Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Oct 2013 19:28

Any nation or company that really invests time and funds will reap the benefits down the line. Those who resort to quickie methods, such as either stealing or cut-paste, will seem to make get immediate results but are bound to stumble and fall after the first blush.

The Indian effort is not what we would have liked, nonetheless it will produce results because the effort is there - (hopefully) no shortcuts were taken. Now it is a matter of funds and a ton of patience. There are no shortcuts to this. Look at the Russians, with all their R&D, etc are still taking around 10 years to build a 5th Gen engine. It takes time, funds, etc.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Oct 2013 20:54

In 2008, Kaveri was de-linked from its original platform, the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). Earlier this year, senior scientists said it would be used to fly unmanned air vehicles of the armed forces. Its derivatives could go into powering ships, too.

we would make sense only if it is linked back again to LCA. Post Mig29 exploitations, there needs to be a rev up spec for the 98kN wet thrust version.. whatever that takes. Heck, freeze the damn design spec in the first place.

if it is 105kN, then make it so.. it has to happen on LCA. port the existing engine to a TD. It is important. money worth spent.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 04 Oct 2013 21:14

NRao wrote:Any nation or company that really invests time and funds will reap the benefits down the line. Those who resort to quickie methods, such as either stealing or cut-paste, will seem to make get immediate results but are bound to stumble and fall after the first blush.

This kind of either-or thinking is not correct. The smart nations do both: steal/borrow/cut-paste in the short term while simultaneously building in-house capabilities. U.S stole from the British in their initial days. China is both stealing & building capabilities. Heck - everyone stole ideas & techniques from India over the millenia.

Its like what Jack Welch said: any idiot manager can manage either the short term OR the long term. The good ones manage both.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 05 Oct 2013 04:28

The part I like from the tailwind article:
Dr. Tamilmani said a ready engine would precede an indigenous aircraft programme, a model followed worldwide.
Horse before the cart. Finally a duh moment thank God.

Hopefully they will rope in univs, private sector firms, even outside firms to participate in cracking the code. We will need EVERYTHING we have at our disposal, not just PSU capability.

vina · Post by **vina** » 05 Oct 2013 19:12

Dr. Tamilmani said a ready engine would precede an indigenous aircraft programme, a model followed worldwide

Don't know what this dude has been smoking lately. But look at the recent programs.

1) The Euros didn't have a ready engine. The Eurofighter flew first NOT with the EJ-200 engines, but rather the engines from the Tornado (RB199)

2) Rafale didn't fly with the M-88. They first flew with yes, the GE 404 (the same engine as the LCA)!

3) The much ballyhooed PAK-FA is currently flying with the derivative engines from the SU-27. Not the new gen high thrust engines , which haven't been developed fully as yet per all reports (but we at BR have already declared the PAK-FA as super duper right away, even though we are looking at a paper plane that might fructify to full specs in a few years from now if everything goes straight and arrow!)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Oct 2013 19:39

Prem Kumar wrote: This kind of either-or thinking is not correct. The smart nations do both: steal/borrow/cut-paste in the short term while simultaneously building in-house capabilities. U.S stole from the British in their initial days. China is both stealing & building capabilities. Heck - everyone stole ideas & techniques from India over the millenia.

Its like what Jack Welch said: any idiot manager can manage either the short term OR the long term. The good ones manage both.

Engines are more about R&D than project management - as far as I understand them and have seen, there is really not much short/long term. R&D is pretty much sequential and binary for the most part.

It was one thing to steal in the early 1900, it cannot work today - China is a great example, they are going nowhere.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Oct 2013 20:26

I have been repeatedly mentioning, only the reorganization of GTRE can help.. they are not first movers into the market like GE.. and they are not also enjoying the technology, capability enjoyed by USA. It is important we charter this in project.

Yes, it is r&d all the way, till you establish the capabilities.. but I don't see that is the case with no idea about what is happing within MoD itself.

vina: +108

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Oct 2013 04:20

vina wrote:
3) The much ballyhooed PAK-FA is currently flying with the derivative engines from the SU-27. Not the new gen high thrust engines , which haven't been developed fully as yet per all reports (but we at BR have already declared the PAK-FA as super duper right away, even though we are looking at a paper plane that might fructify to full specs in a few years from now if everything goes straight and arrow!)

They have the specs for the new engine and a budget allocated for those future engine. That is the difference. There is pipeline which is important.

India has to have many generations of engine before we reach the stage in which Russians and French are today. Can we do it.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Oct 2013 06:38

In the Sept. issue of the IMR,there is a piece about the need to "Master Aero Engine Tech". by Radhakrishna Rao.It may shed some light in the view of the decision to push ahead with the development of Kaveri for other non-LCA applications ,

A few Xcpts:
DRDO projection that India needs to import Rs.1,60,000 cr. worth of aero-engines over the next decade.
We need to "develop a whole range of aero-engines of different thrust and weight class for combat aircraft,trainers,transports,helos and UAVs." A self reliant base is required to reduce our 70% dependence upon foreign defence imports.mastering cutting edge tech of AE would catapult us into the league of nations that can develop aero power plants.We should also predict future tech at least for a couple of decades,so that our engines remain state-f-art and contemporary.

HAL has a good engine division that is obsessed with licence production so that little R&D work takes place.We need to build on the experience of Kaveri,the ISRO's expertise in developing rocket engines,smart materials,etc.,the IITs,labs, brought in to giving impetus along with JVs to cut down time.JV's success will also depend upon the willingness of foreign entities to part with some of the latest tech.Pvt, industry to be roped in for speeding up an aero-engine of 100-KN.It was in 2006 that the MOD sought foreign help to succeed with Kaveri.SNECMA talks dragged on for 3 yrs,the Rafale decision happened,with the hope that we would get access to the M-88-2 engine.SNECMA single-vendor route is now being abandoned and a partner will be selected based upon competitive bidding.

The biggest challenge facing the GTRE to enhance Kaveri's power without altering the dimensions,is single-crystal blade turbine tech acquisition.What could assist us is a new facility in a "Sc. and Tech city" at Chitradurga 200km north of Blore.,housing facilities of BARC,DRDO,IISC and IISC.Boeing is setting up a high-alt testing facility part of the C-17 acquisition offset programme.Kaveri would no longer need to be taken to Russia for testing (Incidentally,a couple of decades ago,this is exactly what the IAF wanted,a similar facility to be set up at B'lore to speed up the LCA development).At the 2011 Gromov tests in Russia,Kaveri's max output was measured at 70.4 KN,while 100 KN is required for engines for high-performance fighters.

Kaveri was earlier conceived as a plant for an 8t aircraft,but as the LCA's weight went up to 10t,we were incapable of boosting Kaveri's output due to our low AE tech base.The idea now gaining ground is that the underpowered engine can be used for marine applications-for warships,and even while underpowered for UCAVs,rather our "USAV" programme,a classified "unmanned pilotless stealth bomber" that is being developed.The author says that if we are to use Kaveri for UCAVs or an AMCA for stealth and supercruise,then no time should be lost in upgrading the engine with advanced tech elements.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 06 Oct 2013 08:05

IMR has different figures than what we have for the same conference. Indian military Aero Engine market worth approx Rs. 2,40,000 crores in next 20 years

Anyway, We have already taken some steps with PTAE and Kaveri. We have to build upon them, as per the speakers. HAL engine division has already got a go ahead for engine collaborations - Proposal for HAL allowed to co-development engines.

Some resources we had created to document engine developments are

Indian Developments in Materials for Military Aero Engines

Indian UAV Engine development programs

DRDO creates GATET project for advanced gas turbine engine research

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 06 Oct 2013 16:51

Except the first one the rest are pretty old articles, CJ give us jingos something latest to munch on.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 06 Oct 2013 17:12

There is nothing new on this yet. A 2 or 3 year is not too much time in this matter. Hence i didn't want to debate on it last time.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 06 Oct 2013 18:06

F-35 also has brand new engines just to note.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 06 Oct 2013 20:53

Philip wrote:In the Sept. issue of the IMR,there is a piece about the need to "Master Aero Engine Tech". by Radhakrishna Rao.It may shed some light in the view of the decision to push ahead with the development of Kaveri for other non-LCA applications....

Philip ji,
Anything in the engines article on the total no of hours kaveri can chalk up(at its average thrust) before it is expected to throw out blades from fatigue or some structural damage occurs or a complete overhaul is necessary?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Oct 2013 01:43

No,there are no deep details of engine performance before failure whatever.I don't think there will be much in the public domain either.
If we are going to shove a Kaveri into a MIG-29 we would have to seek help from the Russians.We have less knowledge about the MIG-29 than the MIG-21 which we built under licence.

habal · Post by **habal** » 07 Oct 2013 15:47

Acharya wrote:India has to have many generations of engine before we reach the stage in which Russians and French are today. Can we do it.

It is not possible to cover two generations on a shoestring budget. Considering fact that lack of visible results will lead to similar levels of budget and similar levels of budget will not produce anything that can jump generations of technical development. We may always be in catch-up mode while never really catching up.

The Chinese though seem to have the right idea, they are just investing in mettalurgy without any consideration for cost-input and latency of return on investment, sooner than later they will end up with right combination of materials that can give them a high-thrust engine.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 Oct 2013 03:34

habal wrote: The Chinese though seem to have the right idea, they are just investing in mettalurgy without any consideration for cost-input and latency of return on investment, sooner than later they will end up with right combination of materials that can give them a high-thrust engine.

PRC already has all the tech ingredients for Engine. But they have not done it!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Oct 2013 04:29

They do not have ALL the ingredients - they cannot have them at this point in time. They are going to rely on Russia for engines for some time to come - perhaps next 20 years.

IF they are investing heavily in Material Sciences, then yes, they should reap the benefits in the future. But, there is more than just that. And not sure if they have the other aspects too. Doubt it.

(BTW, Russia herself is taking 10 years to design/build an engine for the 5th Gen plane. Keep that as a yard stick.)

habal · Post by **habal** » 08 Oct 2013 08:03

Acharya wrote: PRC already has all the tech ingredients for Engine. But they have not done it!

They have a J-10B that flies on a WS-10A.
The WS-10A 'Taihang' engine gives 132Kn of thrust.
Watch from 9:25 onwards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t69y0M_gNlU

govardhanks · Post by **govardhanks** » 22 Dec 2013 14:09

I don't know whether this link was posted here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGuY0zc2k_Y

Some basic stuff how jet engine blades are made, how they maintain quality,

Below are the links for home made jet engines,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyZRQ1btI6A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOlFqZl0CyM

Below is the good documentary on Rolls-Royce, How To Build A Jumbo Jet Engine
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UazsDDFsS7Q
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQlgK5QOu-4
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQPpdmoZhj8
Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPIYBgZNrsg

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 23 Dec 2013 23:38

in a rare admission by a DRDO chief, M. Natarajan, days before his retirement on 1 September 2009, said that, “The lack of success in developing indigenous propulsion systems for the country’s major programmes is a cause of concern. Affected are programmes such as the aero engines for fighter aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles, engines for tanks and naval propulsion and ramjet and hypersonic propulsion for missiles.”

Now after 5 years we are not even attempting a development of various smaller(thrust) engines desperately needed for an indigenous war fighting machine.

Forget LCA and Kaveri.
Sitara is also getting inducted with a foreign engine (this time Russian).
AlH-LCH-LUH all use french designed and manufactured engines.
All our Ships have turbines imported from Russia/Ukraine.
Arjun Mk1/Mk2 gets its diesel engines from Germany.
Nirbhay gets its turbofan from Russia.
Rustom 1,2 H (etc all have foreign engines).

Forget c 130 or Tu-96 bears , we don't even attempt to develop turbo props for light aircraft (in the Pilatus trainer class) despite having one of the world's vast habited montane zones where roads can't easily penetrate.

Every military piece India possesses except its strategic rockets have foreign developed engines.

I can understand a hundred failures - but don't understand this lack of an attempt even in developing at least a few working Indian engines.

One begins to wonder Is this the fate written by our foreign overlords and agreed to by our local sellouts ?
So that Indian War machine will remain a paper Tiger with even its indigenous showpieces all having foreign innards and with no capacity to wage a serious War on an industrial scale against its potential invaders ?

PS: To folks frequenting Indian auto watch thread - Do we have a heavy duty engine in Sedan,SuV,Trucking class with a completely designed and made in India tag , I am unable to recall even one instance so please to remind me if there are any.

Will · Post by **Will** » 24 Dec 2013 13:08

What is needed is a program on the lines of the IGMDP for engines of various types for the airforce/navy/army. There will be a lot of failures. It may take a couple of decades like the IGMDP. But there will be a lot of success to .

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Dec 2013 13:14

habal wrote:
Acharya wrote: PRC already has all the tech ingredients for Engine. But they have not done it!
They have a J-10B that flies on a WS-10A.
The WS-10A 'Taihang' engine gives 132Kn of thrust.
Watch from 9:25 onwards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t69y0M_gNlU

Its still under development because of a very low MTBO. China continues to import huge numbers of Russian engines. On the other hand, their invests in engine tech are huge as well, one day they will make them..

vic · Post by **vic** » 24 Dec 2013 13:40

Will wrote:What is needed is a program on the lines of the IGMDP for engines of various types for the airforce/navy/army. There will be a lot of failures. It may take a couple of decades like the IGMDP. But there will be a lot of success to .

+1

Use Kaveri "technology" to develop a series of:-

Turboprop engines (for RTA)
Turboshaft engines (for MLH)
Turbofan engine (for MRTA)
Marine Engine (under development)
Industrial Engines (for Natural gas, CNG and Oil Industry)
Gensets (under development?)

These engines require "less cutting edge" technology and can be good stepping stones for refining our capabilites.

govardhanks · Post by **govardhanks** » 24 Dec 2013 15:42

Recent news from GE website : GE38 Turboshaft Engine Achieves Record Time at Temperature
http://www.geaviation.com/press/militar ... 31218.html

The GE38 engine will give the CH-53K helicopter the power to carry a 27,000-pound external load over a mission radius of 110 nautical miles in hot weather conditions, nearly triple the external load carrying capacity of the service's current CH-53E SUPER STALLION™ aircraft.

When compared to its predecessor - the T64 turboshaft engine that powers the SUPER STALLION aircraft - the 7500 shaft horsepower class GE38 will provide more than 50 percent more power, 18 percent better specific fuel consumption and 63 percent fewer parts. To date, GE has logged more than 3,100 hours of total factory testing, and expects to finish all engine testing in 2014.

GE is part of an industry team led by Stratford, Conn.-based Sikorsky Aircraft that is assembling prototype CH-53K aircraft for first flight in late 2014. The Marine Corps expect to stand up the first CH-53K heavy lift helicopter squadron in 2019. The U.S. Navy program of record is for 200 aircraft.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 24 Dec 2013 17:25

Acharya wrote:PRC already has all the tech ingredients for Engine. But they have not done it!

As per Global Times latest critique, China cannot make aero engines.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 24 Dec 2013 18:22

Lilo wrote:PS: To folks frequenting Indian auto watch thread - Do we have a heavy duty engine in Sedan,SuV,Trucking class with a completely designed and made in India tag , I am unable to recall even one instance so please to remind me if there are any.

I don't frequent that thread but I have never found any indigenous engine in the classes of vehicle you ask for. Further the more deeper in the system you look, the more disappointed you will get.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 24 Dec 2013 20:49

Lilo wrote: Nirbhay gets its turbofan from Russia.

Sure?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Dec 2013 20:54

Arjun Mk1/Mk2 gets its diesel engines from Germany

ONLY for economic reasons. It is not that Indians are incapable of designing and building such an engine, there are plenty of NRI in companies like Cat/Ford/GM heading such efforts. Also, if I am not mistaken India has taken up the next "gen" engine in this effort - a 1500 hp engine. ?????

Once the IA comes around to supporting local efforts, it should become economical.

I am told that the same holds true for engines for civilian vehicles - economics.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 24 Dec 2013 21:11

What are the actual specs of Kaveri's performance in contract to the design specs? Nachitet on the other thread said Kaveri was a failure because the actual performances did not match up to the design specs.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Dec 2013 21:50

I was reading an article a few days back and it brought up a very interesting (although I could not ascertain what the author claimed) point: that the Kaveri had actually achieved what was its original goals. It is just that the LCA had since gained weight (for a variety of reasons, perhaps valid) and that the engine was unable to keep up with this growth in weight. That if the LCA had matched its original weight the Kaveri could have powered it.

devaraj_d · Post by **devaraj_d** » 24 Dec 2013 23:43

NRao wrote:
Arjun Mk1/Mk2 gets its diesel engines from Germany
ONLY for economic reasons. It is not that Indians are incapable of designing and building such an engine, there are plenty of NRI in companies like Cat/Ford/GM heading such efforts. Also, if I am not mistaken India has taken up the next "gen" engine in this effort - a 1500 hp engine. ?????

Once the IA comes around to supporting local efforts, it should become economical.

I am told that the same holds true for engines for civilian vehicles - economics.

When building engines we will be still reliant on imported components / systems especially fuel injection equipment (cost and complexity) and after treatment systems. Even if IA supports engine design and building this will continue to remain the case in foreseeable decades unless we start to develop every critical component from a blank sheet of paper which will also take years (may be decades) to achieve full indigenization.
Also, a tank engine has many derivatives even if the engine cannot be directly mounted to another platform. Therefore, IMO, it always makes sense to build our own engines even if we are dependent on imported systems.

devaraj_d · Post by **devaraj_d** » 24 Dec 2013 23:44

vic wrote:
Will wrote:What is needed is a program on the lines of the IGMDP for engines of various types for the airforce/navy/army. There will be a lot of failures. It may take a couple of decades like the IGMDP. But there will be a lot of success to .
+1

Use Kaveri "technology" to develop a series of:-

Turboprop engines (for RTA)
Turboshaft engines (for MLH)
Turbofan engine (for MRTA)
Marine Engine (under development)
Industrial Engines (for Natural gas, CNG and Oil Industry)
Gensets (under development?)

These engines require "less cutting edge" technology and can be good stepping stones for refining our capabilites.

+++1.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Dec 2013 00:03

When building engines we will be still reliant on imported components / systems especially fuel injection equipment (cost and complexity) and after treatment systems. Even if IA supports engine design and building this will continue to remain the case in foreseeable decades unless we start to develop every critical component from a blank sheet of paper which will also take years (may be decades) to achieve full indigenization.

Also, a tank engine has many derivatives even if the engine cannot be directly mounted to another platform. Therefore, IMO, it always makes sense to build our own engines even if we are dependent on imported systems.

I was told about the economics around 2000, not recently. And, I do not know why India would - other than economics - would need to import such techs. ?????

As a FYI:

Jan, 2012 :: Army dithers over futuristic tank, DRDO pursues engine

“India has never designed engines; engine technology has always been imported.

But we will develop the FMBT engine as a national project.

Tells they will spend the monies to get it done - your blank paper.

Our approach is not engine-specific; we are looking at developing the complete range of technologies needed for building engines. Not only design… but also manufacturing, testing, evaluation,” says Sivakumar.

Should take care of your concern about "cost and complexity", nothing to import.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 25 Dec 2013 00:28

IR ji,
Avinash Chandur said it was tested with an imported turbofan. Guess the upcoming test will give more specifics. I for one don't expect a sudden change in the status (from imported to indigenous) : (

NRao ji,
Isn't it about institutional capacity (to come up with a new engine ) for a specific class of vehicle and build it locally ?
PIOs may be manning such efforts abroad in foreign MNCs but India doesn't have the institutional experience to do it. So when suddenly UAV s UCAVs were being needed , we didn't have the in house automotive design expertise to help develop these new class of engines. So similarly in the future if Unmanned underwater vehicles concept takes off in a big way ... Do we have the expertise in engine development to develop an engine for it by ourselves (without waiting for foreign MNCs to field such engines in open market and then looking to buy them off shelf).

Consider even the recent indigenous Humvee analogs or APCs or Multi axle trucks from Indian MNCs , all seem to be proposed with foreign designed (and manufactured) engines .

Sagar g ji,
Thanks thought so. I am onlee aware of few 2 wheeler engines both designed and made in India.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Dec 2013 00:35

"Institutional capacity" is based on economics, which is what my sources argue. It is not due to a lack of brain power. And, that argument seems to hold if one were to accept the article i quoted above.

In the specific case of Kaveri I am inclined to believe it is a material science issue (both due to lack of research and associated production) - not one of design incapability.

Also, more specific to a 1500 hp tank engine, I had mentioned: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1564628

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 25 Dec 2013 07:45

NRao wrote:I was reading an article a few days back and it brought up a very interesting (although I could not ascertain what the author claimed) point: that the Kaveri had actually achieved what was its original goals. It is just that the LCA had since gained weight (for a variety of reasons, perhaps valid) and that the engine was unable to keep up with this growth in weight. That if the LCA had matched its original weight the Kaveri could have powered it.

This information is correct. However, there is an issues with he profitability as certain parts have to be replaced faster than comparative engines. This will push LCA to be a hanger queen.

The reason that Kaveri has not been integrated to LCA is because of preoccupation with IOC and FOC.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 25 Dec 2013 10:51

is it possible to make the LCA lose that additional weight ?

2 tons however is a hell of a lot of weight to get rid of.

designing a 1 engine fighter appears to be a bigger challenge than a 2 engine fighter where tolerances for engine performance are more relaxed due to the 2nd engine.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 25 Dec 2013 16:05

NRao wrote:I was reading an article a few days back and it brought up a very interesting (although I could not ascertain what the author claimed) point: that the Kaveri had actually achieved what was its original goals. It is just that the LCA had since gained weight (for a variety of reasons, perhaps valid) and that the engine was unable to keep up with this growth in weight. That if the LCA had matched its original weight the Kaveri could have powered it.

NRaoji, sorry the above is not actually correct - and as I'd pointed out here earlier I see a disturbing trend nowadays to paint everything in black-or-white (aka totally successful vs totally failure).

Kaveri can't be called as successful as it didn't meet both dry and wet TWRs - period. Besides it not meeting various other critical performance objectives e.g. SPR and OPR, TeT etc.).
This is because Kaveri was to produce 52KN dry (and 82KN wet) thrust with a form factor of 950Kg - it achieved the dry thrust level at 1100Kg, but still couldn't meet the wet thrust levels (90% met). And furthermore, pls note those kind of dry thrust levels were almost met with a much heavier, bulkier and the turbojet predecessors fo Kaveri (GTX-37 14 Series) way back in 70s. So what exactly is the performance level value-add that you got from Kaveri and 2+ decades of R&D of this programme.

Pls refer to one of my earlier series of posts on Kaveri History.

Yes LCA gaining 1.5-1.7T more on what it’s design goal has made Kaveri completely untenable for this programme, no doubt, but that also doesn’t mean the engine programme itself has achieved it’s own design/performance goals and parameters.
For further details pls refer to an earlier post of mine on Kaveri Performance.

Plus Wet TWR is in itself a very very key requirement - not meeting that means the program itself is a failure, and there shouldn't be any expectation of dilution of it from the user - just meeting the dry TWR levels (which Kaveri didn't by the way, due to it itself being 100-150kg overweight).

I say this because I see a trend in BR to belittle this requirement without understanding the implication of a compromised wet-thrust regime.

And those who are thinking that by a slight increase in mass-flow (after all, which is what GE-414 would also ask for i.e. increase in frontal area to cater to this increased mas-flow) would have this thrust shortfall issue resolved, needs to ponder about further increase in weight (thus reduced TWR) this would inevitably entail due to increase in compressor mass etc.
The bottom line remains, we need to a generational shift in both Compressor related design and manufacture technology and Turbine related manufacturing technology (TeT of ~1900-1950K via 3rd/4th Gen SCB tech etc ).

On the compressor front alone, as I’ve pointed out many times earlier - the Kabini compressors need to be performing at a minm of contemporary 27-30 OPR (from current OPR levels of 21-22) - but would require progress on several cutting edge compressor technologies like:

1) Graduating to a high transonic blade speed regime of say 1.5-1.6M
2) Low aspect ratio (aka wide chord) blade design and manufacturing
3) Manufacturing (mass-level) capability of multi-circular arc profile compressor blades (just drawing a design of it on a paper wouldn’t do)
4) To cater to the above three developing/acquiring manufacturing capability of increased blade strength and loading – by usage of blisk manufacturing, higher thermal loading metallurgy, High speed milling, Electro-Chemical machining, Linear friction welding etc. etc.

Further references can be found in the following set of my posts here:
1. Kaveri Compressor Challenges
2. Kaveri Turbine Challenges

devaraj_d · Post by **devaraj_d** » 25 Dec 2013 16:18

NRao wrote:
When building engines we will be still reliant on imported components / systems especially fuel injection equipment (cost and complexity) and after treatment systems. Even if IA supports engine design and building this will continue to remain the case in foreseeable decades unless we start to develop every critical component from a blank sheet of paper which will also take years (may be decades) to achieve full indigenization.

Also, a tank engine has many derivatives even if the engine cannot be directly mounted to another platform. Therefore, IMO, it always makes sense to build our own engines even if we are dependent on imported systems.
I was told about the economics around 2000, not recently. And, I do not know why India would - other than economics - would need to import such techs. ?????

As a FYI:

Jan, 2012 :: Army dithers over futuristic tank, DRDO pursues engine

“India has never designed engines; engine technology has always been imported.

But we will develop the FMBT engine as a national project.
Tells they will spend the monies to get it done - your blank paper.

Our approach is not engine-specific; we are looking at developing the complete range of technologies needed for building engines. Not only design… but also manufacturing, testing, evaluation,” says Sivakumar.
Should take care of your concern about "cost and complexity", nothing to import.

Nraoji thanks for the link. However, as is the norm during engine development, the link does not say that they will develop all components. Bosch has alone invested nearly Euro 5 Billion for diesel engine injection systems (http://www.etas.com/data/RealTimes_2006 ... _28_en.pdf). If we want to start from ground zero we should be willing to invest several million dollars and decades to catch up.

IMHO we will have to import (or source from foreign companies) the following systems even if we locally design and manufacture the engine:
1. Fuel injection system
2. After treatment system (may not be needed for tanks but will be necessary for other variants)
3. Turbochargers (some time back I saw a link claiming that some Indian agency claiming to have developed the TC for Arjun MBT's engine. I do not know the status but I am happy to be wrong here).
4. Engine Control Systems

In addition, there are many other components that we have to depend on but I will stop here as the cost of the above components will be more than 70% of the final engine.

You may not agree to this but I suggest that you talk to some Indian automotive manufacturers to hear from the horse's mouth.
I agree with you on the basic issue that we should have our own engine. The issue of whether we have a 100% indigenous engine can be decided once we have completed the first steps.

I will stop further discussions on MBT engine as this is not the right topic.