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.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36423
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby SaiK » 14 Mar 2018 12:13

what news is "theparadox14" ?

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 964
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby nvishal » 14 Mar 2018 12:21

Macron came and went

Kaveri-safran deal still unclear

thammu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 73
Joined: 29 Mar 2007 08:16

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby thammu » 14 Mar 2018 13:12

Prem wrote:


The subtitles for the video are here:
Prez Macron is coming for More Rafales and Kaveri Engine Ecosystem.

Results are much better than what we thought earlier for Kaveri engine.

For a half life of present M88 and moving towards 1/3rd of the life, the net trade off

resulting from stable thrust at all different zones is mind boggling.

Confirm stability is now above 100kN and another 1XXkN plus.

India wants both the Engine forms to be available for MII Rafales which French side is saying

NO for higher thrust one but had given ok for 100+kN Engine.

Need a complete redevelopment for spectra new version as the engine thrusts and signature

management will undergo changes.

Part of the problem is the 1XX kN engine will need more air intake as it needs a major modification.

India is open to it saying it wants to make Rafales in India and such changes is fine

for India.

Whereas France is insisting product needs maturity before undergoing such massive production

numbers and that also in India.

There needs more new further research on this version and Rafale.

This can change very well the contours of future fleet capability due to additional

thrust being available.

And still the engine life is comparable to present US engine life (as tested and results

from LCA testing of F-404 which has a reduced life versus advertised life) and better than

Russian Engine life as well.

A informal comment says if the heavy version of Kaveri producing 1XX can be stabilised,

we might soon start replacing few MKIs with in house this engine within next 5 years.

More info on this will be shared after Prez Macron visits to sign ecosystem roadmap.



As is evident, the much speculated "Macron Visit Offer" was conditional on buying more Rafales. Hope the government now pours more funds and gets the Kaveri program accelerated "by Indians for Indians".

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9942
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Yagnasri » 14 Mar 2018 14:02

mango question - What does this mean? Are we looking at Kaaveri version eng for LCA Mk2 or Mk1A?

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby shiv » 14 Mar 2018 14:16

Yagnasri wrote:mango question - What does this mean? Are we looking at Kaaveri version eng for LCA Mk2 or Mk1A?

I would dismiss that report as rubbish. Just grabbing eyeballs and torturing the ears with that idiotic synthesized voice with and idiotic accent "Kay-vry" engine? wtf?

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby pankajs » 14 Mar 2018 15:01

/OT

The voice is generated using Text-to-Speech software. I myself use TTS software to listen to e-books while I am doing routine house chores. You could type in a sentence or a para or a story and have it read aloud or create a sound file.

There are a lot of *experts* these days who create videos on various subjects and post them on youtube. To get a wider acceptance for their work they do a voice over using digital Sam or Anne rather than use their own voice i.e of Sampath or Anindita.

These are garden variety experts who have read an article or two or wikipeida and add their own spin to the recent news. Most of these videos are cringe worthy. The moment I hear these digital voices I skip.

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby shiv » 14 Mar 2018 18:03

Yeah in fact my own article about the Tejas has appeared on that same site with that same idiotic synthesized voice - probably freeware. Better ones are available for payment

Mukesh.Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1185
Joined: 06 Dec 2009 14:09

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Mukesh.Kumar » 14 Mar 2018 18:06

Shout Out:

I am going to a seminar on the future of teh Aviation industry held by Boeing today evening. Are there any questions that guru's recommend I ask?
Please reply quoting this post.

madhu
BRFite
Posts: 436
Joined: 12 Oct 2005 17:00
Location: India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby madhu » 14 Mar 2018 21:48

guys,

i did the calculation taking Kaveri is mixed flow turbofan engine. i am getting thrust to be less then pure turbofan. this is due to the fact that temp at exhaust is reducing due to mixing.

i did have a close look at some of the picture of Kaveri engine. looks like bypass are flows outside core and cools upper end of A/B pipe and nozzle. can you guys conform me that. if so then my posted calc is good.i will try to calculate the component efficiency and post the graphics (pure turbofan as of now) for our discussion.

i need conformation on the numbers for M88 and type of turbofan engine. can you guys help me that? then we can do some good assessments.

madhu
BRFite
Posts: 436
Joined: 12 Oct 2005 17:00
Location: India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby madhu » 14 Mar 2018 21:52

JayS wrote:I had posted this previously. Read here, some generic details of the physics.
http://etd.iisc.ernet.in/handle/2005/581
http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollectio ... id=1646704

cannot access it. can u upload it in some other location for me (if possible) plz.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4565
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 15 Mar 2018 10:19

madhu wrote:
JayS wrote:I had posted this previously. Read here, some generic details of the physics.
http://etd.iisc.ernet.in/handle/2005/581
http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollectio ... id=1646704

cannot access it. can u upload it in some other location for me (if possible) plz.


Thesis is freely available. All you had to do it google for it. :)

http://cgpl.iisc.ernet.in/site/Portals/ ... Thesis.pdf

I don't have the paper. But the abstract gives good enough info.

madhu
BRFite
Posts: 436
Joined: 12 Oct 2005 17:00
Location: India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby madhu » 15 Mar 2018 11:01

JayS wrote:Madhu,

When you mentioned 4300cy beforeN I thought you are talking of specifically Kaveri. I have seen one old reference, a paper from someone from GTRE which says the targeted life for Kaveri was 8000hrs. Which is very high. I have been trying to find out what are actual life numbers for Kaveri but I see no references at all. I forgot to ask this q in AI2017, and even now to exGTRE director through you, when you offered earlier.


Have you seen this paper. It says 7000 cycles, the same number I saw in Dr. K’s slides. As per this paper he gets the life to be around 4260 hrs. this is close to minimum life for GT accessory’s ( which is around 4000 hrs) are per the same slide. So I guess we can conclude the life should be some where about 4000 hrs for cold parts.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ation_list

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4565
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 15 Mar 2018 11:17

madhu wrote:guys,

i did the calculation taking Kaveri is mixed flow turbofan engine. i am getting thrust to be less then pure turbofan. this is due to the fact that temp at exhaust is reducing due to mixing.

i did have a close look at some of the picture of Kaveri engine. looks like bypass are flows outside core and cools upper end of A/B pipe and nozzle. can you guys conform me that. if so then my posted calc is good.i will try to calculate the component efficiency and post the graphics (pure turbofan as of now) for our discussion.

i need conformation on the numbers for M88 and type of turbofan engine. can you guys help me that? then we can do some good assessments.


That's correct. Bypass mixed with core flow starting just before A/B until almost at the start of nozzle. Without such arrangement, exhaust pipe and nozzle would melt with A/B on.

Almost all mil jets are the same in this repsect.

madhu
BRFite
Posts: 436
Joined: 12 Oct 2005 17:00
Location: India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby madhu » 15 Mar 2018 11:28

JayS wrote: That's correct. Bypass mixed with core flow starting just before A/B until almost at the start of nozzle. Without such arrangement, exhaust pipe and nozzle would melt with A/B on.
Almost all mil jets are the same in this repsect.

if that's the case then the Dry thrust is only 40kN. giving an error of -23%. I feel this is too less.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4565
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 15 Mar 2018 11:31

madhu wrote:
JayS wrote:Madhu,

When you mentioned 4300cy beforeN I thought you are talking of specifically Kaveri. I have seen one old reference, a paper from someone from GTRE which says the targeted life for Kaveri was 8000hrs. Which is very high. I have been trying to find out what are actual life numbers for Kaveri but I see no references at all. I forgot to ask this q in AI2017, and even now to exGTRE director through you, when you offered earlier.


Have you seen this paper. It says 7000 cycles, the same number I saw in Dr. K’s slides. As per this paper he gets the life to be around 4260 hrs. this is close to minimum life for GT accessory’s ( which is around 4000 hrs) are per the same slide. So I guess we can conclude the life should be some where about 4000 hrs for cold parts.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ation_list


Good find. This gives me a starting point to dig in more. We can find more stuff using names and references.

Yes, we can take that life for these parts are 4000hrs. These parts are not life limited parts though. That would be compressor blades for cold section and Turbine blades and discs for hot sector. Lets see if we can find something about them.

Do you know if Kaveri is designed with modular approach that GE F404 had...? It would make sense if they did. But I have not seen a reference to it so far. Didn't ask in AI2017 too.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4565
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 15 Mar 2018 12:39

http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollectio ... id=1838626

This paper has following statement:

The primary structural design life requirement of 7000 cycles, (with a factor of 2) should have designs made using -3σ strength properties and hot parts shall posses half of the cold parts life. Ensuring engine integrity is a fundamental requirement for certification and subsequent safe service operation of rotating discs.


This paper doesn't include final results, but we know the target at least now.

madhu
BRFite
Posts: 436
Joined: 12 Oct 2005 17:00
Location: India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby madhu » 15 Mar 2018 12:57

JayS wrote:http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1838626

This paper has following statement:

The primary structural design life requirement of 7000 cycles, (with a factor of 2) should have designs made using -3σ strength properties and hot parts shall posses half of the cold parts life. Ensuring engine integrity is a fundamental requirement for certification and subsequent safe service operation of rotating discs.


This paper doesn't include final results, but we know the target at least now.

yes thatz true. fact of 2 b/w cold and hot part and further factor 2 for hot and A/B parts. BTW F404 is also rated to 4000hrs. got from declassified report http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a164562.pdf
so life = 4000hrs ko lock kiya-jaye :wink:

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4565
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 15 Mar 2018 14:35

These numbers for Kaveri are respectable. Would be interesting to know actual certified numbers. In addition blades would have separate life numbers. Any info on HPT nozzle/blade life..? That's the most restricted part in terms of life.

More detailed data on F404 is available on internet. Here is on link for example, I had posted a while back on this thread.
https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handl ... sAllowed=y

Check table 1.1.

F404 used to have severe issues until early 1990s, reducing life of some of its components up to 60%.

Do you know achieved life numbers for Kaveri..?

madhu
BRFite
Posts: 436
Joined: 12 Oct 2005 17:00
Location: India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby madhu » 15 Mar 2018 19:10

JayS wrote:Do you know achieved life numbers for Kaveri..?

no I do not know.

madhu
BRFite
Posts: 436
Joined: 12 Oct 2005 17:00
Location: India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby madhu » 15 Mar 2018 21:05

here is the calculation for all M88, F404 -400 and Kaveri. i am able to get a good match for M88 but not for F404 and Kaveri. appreciate if some one is interested could redo it just to conform that i have not done any clerical error.

source of inputs are from
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a164562.pdf
https://www.safran-aircraft-engines.com ... rcraft/m88

following are my observation
a) P02/P06 is below 1. do not know why?
b) not sure of fan thrust.
c) no textbook data to verify calculation unlike pure turbofan :(

Image

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4565
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 16 Mar 2018 11:14

Here is a paper showing GTRE did indeed made some good progress in dealing with Flutter in 1st stage of Fan/Booster/LPC (whatever you want to call it). This paper is from Dec-2017 conference.

Flutter Alleviation by Aeroelastic Tailoring of a Transonic Rotor Blade
http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollectio ... id=2672138

High asynchronous self-excited blade response was observed in a transonic first stage rotor during the evaluation of flutter stability in high forward speed conditions. This candidate baseline rotor stage is a highly loaded, snubber-less bladed-disc configuration mounted in an axial low pressure compressor with tip speed in the order of 400 m/s. During the tests, the high asynchronous blade response was measured by strain gages, tip timing system and unsteady blade pressure transducers, which were correlated with analytical predictions. To alleviate this problem, it was attempted to tailor the first rotor blade configuration alone by adhering to all the constraints such as geometric, aerodynamic matching, material selection and utilising the same dovetail root configuration in the existing disc configuration. While tailoring the rotor blade, the critical blade parameters such as axial chord, thickness to chord, stagger, camber, leading and trailing edge radius were iterated from hub to tip. In the tailored rotor blade, the first flexure mode frequency, 1F was improved by 45% whereas the separation between second flexure, 2F and torsion mode, 1T were improved by over 30% with 4.9% weight penalty. Using the one way fluid-structure interaction approach, the blade incidence variation for different inlet pressure conditions and aerodynamic damping were evaluated using energy method for both the configuration. Blade sets of the tailored configuration were manufactured and tested in a dedicated compressor test facility, where characteristics were generated from 70% to 100% corrected speeds. The rig tests confirmed the predicted compressor performance as well as the improvement of natural frequency using blade mounted strain gages for the tailored blade. Upon the verification in the test rig, the tailored rotor configuration was further fitted in the engine and tested up to 103.3% of its design speed. The blade experienced two different inlet total pressure conditions in the test rig and engine tests. The unsteady pressure transducers and blade tip timing sensors did not show any asynchronous response in the corrected speed range for the tailored configuration. Compared to the baseline rotor blade, this tailored rotor blade demonstrated the absence of asynchronous response in the fundamental flexure mode and also well correlated with the aerodynamic damping prediction by energy method. Using this correlation, it is further analytically demonstrated that the blade will have sufficient aerodynamic damping at higher forward speeds and also minimal incidence variation in these conditions.


Here is a usful link showing flutter regimes for a compressor: http://www.energy.kth.se/compedu/webcom ... ressor.htm

Image
https://goo.gl/images/RdoWG1

1 - subsonic stall flutter
2 - transonic stall flutter
3 - choke flutter
4 - subsonic started flutter at low back pressure
5 - supersonic started flutter at high back pressure
6 - classical flutter

More info in the link.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21227
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Philip » 16 Mar 2018 11:58

On a tangential note, the grounding of 70+ Neo A-320s due to faulty PW engines is severely affecting ops of 2 of our civil airlines.Global failures too .Is there any definitive info as to the nature of the problem and whethere there will be a hangover onto PW's mil engines too.

madhu
BRFite
Posts: 436
Joined: 12 Oct 2005 17:00
Location: India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby madhu » 20 Mar 2018 19:12

JayS wrote: Any info on HPT nozzle/blade life..? That's the most restricted part in terms of life.

Its around 1800 hrs

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8426
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Pratyush » 20 Mar 2018 19:47

All this is well and good. But the stingi Bania in me wants to know by when it will be put into the Tejas and sore into the air.

So that I can sleep easy and not worry about the next ***** star the POTUS is going to bang and then deal with its after effects. On Indian air force.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4565
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 20 Mar 2018 20:16

madhu wrote:
JayS wrote: Any info on HPT nozzle/blade life..? That's the most restricted part in terms of life.

Its around 1800 hrs


Thanks for the info Madhu. I will collate all lifing info and put in in Kavery gyan thread for reference.

BTW, I noticed you are using total Temp in Speec of sound formula. Is that right..? If so, it should be static temp.

Also PR is applied on Static pressure, not total pressure.

You are getting some ridiculously high M2 and V2 on cold exit before mixer. You have P2 greater than P02, which is physically impossible.

I am making my own excel sheet for 1D mean line analysis. But it will take quite a while before I can make it work.

You may find something like this useful. Download link on same page.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... fan_Engine

madhu
BRFite
Posts: 436
Joined: 12 Oct 2005 17:00
Location: India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby madhu » 20 Mar 2018 23:47

JayS wrote:
madhu wrote:Its around 1800 hrs


Thanks for the info Madhu. I will collate all lifing info and put in in Kavery gyan thread for reference.

BTW, I noticed you are using total Temp in Speec of sound formula. Is that right..? If so, it should be static temp.

Also PR is applied on Static pressure, not total pressure.

You are getting some ridiculously high M2 and V2 on cold exit before mixer. You have P2 greater than P02, which is physically impossible.

I am making my own excel sheet for 1D mean line analysis. But it will take quite a while before I can make it work.

You may find something like this useful. Download link on same page.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... fan_Engine


I know there are lot of ridiculously numbers i am getting. Speed of sound is a function of static temperature not stagnation temperature like i have used.
Static Pressure of fan outlet p16 had to be same/slightly better than p6 but in my case its not. Plz dont use my excel as of now. I am still working on mixed flow configuration. As of now my earlier excel one with separate flow is correct. Will see if i get any success will post.

madhu
BRFite
Posts: 436
Joined: 12 Oct 2005 17:00
Location: India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby madhu » 24 Mar 2018 08:58

can any one conform me the turbine inlet temperature of Kaveri and M88 engines?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 24380
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 24 Mar 2018 09:43

Philip wrote:On a tangential note, the grounding of 70+ Neo A-320s due to faulty PW engines is severely affecting ops of 2 of our civil airlines.Global failures too .Is there any definitive info as to the nature of the problem and whethere there will be a hangover onto PW's mil engines too.


Maybe one needs to look into the news that the maximum numbers of these suspect engines are flying in India.

Are other countries/operators cautious, foolish?? or have we alone thrown all caution to the winds because some jokers have been paid off??

Such aeronautical antics certainly do not bode well for India's already tattered regulatory reputation or even concerns for passenger and flight safety.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4565
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 24 Mar 2018 11:51

chetak wrote:
Philip wrote:On a tangential note, the grounding of 70+ Neo A-320s due to faulty PW engines is severely affecting ops of 2 of our civil airlines.Global failures too .Is there any definitive info as to the nature of the problem and whethere there will be a hangover onto PW's mil engines too.


Maybe one needs to look into the news that the maximum numbers of these suspect engines are flying in India.

Are other countries/operators cautious, foolish?? or have we alone thrown all caution to the winds because some jokers have been paid off??

Such aeronautical antics certainly do not bode well for India's already tattered regulatory reputation or even concerns for passenger and flight safety.


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3986&start=4280#p2259764

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1209
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby prasannasimha » 25 Mar 2018 08:05

^^ chetek a faulty engine shutting down was the reason aircraftcwere grounded. There were several incidents both in India and Europe. DGCA rightly grounded the aircraft. Simple question would you like to travel or send your loved ones in a plane with a faulty engine all the more knowing previous incidents with engine shut downs have occurred ? Easy to say one engine shut down and we can manage with the other bit that's not normal and expected ops for any civilian engine. Let's not underestimate our safety requirements. If a plane crashes and people die the same people will question - knowing that there is a faulty engine why did the regulators not take corrective action.The mandate for Pratt and Whitney was to give an engine with a designed MTBF. If is does not match that and there have been repeated flight incidents requiring flight diversion or emergency measures pray tell me why DGCAid wrong.
It's so easy to say it has never happened go any other customer etc etc and I have seen this as a standard response by companies so much so that when I report a faulty device or equipment or suture etc the first thing that I tell them is not to tell me that BS as if I am at fault. I tell that upfront . I also remind them that a US company lost millions of dollars because they neglected an incident which I reported once and they gave that BS answer. Later they were sued for millions list and the guy sheepishly looked downcast compared to his cocky stance when I told him. Always respect the customers genuine concerns and reports or it will come back to bite you. I think we have to stop this sort of self doubt and self flagellation and always think we are possibly wrong. It is not normal to have such frequent engine failures in civilian engines -period. Why do you think P&W are replacing them in the first place if they were so safe ? Or do we want to have the next crash to act. The airline indusrry operates on a near hit miss concrpt for safety. 2 planes coming within 1000 feet of lateral separation is considered as a neart hit miss and analyzed as a crash so why should an engine failure be neglected ? If anything it has made everyone sit up ,notice and act. I repeat woyld you knowingly send your lived ones in such a plane ?

ashbhee
BRFite
Posts: 128
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:05

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ashbhee » 26 Mar 2018 04:01

Is it easy to replace MKI's engine with this modified Kaveri engine? I wonder how will Russians react if replace some of their engines with Kaveri engines. They will lose overhauling engine business.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4850
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Neshant » 26 Mar 2018 08:37

India has already paid an arm and a leg for Sukhoi planes.
Negotiators from India did a VERY POOR job of ensuring India gained financially or technically from the MASSIVE order of Sukhois that was made. We have purchased hundreds of Sukhois with little if any offsets for domestic aerospace industry and still pay a huge price for them.

China with far fewer orders of Sukhois manage to get a whole lot more in concessions and offsets from Russia than India ever did.

Unless India begins to assert its interests and enters with Russia in future aerospace projects on a more equal footing, the arms relationship is not likely to last. Kaveris in Sukhois and hopefully FGFAs are part of that effort.

Now lets hope the govt is not screwing up FGFA negotiations like they did with the Sukhois.

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 26 Mar 2018 08:49

>>China with far fewer orders of Sukhois manage to get a whole lot more in concessions and offsets from Russia than India ever did.

china pays them in cash not for sukhois but for people help and license production rights / tot without the OEM stamped name. they have to pay because nothing is given out free. china has also licensed made or CKDed 300 su30+su27 starting early 90s.

what offsets are you talking about?

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 661
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Haridas » 26 Mar 2018 12:22

Neshant wrote:India has already paid an arm and a leg for Sukhoi planes.
Negotiators from India did a VERY POOR job of ensuring India gained financially or technically from the MASSIVE order of Sukhois that was made. We have purchased hundreds of Sukhois with little if any offsets for domestic aerospace industry and still pay a huge price for them.

China with far fewer orders of Sukhois manage to get a whole lot more in concessions and offsets from Russia than India ever did.

Unless India begins to assert its interests and enters with Russia in future aerospace projects on a more equal footing, the arms relationship is not likely to last. Kaveris in Sukhois and hopefully FGFAs are part of that effort.

Now lets hope the govt is not screwing up FGFA negotiations like they did with the Sukhois.


+108

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Austin » 26 Mar 2018 15:24

Neshant wrote:India has already paid an arm and a leg for Sukhoi planes.
Negotiators from India did a VERY POOR job of ensuring India gained financially or technically from the MASSIVE order of Sukhois that was made. We have purchased hundreds of Sukhois with little if any offsets for domestic aerospace industry and still pay a huge price for them.


What India got from Sukhoi deal then it wont get today even if we pay twice the cost , IF you consider the cost of Sukhoi at $60 million per aircraft and we purchased/built 272+ it comes to around $ 16 billion , I am inflating the cost at 2015 MOD quoted price of $ 60 million , in early 2000 Su-30 would cost ~ 40 million USD.

That includes the sunk infra cost , TOT , Lic Production cost , more than 60 % of Su are now built with Indian sources RAW materials , we can customise as we wish and integrate what we want , Engines are manufacured from Indian sources raw materials at Koraput .......... today Su-30 has an uptime of 65 % , All this for $ 16 billion.

Consider Rafale cost , for 36 Aircraft we pay $ 9 billion USD 2015 price ......we dont get TOT or Lic production , all aircraft will be imported , not sure if MRO facility is there let assume it does ... the only indian specific thing we got there is hard wire for Nuclear role , plus guranteed uptime of more than 70 % at a cost , The offset also comes with a cost i.e 40-50 % of the value.

Had we gone for a global tender for just the offset we could have got better or similar deal at the same cost ~ 3-4 billion USD beyond that Rafale is a Good but Expensive buy. Not even remotely comparable to the Flanker deal .......

madhu
BRFite
Posts: 436
Joined: 12 Oct 2005 17:00
Location: India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby madhu » 26 Mar 2018 19:52

ok here is full calculation. looks like the T4 is not 1700K. but it is much less. however i am not able to calculate the A/B thrust. as it is coming too low.

Image

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Katare » 26 Mar 2018 20:14

Austin wrote:
Neshant wrote:India has already paid an arm and a leg for Sukhoi planes.
Negotiators from India did a VERY POOR job of ensuring India gained financially or technically from the MASSIVE order of Sukhois that was made. We have purchased hundreds of Sukhois with little if any offsets for domestic aerospace industry and still pay a huge price for them.


What India got from Sukhoi deal then it wont get today even if we pay twice the cost , IF you consider the cost of Sukhoi at $60 million per aircraft and we purchased/built 272+ it comes to around $ 16 billion , I am inflating the cost at 2015 MOD quoted price of $ 60 million , in early 2000 Su-30 would cost ~ 40 million USD.

That includes the sunk infra cost , TOT , Lic Production cost , more than 60 % of Su are now built with Indian sources RAW materials , we can customise as we wish and integrate what we want , Engines are manufacured from Indian sources raw materials at Koraput .......... today Su-30 has an uptime of 65 % , All this for $ 16 billion.

Consider Rafale cost , for 36 Aircraft we pay $ 9 billion USD 2015 price ......we dont get TOT or Lic production , all aircraft will be imported , not sure if MRO facility is there let assume it does ... the only indian specific thing we got there is hard wire for Nuclear role , plus guranteed uptime of more than 70 % at a cost , The offset also comes with a cost i.e 40-50 % of the value.

Had we gone for a global tender for just the offset we could have got better or similar deal at the same cost ~ 3-4 billion USD beyond that Rafale is a Good but Expensive buy. Not even remotely comparable to the Flanker deal .......


The MKI’s are great products and deal even if discount for low serviceability, low technology gains and painfully long execution. But don’t discount Rafael deal, we might get much better technology than what we got with Sukhoi deal. Wait and watch

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4565
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 26 Mar 2018 20:58

^^ guys, engine thread. Not Su-30 or Rafale.

Madhu, bravo. Good work. Lower than 1700K T4 is expected at SL conditions. Kaveri is flat rated remember..?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55208
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 26 Mar 2018 23:26

JayS or Rakesh. Please warn Neshant for bringing in OT in this thread.
Thanks ramana

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55208
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 26 Mar 2018 23:30

Madhu, Great job.

So Kaveri is underperforming at 1.5KN below specification.

Is that bad enough to can it?
A/B is for take off and get away from dog fight.

And its flat rating should count for something?

JayS, Now we have numbers to discuss, what's the real problem?

Engine weight for the thrust?
With expected weight savings in Tejas should this even out?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aditya G, Kakarat and 61 guests