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.
Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Gaur » 22 Feb 2012 10:49

nachiket wrote:..........We never got SCB tot with the Al-31 engines. That was something we jingoes were dreaming would happen when HAL made claims of manufacturing the MKI including the engines from scratch............


General Manager, Aircraft Manufacturing Division, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Nasik, V. Balakrishnan- 2009 interview
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpo ... tcount=610

The aircraft engine has single crystal blades which are capable of withstanding very high temperatures. Considering that the aircraft is huge and has to operate in hot conditions, and its twin engines have the 11,500kg thrust each, the single crystal blades ensure that the thrust remains optimum. The Russians have given this technology to us for the first time.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17017
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Rahul M » 22 Feb 2012 11:00

Will wrote:Wasnt the SCB technology on the table for the AL-31 along withthe MKI deal? It was some babu that decided that it would be too expansive and decided not to go for it.

sounds like some urban legend.

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 22 Feb 2012 11:37

so what exactly does HAL Koraput do on the engine then? do they make any parts locally at all or they just assemble the imported parts of the engine and overhaul it when needed?

I understand the RF part (front end) of the Bars radar were again not covered under license making and it will always be imported.

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

Postby negi » 22 Feb 2012 12:04

Well iirc as per N^3 saar the current TiT figures for Kaveri are not high enough to even warrant a SCB. :oops:

Sriman
BRFite
Posts: 1858
Joined: 02 Mar 2009 11:38
Location: Committee for the Promotion of Vice and the Prevention of Virtue

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Sriman » 22 Feb 2012 12:09

This is what George J had to say when this whole AL-31 SCB tot issue was discussed some time ago. Read through the entire discussion.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby geeth » 22 Feb 2012 12:15

the current TiT figures for Kaveri are not high enough to even warrant a SCB.


That is more of a chicken and egg scenario, except that the pressure ratio across Kaveri compressor needs to be raised.

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Kailash » 22 Feb 2012 12:17

I have two basic questions for the gurus.

Can new materials alone solve all the problems of present Kaveri (K9) ? Or Is there a design fault to be corrected to deal with the shortfall in thrust/endurance?

Assuming we get the material technology from France absorbed by xyz date, can our scientists go ahead and design/fabricate a 100KN engine with available metals (with future material specs in mind)?

keshavchandra
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 22:23

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby keshavchandra » 05 Mar 2012 17:12

Major highlights on the current situ on Kaveri 90 KN turbofan programme K10 based on M88 ECO core (DRDO and Snecma):

1. Snecma will transfer several key technologies as part of the joint engine programme, which include single crystal blades, bladed disk and EBPVD (electron beam plasma vapour deposit coating).

2. DRDO is negotiations over the modalities for single crystal blade technology that has taken so long, though the end is finally in sight. Several DRDO labs and the MDNL have tried for years to create an indigenous SCT solution, but so far without success.

3. The tie up with Snecma will launch the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) into an all-new league, and will involve modern forging, welding and casting techniques for the first time.

4.Almost the entire work force that has been dedicated so far to the Kaveri [9] will be diverted to the K10 effort with Snecma. (Means a death of K9 in whole ).

5. A contract between DRDO and Snecma is likely to be signed within the year.

Kaveri turbofan programme seeks extension

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 05 Mar 2012 17:35

going by one of the reports that came out after/during grumov tests, and subsequent talks with snecma, the gtre folks feel there needs to be a re-design to get the augmented thrust, especially the blade shape and design itself, that is not maximizing the thrust. if they can keep Ge 414 as a measure, then they can draw a lot of ideas.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Austin » 06 Mar 2012 15:51

Some update on Kaveri Program in this weeks AW&ST

Pg 52
http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416213559&e=true

Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 199
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Snehashis » 06 Mar 2012 19:02

Austin wrote:Some update on Kaveri Program in this weeks AW&ST

Pg 52
http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416213559&e=true



http://i40.tinypic.com/qrf1js.jpg

Image

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby merlin » 06 Mar 2012 19:52

Finally a number for what the K9 achieved - 70 kN in reheat (against the design goal of 80 kN). More than a 10% shortfall in this most critical of numbers (and lots of other problems too).

tejas
BRFite
Posts: 768
Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby tejas » 06 Mar 2012 20:19

What is being surrendered by the French here is truly staggering. This must be a quid pro quo for the Rafale deal.

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 06 Mar 2012 20:30

and the fat padding the scorpene deal, with surely a follow on order of 6 more to use the infra built up.
the ADS2 is going RafaleM way perhaps.
plus AREVA...
DCNS is a strong contender for the P17A with a modded FREMM...france is building a lot of FREMM ships for its own use
the likes of mbda, giat and thales continue to land medium deals routinely

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby shiv » 06 Mar 2012 21:50

I am guessing and speculating here. But the problems that the Kaveri is facing suggest to me that if we use in in an aircraft - it will have a low MTBF like Chinese engines we heard about. I mean a failure every 10 to 50 hours. Looks like Kaveri blades are melting an deforming as per some news posted on here. Fits in well with the Jane's report above that shows exactly where our metallurgy is not up to scratch.

It is possible to make some engine. but making it reliable and powerful is the problem. I am again guessing that Kaveri may be around the developmental stage of early jet engines. Frank Whittle type stuff maybe? The Russians bypassed such issues by making them cheap and changing engines soon, I think. I mean it is technically OK to have an engine that works for only 10 hours as long as you have a replacement line with 3 spare engines to use while each used up engine is taken apart for replacing blades etc.

Problem of course is aircraft are designed fro existing engines. Very difficult to design your first engine for a future aircraft. A twin Kaveri aircraft with 15,000 lb thrust each would be a good bet. Even if one fails it need not crash. Build 5 Kaveris and fly a twin engine prototype. That requires boldness, foresight, and the weeding out of fossilized nearly retired DRDO fuddy duddies and the bringing in of new enthusiastic blood under an experienced and capable leader minus govenmental red tape.

The existing Kaverii can work. It must be made to fly in a new design. So long as they don't try and do something stupid with the new design. Stick to something simple and proven. Rather than doing stupid things a like trying to make a LSCR HR 28 (Light Stealth Combat Raptor Hindustan Raptor 28) The AESA and stealth will hold us back for 28 years more.

But it requires imagination for it to be more than imaginary.

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 06 Mar 2012 21:58

some of the new reliability and metals tech obtained could presumably be backfitted on the Kaveri to make its MTBF acceptable level. ofcourse it will still have the low wet thrust issue and cannot power a single engine fighter, but variations could be tried out on IJT, AJT, future turbofan UAV of the global hawk mould, marine application etc. it can still be a good learning tool by improving it step by step. junior people could become senior by working on it.

what we dont need is for the project to be totally discarded, frozen and people all moved to the snecma deal.

it definitely needs good leadership, freedom and funding to get into that mode though.
Last edited by Singha on 06 Mar 2012 21:59, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby shiv » 06 Mar 2012 21:59

Singha wrote:variations could be tried out on IJT, AJT, future turbofan UAV of the global hawk mould, marine application etc. it can still be a good learning tool by improving it step by step.

what we dont need is for the project to be totally discarded, frozen and people all moved to the snecma deal.


Absolutely!

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 06 Mar 2012 22:02

I am glad to know we managed to reach the Chinese WS10 level though (50-100 hr MTBF), with far less funding , a problematic GTRE org and a new design (not copied liberally from the CFM56).

no wonder the chinis are making a beeline for the 117S engine on the Su35BM. in exchange for the $4b they will surely work out some Rus help for the WS10x using techs from the 117S just as we are doing with snecma.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby shiv » 06 Mar 2012 22:07

Singha wrote:I am glad to know we managed to reach the Chinese WS10 level though (50-100 hr MTBF), with far less funding , a problematic GTRE org and a new design (not copied liberally from the CFM56).

no wonder the chinis are making a beeline for the 117S engine on the Su35BM. in exchange for the $4b they will surely work out some Rus help for the WS10x using techs from the 117S just as we are doing with snecma.


The thing is it looks like aero engines benefit from developments in seemingly "faraway" topics like chemistry/metallurgy etc research that may have been done for something else altogether. The act of doing research is important. In fact the biggest research spender in India is the GoI funding the DRDO. Private research is nowhere near GoI in fundamental science areas like physics, chem etc. If we triple our research expenditure and employ many more people we are likely to stumble upon things that work. That is how research works.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 07 Mar 2012 09:12

to just test blades alone under high temperature and pressure, we don't need a turbine. these type of researches should been long done to mature by now.

if stronger technology building blocks are not made, then turbines can never be done.

go back to first principles, and rework with a new team.

Will
BRFite
Posts: 637
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Will » 07 Mar 2012 10:35

Isnt it always lamented that hardly any world class research is done in our top educational institutions? Thats why inspite of having some very good institutions like the IITS we are ranked nowhere in the global scheme of things cause either no commendable research is done or published. The Govt has to promote the right kind of research in educational institutions as well as orginasitions. Private players are not going to burn huge money in research when they see no benifits for them. The govt should give them incentives for research.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby shiv » 07 Mar 2012 10:56

Will wrote:Isnt it always lamented that hardly any world class research is done in our top educational institutions? Thats why inspite of having some very good institutions like the IITS we are ranked nowhere in the global scheme of things cause either no commendable research is done or published. The Govt has to promote the right kind of research in educational institutions as well as orginasitions. Private players are not going to burn huge money in research when they see no benifits for them. The govt should give them incentives for research.

I can give a rambling, semi-philosopical semi-personal perspective answer to that question.

When I was a college PS student 30 years ago, there were not enough colleges to accommodate most Indian youngsters. Most were not even going to school and I was a relative minority doing post-graduation. Once we graduated, there was almost no chance of most of us going in for a career in teaching or research. From my generation and 10 years younger, doing "research" or indeed post-graduation meant going abroad. The few of them who actually got into a teaching/research line are now in the college senior Professor/Dean/Principal/Head of Dept level. But most of my peers went into service or industry and made our careers.

Massive numbers of Indian colleges have opened up in the last 20 years, and recruitment has not been easy because most people still opt for careers in industry or service. A deliberate thrust is required to encourage research and create academic jobs just for that. It is happening now but the fruits will be seen starting in the next decade or so IMO.

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vina » 07 Mar 2012 11:04

I am again guessing that Kaveri may be around the developmental stage of early jet engines. Frank Whittle type stuff maybe? The Russians bypassed such issues by making them cheap and changing engines soon, I think. I mean it is technically OK to have an engine that works for only 10 hours as long as you have a replacement line with 3 spare engines to use while each used up engine is taken apart for replacing blades etc


The present stage of Kaveri is somewhere at J79 (the Phantom F4 engines) and F100 (the F16A/B engines) .. ie late 70s US engines.

There is no secret here. The material technology you have determines what sort of engine you can have. The key here is engine thrust to weight. If you want the GE414/ EJ200/M88 class, you need that class of materials and technology. The list for that would be, blisks (integrally bladed disks), single crystal turbine blades , and thermal barrier coatings (that is electron beam vapor deposited).

And without the engine of the thrust to weight class, you cannot have a competitive fighter! So, unless you tell the IAF to accept fighters that are less than state of art (good luck, given the record of the LCA and Arjun with the armed forces), that wont happen (the Chinese do on the other hand, their J20 stealth ding dong will suck hard and their nuke boats suck harder.. but hey they do field it).

In any case, this is and R&D failure on the materials side. This is what I told Mullah Enqyoobuddin when we were having that discussion. This failure is really not GTRE's , but DMRL's. This kind of material break throughs are their responsibility and stuff like electron beam deposition , powder metallurgy, friction welding and processes are what they should and do pour R&D money into. It really is the silence of the DMRL lambs.

Design wise, I do think the GTRE has delivered against all odds. With the right materials,the engine will be up to scratch thrust wise and MBTF wise (in fact whatever KN ahchieved would be the restricted thrust with available materials, the engine has to stand up during testing anyways). The plan would have been always to get the design right and then the materials. Well, no one thought GTRE would succeed , but hey they actually did and have a working engine, and now when the time has come to put the required materials in, the DMRL has turned out as 'Nood" and hence the turn to the French.

In fact, given the changes in India, it is good. We should integrate with the global supply chain and tap in to the R&D and material base where need across the world. This 100% indigenous fetish is garbage, was always garbage and should be given up for good. If the DMRL guys can come up with competitive materials in time for the next engine, good, consider it, otherwise, get it from abroad.

This Chinese like strategy of fielding lame duck stuff cant work in the Indian context, where we actually have to fight wars and we dont have China's luxury of not having to fight wars and try "fleet in being" tactics. Our wars are actual shooting wars not hiss and scare kind of things.

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Kailash » 07 Mar 2012 11:21

vina wrote:Design wise, I do think the GTRE has delivered against all odds. With the right materials,the engine will be up to scratch thrust wise and MBTF wise (in fact whatever KN ahchieved would be the restricted thrust with available materials, the engine has to stand up during testing anyways). The plan would have been always to get the design right and then the materials. Well, no one thought GTRE would succeed , but hey they actually did and have a working engine, and now when the time has come to put the required materials in, the DMRL has turned out as 'Nood" and hence the turn to the French.


I rephrase the question posted a few posts back

Assuming we get the material/manufacturing tech from France
1. is the K9 design still sound for mass production?
2. can the scientist work on newer uprated designs with higher thrust ?

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12164
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 07 Mar 2012 12:43

vina wrote:
This Chinese like strategy of fielding lame duck stuff cant work in the Indian context, where we actually have to fight wars and we dont have China's luxury of not having to fight wars and try "fleet in being" tactics. Our wars are actual shooting wars not hiss and scare kind of things.


As stated Chinese have a huge luxury here, they need to fight wars only if they start one, Uncle is not going to attack China, Taiwan is not going to Invade China, neither India, nor Vietnam, nor Japan etc. So they can induct something and if its not good enough don't use it.

Problem for India is neither China or Pakistan have any morals, they will start a war if they can win it, i.e if they see a weakness in Indian armed forces. e.g even though the Shimla agreement clears marks LOC, Pakis had no qualms violating it and sending their regular Army in Kargil or irregular troops across LOC continuously as militants, taking part in Artillery exhanges since 1989 and agreeing for ceasefire when their casualties became unacceptably high in operation Parakram. Same with China on LAC.

So IA, IAF and IN will have wars forced on them not at a time of their choosing, so they need something that works and does well.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 712
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby mody » 07 Mar 2012 13:09

I am not quite sure about the whole Transfer of Technology thing.
It is utter nonsense. Show me one defense program, where we received the transfer of Technology and we were able to use the same technology for developing some other projects, on our own from scratch. The answer is Zero.
This will be exactly same as the Shakti engine deal, where the tech transfer for the manufacture, applies only for that engine configuration only. Now when we want to adapt the same engine for the Ultra Light Helicopters, the same is off limits, unless we agree to pay more money.
Hence using the M88 technology, we will be able to get an engine with a form factor and dimensions similar to Kaveri, with Thrust rating of 90-100 KN. However, if anyone thinks that we can use the technology to develop a whole family of different aero engines, having different dimensions and different ratings, then they are sadly mistaken. At most we use two of these engines for future Medium capacity aircraft or upgrade the engines, strictly in cooperation with Snecma only, to increase the thrust or improve the efficiency or add more features like thrust vectoring.

There is no substitute for developing the technology on our own. We have got the ToT for HDW type 209 submarines and now also for the Scorpenes. Has that enabled us to design and develop a diesel electric sub on our own?
We have been manufacturing Mig-21's and Jaguars under license, completely indegeneously. Yet that has not helped us design our own airplanes or design and make our own engines.
The same is true with the ToT for Su-30MKI. the tech transfer applies only for that particular project and doesn't really give us the know how to design and develop our own engines or be able to design equally aerodynamically excellent aircraft as the Sukhoi family.

I had interacted with people from Goa Shipyard when they were building the Fast attack crafts, under ToT from Israel. I asked about some components that we manufacture for ships and supply to Goa Shipyard. I asked whether tender requirements would be forth coming for the items that we manufacture, for the fast Attack crafts under manufacture. The answer was, that under ToT production, the deal was such that all components, including nuts and bolts were going to be sourced from Israel itself. No local parts or components would be sourced.
That is the reason that, if we have to manufacture the same type of vessels again, we do not have the technology to make the same type of hulls, nor do we have the technology to build the same type of engines.

JMT

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vina » 07 Mar 2012 13:26

mody wrote:I am not quite sure about the whole Transfer of Technology thing.


This is not a license build thing with "ToT" (another name for screwdriver giri), but actually a materials and process transfer and design parternship.

There is nothing that stops you from designing another engine of different size /thrust using same materials and process tech , only thing it will be of same generation as the underlying tech and can become obsolete if the tech advances and you dont keep paces (most likely scenario, the Indian industry will do an "Ambassador" with that for 40 years and not develop the next gen)

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 07 Mar 2012 13:27

long term engagement with snecma will definitely be needed. I dont see it as a bad thing as we have a lot of catching up to do and domestic exotic materials related industry needs time to come up.

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Kailash » 07 Mar 2012 13:40

Ok, the ToT will not substitute for years of research done by Snecma. It might be limited to material which could withstand just enough temperatures encountered in engines of certain rating (say tops 100KN)

But we do get the material compositions and making them inhouse from scratch. Not that India has not done any research on these materials. I see this tech infusion as a tipping point to overcome certain bottlenecks. There should already be a basic understanding of % composition of alloys, making directionally solidified and SC blades. If we get exact specifics on a certain class of materials, certain temperatures, processes, extrapolating that data and testing different compositions should be simpler (than it is now).

I hope they dont stop thinking/improvising on the absorbed tech.

member_22905
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 9
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby member_22905 » 07 Mar 2012 13:46

Shakti was never a transfer of technology, it was a contract given to Turbomeca to develop an engine for Indian conditions with low maintainance and low life cycle cost with high power. HAL had no experience of developing rotary engines and thus this was the only way. What HAL did was that it contributed in some sections of engine which was possible for it around 30 percent work. Once the engine was developed and proved by Turbomeca, then they started supplying it and India paid for it. Finally it was asked to get it manufactured in India( I am not so sure). It was simple business case with no stress on building design and development capability and knowhow.

Kaveri case is entirely different. In this case GTRE has designed and developed a working engine on its own using humble SDRE capabilities. The team knows the entire development cycle from beginning to end. Now Snecma steps in and this is more of a tech transfer, design and development assistance and consulting arrangement for a team which knows how to develop a product albait with some shortcomings. GTRE and NML guys are in the position to make most use of the scenario, what was required was hard negotiations to embed our ppl in each and every activity SNECMA is associated with in this development and which obviously the vendor will never want. I think negotiating committee has achieved this. Please do not compare DRDO and HAL in same breath, and GTRE with all its shortcomings has done a tremendous job.

The problem in India is that someone lets say HCL/Wipro/Zenith who imports from China motherboards and all associated items and become a notebook and tablet supplier and Indian public( including babus, Netas as well as the fauzi) treat them at par with Apple, Sony and IBM who does manufacturing, assembling as well as research too. The marketing guys from these companies also use a lot of hot air to tout their capabilities, just to keep the organizational profit and their personal growth paramount. Not many PHDs rule our country and for them big, beautiful and powerful always knows more.

I do not see that even in next 20-30 years we can have companies integerated with research like they do in west. This is mostly because of our culture and this has its own strengths too.

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vina » 07 Mar 2012 14:13

Apple, Sony and IBM who does manufacturing, assembling as well as research too
.
Funny. I thought that atleast in the PC business neither of them does much "research" (apple for instance invented nothing, but brilliant in industrial design) and all of them outsource manufacturing to Foxconn types in China. So how is Wipro/Zenith/HCL different from Sony/IBM, which too buy chips from intel, motherboard from Taiwanese/chinese, assemble them in China and stamp their own names on it, after loading it with Windows ? Apple atleast puts a slightly different OS (not totally developed mind you, but a flavor of BSD Unix with Apple tweaks on UI largely)

Not many PHDs rule our country and for them big, beautiful and powerful always knows more.

Well, this is one of the very few countries in the world where there is a PhD (from Oxbridge no less ) at the top . Okay Angela Merkel is another one , but I cant think of very many other countries.

member_22905
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 9
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby member_22905 » 07 Mar 2012 14:50

Look at the number of patents they have and packaging in a small form factor doesn't come so easily. Industrial design has been always tied to patent and innovations. They also buy from china but in most of the cases it is because they design first and then ask someone else to manufacture because it is cheap that way.

Apple absorbed Next another Jobs company only for tech and Next had lots of patents and innovations in terms of OS even though it is a flavor of BSD Unix.

"Well, this is one of the very few countries in the world where there is a PhD (from Oxbridge no less ) at the top . Okay Angela Merkel is another one , but I cant think of very many other countries."
Yes, you are right, still they are much better in understanding these issues then what we see in India. They have better chain of commands and decision making on a issue is left to the people who it know best and that is respected. It is a matter of culture. Here everyone wants to be important, the politicos make decisions or sit over it whether or not they understand it.

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3705
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby suryag » 07 Mar 2012 14:51

Engine development or for that matter any product development has to follow a continuous evolving process. The GTRE had developed the reheat version of Orpheus 703, had it been productionised they would have learnt a lot over the lifecycle of it. The engineers joining new would have learnt from their superiors and the knowledge based would have been broadened. Any newbie starting out would blend his ideas with the existing knowledge base and would have enriched the product further. Eventually a taj mahal would be created . People who look at the taj today do not realise it took years of effort for the taj to be what it is today and during the days it was being built it would have looked far worse. The takeaway from this is that this effort shouldnt be stalled and be continued and down the lane in about ten years we will see good reliable engines. Hope the dev is continued and we would definitely see a good engine powering the amca. Jai hind

mody
BRFite
Posts: 712
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby mody » 07 Mar 2012 15:42

Those of you who think that Snecma is going to completely re-design the kaveri engine from scratch and share their knowledge about the design aspects and their knowledge about the materials, then once again I have to say, this is most certainly not going to be true.

Snecma is going to plug in the Core of the M88 engine, with the rest of the Kaveri engine(i.e. without the Kabini Core) and help in integrating the M88 core with the kaveri Engine. Once this hybrid engine is ready and performs to the the satisfactory level, they will then share the manufacturing technology for manufacturing the complete engine.

They will not share the design aspects of the M88 core or any other aspects about engine design.

Now there lies my problem. Learning how to manufacture is not the same as learning how to design.
We have learnt how to manufacture a number of things, through the license build and technology transfer regimes. Both doing only screw driver jobs on imported CKD kits and also building completely from raw material stage.
But this has not given us enough expertise in designing most of the products that we have manufactured through these routes.

My only point is that, even if the joint venture with snecma is successful, it will not mean that we as in GTRE or any other indian agency, will have mastered the technology of designing and manufacturing turbofan engines for any type of application, whether for combat aircrafts or for transport aircrafts.

If we had to design another completely new engine with say 150 KN thrust, then the entire experience with Snecma would take us only to about half way between where we are now and where would be, if we had managed to completely design the kaveri Engine on our own, with the desired operating specs.

So the decision to terminate the K9 effort where it stands and just go ahead with K10 with snecma is not the right move.
The K9 effort should continue along with the K10 effort. Try and re-design the kabini core, with knowledge gained from working with snecma, to see if we can complete the kaveri engine the way it was supposed to be.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3012
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Kanson » 07 Mar 2012 15:56

^ ::thumbs up::

member_22905
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 9
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby member_22905 » 07 Mar 2012 16:13

"Snecma is going to plug in the Core of the M88 engine, with the rest of the Kaveri engine(i.e. without the Kabini Core) and help in integrating the M88 core with the kaveri Engine."

If the Contract negotiation committee which has members from GTRE, IAF and HAL decides this then God save this country. I do not not think it was the case as IAF had already voiced this concern and was opposing the deal on this ground earlier but are onboard now. Snecma must be pushing Eco Core thats why the we kept negotiating for more than 2 years and deal was not signed. Otherwise what was difficulty in signing the deal where both Snecma and HAL were happy where DRDO and politicos get good riddance from the Kaveri failure taint.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2610
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Cybaru » 07 Mar 2012 21:54

Mody,

Sure there is no short cut to learning and this not be a perfect solution, but really atleast the metallurgical processes will be sorted out and that is one less thing to worry about when designing an engine. We won't have melting blades when they are testing new engines.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4446
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 07 Mar 2012 22:13

i'd like to see this engine on the Rafale, LCA II, and AMCA. Lots of commonality would help.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby NRao » 08 Mar 2012 06:11

Among many article, this

Dassault has also offered to fit the Kaveri engine into the Rafale, which, if chosen,


(Not Snecma.)

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 08 Mar 2012 06:45

being a twin engine, a couple of Rafale would be a good testbed...esp as Snecma would be familiar with it....better choice than Mig29 testbed.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: M_Joshi, Pratyush and 48 guests