivergiri the engine with our core and pay us the royalties.

But that is still valuable. My only worry in this scenario, is some Babu will take a lax attitude and think "Why waste money on engine development, when we are doing screwdrivergiri of a perfectly good engine?"

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6731
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 11 Feb 2018 23:54

ramana wrote:Whats lacking in Kabini core? Compared to M88?

I do not understand engines well enough. But if the dry thrust was achieved with the Kabini core, then the aerodynamics and the thermodynamics are fine. It is the material-tech that is missing, pushing the weight up and the life down.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35679
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 12 Feb 2018 02:44

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... re/552959/

The Jet Engine is a Futuristic Technology Stuck in the Past

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 155
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Rishi_Tri » 12 Feb 2018 08:27

You may add HAL HTSE 1200 to list of engine efforts. As to High BPR engines, today's commercial engines are exactly that. High on fuel efficiency. They are also fatter to look at. Easy comparison shall be engines that power old Air India /Alliance Air 737s and those that power the modern day 737-800s operated by Jet or Spice.

As Kaveri with M88 is progressing, hope we learn, whatever we can, and make Kabini what it needs to be.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 284
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Haridas » 12 Feb 2018 13:10

ramana wrote:What am I missing here?

No one asked
1. What is the typical maximum BPR for modern combat jet designs?
2. How BPR impacts vehicle's max speed at low, medium and high altitude?
3. What is the max BPR Tejas can take for Mk1, 1A and 2?

Will lead into interesting intake design discussion, if only yak herder stops collecting dung in such cold arctic weather :wink:

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5403
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Rakesh » 13 Feb 2018 22:50

Haridas wrote:
ramana wrote:What am I missing here?

No one asked
1. What is the typical maximum BPR for modern combat jet designs?
2. How BPR impacts vehicle's max speed at low, medium and high altitude?
3. What is the max BPR Tejas can take for Mk1, 1A and 2?

Will lead into interesting intake design discussion, if only yak herder stops collecting dung in such cold arctic weather :wink:

Haridas-ji: Might I humbly suggest that you take the lead in aero engine discussion? We all on BRF can learn so much!

To start off, can you please advise on the questions you posed above?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 13 Feb 2018 23:29

Haridas wrote:
ramana wrote:What am I missing here?

No one asked
1. What is the typical maximum BPR for modern combat jet designs?
2. How BPR impacts vehicle's max speed at low, medium and high altitude?
3. What is the max BPR Tejas can take for Mk1, 1A and 2?

Will lead into interesting intake design discussion, if only yak herder stops collecting dung in such cold arctic weather :wink:


the wiki post by Rakesh gives examples of modern combat jet engines By Pass Ratio (BPR).
Most are ranging from 0.3 :1 to 0.2:1.

Kaveri goal is 0.16:1

And understanding the definitions given below its quite modest requirement as the ducted fan has to produce 0.16 lb of air to every pound of thrust from the hot section.
The other jets are producing double that.

So M-88 (with 0.3:1 BPR) in the Kaveri BPR 0.16:1)would be putting a racehorse heart in a jutka horse.

And here are some answers:

Advantages of low BPR in

Link: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/ques ... pass-ratio

Because the priorities for military aircraft (engines) are different. While it is true that the high bypass turbofans have better fuel economy (in cruise) and are less noisy, the low bypass engines offer significant advantages when we take into account their intended use in combat aircraft, such as:

The response of the low bypass turbofans to throttle adjustments is faster compared to the high bypass turbofans; the inertia is less and less air mass is involved (for increasing the velocity)- This is important during combat, when thrust requirements change rapidly.


They have less frontal area, reducing the drag produced. For aircraft expected to fly at supersonic speeds, however briefly, this is important.


•Better thrust to weight ratio- 6:1 in Trent 1000 Vs 9:1 F119 (used in F-22 Raptor)- Even if the actual thrust produced by the low bypass turbofans is lesser, they produce more thrust per kg of engine, which means that the engine can be more compact in size.


The low bypass turbofans are more efficient at higher speeds compared to the high bypass turbofans.


The lesser size of the low-bypass turbofans mean that the aircraft can be made stealthier by 'burying' the engines in the fuselage, which is all but impossible in case of high bypass turbofans



And general education about turbofans:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan

The turbofan or fanjet is a type of airbreathing jet engine that is widely used in aircraft propulsion. The word "turbofan" is a portmanteau of "turbine" and "fan": the turbo portion refers to a gas turbine engine which achieves mechanical energy from combustion,[1] and the fan, a ducted fan that uses the mechanical energy from the gas turbine to accelerate air rearwards. Thus, whereas all the air taken in by a turbojet passes through the turbine (through the combustion chamber), in a turbofan some of that air bypasses the turbine. A turbofan thus can be thought of as a turbojet being used to drive a ducted fan, with both of those contributing to the thrust. The ratio of the mass-flow of air bypassing the engine core compared to the mass-flow of air passing through the core is referred to as the bypass ratio. The engine produces thrust through a combination of these two portions working together; engines that use more jet thrust relative to fan thrust are known as low-bypass turbofans, conversely those that have considerably more fan thrust than jet thrust are known as high-bypass. Most commercial aviation jet engines in use today are of the high-bypass type,[2][3] and most modern military fighter engines are low-bypass.[4][5] Afterburners are not used on high-bypass turbofan engines but may be used on either low-bypass turbofan or turbojet engines.



Here is wiki on By Pass Ratio that has a nice graphic and also a table of modern turbo fans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bypass_ratio

Am not posting to prevent clutter the thread and folks on smart phones.


My comments:

If you look at the picture of the low BPR turbofan it has large fan and then the compressor stages.
That's where the vibrations are coming from.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... on.svg.png


Now if you put a hot M-88 core in that engine will those fan blades handle the increased airflow?

Already they are screeching with Kabini core.

I think its best option to sink a few 1000 crores and make a new Kaveri-2 core tailored to the Tejas Mk2

give the job to HAL and GTRE can go back to research which is where their heart is .
But cut their budget by half to get rid of the deadwood.*


The dry thrust is good enough but the BPR is too low and more like a turbojet level.

Nice try to pass of the old Turbojet as a turbofan.


I think the Safran guys are fooling us around and GTRE wants foreign collaboration as they don't want to admit failure.

* Many are most likely my classmates so don't accuse me of being cruel.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 14 Feb 2018 00:09

IR if you know any Kaveri design guy ask him how a M88 core will work in a Kaveri shroud?

I don't think it will unless its de-rated.
And they say its dia is smaller than the Kaveri shroud.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6731
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 14 Feb 2018 02:45

I can't discuss specifics here. WE can speculate based on the laws of physics.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 14 Feb 2018 04:35

Sure let it be Physics based.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6731
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 14 Feb 2018 05:32

The core of the engine is where the fuel is burnt to generate energy. This energy can be changed into thrust by pushing the hot exhaust at back of the core or by changing into the mechanical energy of a fan which pushes air back around the core. Turboshafts and turboprops are at one end of the spectrum where almost all the thrust is derived from the fan pushing air back. Turbojets are at the other end of the spectrum wherein almost all the energy is derived from the hot gases ejecting out of the back. Turbofans are in between, where part of the thrust comes from a ducted fan and part from the exhaust of the core. The Bypass ratio loosely defines where in this spectrum do you lie. A turbofan with a high BPR derives relatively higher thrust from the fan vis-a-vis a turbofan with a low BPR.

As it turns out, engines with higher BPR have better efficiency at high altitudes and subsonic/transonic regimes. That's why civilian jets designed for mostly cruising along this regime have high BPR turbofans. But high BPR turbofans have the disadvantages that you brought forward.

A fighter designer is faced with an even more challenging flight envelop. What should be the "design point" of the engine? There is no good answer. Every designer chooses a different point and hence you see the different BPRs.

What Maitya sir, JayS, UB, Haridas ji can teach us is what would be the BPR of a Kaveri fan with a M88 core. These numbers can be easily calculated from numbers present online. Maitya sir had a good excel sheet going. But it is obvious that the M88 being a smaller core than the Kabini will give rise to higher BPR engine with all its associated pluses and minuses.

Will it be a 404 equivalent. I don't think so. The refinement and materials that have gone into the latest 404s/414s is right up there. We still have lot to learn. Will it be a RD-33/93 equivalent. I think so.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 449
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby maitya » 14 Feb 2018 18:07

Indranil wrote:<snip>
What Maitya sir, JayS, UB, Haridas ji can teach us is what would be the BPR of a Kaveri fan with a M88 core. These numbers can be easily calculated from numbers present online. Maitya sir had a good excel sheet going.
<snip>

Hello Indranil, I think you are talking about this excel: Image

Frankly, I'm completely lost wrt this new discussion wrt BPR etc ... Admiral took a leaky-turbojet and started comparing with next gen turbofans (he may have got confused with F-404 BPR values, which is contemporary to Kaveri etc), which is not the right thing to do.

What people may want to do is COMPARE the various columns of the excel and see for themselves, what is the effect of increasing the BPR with or without OPR and TeT increase (last 3 columns, of the Ganga ((c)Vinaji) injin).
Hint: Where exactly will the energy come from if we simply put a large Fan in the front and scream high-BPR, high-BPR etc - from the same old LPT right - which is limited by same "leftover" of the rotating energy extracted by the HPT, which in turn is itself limited by TeT-OPR combo (refer to Kaveri Sticky for the relationship betw them).

You want high emergency thrust - how about increasing the mass-flow (refer to the same excel) instead - yes dry SFC will increase, but then again we are talking about military application right?

chaitanya
BRFite
Posts: 145
Joined: 27 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: US
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chaitanya » 14 Feb 2018 19:42

Hi everyone,

Something has been bothering me about this 'Safran-ized' Kaveri. We have seen many articles highlighting serious technical issues with the current Kaveri design and how this M88 hybrid might be the best solution to get the engine running 'in time'. While it might give us a working jet engine, will it provide any knowledge on how to rectify these issues in future jet engines? Or was that never on the table? I hope this process isn't being rushed so much that we lose the ability to gain critical knowledge.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35679
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 14 Feb 2018 21:19

Wasn't the Concorde's RR/Snec engine a ZERO BPR one?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 14 Feb 2018 21:27

SaiK wrote:Wasn't the Concorde's RR/Snec engine a ZERO BPR one?

Yes. Its BPR=0 as its a turbojet.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 14 Feb 2018 21:31

Maitya, Maybe I should have addressed you?

IR if you know any Kaveri design guy ask him how a M88 core(designed for BPR 0.3) will work in a Kaveri (Designed for BPR 0.16) shroud?

I don't think it will unless its de-rated.
And they say its dia is smaller than the Kaveri shroud.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5403
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Rakesh » 14 Feb 2018 23:48

maitya wrote:Frankly, I'm completely lost wrt this new discussion wrt BPR etc ... Admiral took a leaky-turbojet and started comparing with next gen turbofans (he may have got confused with F-404 BPR values, which is contemporary to Kaveri etc), which is not the right thing to do.

Aiyoo Saar, No, No :lol:

All I did was post an email that someone sent me. You are obviously knowledgeable on turbofans and I defer to you. My only wish is to get a certified Kaveri engine. Whether that is via GTRE, Safran, RR or whoever else....matters little to me.

The end goal is to reduce dependence on a foreign engine and have our own. Till then, screwdrivergiri it is...

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3872
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Kartik » 15 Feb 2018 02:48

This event seems to have been done with an eye towards some of the F-414 manufacturing being shifted to India, as part of whatever offsets will be needed if the Tejas Mk2 comes about and uses the F-414.

GE & TASL develop engine manufacturing facility

General Electric (GE) and Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL) have started construction of a new facility in India that will be positioned to build engine components for military and commercial applications.

A joint statement on 12 February said the facility, located in Hyderabad, will incorporate GE technologies in support of localised manufacturing, assembling, integration, and testing of components.

An initial focus of the factory will be to supply components for the CFM International LEAP aircraft engine for customers worldwide. However, the companies’ added that the facility will also enable TASL to expand into other GE product lines including military aircraft engines.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5403
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Rakesh » 15 Feb 2018 02:51

Very good move and good find Kartik.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2161
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby VinodTK » 15 Feb 2018 03:18

Kartik wrote:This event seems to have been done with an eye towards some of the F-414 manufacturing being shifted to India, as part of whatever offsets will be needed if the Tejas Mk2 comes about and uses the F-414.


Tata-GE aircraft engine JV order book full for next 5 years


HYDERABAD: A joint venture between Tata Advanced Systems and General Electric, which is setting up an aircraft engine component manufacturing-cum-research hub in Hyderabad, has already got orders for the next five years, a top official said.

The facility is expected to be ready for manufacturing by the year end, catering to GE's global demands as well as India's defence market. The joint venture will also sup a skilling centre to train youth in engine manufacturing.

"This facility will manufacture components for Leading Edge Aviation Propulsion (LEAP) engines for jets and will cater to aircraft manufacturers like Airbus and Boeing and supply components for India and global markets of GE," Vishal Wanchoo, president of GE South Asia, told journalists in Hyderabad on Monday at the venue of the ground-breaking ceremony. "We have already received 200 orders from 35 aerospace companies even before the start of the facility," he said.

While GE will bring its expertise in aircraft engine design and research, TASL will be the manufacturing partner. The upcoming facility in Adibatla on the outskirts of Hyderabad is at a location where Tata already has manufacturing units with other joint venture partners including Boeing. "We have two aerospace parks in Hyderabad along with five airstrips that will help in setting up a skilling academy," said KT Rama Rao, Telangana industries minister.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 15 Feb 2018 03:33

Rakesh,

Don't want to rain on the parade but , civil aircraft jet engine component mfg is way different than military combat jet engines as last page has shown. I really don't know what these companies bring to table.


The CFM International LEAP is a high-bypass turbofan engine. It is produced by CFM International, a 50-50 joint venture company between GE Aviation of the United .........




I would like to go back to Kaveri. I think we are on verge of understanding what is lacking.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3383
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 15 Feb 2018 10:10

IIRC - CFM = GE core + Safran LP system

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby NRao » 15 Feb 2018 10:17

Only for commercial engines.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17089
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 15 Feb 2018 11:11

NRao wrote:Only for commercial engines.


No country, big or snall, is willing to go it alone for the ab initio development of a jet engine.

Too risky and too rich for their blood.

Some people, it seems have yet to learn this lesson.

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 687
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby nvishal » 15 Feb 2018 11:18


In the past we have seen the west offer certain technologies to india only when local R&D attained a breakthrough

Judging from the above article, I would like to Boldly state that the kaveri seems to have very likely attained a breakthrough.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35679
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 15 Feb 2018 11:39

^like saying closing hot selling ice-cream corner shops reduce traffic accidents. we need a good source and confirmation about Kaveri program. I doubt it is something so classified that none will know. It ain't a boomer or a half-warp nuke engine for next Indian military space odyssey (just saying). The point being, we are getting into too much of ass-u-me process.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17089
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 15 Feb 2018 11:49

SaiK wrote:^like saying closing hot selling ice-cream corner shops reduce traffic accidents. we need a good source and confirmation about Kaveri program. I doubt it is something so classified that none will know. It ain't a boomer or a half-warp nuke engine for next Indian military space odyssey (just saying). The point being, we are getting into too much of ass-u-me process.


All said and done, this is a military project and not a commercial one.

People posting gyan on program specifics can very very easily be tracked, identified and dealt with, often in drastic career changing/ending ways.

best to limit discussions on an open forum to either open source stuff or general principles.

some heroes, have, in the past, landed up in the red fort, fcuked and really, really far from home.

one of the few occasions when such news has made it to the public domain.

A large majority of the rest of such "cases" are handled very quietly.

Army officer posted in Jabalpur detained by Military Intelligence

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 687
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby nvishal » 15 Feb 2018 13:41

SaiK,

If profits ranked high in the american policy then we would have seen restricted hardwares being sold to india decades ago.

So why the f16 now? Why the GE turbofan now?

What changed in the last few years?

And why hasn't the GoI accepted the f16 or the GE proposal(both have partnered with local private firms instead)?
Is it premature of me to state something that is obvious?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17089
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 15 Feb 2018 14:52

I think that they need the f-16 plant running somewhere in the world and they are trying to con the Indians by claiming that its part of Modi's "make in India" program. A less obtrusive version of the cheeni belt and road drama but nevertheless the covert coercive push seems to be there.

In the meanwhile, to offset the cost of plant and machinery being transported and setup in India, they are pitching for Indian orders.

For them to be pushing so hard on flogging this outmoded teen to India, there has to be something big in the background or someone very big in the govt is quietly pushing it.

on what terms, only time will tell.

but there is already a rancid smell wafting in the breeze in terms of intent.

Rest assured that none of the cutting edge systems nor the high tech munitions will follow without a whole lot of restrictive conditions that India will not be able to fulfill.

A lot of sheet metal and a whole load of screwdrivers is what I am seeing.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3383
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 15 Feb 2018 15:45

nvishal wrote:SaiK,

If profits ranked high in the american policy then we would have seen restricted hardwares being sold to india decades ago.

So why the f16 now? Why the GE turbofan now?

What changed in the last few years?

And why hasn't the GoI accepted the f16 or the GE proposal(both have partnered with local private firms instead)?
Is it premature of me to state something that is obvious?


In my opinion nothing has changed (barring some obvious changes with time).

About money, whatever we can provide to US in terms of profits is peanuts for them.

NRao wrote:Only for commercial engines.

CFM is Civil only JV. So that's kinda obvious.

There is another equivalent JV I know of - Russian engine which is on Sukhoi Superjet. French core + Russian LP system.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3383
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 15 Feb 2018 17:50

So why exactly we are discussing BPR here..?
What is optimal value of BPR..?
Why 0.16 is good or bad for Kaveri...?
which one is tougher to achieve, low BPR or high BPR..?
If all reported problems of Kaveri are with LPC and A/B, why are we replacing the core..?
If Kabini was all that problematic, why UCAV was given go ahead with dry Kaveri..?

Many questions, no definite answers.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby NRao » 15 Feb 2018 19:04

CFM is Civil only JV. So that's kinda obvious.


To a few/most, it is obvious. Better to include it in posts. Very good posters have made two mistakes: they expect civilian and military segments in the same company to share techs (the default is they do not) and that the company will then share it with other nations (which, by default, is not true either). Anyways ....................


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests