Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Avinash R · Post by **Avinash R** » 11 Nov 2008 19:27

Link

Sunday January 30 2005

HAL plans to bring down the production cost of Dhruv by reducing the import content from 65 percent currently to 50 percent and lower subsequently.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Nov 2008 19:38

the problem is the iyers don't want to go higher., but they want to be placed higher for a sure fall. we have more iyer higher seekers rather higher iyer qualities left. anyways its OT.

lets get back to engines. we have tremendous weekness here, that can be easily exploited by any sperm on the planet.

adarshp · Post by **adarshp** » 11 Nov 2008 23:29

Hi,

I have been keeping an eye on the development of the LCA and Kaveri from a distance for a while. I think this latest development that the K9 version of the Kaveri may be tested on the LCA next year is a good development after a long line of delays on this front.

IIRC, it was stated some time ago that Kaveri K9 was not able to develop the desired thrust and was short by between 5 and 10%. Again, I recollect the dry thrust being closer to the mark and the afterburner thrust being more off the mark. There was also at that time some talk regarding the engine "throwing blades" in testing and being overweight by around 150 kgs. Does the engine which is now being tested and prepared for integration with LCA PV1 meet the original design goal thrust requirements or is it the reduced thrust engine which is being stabilized and locked down to test? I assume that the blade's problem has been resolved if we are planning to test on the airframe, but has the weight problem also been resolved or atleast improved upon?

Finally, even at the reduced thrust levels that were being reported last year, I do not see the Kaveri's thrust output being less than the F404 which currently powers the LCA. If we are OK to use the F404 to power the first 2 squadrons of the LCA, I am wondering what stops us from using the current standard Kaveri from powering the LCA, if we tackle the weight problem which is where the Kaveris is heavier than the F404. Any inputs would be welcome.

Thanks!

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 13 Dec 2008 09:56

I am not sure if this has been discussed....

Since the Kaveri has a weight problem alone and the blade-throwing issue has been resolved to a certain extent using crystal blade technology developed indigenously...what are the chances that Kaveri can be used on a future Saras derivative in a scaled-up form?? Given that SARAS is over-weight already, the Kaveri with some modifications to suit a passenger jet should be a viable offshoot for the overall programme...and wud take SARAS away from a turbo-prop to a Jet......

sarang · Post by **sarang** » 13 Dec 2008 12:34

I think Kaveri is not and will never be part of Tejas again. over viewing the previous engine development efforts there is very remote possibility that Kaveri will ever be mature enough to fit on any aircraft let alone Tejas. It seems only naval platforms get more out of a airforce project.
Probably we should wait for more talent or perhaps better management.

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 13 Dec 2008 15:20

But there doesnt seem to be any progress on the KMGT front either. No news in the media either on the milestones achieved, or the engine being selected for any naval platform or coastguard OPVs.

Mark Schwartzbard · Post by **Mark Schwartzbard** » 13 Dec 2008 16:24

Before you say anything about Kaveri and crack the hell out of DRDO, GTRE, please bring questions to ones mind.

a) How many automobile engines have India or for that matter any Indian private sector company developed from scratch for a simple Car or any automobile?. Right from the very begginning (Ambassador, Bullet 350cc etc ) to present day are all discarded Euro or someform of hybrid engines. I am not trying to disrespect Indians here. But take it with an open mind and investigate before you answer. Leave alone jet engines.

b) When ever India has developed the knowhow using technology transfer of any systems after throwing a hell lot of money, what has happened to these project. i.e the case for HDW subs.

c) Do you think the engineers who have been trained in high skilled jobs will want to stay back due to patriotic compulsions to continue their careers in DRDO or any Indian company, where do they land, in my backyard. ( not joking seriously I got Indian engineers living in my guest house )

d) Any govt organisation falls short of accountability as their jobs are secure. I call them lazy blood sucking leech. We have em in our country as well. Go to any postoffice in london you will find them, dime a dozen.

e) When you compare China throwing a lot of money around, and are now reaping the rewards, I say chaps read a bit of history, when the erstwhile Soviet Union broke up, where did the 5-10k engineers land.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 14 Dec 2008 05:30

Iam wrote:Before you say anything about Kaveri and crack the hell out of DRDO, GTRE, please bring questions to ones mind.

a) How many automobile engines have India or for that matter any Indian private sector company developed from scratch for a simple Car or any automobile?. Right from the very begginning (Ambassador, Bullet 350cc etc ) to present day are all discarded Euro or someform of hybrid engines. I am not trying to disrespect Indians here. But take it with an open mind and investigate before you answer. Leave alone jet engines.

b) When ever India has developed the knowhow using technology transfer of any systems after throwing a hell lot of money, what has happened to these project. i.e the case for HDW subs.

c) Do you think the engineers who have been trained in high skilled jobs will want to stay back due to patriotic compulsions to continue their careers in DRDO or any Indian company, where do they land, in my backyard. ( not joking seriously I got Indian engineers living in my guest house )

d) Any govt organisation falls short of accountability as their jobs are secure. I call them lazy blood sucking leech. We have em in our country as well. Go to any postoffice in london you will find them, dime a dozen.

e) When you compare China throwing a lot of money around, and are now reaping the rewards, I say chaps read a bit of history, when the erstwhile Soviet Union broke up, where did the 5-10k engineers land.

Right and last I head the dragon's engine has been rejected "for now" by the PLAAF to be fitted into the aircraft and is being upgraded. engine development is an extremely tough thing...I wonder how the Soviets, the British, French and the Americans were successful in Engine development, is it because they graduated from turbo-prop-->Early Jets-->Current day jets??

compved · Post by **compved** » 14 Dec 2008 06:09

hello everybody,

I have been following the kaveri and LCA in the news for quite some time, i really hope that the project see's the light of the day. I would like to help, i am a software fella, but not sure how i would be of help !. It just seems sad, that a country of that size, population cannot get this done. Very sad.

I do have some prejudices in my mind about why the project is not where it is, but that would be a different thread.

OT the registration for this site is a pain in the ar*e, what is up with using normal yahoo, gmail emails to login ??, why cant you register with these domains ??, very idiotic and weird.

Please keep the thread updated with the latest, i am very eager to see an indigenous engine

Mark Schwartzbard · Post by **Mark Schwartzbard** » 14 Dec 2008 17:27

I wonder how the Soviets, the British, French and the Americans were successful in Engine development, is it because they graduated from turbo-prop-->Early Jets-->Current day jets??

When you talk about engines, first step is heavy investment in research especially physics, chemistry and mathematics (it comes down to basic facts of education ) and whole lot of mettallurgy for beginners. (leave alone gas turbines and other related technologies on that front). Sone one who has studied on that front can advise better?.
How many of Indian universities have quality education on that front ( note I mean masters and Phd) . People in India ( including people in UK ) choose IT and think of a carrer abroad. Amazing isn't it even in UK, you do a 3 months course and you land in an IT career job earning ~£37K average salary, without having to do the hard work of degree/graduation.

Other alternative is beg, borrow or steal which my physicas professor used to always quote.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Dec 2008 17:37

engine development in India is stuck mostly due to metallurgy and lack of practical experience in fine-tuning.

the requirements for kaveri were by no means ordinary (surpassing the ge-404) and GTRE did achieve 95% of criterion with about 5% weight penalty.
it is wrong to conclude that Indian engine research is stuck at the basic stage. it is not.
the kaveri project has floundered at the final lap, something that should improve with experience.

EDIT : the major engine makers have oodles of practical empirical knowledge gathered over decades and scores of projects. you can't get that with basic science.

regarding education, as with any huge system there are patchy areas but masters and phd level for physics/maths/engn is quite high, mostly at par with anything in the world.
as for CFD, some of the best in the world are Indian.

Mark Schwartzbard · Post by **Mark Schwartzbard** » 14 Dec 2008 18:27

Basic stage implicitly implies, in my earlier post if you read carefully, is just the first step, as I was answering to someone else post.

I am in no means being sarcastic here (keeping emotions and patriotic feelings apart), but even to get to the 95% stage few Non Indian companies whom we liase were involved. ( cannot bring their names on open forum, but sure if you have access to someone in GTRE and other organisations you will get a gist). I am sure this is just your second attempt so there is nothing wrong in consulting.

Also the last 5% is the core of the engine, is where most countries stumble, so did the French when they built the M-53, if you read a bit of history. For a hint see GE and snecma's collabration.

My point is how did these countries get those oodles of practical empirical knowledge as you state. They had to start somewhere isn't it?

Quality comes to mind, and like I said somewhere on this forum, how many of those engineers you qoute best in the world stay back due to patriotic ( or any other compulsions ) to work and progress the indian industry?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Dec 2008 18:54

Iam wrote: I am sure this is just your second attempt so there is nothing wrong in consulting.

the first attempt was many moons back and any expertise generated was lost.
a failure of management rather than technical education.

kaveri is de-facto the first attempt. hand-holding is thus understandable.
other than whittle and the engineers at heinkel few can claim to have developed productionable engines un-assisted !

Iam wrote: Also the last 5% is the core of the engine, is where most countries stumble, so did the French when they built the M-53, if you read a bit of history. For a hint see GE and snecma's collabration.

am aware of that.
if GTRE is stuck at a phase that also claims more experienced victims like SNECMA than it did perform at least reasonably well.

Iam wrote: My point is how did these countries get those oodles of practical empirical knowledge as you state. They had to start somewhere isn't it?

of course ! the 'oodles' of knowledge was built on 'scores' of engine projects, many of them failures. for a nation that has just started the game it is creditable that it has come as far as it did without blowing a huge amount of money on failed projects.
a comparison of the costs of kaveri and similar projects in the west would be very enlightening indeed.
especially considering the fact that the background work was already complete at enormous cost in the west.

Iam wrote: Quality comes to mind, and like I said somewhere on this forum, how many of those engineers you qoute best in the world stay back due to patriotic ( or any other compulsions ) to work and progress the indian industry?

if we go by the output of the top ranked institutes, not many.
that however is no reason to doubt their capabilities. case in point, the chandrayaan project.
virtually none of the scientists in CY has studied in the top-tanked institutes or abroad.
their work however is definitely world class.

Mark Schwartzbard · Post by **Mark Schwartzbard** » 14 Dec 2008 19:12

This is what life has taught me ( of all white hairs on my head), why didn't the Indians learn from the mistakes of other developed ( I mean those that coceived project) nations, Is it GTRE pride or the govt pride? or should I say ego.

The only reason that comes to mind that the Kaveri project has costed less, is because of the fact that the consulting companies were ready to part with the less complicated and outdated technologies to GTRE. Please do some research here. ( like you see in most automobile industries ).

Regrading the Chandriyana project, much hard work has gone into the project and with such tight time scales, Three cheers to the ISRO scientist. But please do not forget the Russians, EADS and European space organisations who brought you on board during the years of helping hand. If you see the designs of many systems currently in use with ISRO, do not forget to ask where these arrived.? So three cheers to collabration as well.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Dec 2008 19:33

ego ? pride ? What has that got to do with non-continuation of an engine project ?
not sure we are on the same page here.

The only reason that comes to mind that the Kaveri project has costed less, is because of the fact that the consulting companies were ready to part with the less complicated and outdated technologies to GTRE. Please do some research here. ( like you see in most automobile industries ).

I see.
and those are ?
since I'm clearly lacking in this bit of information, I would need hard facts in support of this assertion.

Regrading the Chandriyana project, much hard work has gone into the project and with such tight time scales, Three cheers to the ISRO scientist. But please do not forget the Russians, EADS and European space organisations who brought you on board during the years of helping hand. If you see the designs of many systems currently in use with ISRO, do not forget to ask where these arrived.? So three cheers to collabration as well.

this is not the thread for discussion on ISRO. we can continue elsewhere if you want.
but yes I agree. similarly most of the credit for einstein's work should also go to the person who taught him the alphabets !
cheers !

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 14 Dec 2008 19:44

There are lot of lessons to be learnt from Kaveri:-

Kaveri has failed and new engine will be made, called Kaveri for H&D.

Now lets us tackle the usual bullshit arguments of DRDO-GTRE:-

It is tough and nobody in India did it before - No sh*t but then who else got 55 years and (interest capitalised) budget of Billions of dollars to make an engine

We are doing it for the first time - What about hundreds of engines license manufactured and consultation from numerous foreign labs for hundreds of millions of dollars in wasted money. 75% of the components of even indigenous Kaveri were imported

Pvt sector is equally incompetent - Not it is not, look at any sector where PSU & Pvt sector is competing, that Pvt sector beats them hands down. Eg-look at the vehicles made by Pvt sector and OFB.

We were just little distance away- Another lie, Kaveri produced only 70kn on after burn which is 15% away from 80kn and around 30% away from 90kn and 45% away from 100kn. And it also failed high altitude tests and all this before it is installed. So Kaveri was far far away. Note The improvement speed of engine tech is historically around One to Half percent annually, so 15% short fall + other short comings are huge.

Lesson

Pidly budget given over a slow drip will be complete waste. Kaveri was underfunded and red tape did the rest. Now the only thing is to select one of the two engines on order but 3 years have passed. Snecma JV has to be signed but it is being negotiated for last 2-3 years. So the delay is in file movement

Mark Schwartzbard · Post by **Mark Schwartzbard** » 14 Dec 2008 20:02

[quote]
I see.
and those are ?
since I'm clearly lacking in this bit of information, I would need hard facts in support of this assertion.
[quote]

Being a senior member, I thought you would have already known this. Many consulting companies in the defence industry sell technologies and capital systems - they don't advertise their customers though. This certainly will not show up in the media. What hard facts do you need, some media report? like I said in my earlier post do some research. If you have friends in GTRE go and see for yourself, how much of the keveri design components share the same technologies.(again emotions and patriotic feelings set apart)

Mark Schwartzbard · Post by **Mark Schwartzbard** » 14 Dec 2008 20:21

One of the most important lesson is to have competant project managers with a forseable timescale and budget.

[quote]Kaveri has failed and new engine will be made, called Kaveri for H&D. [quote]

Kaveri hasn't failed (since it's just a product), project management has failed.

Well if ISRO, being a govt organisation can deliver a project with shoe string budget and on time, why can't others follow. The answer lies some where else, ISRO has MOU with several countries to share technologies, how many did GTRE and DRDO have in defence sector?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Dec 2008 20:34

Iam, please use the quote option properly. all you have to do is select the portion you want to quote and click the 'quote' icon on top.

Being a senior member, I thought you would have already known this. Many consulting companies in the defence industry sell technologies and capital systems - they don't advertise their customers though. This certainly will not show up in the media. What hard facts do you need, some media report? like I said in my earlier post do some research. If you have friends in GTRE go and see for yourself, how much of the keveri design components share the same technologies.(again emotions and patriotic feelings set apart)

know what exactly ? that GTRE has received ToT from pvt companies abroad ?

if you have the facts please post them. even if it is from your personal experience we will treat it on its merit.

but it is hard to believe that something actually happened just because some companies have a history of such sales.
moreover, the sellers might not advertise them but a govt controlled lab would be under compulsion to announce any such activity, otherwise the penny-pinchers of accounts dept like CAG would have them by the b@ll$.
I reiterate, if you have the information please share it.

also, please cut down on the "emotional/patriotic feeling" tripe. ad hominem arguments can't be the stand in for logic.

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 14 Dec 2008 21:13

Iam wrote:Before you say anything about Kaveri and crack the hell out of DRDO, GTRE, please bring questions to ones mind.

a) How many automobile engines have India or for that matter any Indian private sector company developed from scratch for a simple Car or any automobile?. Right from the very begginning (Ambassador, Bullet 350cc etc ) to present day are all discarded Euro or someform of hybrid engines. I am not trying to disrespect Indians here. But take it with an open mind and investigate before you answer. Leave alone jet engines.

b) When ever India has developed the knowhow using technology transfer of any systems after throwing a hell lot of money, what has happened to these project. i.e the case for HDW subs.

c) Do you think the engineers who have been trained in high skilled jobs will want to stay back due to patriotic compulsions to continue their careers in DRDO or any Indian company, where do they land, in my backyard. ( not joking seriously I got Indian engineers living in my guest house )

d) Any govt organisation falls short of accountability as their jobs are secure. I call them lazy blood sucking leech. We have em in our country as well. Go to any postoffice in london you will find them, dime a dozen.

e) When you compare China throwing a lot of money around, and are now reaping the rewards, I say chaps read a bit of history, when the erstwhile Soviet Union broke up, where did the 5-10k engineers land.

You are so right. It is unfair to ask from DRDO, HAL and GTRE etc to deliver world class top of the line stuff. Fact is India has not had the industria backbone to support much of the demands.
But why do they lie to the Indian public and pretend that they can deliver? is it just to get funding and keep them selfs employed? Why not lower the ambitions to a realistc level.
Also the management principles need to change. GOI should try to learn from Singapore how to run the PSU's

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Dec 2008 21:55

Raj Malhotra wrote: Kaveri has failed and new engine will be made, called Kaveri for H&D.

failed to keep up with IAF's requirement creep, NOT failure to adhere to kaveri's original requirements.

Now lets us tackle the usual bullshit arguments of DRDO-GTRE:-

sure.

It is tough and nobody in India did it before - No sh*t but then who else got 55 years and (interest capitalised) budget of Billions of dollars to make an engine

no one. certainly not GTRE.

what exactly were the amounts provided to GTRE ? how much was given in lump sum allocations instead of wasteful trickles ?

an org can be provided 1 lakh every year and after 15 years it can be 'shown' (using the interest calculations) what a HUGE amount was provided. does such budget allocation actually achieve anything ?

in fact your own statement at the end of your post says as much.

We are doing it for the first time - What about hundreds of engines license manufactured and consultation from numerous foreign labs for hundreds of millions of dollars in wasted money. 75% of the components of even indigenous Kaveri were imported

when you don't have a robust industry backing your development effort of course you'll buy components from established manufacturers.
who in their right mind would set up a production line to cater for a dozen strength order book ?
btw, I don't think that manufacturing early gen turbofans engines under license (not much to do other than screwdriver tech unless you are ready to flout the license agreements) provides that much experience to design modern turbofans.
IAF's requirement or GTRE's mandate was NOT to produce a knock-off of the adour or the tumansky R-29 but to achieve performance beyond one of the best performing engine at the time.

given their performance I think it would have been much easier for GTRE to 'design' an Indian tumansky engine with some performance tweaks.

Pvt sector is equally incompetent - Not it is not, look at any sector where PSU & Pvt sector is competing, that Pvt sector beats them hands down. Eg-look at the vehicles made by Pvt sector and OFB.

strawman argument. the pvt sector won't pour even a tenth of the funding required by such a cutting edge project. which is understandable given the reluctance of Indian armed forces, especially the army but also the AF to not accept any desi product unless it gives western quality at chinese prices with russian ruggedness.

BTW, I'm sure we understand know that GTRE, which is a research lab and the OFB which is a collection of PSU's and hence can't be compared ? apples and oranges as they say ?

We were just little distance away- Another lie, Kaveri produced only 70kn on after burn which is 15% away from 80kn and around 30% away from 90kn and 45% away from 100kn.

( it is also 35% of 200 kN, 14% of 500 kN !)
so what ?
kaveri's design specifications were

Code: Select all

    * Thrust:
          o Military thrust (throttled):11,687 lbf (52.0 kN) [Goal: 13,500 lbf (60 kN)
          o Full afterburner:18,210 lbf (81.0 kN) [Goal: 20,200 lbf (90.0 kN)]
    * Specific fuel consumption:
          o Military thrust: 0.78 lb/(lbf•h) (79.52 kg/(kN·h))
          o Full afterburner: 2.03 lb/(lbf•h) (207.00 kg/(kN·h))
    * Thrust-to-weight ratio: 7.8 (76.0 N/kg)

the GOAL that you see in the right is in fact to accommodate IAF's mission creep. the original requirements were 52 kN and 81 kN respectively. you can't just ring them up one fine morning and say that "ummm, we want 15% more dry thrust and 11% more wet thrust" and expect that this will be done on the original schedule !

IAF did fail to predict its ASR into the future. even in the early 2000's they should have rectified the ASR in accordance with the threat perception and mission requirements.
Even now, the the vanilla kaveri would likely serve a A2A only LCA quite well.

and the reports did say 90% of requirements for one and 95% for the other.
I'm not sure the 70 kN figure is quite correct.

And it also failed high altitude tests and all this before it is installed. So Kaveri was far far away.

which is as it should be.
would you rather have the engines fail while fitted on to an aircraft ?
or do we suppose that there should be no failures/setbacks during testing phase ?
that would be some kind of a record !

these type of argument is more due to the open nature of Indian projects than anything else.
setbacks are the bread and butter of any top-end development effort.

to understand the difficulty of engine development let's consider a country with similar beginnings but with much more solid govt backing.
lets consider the chinese engine project for the j-11/j-10 for example.
the PLAAF has totally given up on the chinese copy of the AL-31, the ws-10 and the only other successful chinese engine is the kunlun, which is a modification of a 60's era turbojet that powered the su-15.
all this after as many as twenty-nine jet engine projects in an continuous effort spread over some 4-5 decades with full govt backing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ch ... ft_engines

Lesson

Pidly budget given over a slow drip will be complete waste. Kaveri was underfunded and red tape did the rest. Now the only thing is to select one of the two engines on order but 3 years have passed. Snecma JV has to be signed but it is being negotiated for last 2-3 years. So the delay is in file movement

so how is that "the usual bullshit arguments of DRDO-GTRE" ?
regards.

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 14 Dec 2008 22:34

in dry thrust kaveri has achieved 95% of stated thrust

gtre has spent 1300 crore of allocated 2800 crore on kaveri; they are not even overbudget. since engine has been delinked from LCA, they can develop 90-95 kn version of kaveri and use it for MCA or whatever purpose is deemed for use

this is kaveri mk2. kaveri mk1 will also be develop and available for UAV, navalization and other requirements

while current LCA which needs higher thrust engine, either uses GE414 or EJ200 for the immediate future and which will also be license produced at HAL (which is the plan)

people are getting upset over no reason at all
one way or other seven squadron of LCA are required by IAF per IAF statement (8 LSP with Ge404 F2J3, 20 LCA with GEIN20 and remaining six squadron with GE414/EJ200)

one way or other kaveri is not given up and there are sufficient funds to complete development of both basic kaveri as well as advanced kaveri for future use

one way or other LCA airframe requirement are also met by licensed production of higher thrust engine (EJ200/GE414)

still people are unhappy?

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 14 Dec 2008 23:44

What are the export chances for LCA (boss I DO know the aircraft still hasnt cleared FOC)? am just thinking on the lines of amortization, reduction of unit cost price etc with export of LCA.....

I see that a lot of countries have F-7/Mig-21 aircraft in their inventory. LCA would only be the natural choice for them...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Dec 2008 23:49

nto much I think. LCA is after all a comparatively complex a/c for the operators of f-7/mig-21.
also India has yet to cut its teeth as a supplier in such markets with bread and butter items.

jf-17 would be a good bet if they find a way to ensure engine supply. being chinese and cheap.

for that matter why would these countries want to replace the fishbeds in the first place ?

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 14 Dec 2008 23:54

Rahul M wrote:nto much I think. LCA is after all a comparatively complex a/c for the operators of f-7/mig-21.
also India has yet to cut its teeth as a supplier in such markets with bread and butter items.

jf-17 would be a good bet if they find a way to ensure engine supply. being chinese and cheap.

for that matter why would these countries want to replace the fishbeds in the first place ?

Fatigue factor of the airframes of their aircraft considering the fact that most the a/c would have been procured in 70's/80's and early 90s?

Also JF-17's achille's heel is the engine as you mentioned. Moreover, if our sales guys pitch well and convince the current operators of Jf-17 and Mig-21 that its a natural progression in technology and operational ease with costs being pretty much same as other aircraft in class then they would have done well...

I just realized that I put the export question of LCA in the Kaveri thread...my mistake...it was intended for the LCA thread...

Mark Schwartzbard · Post by **Mark Schwartzbard** » 15 Dec 2008 01:59

Rahul M wrote: but it is hard to believe that something actually happened just because some companies have a history of such sales.
moreover, the sellers might not advertise them but a govt controlled lab would be under compulsion to announce any such activity, otherwise the penny-pinchers of accounts dept like CAG would have them by the b@ll$.

Really, show me a CAG report stating, how much India paid for the consultation fees for Jaguar engines ? or even the Dhruv engines.?

I'll give you an example of how vague CAG reports are, which you can readilly find on google.

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
7.4.1 Loss of interest due to abnormal delay in realisation of deferred revenue expenditure

Abnormal delay in realisation of deferred revenue expenditure from the Ministry of Defence resulted in loss of interest of Rs.6.68 crore.

The Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (Company) envisaged (July 1991) deferred revenue expenditure (DRE) of Rs.13.72 crore in setting up facilities for the overhaul of Adour engines. The DRE was intended to meet the cost of fabrication of additional/new tools, technical assistance fee, etc. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) sanctioned (April 1994) reimbursement of DRE to the Company. Further, MOD also allowed (September 1997), the reimbursement of DRE in full on proof of incurrence of expenditure alongwith a profit of 7.5 per cent in terms of fixed price quotation.

The Company incurred a total DRE of Rs.13.12 crore including profit upto 1997-98. The Company initially preferred (December 1994) a substantially lesser claim for Rs.3.63 crore belatedly against its actual dues of Rs.9.43 crore. It also put forth (October 1995) another claim for Rs.2.68 crore against its actual dues of Rs.7.46 crore. These two claims were settled for Rs.3.51 crore and Rs.2.16 crore in March 1995 and March 1996 respectively. The Company lodged (August 2002) the final claim for Rs.7.45 crore after a gap of four years though the total DRE had been fully incurred by 1997-98 (The amount was received in March 2004). As the Company was incurring DRE regularly upto 1997-98, it should have raised claim periodically for the full amount by providing proof of expenditure incurred rather than claiming part of the amount belatedly. The avoidable abnormal delay, coupled with preferment of lesser claims, resulted in blocking of net funds to the extent of Rs.7.45 crore and consequent loss of interest of Rs.6.68 crore upto March 2004.

The Accounts Manual of the Company places responsibility on the ‘Receivable section’ to ensure timely raising of the invoices in accordance with the Government letters relating to such payments. The ‘Receivable section’ failed to raise timely claim on MOD for claiming the DRE. Moreover, the Internal Audit Wing of the Company also failed to point out the lapse while carrying out System Audit.

The Management stated (April 2004) that the claim was preferred after receipt of debits from Foundry and Forge Division and after a review of outstanding DRE. It was further stated that loss of interest pointed out was notional. The Ministry endorsed (July 2004) the views of the Management.

The reply is not acceptable as details of the DRE were available within the Company; as such, delay in lodging the claim with MOD was avoidable. Further, the loss of interest is not notional as the Company could have invested the funds and earned interest thereon had the amount been claimed for reimbursement as and when incurred.

Thus, abnormal delay in realisation of DRE resulted in a loss of interest of Rs.6.68 crore.

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 15 Dec 2008 03:33

A question here.

What if the demnds for the LCA was dropped to a realistic level. Could it not fulfill some of the roles.

Perhaps act as a point defence fighter, or a A2G in under the protection of MKI.

I think we can learn 2 things from Marut. Firstly it would have made sence to pay RR for developing a more powerful engine and got some minor development role.(Imagine if GTRE had started from that stage). Second lesson is perhaps that India should have kept building and improveing upon Marut. That would have provided a Kaveri.good platform for the LCA. This time India had to start from scratch. Some here seems to be very dissapointed with LCA and Kaveri. But one has to bear in mind that they started from scratch. My understanding is that they did not even have wind tunnels.

What ever happnes, it is important not to give up, but just keep going and improveing.

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 15 Dec 2008 09:57

Rishirishi wrote:A question here.

What if the demnds for the LCA was dropped to a realistic level. Could it not fulfill some of the roles.
Perhaps act as a point defence fighter, or a A2G in under the protection of MKI.

i had been advocating this for a long time ADA could have dedicated a Prototype for purely A2A role and all A2A tests including AoA and all G's,weapon testin etc.this would have given IAF some good hope and would have ordered few more than they plan now,meanwhile full A2G and other ASR's could be met in next version

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Dec 2008 16:38

I agree.Read my post in the LCA thread,which is a repetition in part of many previous posts.We learnt nothing from the HF-24 debacle,where an excellent design suffered because no suitable powerplant was available.Later on,two decades later,the same mistake was made and we tried to develop the Kaveri without the required design and technological base.Gy the start of the kaveri project,composites and advanced metallurgy began to play an ever increasing part in the aerospace industry.We were simply too far behind to catch up and still are sadly.

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 15 Dec 2008 17:22

I agree Philip, its our lack of foresight and planning which has come back and bit us.
I wonder though what kind of materials and technologies will be required for the next generation of engines for planes and other vehicles on land, sea, air or space.
Its especially materials engineering where we need to cover up a lot, apart from seeker and sensor tech.
Still in LCA the amount of mistakes have not been of the same magnitude, and prudent decisions have been taken time to time. An interim engine was chosen much faster and a follow-on improved version developed by the same company was asked too. The IN-20 is the fruit of someone's foresight or afterthought. Lets see how fast they take the next engine and engine development decisions and how fast the process of getting it flying happens. but yes the mistakes are there, eerily similar and making even a diehard faithful know that something is amiss with the project management.
GTRE managers have lied to the public time and again, resulting in a loss of credibility of disastrous proportions, one wonders how long it will take for us to regain faith in that institution.

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 15 Dec 2008 19:19

Well if the baby is born lame, one has to provide crutches.

Why doesnt GTRE focus more on KMGT now that there is little hope of the Kaveri in its airborne avatar. Maybe they can develop a self contained containerised version of the KMGT that can simply be lowered into the hull of a ship, ith just a few cables to connect, and also be taken out as simply a-la US Navy style.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 16 Dec 2008 05:03

narayana wrote:
Rishirishi wrote:A question here.

What if the demnds for the LCA was dropped to a realistic level. Could it not fulfill some of the roles.
Perhaps act as a point defence fighter, or a A2G in under the protection of MKI.
i had been advocating this for a long time ADA could have dedicated a Prototype for purely A2A role and all A2A tests including AoA and all G's,weapon testin etc.this would have given IAF some good hope and would have ordered few more than they plan now,meanwhile full A2G and other ASR's could be met in next version

Is the threat of a strikingly painful CAG report on the inadequacies of a multi-role aircraft (our dear LCA) in the A2G role after its induction in the current state is what is stopping the IAF from going ahead with the induction for a A2A role only LCA in its current configuration???

Also I thinking in strictly sticking to its ASRs (which change often of course) the IAF is clearly sending out a message to any future potential vendor that the ASRs can never be tweaked to their convenience....

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 16 Dec 2008 09:40

Talking of foresight and planning, why isn't anyone thinking about taking the research to educational institutions?

So many deemed universities and new colleges are coming up in almost every Indian state. The following are some of the advantages of popularizing and funding research in universities:
- Students are used to working on puny budgets and that would bring the best creativity and cost effectiveness
- Students can run to US or UK in the middle of a PhD
- More planning from the GTRE or DRDO can actually guide students on their areas of interests - try to find parallels between requirements and student interests.

Again comparison with China here shows us to be dismal. Number of projects being done in chinese universities and number or Chinks going to US and europe for advanced studies is way higher than India.

Another important problem is universities finding grants from private companies. Unless private sector is included in a big way, they wont have any incentive to provide grants for universities. Also there is the issue of copyrights and patents..

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Dec 2008 18:32

************************Attention*************************

one of our esteemed members will be going to GTRE shortly and will have access to the people who have the answers we seek.

that member is currently compiling a list of questions to be asked.
If you have questions (even technical ones) about kaveri or about engine development in India in general don't hesitate to put them here.
If you would rather not put them in public you can also email those to me and I'll forward them.
thanks and regards.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 23 Dec 2008 18:58

GTRE is developing a small cruise missile engine (apart from PTAE-7), what is the progress?

Is GTRE developing turboprop (aircrafts) and turboshaft engine (helo)?

Is GTRE developing AJT engine variant of kaveri?

Whether JV with Snecma signed? what is the time line for this JV?

Whether JV will cover future engines like for MCA?

Whether JV will cover addition of TVC?

What happened to variants of kaveri for Passenger jets & MTA?

Whether advanced labs and engine testing facilites are being built so that engines don't have to be sent abroad?

Is it true that Kaveri JV will be developed abroad? How many Indian scientists and engineers will go there?

Will the production line be also set up by JV?

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 23 Dec 2008 19:00

I request Raj saar to accompany the esteemed member to GTRE

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Dec 2008 19:22

Vikram_S wrote:in dry thrust kaveri has achieved 95% of stated thrust
..
still people are unhappy?

yes, me. i am not happy kaveri going seeking intl partner. they must burn the budget by themselves and learn the hard way.. i don't mind them getting few 100 crores more.

Dhanush · Post by **Dhanush** » 24 Dec 2008 03:37

I spotted something very interesting in wikipedia on Kaveri's current status. Although the news is not referenced, I thing there is some serious work going on behind scenes w.r.t single crystal blades and also Kaveri derivatives.

Current status
The Kaveri is still in development, and reports indicate that it will be ready to fly by 2009. Testing and certification for use on the Tejas is expected to take some more time after that. Till then, the first two squadrons of Tejas will be powered by the GE404 engine.

Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister M Natarajan said nearly 90 to 93 per cent of the expected performance had been realised and the government had recently floated an expression of interest to seek partners to move the programme further[9]

DRDO has reportedly been able to develop single crystal blades, which represent a major technological achievement for engine development. Production and integrating this technology into the engine is expected to take some more time.

Kaveri has already undergone 1,700 hours of tests and has been sent twice to Russia to undergo high-altitude tests for which India has no facility. The engine is also being tested to power the next generation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.

In September 2008, it was announced that the Kaveri would not be ready in time for the Tejas, and that an in-production powerplant would have to selected. Development of the Kaveri by the GRTE would continue for other future applications.

It was announced in November 2008 that the Kaveri engine will be installed on LCA by December 2009,apparantly for tests only.

maitya · Post by **maitya** » 24 Dec 2008 06:07

Rahul M wrote:************************Attention*************************

one of our esteemed members will be going to GTRE shortly and will have access to the people who have the answers we seek.
that member is currently compiling a list of questions to be asked.
If you have questions (even technical ones) about kaveri or about engine development in India in general don't hesitate to put them here.
If you would rather not put them in public you can also email those to me and I'll forward them.
thanks and regards.

at last, somebody is making good of the invitation extended quite some back

some queries that comes to mind,
1) Any serious attempt is being made to resolve the mass flow problem? Would that be enough to resolve the wet thrust shortfall issue?
2) Any progress on productionising the SC balde technology?
3) Did we ever fly engine on "high altitude" Tu testbed?
4) Any higher thrust "growth" version being planned?

Santosh · Post by **Santosh** » 24 Dec 2008 09:12

What has been achieved by K9 till now?
When is it expected to be integrated with Tejas?
What is being targeted with K10?