Kaveri & aero-engine 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.
Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 499
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Avarachan » 03 Apr 2018 06:48

ramana wrote:Live and learn.

True.
Would you never have found that anywhere else!

True again. I wouldn't have found this out if not for BRF. I'm very grateful for the education BRF has given me over the years.

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 499
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Avarachan » 03 Apr 2018 06:54

I wish someone would make a list of the testing infrastructure India needs to reach the next level of economic-industrial development. That way, voters could be educated regarding this issue. Perhaps that information is too sensitive, though.

madhu
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 12 Oct 2005 17:00
Location: India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby madhu » 03 Apr 2018 07:44

JayS wrote:
I am writing the equations for the engine on my own from scratch. Once I am done with all of them, I will insert the cooling model. If I find a good model before you I'll let you know.


JayS, i am not a CFD/thermal guy so i am struggling to embedding the 1D thermal coling equation. however i have found a shortcut which i believe is a good approximation. the chart is from Gas Turbine Performance By Philip P. Walsh, Paul Fletcher, gives cooling requirement vs TET. as per my calcualtion TET is 1500K so cooling required is just 5% as per the chart assuming high technology or 8% assuming low technology.
Image

JayS wrote:Little bit of air must be used for cockpit pressurization/air conditioning. But it would be very less, like <1%.

we can neglect it as of now i believe. more over now a days i think tapping from engine is not done. check the report of trent 1000
The Trent 1000 does not supply compressor air for airframe ventilation (Cabin Bleed), but does supply compressor air for the purpose of preventing ice build-up on the engine nacelle (Cowl Thermal Anti-Ice (CTAI)). The nacelle thermal anti-icing flow demand is modulated via a regulating valve


JayS wrote:FYI, most, if not all, civil jet engines are flat rated.

are you sure about it? i think the design point is at cruse condition rather than Static sea level, thats it. check out latest trent 1000 which is 345kN at takeoff vs 319kN Maximum Continuous. where as GE90 engine is 375kN at takeoff vs 69.200kN at cruise. this huge drop is due to the fact that it bleeds huge amount of air. (my understanding).

madhu
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 12 Oct 2005 17:00
Location: India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby madhu » 03 Apr 2018 07:53

if you are using 1D cooling model let me know to what level you are cooling your blades to? i mean what is the metal temperature that you are setting to.
FYI in industrial GT i have seen blearing as high as 18~20% for cooling. not sure of aero.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16965
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 03 Apr 2018 08:25

ragupta wrote:
ramana wrote:On flat rating.
From wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_rated



How is it done? can it be done by just controlling airflow/fuel or there is more to it?


Just asking onlee.........


Is there some confusion between flat rating and de rating.

Wasn't the canberra engine derated very simply by mechanically restricting it's throttle movement to a preset value, well below the max possible setting??

Even the Artouste, as well as the Garrett are set up produce less power than they are actually capable of.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16965
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 03 Apr 2018 08:38

Avarachan wrote:I wish someone would make a list of the testing infrastructure India needs to reach the next level of economic-industrial development. That way, voters could be educated regarding this issue. Perhaps that information is too sensitive, though.


OEM built engine test beds are plenty available in India with the IN, IAF as well as the PSUs.

Not very sure, but the marine version of the kaveri has probably run on one such test facility, after some minor tinkering and adaptation.

Various engines, from diverse design bureaux, are available for study, scrutiny and detailed strip examination at these places, just for the mere asking. Different design approaches and design solutions may be seen as well as appreciated.

Sometimes, Indians can be pigheaded about not exploiting fully, the resources available at home.

I know for sure that not enough conversation takes place between the Forces for the optimal exploitation of available resources as well as pooling of technical expertise because of office politics.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6045
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vina » 03 Apr 2018 09:31

chetak wrote:
ragupta wrote:
How is it done? can it be done by just controlling airflow/fuel or there is more to it?


Just asking onlee.........


Is there some confusion between flat rating and de rating.

Wasn't the canberra engine derated very simply by mechanically restricting it's throttle movement to a preset value, well below the max possible setting??

Even the Artouste, as well as the Garrett are set up produce less power than they are actually capable of.

De Rating vs flat rating in normal course, I suppose is a question of semantics, you can possibly override a derate , flat rating you cannot (it is done and dusted).

The Kaveri "flat rating" is a bit different. What they have done is put the design point for max TET at altitude performance (to compensate for the thrust lapse with altitude and for thrust lapse high stagnation temp at off design points at low altitude). It is accurately described as a TET Throttled engine. The trouble is while it has a high SPECIFIC thrust, it has low total thrust .This simply means that it doesn't have the Sea Level Static (SLS) Oomph to throw the plane down the runway and get it airborne and climb to altitude quickly. This part requires raw thrust and there is no substitute. This is where conventional engines designed at ISA conditions with higher bypass do great. They have great SLS Oomph and thrust drops with altitude and high stagnation conditions in more than even say 0.6 mach at low altitudes . But that is great for brochure publishing as well. It sounds great when you put out 90KN or 100KN on your brochure . Perfect in Europe or in Russia where temp is BELOW ISA for much of the year, but rubbish in our conditions. That is besides the point though.

chetak wrote:Various engines, from diverse design bureaux, are available for study, scrutiny and detailed strip examination at these places, just for the mere asking. Different design approaches and design solutions may be seen as well as appreciated.

Sometimes, Indians can be pigheaded about not exploiting fully, the resources available at home.

I know for sure that not enough conversation takes place between the Forces for the optimal exploitation of available resources as well as pooling of technical expertise because of office politics

EXACTLY . When I post the possible "fix" for Kaveri, you will kick yourself , all your former colleagues , and all the Indian establishment and ask WTF didn't they think of this!

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3375
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 03 Apr 2018 09:48

madhu wrote:
JayS wrote:
I am writing the equations for the engine on my own from scratch. Once I am done with all of them, I will insert the cooling model. If I find a good model before you I'll let you know.


JayS, i am not a CFD/thermal guy so i am struggling to embedding the 1D thermal coling equation. however i have found a shortcut which i believe is a good approximation. the chart is from Gas Turbine Performance By Philip P. Walsh, Paul Fletcher, gives cooling requirement vs TET. as per my calcualtion TET is 1500K so cooling required is just 5% as per the chart assuming high technology or 8% assuming low technology.
Image

JayS wrote:Little bit of air must be used for cockpit pressurization/air conditioning. But it would be very less, like <1%.

we can neglect it as of now i believe. more over now a days i think tapping from engine is not done. check the report of trent 1000
The Trent 1000 does not supply compressor air for airframe ventilation (Cabin Bleed), but does supply compressor air for the purpose of preventing ice build-up on the engine nacelle (Cowl Thermal Anti-Ice (CTAI)). The nacelle thermal anti-icing flow demand is modulated via a regulating valve


JayS wrote:FYI, most, if not all, civil jet engines are flat rated.

are you sure about it? i think the design point is at cruse condition rather than Static sea level, thats it. check out latest trent 1000 which is 345kN at takeoff vs 319kN Maximum Continuous. where as GE90 engine is 375kN at takeoff vs 69.200kN at cruise. this huge drop is due to the fact that it bleeds huge amount of air. (my understanding).


As per that plot you would need 7.5%+8.5% = 16% cooling air for HPT (rotor + stator). That's in the same ballpark as I told previously. For 1700k its well above 20%. Current engines easily reach 1900K. So you can see level of cooling air required by extrapolating. Technology level is a little vague word. You can have better cooling technology which would need more air for cooling. You could have better material technology which would need less air for cooling (but not by much perhaps, for example, going from DS to SCB blades only give you about 50K margin). You can use this chart to start with. Kaveri can be assumed to be on lower side of technology level.

The bleedless engine is from the "all electric" concept. But currently the industry is not reached to that level (its not really the technology that is stopping the change, its conservative mindset too and high costs of qualifying new technology sometimes). What we have in A350 XWB and B787 is "more electric". But there are really only a couple of engines out of tens which are going bleed-less. And they are going to use separate APU which is powered by the engine through electricity rather than compressed air. Fighters can't really afford to have so many components and don't really care about 1-2% gain in efficiency. Plus the requirement is tiny in fighters as compared to Airliner. Not worth having separate APU just for that. Anyhow mainstream engines like F404/F414/M88 are old designs by any standard. I don't know how its done in F35.


Flat rating in civil is not per se from altitude perspective its more for hot and hot/high ground performance (maintaining thrust levels across all the airports). But thermodynamically both are same. And do not expect that Mil jet would give same thrust as on ground at the cruising altitude. The flat rated altitude would be something like 6000-10000ft. I tried to ask this spec for Kaveri in AL-2017. They wouldn't tell me. :wink:

The huge drop in thrust is natural characteristic of Jet engine. Thrust drops with Altitude. At some altitude its goes so low that Aircraft cannot even sustain flight.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16965
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 03 Apr 2018 09:49

vina wrote:
chetak wrote:
Just asking onlee.........


Is there some confusion between flat rating and de rating.

Wasn't the canberra engine derated very simply by mechanically restricting it's throttle movement to a preset value, well below the max possible setting??

Even the Artouste, as well as the Garrett are set up produce less power than they are actually capable of.

De Rating vs flat rating in normal course, I suppose is a question of semantics, you can possibly override a derate , flat rating you cannot (it is done and dusted).

The Kaveri "flat rating" is a bit different. What they have done is put the design point for max TET at altitude performance (to compensate for the thrust drop with altitude and for high stagnation temp at off design points at low altitude). It is accurately described as a TET Throttled engine. The trouble is while it has a high SPECIFIC thrust, it has low total thrust .This simply means that it doesn't have the Sea Level Static (SLS) Oomph to throw the plane down the runway and get it airborne and climb to altitude quickly. This part requires raw thrust and there is no substitute. This is where conventional engines designed at ISA conditions with higher bypass do great. They have great SLS Oomph and thrust drops with altitude and high stagnation conditions in more than even say 0.6 mach at low altitudes . But that is great for brochure publishing as well. It sounds great when you put out 90KN or 100KN on your brochure . Perfect in Europe or in Russia where temp is BELOW ISA for much of the year, but rubbish in our conditions. That is besides the point though.

chetak wrote:Various engines, from diverse design bureaux, are available for study, scrutiny and detailed strip examination at these places, just for the mere asking. Different design approaches and design solutions may be seen as well as appreciated.

Sometimes, Indians can be pigheaded about not exploiting fully, the resources available at home.

I know for sure that not enough conversation takes place between the Forces for the optimal exploitation of available resources as well as pooling of technical expertise because of office politics


EXACTLY . When I post the possible "fix" for Kaveri, you will kick yourself , all your former colleagues , and all the Indian establishment and ask WTF didn't they think of this!


vina,

"kick yourself", "all your former colleagues", "all the Indian establishment"

You have this very peculiar and unhappy knack of sinking your own arguments. Besh!!

The "Indian establishment" is an amorphous entity, not given to dialogue, either within with itself (introspection) or with others. They are all masters of the turf war and winners/survivors are invariably put out to pasture, leaving the field barren and scorched.

Everyone within this entity ecosystem thinks that they are living at one end of the alimentary canal when actually, all of them are only capable of inhabiting the other end.

Sometimes, you make really very good points but dude, give a thought to the presentation, OK?? :)

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3375
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 03 Apr 2018 10:35

ramana wrote:JayS, If civil airlines jet engines are flat rated, then what's the problem with the Kaveri?
Is flat rating another red herring?


One sentence answer - The problem with Kaveri is that we are doing nothing to fix it.

The civil engines of today's edge are definitely more advanced than Kaveri from all perspectives. And Flat rating does help them in maintaining high life for hot components. So its win-win for them. Flat rating makes task difficult, yes. But not unachievable. For Kaveri, they almost achieved designed dry thrust. As I have been saying here all the while and Madhu confirmed from his conversation with GTRE ex-Chief, the shortfall is due to minor issues here and there. Look at the efficiency numbers for example for Kaveri modules - all at 85%. Whereas other engines like M88 or F404 have efficiencies touching 90%. State of the art engines such as F135 would have even higher efficiencies. For each % efficiency gain you get about ~1% gain in overall engine efficiency i.e. better sfc and better thrust. If GTRE can manage to improve a bit on all compressors and turbines' efifciencies by 1-2% they will be very close to the design dry thrust value. The loss in combustor is ~5%. Its ~3% for better engines. Combustion efficiency is 99.5%. It could be 99.99%. I don't know if they have things like Active tip gap control system to reduce secondary losses. GTRE's HPT cooling tech is bit lagging. And they do not have SCBs in HPT. Things like infusion of 3D aerodynamics would help. But they do not have 3D aero technology. (They couldn't have made everything under the Sun in 2000Cr funding, now, could they..? You don't get these things available in commercial CFD codes. These things are proprietary and take considerable time, efforts, test data and money to build). I had listed once some low hanging fruits for Kaveri improvements, IMO. Every small bit counts.

Since GTRE does not have funding and test facilities to actually try and fail and learn a lot of tricks of the trade, they need consultancy. We would rather throw goras dollah than giving the same amount to our own brown brothers. For last 4-5yrs nothing really is happening. GOI is pinning hopes on French for last 2yrs while nothing has come from that side yet. While they are not releasing money for K-10 and Flight test bed. They are not giving MiG29 to GTRE, they are not giving LCA airframe requested by GTRE for HSTT. They are literally doing nothing. Just expecting Snecma to come and fix everything one fine day. Even that deal is not signed in almost 2yrs now. Last year they were saying Kaveri will be flying in LCA in AI-19. One year is gone and nothing has happened. Nothing will happen in next one year as well.

After it was delinked from LCA project in like 2008 or so, they should have just focused on making Kaveri fly. Goal should have been to have a flying reliable engine whatever may be the T:W ratio or max thrust. If it was 100kg overweight, so be it. If it gives 10% less thrust so be it. Even now our aim should be only that. Side by side a parallel efforts could be made to improve performance, by leveraging academia/industry and other resources. But how will you make Kaveri flight worthy, if you do not have a damn aircraft to put the engine in..?

PS: Ramana Sir, check this table from the link. It shows technology levels for Jet engine. Compare the numbers with those from Madhu's excel sheet. You will get a rough idea where Kaveri stands overall. Flat rating add more challenge and demands better tech level than otherwise needed to achieve same thrust/SFC goals, and thus puts Kaveri at further disadvantage. As of now Kaveri is between level 2 and 3 from the table.
https://books.google.se/books?id=2Wy5rp ... &q&f=false

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16965
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 03 Apr 2018 19:15

JayS wrote:
ramana wrote:JayS, If civil airlines jet engines are flat rated, then what's the problem with the Kaveri?
Is flat rating another red herring?


One sentence answer - The problem with Kaveri is that we are doing nothing to fix it.

The civil engines of today's edge are definitely more advanced than Kaveri from all perspectives. And Flat rating does help them in maintaining high life for hot components. So its win-win for them. Flat rating makes task difficult, yes. But not unachievable. For Kaveri, they almost achieved designed dry thrust. As I have been saying here all the while and Madhu confirmed from his conversation with GTRE ex-Chief, the shortfall is due to minor issues here and there. Look at the efficiency numbers for example for Kaveri modules - all at 85%. Whereas other engines like M88 or F404 have efficiencies touching 90%. State of the art engines such as F135 would have even higher efficiencies. For each % efficiency gain you get about ~1% gain in overall engine efficiency i.e. better sfc and better thrust. If GTRE can manage to improve a bit on all compressors and turbines' efifciencies by 1-2% they will be very close to the design dry thrust value. The loss in combustor is ~5%. Its ~3% for better engines. Combustion efficiency is 99.5%. It could be 99.99%. I don't know if they have things like Active tip gap control system to reduce secondary losses. GTRE's HPT cooling tech is bit lagging. And they do not have SCBs in HPT. Things like infusion of 3D aerodynamics would help. But they do not have 3D aero technology. (They couldn't have made everything under the Sun in 2000Cr funding, now, could they..? You don't get these things available in commercial CFD codes. These things are proprietary and take considerable time, efforts, test data and money to build). I had listed once some low hanging fruits for Kaveri improvements, IMO. Every small bit counts.

Since GTRE does not have funding and test facilities to actually try and fail and learn a lot of tricks of the trade, they need consultancy. We would rather throw goras dollah than giving the same amount to our own brown brothers. For last 4-5yrs nothing really is happening. GOI is pinning hopes on French for last 2yrs while nothing has come from that side yet. While they are not releasing money for K-10 and Flight test bed. They are not giving MiG29 to GTRE, they are not giving LCA airframe requested by GTRE for HSTT. They are literally doing nothing. Just expecting Snecma to come and fix everything one fine day. Even that deal is not signed in almost 2yrs now. Last year they were saying Kaveri will be flying in LCA in AI-19. One year is gone and nothing has happened. Nothing will happen in next one year as well.

After it was delinked from LCA project in like 2008 or so, they should have just focused on making Kaveri fly. Goal should have been to have a flying reliable engine whatever may be the T:W ratio or max thrust. If it was 100kg overweight, so be it. If it gives 10% less thrust so be it. Even now our aim should be only that. Side by side a parallel efforts could be made to improve performance, by leveraging academia/industry and other resources. But how will you make Kaveri flight worthy, if you do not have a damn aircraft to put the engine in..?

PS: Ramana Sir, check this table from the link. It shows technology levels for Jet engine. Compare the numbers with those from Madhu's excel sheet. You will get a rough idea where Kaveri stands overall. Flat rating add more challenge and demands better tech level than otherwise needed to achieve same thrust/SFC goals, and thus puts Kaveri at further disadvantage. As of now Kaveri is between level 2 and 3 from the table.
https://books.google.se/books?id=2Wy5rp ... &q&f=false


Just thinking aloud, not stepping on any toes here........

Since it's a R&D organization, would a dual approach possibly not yielded optimum results??

One with flat rating and the other without??

A proof of concept type of initiative, right from the start??

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49796
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 03 Apr 2018 20:41

JayS, Thanks a lot for the summary of where we are now with respect to kaveri.

Looks like GTRE had no champions to push for the additional funds.

I note it got delinked from Tejas in 2008 and since then its orphaned.

I find it strange that DRDO would put it on slow death.

I think the French will lead us on garden path.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1442
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Zynda » 04 Apr 2018 18:06

Dunno about HTFE, but I hear there is more pressure on STFE (Manik) to succeed...

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3375
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 04 Apr 2018 18:29

Zynda wrote:Dunno about HTFE, but I hear there is more pressure on STFE (Manik) to succeed...


Pressure is good. Hopefully with pressure there is adequate funding and decisiveness too. Else with slothlike babudom and meagre funding, no amount of pressure will work. Lets not forget GTRE is completely lachar and has to stand with begging bowl in front of all mighty MoD babus while HAL has relatively much better autonomy, own money and own facilities and aircrafts for testing etc.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49796
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 04 Apr 2018 19:03

I think if the limit on TET is tem9ved at sea level and invoked at height should help?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16965
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 04 Apr 2018 20:52

ramana wrote:JayS, Thanks a lot for the summary of where we are now with respect to kaveri.

Looks like GTRE had no champions to push for the additional funds.

I note it got delinked from Tejas in 2008 and since then its orphaned.

I find it strange that DRDO would put it on slow death.

I think the French will lead us on garden path.


seeing our situation, any country could and would surely lead us up the garden path.

These technologies are the crown jewels of any country.

Seeing our ability to assimilate and innovate, companies, countries will be very wary of letting us through this particular technology door.

Just look at our space, missile and nuclear programs and see how far we have come, in spite of sanctions and technology apartheid still practiced against us.

We have got this far without technology theft, unlike our neighbors who have not done anything but.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62446
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Singha » 04 Apr 2018 21:01

the world over,very few pure play R&D orgs like GTRE or NAL not attached to a production OEM exist.
Tsagi/gromov test center of russia might be one.
rest are all well funded depts of the big bro, given a lot of autonomy but also the best in manpower and funding and political cover - skunk works(lockheed) and phantom works(northrop)

GTRE & NAL should imo be folded in under HAL umbrella ... separation of design house and production house is probably a soviet union thing with TSAGI going the research and validation and folks like sukhoi and mig doing the production and testing ?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49796
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 04 Apr 2018 21:25

GD I had suggested something similar earlier in the thread to add design to the GTRE name.

I think merging the HAL and GTRE robs the country of a big asset.

GTRE has done a great job of research.
The problem was to make them responsible for the design and development of the Kaveri with out a project oriented focus.
It was more like a research milieu.
Add to that the oversight was pathetic on part of DRDO and IAF and big MoD.
Funds should have been adequate and the requirements review more through.

Looks like Kaveri needs just a little push to get it over the fence line.
Wish GTRE had been more transparent about what they have achieved (which is a lot considering the meager resources) and what else needs to be done (looks like just a little) and for much (no clue could be a lot or just a little bit)?

Anyway the tie-up with SAFRAN for the whole gamut of turbofan technology and in decent time should be great.

Recall even with HAL getting the RR engine technology for GNAT and Jaguar, the Russian technology for Migs and SU-30 there is zilch indigenous development.
Not much track record here.

GTRE was the sole beacon in this area of darkness.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16965
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 04 Apr 2018 22:05

The russians managed to reverse engineer british engines, the hans managed to reverse engineer the russian engines.

The early copies of the MiGs, both engines and airframes had really pathetic service lives because russki metallurgy was not understood by the hans

This was in the early days.

In India, did someone hold a gun to anyone's head??

or did we use the excuse of simply not wanting to piss off the russians by snooping into their technical secrets as a crutch??

money doesn't trigger ability, ability triggers money.

Both parameters have fallen short in our confused setup.

It's time to fix the present broken system and reboot into a newer and more productive avatar.

Study the success of APJ Abdul Kalam. The master was an accomplished politician who also happened to be technically sound. His ability to keep the funds flowing for his projects depended more on his political acumen exercised in rarefied circles, than his equally impressive technical abilities.

Political does not always mean congis or commies. It simply means knowing how to avoid the landmines while not losing sight of the main objective.

As one rises up the ladder, the technical quickly recedes and the political dominates.

No one in any ministry wants to hear some wild eyed, mad scientist type, spouting technical gibberish whereas a smiling, suave, dedicated, honest, committed, passionate and urbane, technical wizard like APJ could and did charm the bloody pants off the baboo(n)s and dhotis off the mantris and they give him all the project funds he asked because they believed in him and mainly because he did not spout technical gibberish at them.

Of course, he too failed many times but he always got back on the horse after every single fall and managed to rise even higher.

APJ Abdul Kalam never lacked for funds. If he could manage, WTF is wrong with some others??

Will any other gentleman from DRDO make it to the Rashtrapati Bhavan, ever again??
Last edited by chetak on 04 Apr 2018 22:15, edited 1 time in total.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2160
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby VinodTK » 04 Apr 2018 22:14

chetak wrote:The russians managed to reverse engineer british engines, the hans managed to reverse engineer the russian engines.
:
In India, did someone hold a gun to anyone's head??

or did we use the excuse of simply not wanting to piss off the russians by snooping into their technical secrets as a crutch??
:
:
:
No one in any ministry wants to hear some wild eyed, mad scientist type, spouting technical gibberish when a smiling, suave, dedicated, honest, committed, passionate and urbane, technical wizard like APJ can charm the bloody pants off them and they give him project funds because they believe in him and mainly because he does not spout technical gibberish at them.
:
:

^^^^ Well said Chetak

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49796
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 04 Apr 2018 22:50

At RECW, the principal was former Group Captain IAF engineering stream.
Using his connections he persuaded the IAF to donate a Mig engine from a crashed plane to the college.
It was mounted on display in the gas turbine engine lab.
GTE lab had a small GT made by Rover hooked up to a test console.
This was never run due to fuel price going up.
Previous batches used to watch it being run and take measurements etc., as group effort at the end of the course.

Our Mech Eng HOD never allowed anyone to even touch the Mig engine.
It was a monument.
The engine lab head wanted to open it up to see what were the components and let the students see how they look.
No can do.

Am sure it was the same even now.


i think the HOD was at fault for showing non intellectual curiosity.
And inculcating that in the department.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16965
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 04 Apr 2018 23:21

JayS wrote:

After it was delinked from LCA project in like 2008 or so, they should have just focused on making Kaveri fly. Goal should have been to have a flying reliable engine whatever may be the T:W ratio or max thrust. If it was 100kg overweight, so be it. If it gives 10% less thrust so be it. Even now our aim should be only that. Side by side a parallel efforts could be made to improve performance, by leveraging academia/industry and other resources. But how will you make Kaveri flight worthy, if you do not have a damn aircraft to put the engine in..?



May be they could take one of the older jaguars, modify it to accept one kaveri and one other engine to use as a test bed.??

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 736
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby prasannasimha » 04 Apr 2018 23:37

^ the issue is still that no test bed was provided. Soomehow that has become a big stumbling block

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16965
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 04 Apr 2018 23:50

prasannasimha wrote:^ the issue is still that no test bed was provided. Soomehow that has become a big stumbling block


Test bed needs humans to fly, no??

Who and why??

If the parent org has not developed an engine reliable enough or even flight worthy, how can anyone ask for some poor guys to risk their lives??.

just saying onlee.

If a test bed were to be made available tomorrow morning, what would be the time frame to get the kaveri in a shape to be tested??

Not "ready" like before but really, really ready for tests??

It is a chicken and egg issue, which comes first: Kaveri ready in all respects for flight test or testbed??

Don't say simultaneously because you need to demonstrate the product first. So far, the happenings do not instill any measure of confidence.

Or, did something happen during the earlier tests in russia that has caused all concerned to take a step back and reassess the project itself??

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2903
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby vera_k » 05 Apr 2018 06:53

According to Wikipedia, the only active engine development program with any funding is for an engine for a UCAV. That perhaps explains the lack of progress or news on this front, as the UCAV project does not yet have a prototype.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16965
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 05 Apr 2018 12:03

vera_k wrote:According to Wikipedia, the only active engine development program with any funding is for an engine for a UCAV. That perhaps explains the lack of progress or news on this front, as the UCAV project does not yet have a prototype.


The entire funding fiasco for the kaveri has deeper causes and implications than is being piously made out as lack of funding being the sole and single most important reason for the project not being able to meet stated design and other promised goals.

It was only the GE engines that caused the LCA to bloom. Otherwise, that was another project in similar doldrums.

The very same set of global circumstances and the resulting realignment of forces that resulted in the amrekis looking at India in a more kindly light so that their core interests are better served as well as better protected by India has enabled the fruition of the LCA to the extent possible for inducting the aircraft into squadron service.

The very same set of circumstances did not result in transfer of engine technology for the Kaveri. A global cartellisation of sorts has unofficially but very strongly formed to prevent India from either acquiring or harnessing this technology.

Ever wondered why the russkis helped us with the nuke submarine project but NEVER with the engine project??

Have we really explored all avenues of help or are we foolishly stuck with the glamorous manufacturers only??

Just for arguments sake onlee.

If Volvo could do this, and that too in 1962, could they not be paid to help out kaveri?? and maybe develop a more successful offshoot??


The Volvo RM8 is a low-bypass afterburning turbofan jet engine developed for the Saab 37 Viggen fighter. In 1962, the Pratt & Whitney JT8D-1 engine was chosen to power the Viggen in absence of a suitable and available engine designed for military use. Basically a licensed-built version of the JT8D, heavily modified for supersonic speeds, with a Swedish-designed afterburner, the RM8 was produced by Svenska Flygmotor (later known as Volvo Aero).[1]

RM8A - AJ 37 Viggen
Since the original engine was constructed for subsonic speeds, most part of the engine had to be redimensioned for the higher Mach-speeds in a military aircraft. Fans and turbine were altered, a new burn-chamber designed and a totally new fuel-control system for both engine and afterburner.[2]

RM8B - JA 37 Viggen
The flight envelope for the fighter-version demanded both more power and better compressor stall margins. This led to a new fan-stage (the so-called "0-stage") was introduced, making the engine longer. This led to a total redesign of the fans, the low-pressure compressor and the burn-chambers.[3]


Maybe, someone like this could take the dormant Kaveri and turn it into a shit hot military engine.

The Pratt & Whitney JT8D is a low-bypass (0.96 to 1) turbofan engine, introduced by Pratt & Whitney in February 1963 with the inaugural flight of the Boeing 727. It was a modification of the Pratt & Whitney J52 turbojet engine, which powered the US Navy A-6 Intruder attack aircraft. The Volvo RM8 is an afterburning version that was license-built in Sweden for the Saab 37 Viggen fighter.

Image


Even as far back as the 1960s, a gigantic company like P&W took an existing military engine the J52, and used that to develop another engine JT8D, for the civil airliner market, which another huge company like volvo then took and used that to develop its RM8 series.

Whereas, our guys (which includes the entire ecosystem of ministry, designers and customer) with literally jackshit in hand, took up the ab initio development of a brand new military engine and that too, all by themselves.

Did no one hear about risk assessment, project viability, resource crunch and technology gaps that, on the face of it would have been very hard to miss.

Something doesn't sit right, no??

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3375
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 05 Apr 2018 13:50

chetak wrote:
If Volvo could do this, and that too in 1962, could they not be paid to help out kaveri?? and maybe develop a more successful offshoot??


Sweden has been gifted technology out of US's own geopolitical needs. So Sweden could stall/impede USSR from northern flank of NATO forces, during cold war, if war breaks out. Since end of Cold War, Sweden has not been in any particular favour from US. They were not given any work on F414 for Gripen E. Most probably RM12 would be end of Sweden's mil jet work.

Sweden was reached for help for Kaveri. Volvo was asked for consultancy for A/B. RM12 was even considered for LCA. Do remember Sweden barely has technology for Fan and A/B only. Nothing much. But that actually makes them a good partner for us. They have no fund or engine program to do more work on these technologies. And we want precisely those two modules to be debugged, so we can fun them. Would be mutually beneficial JV for both countries. But sadly they cant do shit unless uncle sam nods it seems. I don't think there is any OEM left which was not contacted for help by GTRE. Even if they agree to help, they need to be paid money no..? Has GOI offered to pay the money...? Last I checked GOI is seating on 2600Cr funding for 4yrs now.

Even taking help from French is nothing new. DRDO tried to borrow M88 core. Earlier IAF itself vetoed (and rightly so I think) borrowing M88 core if you believe some of the reports from 2008-2010 or so. This recent French help looks coming due to Rafale contract offset, had there been no Rafale deal we would not have seen any such initiative in all probability. So its not like GOI looks eager to fund engine development now. They can pay $1B to French but cannot give >$0.5B to GTRE.

You say why not have two parallel projects. Sure let's have it. That would be way to go. But if GOI does not fund mission critical single project, why do you think they will fund two projects.

No one expects any pilot to fly LCA with untested Kaveri in it. That why Kaveri needs to be tested on four engine airliner/transporter based FTB and then on twin engine fighter FTB. MiG-29 is best suited as Kaveri is quite near to RD33 in size and trust levels. Any other aircraft would demand significant changes in the FIghter airframe itself. That itself would become a project. No movement on FTB procurement. God know how long they gonna discus about it in Parliamentary committee. We very well know if the top tier of government wants something done, it gets done. Sadly engines is not their priority by a long shot.

Does anyone here really thing GOI/MoD is really keen on making desi engine...? GOI wanted strategically important capability of having Brahmos on Su-30MKI. We achieved what no one has done so far without any help from OEM and in like 1/10th the cost and in quite short time. No elaboration needs to be made for our success in Nuclear, Strategic missiles or Space technology. Why should Jet engine development be any different...? May be hard, but just put more efforts in it then.

I agree with your thoughts emphatically on us losing out on consolidating our available resources. We still have quite a bit of building blocks. We can still consolidate them. But I do not see it happening. I don't see the push from the top. Without that, our organisations are grappled with unimaginative/uninterested people in power and organisational egos dividing them.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3375
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 05 Apr 2018 15:13

x-posting from Indian Mil Av thread. It belongs here.
uskumar wrote:Not sure if this was posted before.

completed the first run of the HTSE-1200 turboshaft engine,


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -r-447244/


In AI-17 HAL folks told me they will be building and testing HTSE1200 in coming year. Great too see they have kept their word. The news made my day. If HAL can make India self sufficient for Heli engines, nothing like it.

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3065
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby suryag » 05 Apr 2018 16:58

JayS wrote:
chetak wrote:
If Volvo could do this, and that too in 1962, could they not be paid to help out kaveri?? and maybe develop a more successful offshoot??


<snip> That why Kaveri needs to be tested on four engine airliner/transporter based FTB and then on twin engine fighter FTB. MiG-29 is best suited as Kaveri is quite near to RD33 in size and trust levels
definitely it will be more trustworthy than the RD-33 :rotfl:
. Any other aircraft would demand significant changes in the FIghter airframe itself. That itself would become a project. No movement on FTB procurement. God know how long they gonna discus about it in Parliamentary committee. We very well know if the top tier of government wants something done, it gets done. Sadly engines is not their priority by a long shot.

</snip>.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16965
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 05 Apr 2018 18:21

JayS wrote:
chetak wrote:
If Volvo could do this, and that too in 1962, could they not be paid to help out kaveri?? and maybe develop a more successful offshoot??


Sweden has been gifted technology out of US's own geopolitical needs. So Sweden could stall/impede USSR from northern flank of NATO forces, during cold war, if war breaks out. Since end of Cold War, Sweden has not been in any particular favour from US. They were not given any work on F414 for Gripen E. Most probably RM12 would be end of Sweden's mil jet work.

Sweden was reached for help for Kaveri. Volvo was asked for consultancy for A/B. RM12 was even considered for LCA. Do remember Sweden barely has technology for Fan and A/B only. Nothing much. But that actually makes them a good partner for us. They have no fund or engine program to do more work on these technologies. And we want precisely those two modules to be debugged, so we can fun them. Would be mutually beneficial JV for both countries. But sadly they cant do shit unless uncle sam nods it seems. I don't think there is any OEM left which was not contacted for help by GTRE. Even if they agree to help, they need to be paid money no..? Has GOI offered to pay the money...? Last I checked GOI is seating on 2600Cr funding for 4yrs now.

Even taking help from French is nothing new. DRDO tried to borrow M88 core. Earlier IAF itself vetoed (and rightly so I think) borrowing M88 core if you believe some of the reports from 2008-2010 or so. This recent French help looks coming due to Rafale contract offset, had there been no Rafale deal we would not have seen any such initiative in all probability. So its not like GOI looks eager to fund engine development now. They can pay $1B to French but cannot give >$0.5B to GTRE.

You say why not have two parallel projects. Sure let's have it. That would be way to go. But if GOI does not fund mission critical single project, why do you think they will fund two projects.

No one expects any pilot to fly LCA with untested Kaveri in it. That why Kaveri needs to be tested on four engine airliner/transporter based FTB and then on twin engine fighter FTB. MiG-29 is best suited as Kaveri is quite near to RD33 in size and trust levels. Any other aircraft would demand significant changes in the FIghter airframe itself. That itself would become a project. No movement on FTB procurement. God know how long they gonna discus about it in Parliamentary committee. We very well know if the top tier of government wants something done, it gets done. Sadly engines is not their priority by a long shot.

Does anyone here really thing GOI/MoD is really keen on making desi engine...? GOI wanted strategically important capability of having Brahmos on Su-30MKI. We achieved what no one has done so far without any help from OEM and in like 1/10th the cost and in quite short time. No elaboration needs to be made for our success in Nuclear, Strategic missiles or Space technology. Why should Jet engine development be any different...? May be hard, but just put more efforts in it then.

I agree with your thoughts emphatically on us losing out on consolidating our available resources. We still have quite a bit of building blocks. We can still consolidate them. But I do not see it happening. I don't see the push from the top. Without that, our organisations are grappled with unimaginative/uninterested people in power and organisational egos dividing them.


I just do not buy the very simplistic argument of sweden being gifted technology due to the US's own geopolitical needs. If such were the actual case, then the direct sale of a purely military engine, in large numbers, would have sufficed to meet any and all such needs. All sweden wanted was a military engine that the US was not willing to sell them. In the end the US embargoed the RM8 for export sales because it peevishly claimed that the JT8D was after all a US engine.

BTW, didn't the US do just that with the GE engines for the LCA?? Does the US's own geopolitical needs count for naught when it comes to India and the so called technology transfer??

It cannot be an argument that the US transferred technology to sweden when sweden only wanted military engines but sold military engines to India when India only wants technology.

Where was the need for volvo to go through such a complicated design process, such a convoluted reverse engineering process where it ultimately resulted in the redesign of the entire engine itself??

Why did volvo jump needlessly through such high hoops, Its precisely because the US was not forthcoming with the critical help that sweden needed. If the US had given it's "faithful geopolitical ally" the military engine that it actually wanted, the entire problem would have been solved.

But the greedy US did not want sweden to develop a fighter to rival any of the US products thus undercutting the US export market. Isn't the Grippen doing just that today??

This is also the exact case of India today. It has paid the price for having the potential to make and export war planes. The HF 24 was the target in yester years and the LCA and its potential developed derivatives is the target today.

Volvo's approach to the RM8 development was like doing knee surgery by approaching the knee through the oesophagus, no??

Incidentally, Volvo seems to have touched, solved problems and overcome grave technical difficulties in most of the very areas that the kaveri seems to be having problems in.

Its easy to say that some one did not help us but at that time we also had a leader who insisted on lecturing the world from a high moral pedestal and that did not help in making friends and influencing people. Our people were poverty ridden, starving, hungry, jobless and without hope. Under such circumstances, when no one was willing to help, Homi Bhaba succeeded, did he not??

Did the poor guy have an extra testimonial?? No, but he had the ability, the technical chutzpah, and the drive. This makes a huge difference. If one has this then people tend to follow such leaders. APJ was another such guy. Look at ISRO also for such examples.

There is no champion today, of the likes of, and the stature of APJ, Bhaba who can lead, motivate enthuse and push through the kaveri project. Not even close.

You cannot expect any "parliamentary committee" to move forward when the entire project has all the makings of a hot potato and regularly dropped by many.

The politcos neither know nor they have cared to become aware of the intricacies of the work involved. They are also mostly grappling with the same open source knowledge available to most of the jantha.

The designers are unable to show anyone the light at the end of the tunnel. Under such circumstances, what could anyone expect from any govt with a limited mandate of five years?? It has been decades since the project began and there are no milestones to show to the public that can enthuse them and result in more financial support.

ISRO projects, DAE projects, Nuke submarine project, the gamut of warship projects that can be trotted out and displayed by the politicos on TV as though they have personally designed and built everything themselves, inaugurations, ribbon cuttings, photo ops et al.

One can come out with arcane reasons, esoteric equations and convoluted explanations as to why some piffling and absolutely bone dry parameter did not meet spec, point to the customer and say that they asked for too much but at the end of the day, there is nothing concrete to showcase.

We seem to be missing the point by a country mile. Its very easy to blame finances, infrastructure, nonavailability of testbed or what the GoI has not done. No one wants to address the 800 pound gorilla in the room which is at the very root of all the Kaveri problems.

I am sure that the ruskis must have, in addition to the project people, made a direct report to the GoI after the tests in Russia, as they had undoubtedly been tasked to do. That has not been made public.

Saddam used retired technology mandarins from various countries to further his project goals. I personally know of one desi company in the private sector that imported an amreki plant, lock, stock, and barrel and transplanted it to some wilderness in India and along with that, they also managed to snag the retired chief engineer from the same company. He led/leads the local Indian team.

They were from the defence sector and I have not kept up to say for sure but they may still be in business.

Do something, anything, take some initiative but we should not simply keep moaning that we have not received adequate funds, no one appreciates us, or we were never given a chance because that is not at the root of the problem.

Do a very simple back of the envelope calculation and see how much treasure has been expended over the years, including pay and allowances, establishment costs, travelling costs, and a myriad of other expenses, building, infrastructure, materials, fuel, vehicles, communications, subsidized food etc etc.

The figures will astound anyone. That is what it has already cost the Indian taxpayer, but
then, who's counting, no??

The Indian taxpayer is very rich. He can afford anything.
Last edited by chetak on 05 Apr 2018 19:33, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49796
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 05 Apr 2018 19:21

Chetak and JayS, Your posts triggered some thoughts in me.

Kaveri non-development is a CBM to US.

Let me explain.
In the mid 1980s V.S. Arunachalam (VSA)went to Carlucci (FC) with a list of technologies for the LCA.
FC offered the RLG being used for F16 which was not even asked for.
VKA said thanks but no thanks.

The observer asked how come? VSA said 'We don't want to put US in control of our plane program as RLG is the heart of its control system."

Looks like as part of the removing sanctions deal some understanding was arrived at to release the Tejas development as a hostage to Indo-US relations.

In retrospect non-funding Kaveri is a CBM to US as Tejas will continue to use GE engines over which the US can pull the plug in case of behavior modification.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3375
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 05 Apr 2018 19:33

^^Chetak saar, you greatly overestimate Sweden's capabilities in Engine tech and greatly underestimate GTRE's achievement in limited resources. I suggest you take close look at Volvo's actual technical contribution in RM12 for example.

Finally what matters is funds. No funds no development. Anything without funds is just rhetorics.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16965
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 05 Apr 2018 19:45

ramana wrote:Chetak and JayS, Your posts triggered some thoughts in me.

Kaveri non-development is a CBM to US.

Let me explain.
In the mid 1980s V.S. Arunachalam (VSA)went to Carlucci (FC) with a list of technologies for the LCA.
FC offered the RLG being used for F16 which was not even asked for.
VKA said thanks but no thanks.

The observer asked how come? VSA said 'We don't want to put US in control of our plane program as RLG is the heart of its control system."

Looks like as part of the removing sanctions deal some understanding was arrived at to release the Tejas development as a hostage to Indo-US relations.

In retrospect non-funding Kaveri is a CBM to US as Tejas will continue to use GE engines over which the US can pull the plug in case of behavior modification.


The role of the russians and the french is not factored in.

The US has a very limited influence on both the french as well as the russians.

Both have the very real potential to upset the US applecart and their position on the LCA.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16965
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 05 Apr 2018 20:05

JayS wrote:^^Chetak saar, you greatly overestimate Sweden's capabilities in Engine tech. I suggest you take close look at Volvo's actual technical contribution in RM12 for example.


I assure you saar, I am not overestimating anyone.

RM8 is what we are discussing.

RM12 is another kettle of fish.

I suggest that you take a look at the design process of the V2500 engines.

Note the risk sharing, synergizing of capabilities, both design as well as manufacturing, the vast and pooled supply chain resources and the number of consortium members, their technical and financial capabilities, their highly successful individual products and finally the logic and justification for all of them coming together. Note especially the contribution of individual consortium members whose diverse already existing parts maybe with some tinkering, both design and manufacturing wise, have been integrated to make the "new" engine, using proven, already tested and certified components that are reliable, safe and flight ready.

Of course, the much reduced certification procedures, testing, as well as acceptance process, would have been used to get the "new" engine market ready. Airframe manufacturers would be glad to use such a product. as the time lines are shortened and the end product is a "known" entity.

Why did they do this?? Risk sharing, pooling of resources, a huge cost reduction achieved in the development of a "new" engine that each of the members, on their own, would not have attempted. This is also the future.

Volvo is simply derisking by using the existing GE engine as a base for the RM12, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. It is a process that they have successfully as well as historically followed.

It is also a successful design model as well as methodology being adopted and used world wide.

No single country, no matter how rich they may be, will can afford to thoughtlessly risk the development of an ab initio, brand new military turbine engine unless it is absolutely inescapable.

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 499
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Avarachan » 05 Apr 2018 23:12

ramana wrote:Chetak and JayS, Your posts triggered some thoughts in me.

Kaveri non-development is a CBM to US.

Let me explain.
In the mid 1980s V.S. Arunachalam (VSA)went to Carlucci (FC) with a list of technologies for the LCA.
FC offered the RLG being used for F16 which was not even asked for.
VKA said thanks but no thanks.

The observer asked how come? VSA said 'We don't want to put US in control of our plane program as RLG is the heart of its control system."

Looks like as part of the removing sanctions deal some understanding was arrived at to release the Tejas development as a hostage to Indo-US relations.

In retrospect non-funding Kaveri is a CBM to US as Tejas will continue to use GE engines over which the US can pull the plug in case of behavior modification.


You're right.

chetak wrote:The role of the russians and the french is not factored in.

The US has a very limited influence on both the french as well as the russians.

Both have the very real potential to upset the US applecart and their position on the LCA.


Appeasing the U.S. with the GE engine on the Tejas was the right decision, at that time. France does not have the strength to protect its clients. Just look at the Iraq War in 2003. France protested America's lies diplomatically, but beyond that, did nothing to protect the Iraqi people. Russia, in the 1990's and 2000's, did not have the strength to protect its clients, either. Just look at the bombing of Serbia in 1999. Russia protested the lies diplomatically, but beyond that, did nothing.

The U.S. government doesn't like competition ... One reason Yugoslavia was destroyed was that the Novi Avion (essentially a single-engined version of the double-engined Rafale) would have been competition to the F-16C Block 50/52.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novi_Avion

India only acquired global nuclear deterrence in 2010, with the operationalization of Agony 3.

India's research for the Kaveri and the Tejas will enable a Kabini-powered Ghatak in the 2020's. That means India will be in the world's top tier of UCAV powers.
Last edited by Avarachan on 06 Apr 2018 01:14, edited 1 time in total.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16965
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 06 Apr 2018 00:59

Avarachan wrote:
ramana wrote:Chetak and JayS, Your posts triggered some toguhts in me.

Kaveri non-development is a CBM to US.

Let me explain.
In the mid 1980s V.S. Arunachalam (VSA)went to Carlucci (FC) with a list of technologies for the LCA.
FC offered the RLG being used for F16 which was not even asked for.
VKA said thanks but no thanks.

The observer asked how come? VSA said 'We don't want to put US in control of our plane program as RLG is the heart of its control system."

Looks like as part of the removing sanctions deal some understanding was arrived at to release the Tejas development as a hostage to Indo-US relations.

In retrospect non-funding Kaveri is a CBM to US as Tejas will continue to use GE engines over which the US can pull the plug in case of behavior modification.


You're right.

chetak wrote:The role of the russians and the french is not factored in.

The US has a very limited influence on both the french as well as the russians.

Both have the very real potential to upset the US applecart and their position on the LCA.


Appeasing the U.S. with the GE engine on the Tejas was the right decision, at that time. France does not have the strength to protect its clients. Just look at the Iraq War in 2003. France protested America's lies diplomatically, but beyond that, did nothing to protect the Iraqi people. Russia, in the 1990's and 2000's, did not have the strength to protect its clients, either. Just look at the bombing of Serbia in 1999. Russia protested the lies diplomatically, but beyond that, did nothing.

The U.S. doesn't like competition ... One reason Yugoslavia was destroyed was that the Novi Avion (essentially a single-engined version of the double-engined Rafale) would have been competition to the F-16C Block 50/52.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novi_Avion

India only acquired global nuclear deterrence in 2010, with the operationalization of Agony 3.

India's research for the Kaveri and the Tejas will enable a Kabini-powered Ghatak in the 2020's. That means India will be in the world's top tier of UCAV powers.


I had written earlier that the funding of the kaveri project had something more to it than what meets the eye and with Putin now emerging from the ashes, as it were, I confess that my thoughts had more of a russian flavor to it, especially with Putin seriously bidding for the jaithapur reactors and the french maybe sweetening the deal for the very same jaithapur reactors with their own kaveri riposte.

Two accomplished thinkers pointing to an amreki interest in the kaveri slowdown certainly gives one pause for new thought.

My guess would be, at least in the medium term, kaveri may still be in play but it has to be seen how the amreki shadow would pan out over our military aerospace ecosystem, as the amrekis increasingly aggressively continue to thrust their way into the IN and the IAF.

Their fighter foray into India seems to have been blunted for the moment.
Last edited by chetak on 06 Apr 2018 01:34, edited 1 time in total.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3375
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 06 Apr 2018 01:29

chetak wrote:
Their fighter foray into India seems to have been blunted for the moment.


But their engines are firmly in and are in for a long haul. Thats still a significant leverage. Unless we break the jinx with Kaveri we will be tied one way or the other.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16965
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 06 Apr 2018 01:42

JayS wrote:
chetak wrote:
Their fighter foray into India seems to have been blunted for the moment.


But their engines are firmly in and are in for a long haul. Thats still a significant leverage. Unless we break the jinx with Kaveri we will be tied one way or the other.


Very true, but no one is happy about that because we have seen the havoc that can be caused by sanctions. One never knows what will set them off.

I really don't see many more engines coming in without significant pressure building on them to allow license production in India.

But yes, they have a firm foot in the door.

BTW, there was some thought in the US about buying ruski airframes and using US built engines and avionics in them.

Would we use amreki engines on our ruski airframes, if we had the chance??

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1215
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 15 Apr 2018 01:12

Image

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1113
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 15 Apr 2018 05:11

JayS wrote:
But their engines are firmly in and are in for a long haul. Thats still a significant leverage. Unless we break the jinx with Kaveri we will be tied one way or the other.


JayS sir,
how much can the engine sanction affect us?An engine has even if russian has 1000 hour life (rough figures from Su30mki). That would mean a lot of time before an engine will be replaced. Also, didnt Iranians maintain their F14 fleet for long.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests