Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1596
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Gyan »

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

As always pls take the thrust figures with a pinch of salt as atrocious assumptions like 100% efficiency gains etc are assumed - but is a good tool for comparative analysis etc.
Re Maitya, if you are able to put in estimated weight, size and sfc of the engine then this chart will become way more informative (especially for lay persons like me)
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Austin »

chetak wrote: India has always been plagued by lack of engines starting with the HF 24 project.

IIRC, The amrekis went to great lengths to take out an engine factory in egypt with the help of the israelis. We were hoping to enter an airframe for engine swap seal with these guys.

If the core technology is tech transferred to us, the India engine market will dry up forever. So there is a serious cartel to keep this from happening.

M88 core may come but maybe also with serious limiting conditions.
We have under invested in Engine Program from inception , A new aircraft takes around 15 years from inception to production and every thing in between a new engine takes around 20 years , so before you start with new aircraft you have to start work on new engines 5 years in advance.

There is no Cartel globally to prevent Engine Tech Transfer like MTCR or NPT but every one knows how important is engine technology to them and no one wants to give away their hard earned sweat and blood on the platter , Nor will India gain any thing if any one gave us Engine Technology over the platter and even our technology scope will be limited to how that other guy came about their solution without finding our own path and perhaps a better one. So we need to invest and Try Fail Try before we succeed.

We always blame why the other guys are not giving us x y or z Technology as if its our birth right to get it if we pay money , When we wont share such technology with other if were our own crown jewel of technology

Its only when we achieve parity with Technology has experience shows the other guy wants to give Full TOT with no holds bar because they know we have reached that milestone.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Vivek K »

From the discussions here and the opposition to local products it is clear that India will never be a nation able to project its capabilities beyond its boundaries. The only use for India's half-modern- half archaic armed forces is - national defence and perhaps a few "sexy exercises". An air force with 6 refuellers (@ about 30% availability), very limited AWACS (little or no airspace control) and a significant number of frontline fighters from the 60s (Mig-21s), an army with derelict and non-functioning MBTs (T-72s), a navy with less than 10 functional subs at a given time. The Navy is perhaps in the best shape of the lot as long as you only consider the surface fleet. ASW and airspace control are a mess.

Lackeys of foreign companies have spread propaganda like - we won all previous wars with imported weapons, DRDO cannot produce a needle, the LCA = Late Combat aircraft. Forgotten are the significant delays and slippages of the MKI program, hidden from the public eye are the low serviceability rates of roosi weapons. We have amazing examples of individuals here that unashamedly hawk roosi products over domestic and bring their brochures out to gloss over all shortcomings - promise the moon and deliver crap (Mig-29k being a case in point).

So for its vision of the future, India would be OK with the engine being hawked here - a fake indigenous Kaveri - perhaps we could put an Indian cover on the F414 or the M88 or a roosi engine and call it the Kaveri. How does it matter? When there is a war, the politicians will limit the air force to not crossing the LAC or the LOC. The only requirement is that the engine should allow the LCA to fly to Alaska for Red Flag with the only available refueller. IFR is mandatory because without it, the LCA could never reach Alaska to fly in the red flag exercises.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by abhik »

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

Here is the list of small turbofan/turbojet engine projects in India
Indranil wrote: 1. 0.30-0.45 kN : HAL (for Abhyas HEAT) and other UAVs
2. 1 kN (turbojet) : NAL
3. 2.75 kN (turbojet) : Upcoming RCI/NAL: This will be a formal step up , project completion of NAl's 1kN effort (part of the 12th 5-year plan)
4. Manik class: 4 kN - HAL/NAL/GTRE: For Nirbhay (formerly called Laghu shakti) upgradable to 7kN (according to SJha).
5. PTAE-7 engine : 4 kN (turbojet): HAL
Also, the Kalyani group is designing and testing engines of up to 2.5 kN class by using retired GTRE folks.
There was also a report of another private company that was investing 20cr on its own small jet engine.
DrRatnadip
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 31 Dec 2016 00:40

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by DrRatnadip »

Kaveri engine for Locomotives is turning out to be up hill task for Indian Railways: A Report

http://idrw.org/kaveri-engine-for-locom ... -a-report/

Indian Railways for a while has been flirting with ideas to develop a liquefied natural gas based turbine electric engine derived out of GTRE’s Kaveri engine to power its next generation locomotives in its efforts to reduce its carbon foot print and to move towards greener and eco friendly next generation locomotives for Indian Railways in next few decades . A High-level sub-committee dealing with the project has been brain storming with experts from various fields and still are having discussions with DRDO’s associated labs and even with Russian Railways for collaboration since they are regarded as Global leaders in the development and use of gas-turbine engines in their locomotives. High Ranking Railway official associated with the project explained to idrw.org what are the technological challenges behind the project and several bottlenecks project is likely to face even though the Project is still in infancy stage since High-level sub-committee is yet to submit a detailed project report on it. Gas-turbine Locomotive Technology Russia has Succesful developed and demonstrated most powerful gas-turbine based locomotive in the world when they converted NK-32 engine used in Tu-160 strategic bombers to develop the NK-361 engine which was adapted to be used as LNG gas-turbine unit for Locomotives. NK-361 engine generates 8.3 mega watts of power and can accelerate to a speed of up to 100 kilometres per hour and cover 750 km on a full tank of fuel. Indian Railways is very keen on acquiring this engines for its locomotives which can help later India develop Kaveri based gas-turbine engines but found some technical deficiencies with the engine. NK-361 engines based locomotives are largely used in the Extreme North where weather conditions are usually cold and Russian developers for that reasons carried out modification on the engine to work in harsh cold conditions of Russia, but in India, it is likely to face extreme heat and humid conditions which will require modification of the engine to work in Indian Hot Humid weather conditions for which Russian company has agreed, only if India gives order commitment for 300 locomotives .
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5722
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Kartik »

Austin wrote:It doesnt matter if the engine is 60 % indiginous with new French Core as DRDO Chief says it or other wise , The larger point he was trying to make is the new Engine with French Core will have significant Indian content derived from Kaveri Program.

In the same interview he mentions that Tejas will need 3 engine change during its life time and if DRDO Engine with French core meets the requirement then they would replace the US engine with Indian one.

Kaveri in original specs and purpose has failed and this is the 2nd best thing DRDO could come up with to meet Tejas and in future AMCA engine requirement , One can argue if we are close to 60 % or 10 % when the core is french but it is better than having 100 % foreign engine of US origin when Indian Engine can replace those.
Austin, any chance you could email that interview of Dr Christopher?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by ramana »

chetak, The UK offered the Bristol Siddley engine used for the Blackburn for some crores and were rebuffed.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by chetak »

ramana wrote:chetak, The UK offered the Bristol Siddley engine used for the Blackburn for some crores and were rebuffed.
Bristol-Siddeley and Blackburn are company names, saar.

Which aero engine and aircraft specifically did you mean??

we did use the Bristol-Siddeley's older engine, the Orpheus-703 for the marut which is exactly why we hunted around desperately for other engines to replace it and knowing this, we were deliberately blocked, first by the amerkis, and later by an informal cartel so that their business was not affected
The British company had first offered the more powerful Orpheus- 12 engine ... India had to accept Bristol-Siddeley's older engine, the Orpheus-703
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=eOg ... ia&f=false
Military Capacity and the Risk of War: China, India, Pakistan, and Iran
edited by Eric H. Arnett
samirdiw
BRFite
Posts: 184
Joined: 18 Jul 2017 22:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by samirdiw »

Would it be wise to develop a twin engine medium weight fighter of 4/4.5 generation with current Kaveri (81kn) and current Indian available technologies?

- With twin engines wouldn't the Max thrust per engine be lower than typical needed for a single Engine. e.g. Raphael uses M88 (75kn) and Migs use RD-33 (81k + 7%) which are close to Kaveri
- Basic structure can be made as close to possible AMCA as possible for carry over (need not match 100% so that it is not delayed)
- use only what is available now as Indian tech (radar, flight control systems, missiles)
- Every year a slightly upgraded version of the fighter is rolled out with whatever new is developed in that year
- Kaveri engine is continually upgraded including feedback from the active use in the fighters
- in the interim can we ask for additional few Raphaels fitted with M88 + Kaveri and in a subsequent order both fitted with Kaveri?
- AMCA could be a separate project parallel or later and use the learnings from the above

Anything wrong with the above approach?
maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 622
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by maitya »

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

As always pls take the thrust figures with a pinch of salt as atrocious assumptions like 100% efficiency gains etc are assumed - but is a good tool for comparative analysis etc.
Re Maitya, if you are able to put in estimated weight, size and sfc of the engine then this chart will become way more informative (especially for lay persons like me)
Gyanji, the estimated SFC is provided in the chart itself (last but 1 row - you can see "the baseline engine" column value matches quite closely what is provided here).
However there are some interesting "unknowns" ... for example the mass inflow rate (your question above, actually "raked up" this question that I've had in my mind for long time).

Let me elaborate a little ...
Well you see, GTRE et all are claiming two things ... inlet dia to be ~31inch (=0.7874m) and the mass-inflow rate is 78kg/sec.

Now simple back of the envelope calc would give us Mass Flow Rate = Cross-section area x air density x air speed
(NOTE: as "seen" by the engine and not outside air-speed - a turbofan works most efficiently around 0.6-0.7M air in-flow speed, so there are elaborate mechanism is place in the air-intake duct to slow-down the air to those levels etc.)

Assuming Air-density to be 0.8kg/m3 (at approx 3.5Km altitude) and air speed to be 250m/sec, we would get a Mass flow rate of ~97Kg/sec - and not 78Kg/sec as claimed by GTRE.

So either the air-inlet-speed is way lower than 0.6-0.7M (maybe ~0.4M) or there are some other aspects that we don't know (which is fair-enough, given the startegic nature of the program itself).
What makes this more interesting is such a lower air-speed may have been a deliberate design decision maybe catering to the flat-rated unobtanium requirement (this may actually be self-imposed, and may not have actually come from IAF SQRs - I don't know).


Added to this, is this recently-reported-scam of replace-the-kabini-core-by-the-M88-core ... which is now being sugar-coated with throwaway statement like 60% indigenous etc ...

Well, all cores are designed with a certain core-inflow value in mind and M88-core etc wouldn't have "self-imposed-constraints" like flat-rating etc.
And thus would expect a certain higher mass-flow rate to churn out similar thrust figures ... with those mass-flow rates, Kaveri itself could, theoretically (refer to the chart above), churn out higher much higher thrust values.
Yes of course, without corresponding improvement in TeT and OPR values, the Thermal efficiency, and thus the SFC, would suffer when you use the brute mass-flow route to increase thrust.


See the dilemma/contradiction!!!
Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1596
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Gyan »

Re Maitya, the more one looks at Kaveri programme, the more questions it poses. If your assumptions are correct than with Higher Bypass Ratio, 115kn Kaveri may be more closer than it seems.
vnms
BRFite
Posts: 196
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:56

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by vnms »

samirdiw wrote:Would it be wise to develop a twin engine medium weight fighter of 4/4.5 generation with current Kaveri (81kn) and current Indian available technologies?

- With twin engines wouldn't the Max thrust per engine be lower than typical needed for a single Engine. e.g. Raphael uses M88 (75kn) and Migs use RD-33 (81k + 7%) which are close to Kaveri
- Basic structure can be made as close to possible AMCA as possible for carry over (need not match 100% so that it is not delayed)
- use only what is available now as Indian tech (radar, flight control systems, missiles)
- Every year a slightly upgraded version of the fighter is rolled out with whatever new is developed in that year
- Kaveri engine is continually upgraded including feedback from the active use in the fighters
- in the interim can we ask for additional few Raphaels fitted with M88 + Kaveri and in a subsequent order both fitted with Kaveri?
- AMCA could be a separate project parallel or later and use the learnings from the above

Anything wrong with the above approach?
I had posed this same question eons ago and did not get a satisfactory answer.

I think that the efforts to build a new plane around twin Kaveri engines would more or less be the same as, say, designing the new AMCA. May be, that is a reasoning behind not pursuing this option. With the limited resources, it might be better off spending those on a more workable solution as the engine is a proven one(414).

May be private companies can get involved in this. But I doubt there will be any takers with an guarantee that IAF would buy the product. Catch 22 situation. Sigh!

May be, if the government can fund this as a parallel effort with private companies, it might be doable.

A better solution would be to concentrate on UCAVs with Kaveri engine. Build 100s of those suckers. Lower risk and no loss of precious lives in case of failures. That should the futures.

Now, I better wake up and get me some fresh brewed coffee!
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Indranil »

AMCA will be less aerodynamically efficient (in clean config) than Rafale/Mig-29. AMCA like other 5th gen will have higher empty weight, internal fuel capacity and TWR. If you put all of this together, you can realize why AMCA needs a thrust of 200-230 kN.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Singha »

Some Design Issues With India’s Kaveri Jet Engine
http://www.delhidefencereview.com/2017/ ... et-engine/
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Russia Helping India Complete Kaveri Engine Project: Rosoboronexport
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/20335/ ... oronexport
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10195
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by sum »

“One of the most vivid illustrations (In Indo-Russian scientific partnership) is the KAVERI Indian aircraft engine. We have been involved in its development, modification and trials. The project is about to be over soon,” Alexander Mikheev, Director General of Rosoboronexport said in a statement today.
:eek: :eek:
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Rakesh »

That is Vodka talking. Don't be shocked.
Kakarat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2225
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Kakarat »

Saurav Jha‏ @SJha1618
Kaveri-Marine demonstrated up to 12 MW in tests. But could not sustain rated power for extended periods.
It seems the post has been deleted by Saurav Jha‏
Last edited by Kakarat on 26 Aug 2017 01:38, edited 1 time in total.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Indranil wrote:AMCA will be less aerodynamically efficient (in clean config) than Rafale/Mig-29. AMCA like other 5th gen will have higher empty weight, internal fuel capacity and TWR. If you put all of this together, you can realize why AMCA needs a thrust of 200-230 kN.
But AMCA will have advantage over Rafale/Mig 29 in loaded configuration, no?

Because of carrying everything inside, AMCA will have no drag penalty, while Rafale/Mig 29 will have drag penalty due to drag.
samirdiw
BRFite
Posts: 184
Joined: 18 Jul 2017 22:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by samirdiw »

Got it that AMCA needs an engine that does exist now. While that gets built/bought/designed/takes ages how about going for a twin engine fighter (not AMCA but a 4/4.5) for now using Kaveri(with the basic issues mentioned above solved) that will be able to take on a good portion of Chinese AF?

As there isn't any additional tech needed for that we don't have now it would mean quicker induction as well as a drastic increase in self-reliance that will be a much larger force factor against any country. 300 of these would be a great addition to the air force. There would also be much learning there that can be applied for the next generation. A successful project with reasonable goals will be also a great boost to the scientist and to the IAF on the Indian capabilities.

AMCA project can take its own sweet time as 5th generation without having much impact on capability at that time.

Think Prithvi 1 - Agni 5. Slowly by slowly, we increased the distance and other capabilities. Directly jumping to Agni 5 capabilities could have meant a higher risk of failure to reach that as well as gaps all along the way (similar to the constant gaps the IAF mentions about its air strength).

Wouldnt this approach of launching a twin engine 4/4.5 first be more practical and result oriented?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by brar_w »

GE reveals major achievements in hybrid electric propulsion

GE Aviation has broken a two-year silence on a major research project in hybrid electric propulsion with a new white paper that discloses several major advances demonstrated in two experiments since 2015 and that confirms the company is in talks with several potential aircraft makers about using the new technology.

Among traditional propulsion suppliers, Honeywell and Rolls-Royce have been most outspoken about efforts to develop new hybrid propulsion technology. Both companies have partnered to develop a 1MW-class hybrid propulsion system for the Aurora Flight Sciences XV-24A, a demonstrator for the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

But GE has been working quietly behind the scenes to build the foundational technology for a similar 1MW-sized powerplant with broad applications across military, commercial, business and general aviation markets, according to a white paper published by the company on 25 August.During two events staged since 2015, GE demonstrated major advances in two key ingredients of any hybrid propulsion system: power generation and electric motors, the document shows.

In the area of power generation, GE modified an F110 engine, a propulsion option for the Boeing F-15 and Lockheed Martin F-16, to generate 1MW of electric power. By siphoning compressed air from the core, GE extracted 250kW from the high-pressure turbine and – in and industry first for a two-shaft engine – 750kW from the low-pressure turbine, according to the white paper.

As a megawatt of electric power is equivalent to 1,341hp, the F110 still has plenty of thrust to continue powering even in a single-engined aircraft. A single F110 can generate up to 32,000lb-thrust, which is equivalent to 44,300hp.


By extracting electric power from both modules of the turbine section, GE has created an architecture with a broad array of potential future applications, including military programmes with an interest in laser weapons.

After generating the electric power, GE also has demonstrated an advanced electric motor designed by the company’s research centre in a separate project, according to GE’s white paper. The 1MW motor drove a propeller designed by Dowty, another GE subsidiary. When coupled with a gas generator, such a hybrid propulsion system could produce the same thrust as a large version of the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A turboshaft engine.

The motor itself represents the state of the art in efficiently converting electricity into power. Whereas most aviation motors are designed to achieve 90% efficiency, the new motor demonstrated by GE is 98% efficient, the white paper claims. Importantly, such efficiency means a 1MW motor produces only 20kW of waste heat, rather than at least 100kW if a conventional aviation motor is used. GE has not revealed the size or weight of the device.

“With these two tests over the past two years, GE engineers have set a new benchmark for the aviation industry by extracting a megawatt of power from a modern jet engine while also generating thrust – and also by extracting a megawatt of power from an electric motor in order to drive a propeller,” the white paper says.

By comparison, the Boeing 787 uses six generators to produce a maximum load of 1.4MW of electric power, which the aircraft uses to provide power for de-icing the wing and engine nacelles and pressurising the cabin.

In the future, the aviation industry is contemplating the feasibility of hybrid-electric power systems for a broad range of aircraft, including up to about 150 seats. Airbus has outlined a technology roadmap that leads to a narrowbody-sized hybrid electric demonstrator in about 20 years. Meanwhile, Boeing has teamed up with JetBlue Technology Ventures to fund Zunum Aero, which is designing a hybrid-electric business aircraft and 50-seat regional jet to fly in the early 2020s.

“GE Aviation is currently engaging with several prospective companies on hybrid electric aircraft concepts,” the company says in the white paper.

Meanwhile, GE in 2013 opened a $51 million Electrical Power Integrated System Center (EpisCenter) in Dayton, Ohio. The facility is sized to test electric power systems ranging in size from 500kW to 2.5MW.

“This allows customers to transfer risk and cost to GE, while working to minimise both at entry into service,” the document says.
samirdiw
BRFite
Posts: 184
Joined: 18 Jul 2017 22:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by samirdiw »

The issues delineated above have been deemed rectifiable by those in the know. But it seems outside consultancy support will be needed for the same.
Why do they keep saying this shit? Why not just say it needs ~X funds and ~Y time to fix it internally. Constantly needing outsiders to fix our internal R&D problems is not a good approach. Since the last time, the issues were identified what has been the progress made?
Vivek K wrote:From the discussions here and the opposition to local products it is clear that India will never be a nation able to project its capabilities beyond its boundaries. The only use for India's half-modern- half archaic armed forces is - national defence and perhaps a few "sexy exercises".
It's frustrating and the armed forces, govt, and govt owned defense companies all seem to have arrived at a happy balance with no one interested in changing the status quo. Apparently importing defense weaponry has become an "integral" part of foreign policy.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by NRao »

Vivek K wrote:From the discussions here and the opposition to local products it is clear that India will never be a nation able to project its capabilities beyond its boundaries. The only use for India's half-modern- half archaic armed forces is - national defence and perhaps a few "sexy exercises".
Here is my understanding, based on open source:

1) The "French" have agreed to complete the "last mile" problems associated with the Kaveri. This Kaveri should be equivalent to the GE F-404 IN20 (84 kN). Safran claims they will test it on a LCA by 2018 end (needs verification)
2) The GE F414 INS6 is up and about - delivered 2, 6 to go - (98 kN)
3) Via DTTI, GE India (NOT GTRE) and GE US are uprating the DE F-414 INS6 (for the AMCA - as we know it). The last I came across the target thrust was 110 kN (SJha reports 115 kN). I expect this engine by end of 2018 or so - not sure if that will include testing/certidication

These are "operational" engines.

4) Would like to add the engine being developed for the PAK-FA to this list too - but it is not operational yet. But, I think India will sign for the FGFA ONLY if this engine pans out. (I think India waits to at least mid 2018, perhaps early 2019, to sign the FGFA deal - BUT, only if that new engine is good as advertised.)

There is - as I understand it - some effort, within India, to push some version of teh Kaveri for other purposes (Marine, etc).

I think one (or more) private player/s (Bharat Forge?) have already invested in an "engine".

What I would like to see is a major investment (some $5/more billion) in the engine area - material sciences, manufacturing techniques, supply chain, support, etc. Both from the public and private sectors. Even with such an investment it should take some 20-30 years for all this to mature.

Unless India invests in real large amounts - amount to match the purchase of SE/Rafale/etc, India will not be able to develop *contemporary engines* (they will be able to produce "an" engine, which I doubt will be able to support the expectations of the IAF).



Finally, I did see a post comparing Indian efforts (to fund an engine) with that of UAE funding teh F-16. I do not see such a comparison being valid. Yes, India is paying to get over some problems, but, if one were to follow the DTTI efforts carefully they ALL are JVs and from what I have read so far they are structured with a LOT more discussions before they decide what exactly needs to be done. In the case of #3 the US SD has actually modified its export laws to accommodate the export of certain techs to make the uprating happen. This is not a trivial matter from the US side and also from the Indian side. For India, unlike the UAE, HAS good engineers - real good I may add. The GE engineers in India are not only the largest group outside the US, they actually deal with all the top GE engines. And, there are 700 of them (of a total of 5000+ employees in B'luru). Besides GE has started a manufacturing unit in Pune, which was expected to produce the INS6. I really no reason why the new uprated engine for the AMCA cannot be manufactured in India from day one.

The point/focus of this last para is about Indian technical brains - India has plenty and looks to me they just needed a nudge. Once these brains experience the US + French efforts they will figure out the rest. Yet, India needs to invest heavily to keep this momentum going.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by JayS »

Interesting news. Here they have taken out air from HPC/LPC. IMO eventually we will see integrated electric motors in the jet engine itself.

The civil application will depend upon overall system level efficiency in terms of weight, energy efficiency and reliability. It would boost "all electric" aircraft concept. But the immediate application of interest for mil seems to be directed energy weapons. A key thing is the significantly reduced waste heat in the energy conversion. This should help the 6th gen engine technology to some extent where waste heat management would be a key challenge, both from electricity generation as well as from the weapons themselves.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

samirdiw wrote:Why do they keep saying this shit? Why not just say it needs ~X funds and ~Y time to fix it internally. Constantly needing outsiders to fix our internal R&D problems is not a good approach. Since the last time, the issues were identified what has been the progress made?
What if they are simply unable to guarantee a timeline as you are suggesting. Just continue with the research with no end in sight? It's not as though drdo and it's affiliates such as gtre haven't provided such promises on the past.

For immediate threats India needs imports because in home projects can't always deliver what is needed.

For long term security indigenous weapons are a must.

See the inherent problem between the two statements. This jv crap with snecma and ge seems to be a halfway solution. So at least India can make products like dhruv ...
samirdiw
BRFite
Posts: 184
Joined: 18 Jul 2017 22:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by samirdiw »

Cain Marko wrote: For immediate threats India needs imports because in home projects can't always deliver what is needed.

Cain, do we really need the best of the best of the best. Isn't something good enough sufficient enough and with numbers be more than enough? Quantity also has its own quality. Considering our immediate threats don't make their own or have large funds (Pakistan) or make the best (China) isn't our defense stuff good enough?

A few items here and there like a missile or a radar or an SF gun here and there can be bought but entire defense systems?

We are a rich country with poor people. Every dollar is extremely hard earned unlike the petro dollars or the defense imports to rich countries like Saudi that some others make. So every dollar must be spent with that thought in mind especially if it's not an investment for the future.

Regarding the timelines, in my post I wasn't mentioning a specific timeline which they have to adhere to but for the defense industry to come up with their own timeline whatever it may be. Whether the timeline is good enough is a different matter to the defense ministry and they may decide against it in that case. If they say they cannot do it come what may its a different matter and perhaps will provide more inputs to the ministry about the quality of personnel hired.
Last edited by samirdiw on 28 Aug 2017 20:44, edited 2 times in total.
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by UlanBatori »

maitya wrote:Trouble is "right kind" is exactly what no design-bureau-worth-its-salt would reveal ... so designing-and-building the HPC-Compressor-HPT as a whole system is an absolute must, from building capability stand-point.
A long time ago I heard a very senior GE VP explain (he seemed to have a huge sense of guilt so he had to explain) the rationale behind setting up the J.E.W. Research Center of GE in B'looru.
OF COURSE we won't give away our Crown Jewels to offshore labs!
FWIW.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

samirdiw wrote:
Cain Marko wrote: For immediate threats India needs imports because in home projects can't always deliver what is needed.

Cain, do we really need the best of the best of the best. Isn't something good enough sufficient enough and with numbers be more than enough? Quantity also has its own quality. Considering our immediate threats don't make their own or have large funds (Pakistan) or make the best (China) isn't our defense stuff good enough?

A few items here and there like a missile or a radar or an SF gun here and there can be bought but entire defense systems?

We are a rich country with poor people. Every dollar is extremely hard earned unlike the petro dollars or the defense imports to rich countries like Saudi that some others make. So every dollar must be spent with that thought in mind especially if it's not an investment for the future.

Regarding the timelines, in my post I wasn't mentioning a specific timeline which they have to adhere to but for the defense industry to come up with their own timeline whatever it may be. Whether the timeline is good enough is a different matter to the defense ministry and they may decide against it in that case. If they say they cannot do it come what may its a different matter and perhaps will provide more inputs to the ministry about the quality of personnel hired.
Samir, for the most part, we have to go with what the forces say they need. They are in the best position to know whether good, better or best works. There is little room here for compromise. Security is especially a pita for a rich poor county like India. But it's threat situation is also rather unique.

That being said, much can be done in terms of greater investments and support to local rnd and manufacture. Lots of investment. The JV approach however is one, probably easier way out for decision makers which are faced with very demanding services and security scenarios, lethargic psus and indifferent babus.

I think India is on the last stage of imports now. This final round will probably include sef, subs, tankers, 5 gen fighters, uavs and that will be the end of it. Yes it burns but can't be helped and that too will come with more rights than our screwdrivergiri. Big ticket imports will never happen again Inshallah.
vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by vasu raya »

brar_w wrote:GE reveals major achievements in hybrid electric propulsion

But GE has been working quietly behind the scenes to build the foundational technology for a similar 1MW-sized powerplant with broad applications across military, commercial, business and general aviation markets, according to a white paper published by the company on 25 August.During two events staged since 2015, GE demonstrated major advances in two key ingredients of any hybrid propulsion system: power generation and electric motors, the document shows.

In the area of power generation, GE modified an F110 engine, a propulsion option for the Boeing F-15 and Lockheed Martin F-16, to generate 1MW of electric power. By siphoning compressed air from the core, GE extracted 250kW from the high-pressure turbine and – in and industry first for a two-shaft engine – 750kW from the low-pressure turbine, according to the white paper.

As a megawatt of electric power is equivalent to 1,341hp, the F110 still has plenty of thrust to continue powering even in a single-engined aircraft. A single F110 can generate up to 32,000lb-thrust, which is equivalent to 44,300hp.
Isn't this close to the F-35B propulsion scheme? they probably can now replace the nacelle thats drives the lift fan with just a electrical conduit. STOVL UAVs would have more benefit due to the weight savings.

And one hopes they would one day put the Kaveri thus configured in a BMP to power a drone killing laser ...
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by JayS »

I guess the discussion is OT in PAKFA now, and is more relevant here.
Austin wrote:
brar_w wrote:No it does not. Notice what jay was referring to - the EJ-200, F414 etc etc etc. He was not talking about the Typhoon, Super Hornet, Gripen, LCA etc. The engines did not dogfight each other, the aircraft did. He was specifically referring to the engine technology.
You cant seperate Engine Technology needed for TVC because a lot of low speed flights and high angle of attack afforded by TVC where your air intake is sucked of air/oxygen but engine still has to to be robust enough to keep working without flaming out , If they try to do MKI like low speed charactesistics and extereme manouverability with TVC chances are the engine will just flame out.

TVC is not something you can randomly fit into any engine without understanding how engine will work in all the regiems of flight and high AOA or NO AOA , this is something an aircraft engine does it but TVC just extends the benchmark to another level
TVC is not a plug and play module obviously but extended engine operating envelop is not, per se, tied to TVC; but rather the super-manoeuvrability requirement of the aircraft. TVC is not an absolute requirement for that. Mig29 has always been fantastic at low speeds without having any TVC whatsoever. The engines were designed to have fantastic high AoA characteristics. But a large part of this capability comes from the air intakes which is not a part of engines, but of aircrafts. So if you say TVC cannot be separated from TVC, then engines cannot be separated from air intakes too. Then would you take weight of air intakes in Engines while calculating T:W..??

Food for thought - TVC do take a toll on the effective thrust one gets finally. I have seen numbers of upto 20% reduction for rectangular outlets. For circular outlet its much less. In that sense F119 is more handicapped with TVC than say 117. Now do we know the numbers which are published are with TVC or without...??
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by chola »

Writing in the Iran thread and noting that the Iranians had RE the J-85 turbojet as the powerplant for their Saqeah F-5 clones lit a light bulb over my head. Would it have made more sense for us to cut our teeth on a simpler turbojet engine like the Tumansky 25 (which we had been licensed to build for the Bisons)?

Going all out for a modern turbofan was a bigger bite than we could chew without a foundation. That doomed the Kaveri from the start. If Iranians can build an engine for a fighter under extreme embargo then we should be able to as well. It is just a matter of selecting a realistic initial goal.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by brar_w »

Austin wrote:
brar_w wrote:No it does not. Notice what jay was referring to - the EJ-200, F414 etc etc etc. He was not talking about the Typhoon, Super Hornet, Gripen, LCA etc. The engines did not dogfight each other, the aircraft did. He was specifically referring to the engine technology.
You cant seperate Engine Technology needed for TVC because a lot of low speed flights and high angle of attack afforded by TVC where your air intake is sucked of air/oxygen but engine still has to to be robust enough to keep working without flaming out , If they try to do MKI like low speed charactesistics and extereme manouverability with TVC chances are the engine will just flame out.

TVC is not something you can randomly fit into any engine without understanding how engine will work in all the regiems of flight and high AOA or NO AOA , this is something an aircraft engine does it but TVC just extends the benchmark to another level
OK. So because the Eurofighter Typhoon does not have TVC, its engine is inferior in some way because it does not come with a vectoring nozzle because who knows it may not be able to support high alpha flight regime if the aircraft is properly designed to perform at those regimes. Some logic there boss but whatever floats your boat.

Good thing then that they didn't take their TV nozzle out of the lab, who knows maybe the engine would have not been able to support performance in the PS regime and would have flamed out :wink: . I guess Lockheed and GE really lucked out with the AVEN, some 15 years ago where they integrated a multi axis TV system on an F-16 and its FCS and were able to do cobras and explore the high alpha regime successfully without flaming out. I guess they can now claim to have a superior engine to the EJ which was really designed around high T2W, and dry thrust for supercruise since engines are designed to support a mission requirement.

As Jay points out, if you want to do better in the PS regime, TV helps but so do a host of other things. The YF22 was designed to meet the sustained alpha requirements of the ATF program without TVC. Designers left those big control surfaces out there because they feared that the USAF would come in and ask them to not pursue TVC so they wanted to demonstrate performance independent of it. Northrop did demonstrate on their aircraft even without TV. If the Typhoon wants to do better in that department, it has other potential solutions and those have been written about earlier. It also has the ultimate solution of incorporating a multi-axis vectoring nozzle which they have lab tested over the years. But those are airframe performance requirements and design trades. What we were basically discussing was the technology and its impact on engines specifically, the higher thrust to weight ratios, and higher thrust availability in military settings. Clearly the EJ-200 is one of the leading engines in this category, and it not having TVC does not take anything away form it but may from the Typhoon which may be inferior in that slow and high alpha regime compared to many other aircraft out there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss96tsbG5KY
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by JayS »

Saw a tender for Turbine Blisk by GTRE. Specs for it are:

air flow = 5kg/sec
RPM = 35000
Max Op Temp = 1000deg C

Looks like Manik to me.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by NRao »

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by JayS »

http://www.thehindu.com/business/Indust ... 9.ece/amp/

Read and understand challenges provided by Indian conditions. Sorry excuse given by PW though. They would have known all the operating conditions beforehand and their design couldnt handle it still. The engine will be improved in time, but keep this in mind, where OEMs like PW struggle to design good engines for Indian conditions, any desi effort will see similar steeper challenge. Given its design point has to be with Indian conditions its gonna be a notch more difficult.
Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 364
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Eric Leiderman »

https://www.siemens.com/innovation/en/h ... lades.html

With 3d printing of a gas turbine blade now a reality, Design to manafacturing stage shortened drastically. Maybe this will help us leapfrog in time
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by ramana »

chola wrote:Writing in the Iran thread and noting that the Iranians had RE the J-85 turbojet as the powerplant for their Saqeah F-5 clones lit a light bulb over my head. Would it have made more sense for us to cut our teeth on a simpler turbojet engine like the Tumansky 25 (which we had been licensed to build for the Bisons)?

Going all out for a modern turbofan was a bigger bite than we could chew without a foundation. That doomed the Kaveri from the start. If Iranians can build an engine for a fighter under extreme embargo then we should be able to as well. It is just a matter of selecting a realistic initial goal.
GTRE started with a turbojet called GTX-37(?). And built it. Janes used to have pictures and descriptions.

This morphed into Kaveri Turbofan.

It just that GTRE did not understand the challenges and did not scream for help when they needed it. Nor did the project reviewers from DRDO, IAF and MoD. There are three levels of reviewers for each project. Not one said this one needs help by way of funds, expertise or facilities.

Total passive oversight.

Its those guys who should be blamed.
When you are in a review panel its because the government trusts your expertise and to be a passive observer is just wasting taxpayer money and the GOI trust.
The GTRE folks were trying something for first time and can be excused for that.
Am sure if they were successful the reviewers would jump in can claim success.

I have not seen one honest appraisal of the Kaveri saga from the ex-GTRE folks or the review folks.
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4041
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by suryag »

Asking for help is a sign of strength
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by negi »

Decisions made only reflect the environment ; for Iranians it was a matter of life or death for us on the other hand there is always a "default" go to Plan B i.e. import the damn thing for it will always work ; once you have a plan B in place plan A if challenging will mostly fail.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Post by Pratyush »

I have asked this question multiple times . Will ask once again.

It was known ny 2009 /10 that Kaveri will not work out for the Tejas. When it was delinked from the program.

Why was a new effort not launched by GOI to build a replacement taking into consideration all the lessons learn from kaveri.

Also for the AMCA no efforts are being made for the design of a new engine.
Post Reply