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.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7760
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Pratyush » 09 Jul 2018 16:20

The only way it gets built, is when btue Khan imposes sanctions against India under caasta. And Rafael gets turned into a poisoned chalice by Congress Post 2019.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 228
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby dinesh_kimar » 10 Jul 2018 21:54

GTRE tested Kaveri for approx. 160 h in 2016 and 155 h in 2017.
(This was as per plan- apparently the first time in Kaveri program that the planned target was achieved).

Test duration is very close to 150 h cyclic endurance required before Airframe integration (MIL STD 500).

Looks like GTRE tested for endurance twice, and did indepth analysis / redesign of components . They also did a Heat transient test.

The flying testbed trails in Russia already completed successfully, not required anymore for this particular engine .

(I understand that tests like behavior at Mach 0.6 to 0.7, engine relight, altitude behavior, and plotting engine performance envelope are done in Flying test bed phase).

The avbl literature suggests major milestones are as follows: Bench testing- >Flying test bed-> 150h Endurance test- >Airframe integration and test.

The last mile?

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6225
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby habal » 10 Jul 2018 22:37

So the first 150 hr test done was not satisfactory and the blade flutter, reheat oscillation, compressor vibration/noise where found during this phase. In second 150 hour test GTRE claums to have sorted out all issues but no Indian organization has domain experience to certify/audit a jet turbine so safran roped in.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1110
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 10 Jul 2018 23:41

dinesh_kimar wrote:GTRE tested Kaveri for approx. 160 h in 2016 and 155 h in 2017.
(This was as per plan- apparently the first time in Kaveri program that the planned target was achieved).

Test duration is very close to 150 h cyclic endurance required before Airframe integration (MIL STD 500).

Looks like GTRE tested for endurance twice, and did indepth analysis / redesign of components . They also did a Heat transient test.

The flying testbed trails in Russia already completed successfully, not required anymore for this particular engine .

(I understand that tests like behavior at Mach 0.6 to 0.7, engine relight, altitude behavior, and plotting engine performance envelope are done in Flying test bed phase).

The avbl literature suggests major milestones are as follows: Bench testing- >Flying test bed-> 150h Endurance test- >Airframe integration and test.

The last mile?

Good post Dinesh, would you have some idea how long does it take for the airframe integration and test

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 228
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby dinesh_kimar » 11 Jul 2018 01:24

^ Air frame integration maybe 4-5 months ballpark (lot of different qualification tests).

Flight test about 500 h and about 600 + tests. (Eurofighter with similar 90 KN engine.It took them about 2 years, with 2 Typhoons made available)

2-3 years more ?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49786
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 11 Jul 2018 02:32

habal wrote:So the first 150 hr test done was not satisfactory and the blade flutter, reheat oscillation, compressor vibration/noise where found during this phase. In second 150 hour test GTRE claims to have sorted out all issues but no Indian organization has domain experience to certify/audit a jet turbine so safran roped in.



And Safran had some recent report about what they did for technical audit.

They mention 145 hours running.

here one page ago:

viewtopic.php?p=2279257#p2279257

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49786
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 11 Jul 2018 03:24

I think the oldest PV1 birds might be handed over if the air-frame has enough structural life.

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6225
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby habal » 11 Jul 2018 11:13

It sure is exciting times to be part of gtre for they get to integrate an engine with an aircraft. So much of things they get to learn. Good times.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1110
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 11 Jul 2018 11:53

if true, we just need to ward off against some tempting offer by Khan. It will find its way and that too soon. I am afraid that this is what COMCASA is all about, utilize all capital overlay for F35 and leave no money for Kaveri/Tejas/AMCA/AC/Subs

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6225
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby habal » 11 Jul 2018 12:13

this is a lab project which will continue at it's own pace, khan or no khan. Atleast that is what I feel. A low risk, low return venture which actually aims to increase body of knowledge rather than aim for mass manufacture via assembly lines, mind it that too will come at a future date, not in a hurry though. If they want to impede development just sanction some component. 500 hrs tests will occupy better part of 2 years atleast. And we do not know how many components in existing version are imported from khan or euro suppliers which if sanctioned/made unavailable can delay things even more. But it will be good to have kaveri as a backup since it gives options if Russian/French spares are made unavailable due to some reason and their engines can't be overhauled here.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 948
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby RKumar » 11 Jul 2018 13:16

I would not put Kaveri directly on LCA, it should be put on a twin-engine fighter to perform initial flying tests. After 500-700 hrs of flying and some refinement. I can be ported to LCA.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 363
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby mody » 11 Jul 2018 14:16

The Kaveri that is going to be tested is not rated at 90KN. The original aim for Kaveri was around 80 KN wet thrust. In previous testing, it fell short of this target. Now, with Safran's help, maybe it will be able to reach the original design goal or come very close.

However, for LCA, we now need a more powerful engine. It will not come on time for LCA MK1A and plus the thrust might still not be enough for MK1A as compared to GE-F404INS6. For LCA MK-2, we need to match GE F414 at 98.5 KN and same for AMCA as well. Even M88 would need to be upgraded to increase its thrust to match GE-F414, if not match the F414 with EPE/EDE upgrade figures. That would mean increasing the Thrust to between 105-110 KN.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2360
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chola » 11 Jul 2018 22:08

RKumar wrote:I would not put Kaveri directly on LCA, it should be put on a twin-engine fighter to perform initial flying tests. After 500-700 hrs of flying and some refinement. I can be ported to LCA.


That platform could be MiG-29 onlee. Su-30 is far too large. Most ideal would a four engine dedicated test platform like Il-76 the Russians use.

Will still be risky with a twin engine testbed. Depending in speed, losing power on one engine can send the plane into downward spiral unless proper deflection of rudder and other flight surfaces are used. And the MiG-29 is not FBW! So the pilot need to save the plane mechanically. And even if the test pilot is first rate with nerves of steel willing to test the underpowered Kaveri alongside the RD-33, he then must put faith in the reliability of the “established engine” that is the notorious and famously iffy RD-33.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7760
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Pratyush » 11 Jul 2018 22:35

Why the obsession with mig 29. Port it to one of the earliest Tejas prototype and test fly it. If the engine has demonstrated reliability on the test bench. It should perform ok when mounted in the Tejas.

Just make sure that ejection seat works.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1282
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Kakarat » 11 Jul 2018 22:41

Pratyush wrote:Why the obsession with mig 29. Port it to one of the earliest Tejas prototype and test fly it. If the engine has demonstrated reliability on the test bench. It should perform ok when mounted in the Tejas.

Just make sure that ejection seat works.


The Reason for a twin engine aircraft for testing Kaveri is if there is a problem the engine can be brought back and the fault identified and corrected but in case of a single engine its not possible.

In the same way in a Mig-29 the Kaveri can be tested in the flight profile of a jet fighter which is not possible in a 4 engines transport aircraft

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7760
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Pratyush » 11 Jul 2018 23:03

See my problem with the mig 29 demand is that the IAF will not provide it due to high demand for the 29 by the IAF itself. The alternative options is to establish a degree or reliability in a flying platform. Using a 4 engine transport plane. Then move it to Tejas.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5199
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Rakesh » 12 Jul 2018 00:17

Pratyush Saar, I have to side with Kakarat on this. A twin engine fighter (does not have to be the MiG-29) is the initial step to take before mounting the engine on the Tejas. If something goes wrong in the air, it is easy to bring the aircraft back - on a twin engine bird. If the Tejas crashes - during engine development - expect all the knives to come out, to kill the bird and the engine as well. We cannot afford that risk. Import lobby is like the devil onlee - waiting right around the corner, to say I told you so!

Since Snecma is involved in the Kaveri development, I suggest they test it on a Rafale test bed in France. Certify the engine, make sure it works and then, and ONLY then, port it over to the Kaveri. This can also be done in India if wanted. But mount it on a twin engine bird first.

1) First test flight should be with one M88 engine and the other being the Kaveri engine. Test, Diagnose, Resolve and Test Again.
2) Next series of test flights should be with twin Kaveri engines on the Rafale. Test, Diagnose, Resolve and Test Again.
3) Once #1 and #2 are met, engine meets all design parameters and engine is certified ---> port it over to the Tejas.
4) Drink Chai and Eat Biscoot.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2360
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chola » 12 Jul 2018 00:49

Rakesh wrote:Pratyush Saar, I have to side with Kakarat on this. A twin engine fighter (does not have to be the MiG-29) is the initial step to take before mounting the engine on the Tejas. If something goes wrong in the air, it is easy to bring the aircraft back - on a twin engine bird. If the Tejas crashes - during engine development - expect all the knives to come out, to kill the bird and the engine as well. We cannot afford that risk. Import lobby is like the devil onlee - waiting right around the corner, to say I told you so!

Since Snecma is involved in the Kaveri development, I suggest they test it on a Rafale test bed in France. Certify the engine, make sure it works and then, and ONLY then, port it over to the Kaveri. This can also be done in India if wanted. But mount it on a twin engine bird first.

1) First test flight should be with one M88 engine and the other being the Kaveri engine. Test, Diagnose, Resolve and Test Again.
2) Next series of test flights should be with twin Kaveri engines on the Rafale. Test, Diagnose, Resolve and Test Again.
3) Once #1 and #2 are met, engine meets all design parameters and engine is certified ---> port it over to the Tejas.
4) Drink Chai and Eat Biscoot.


No, not possible, Admiral saar. The M88 is a much smaller engine than the Kaveri/F404/RD-33 though with nearly the same dry thrust.

For M88, Kaveri, F404, RD-33, respectively in diameter (in cm): 69, 90, 89, 104.

Kaveri will not fit into Rafale unless it is redesigned by les francais into a M88!

For India, the only two-seater that can accomodate a Kaveri is a MiG-29.

In fact, thinking through this, outside the MiG-29/35 there is only one other twin engine ac in the whole world that can act as a testbed for Kaveri.

But that means asking the lizard’s Shenyang for a J-31. lol

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5199
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Rakesh » 12 Jul 2018 00:56

Chola: Then test it on a MiG-29. What is the end goal? Your own engine or no?

The IAF cannot spare one MiG-29 for that? If not, get a MiG-29K then from the Navy.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49786
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 12 Jul 2018 01:00

Rakesh wrote:Chola: Then test it on a MiG-29. What is the end goal? Your own engine or no?

The IAF cannot spare one MiG-29 for that? If not, get a MiG-29K then from the Navy.



Thats why I want the IAF to take charge now.

GTRE babufies the officers.

As the Kaveri engine diameter is 90 cm which is lose to the F404 diameter of 89 cm, I think they should take the risk and certify with TDS or PV1 vintage plane if it has enough structural life.

In other words they need to shave off 0.5 cm radially to accommodate the Kaveri engine. Maybe have shorter engine mounts.

How is the length aspect?

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2360
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chola » 12 Jul 2018 01:23

Rakesh wrote:Chola: Then test it on a MiG-29. What is the end goal? Your own engine or no?

The IAF cannot spare one MiG-29 for that? If not, get a MiG-29K then from the Navy.


Yes, test it on the MiG-29. But I really want the french to test it first on one of their flying testbeds:
Image

Better that we get one of our own like the Il-76 that the Russians tested the Kaveri on. But at least the French have experience with these things and can help us.

(Knowing how our babus work in pennywise-poundfoolish ways on things like tests, we probably never tested the Kaveri in Russia to the point where we were confident enough to put it into a twin engine never mind the LCA.)

Once the Frenchies says “good” we test on a MiG-29! Otherwise, we could dispense with the French testing and be like the Russkies and just order someone to fly the MiG-29 testbed with the new Kaveri and iffy RD-33 for “Rodina (Motherland)!”

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2360
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chola » 12 Jul 2018 01:50

ramana wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Chola: Then test it on a MiG-29. What is the end goal? Your own engine or no?

The IAF cannot spare one MiG-29 for that? If not, get a MiG-29K then from the Navy.



Thats why I want the IAF to take charge now.

GTRE babufies the officers.

As the Kaveri engine diameter is 90 cm which is lose to the F404 diameter of 89 cm, I think they should take the risk and certify with TDS or PV1 vintage plane if it has enough structural life.

In other words they need to shave off 0.5 cm radially to accommodate the Kaveri engine. Maybe have shorter engine mounts.

How is the length aspect?


M88, Kaveri, F404, RD-33
Length in meter: 3.5, 3.5, 3.9, 4.2

So lengthwise, Tejas can accommodate with room to spare. But how do you shave an cm off all around the core of an existing fuselage and trust it to be structurally sound?

Use the MiG-29, it gives you ample space to work with. Even with the RD-33, it is still better with two engines.

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 389
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby V_Raman » 12 Jul 2018 03:38

I believe Tejas was made to fit Kaveri dia of 90cm and F404 was fit in as a stop gap. Any structural modifications might not be needed.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7760
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Pratyush » 12 Jul 2018 05:48

Rakesh, interesting train of thought. As I distinctly recall a French comment that Rafale could accept the Kaveri for its service in IAF.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49786
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ramana » 12 Jul 2018 06:05

Chola, Thanks. The engine mounts might have to be shorter.

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby suryag » 12 Jul 2018 06:45

Like Ramana Garu said earlier, it was written in one of the articles that TD1/2 and PV1 could accommodate Kaveri, PV1 seems to be the best candidate given TD1/2 have become showpieces

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6225
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby habal » 12 Jul 2018 07:36

I feel people are confusing flying test bed with engine integration into actual application aircraft. In the first case, the engine is operating only in 'test mode' in a 4 engine setup like IL76. But in a twin engine fighter and single engine platform, the kaveri will no longer be in test mode but will be primary load bearing engine and thus it will be put to greater stress and whatever can go wrong will be very evident.

Again it will be prudent to have more than 1 platforms for kaveri integration and copies can be integrated on multiple single engine and dual engine platforms so that testing can continue seamlessly even if there are any mishaps.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5199
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Rakesh » 12 Jul 2018 08:23

Pratyush wrote:Rakesh, interesting train of thought. As I distinctly recall a French comment that Rafale could accept the Kaveri for its service in IAF.

It may be, but it appears that the idea will never take off...both literally and figuratively. As per Ramana Garu and Chola Saar, technically that is a no go on the Rafale. No point then in endorsing that idea. Just beating a dead horse. Perhaps on a MiG-29?

habal wrote:I feel people are confusing flying test bed with engine integration into actual application aircraft. In the first case, the engine is operating only in 'test mode' in a 4 engine setup like IL76. But in a twin engine fighter and single engine platform, the kaveri will no longer be in test mode but will be primary load bearing engine and thus it will be put to greater stress and whatever can go wrong will be very evident.

Again it will be prudent to have more than 1 platforms for kaveri integration and copies can be integrated on multiple single engine and dual engine platforms so that testing can continue seamlessly even if there are any mishaps.

On the bolded part, would it be better than to put it on a twin engine bird first and then onto a single engine bird?

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6225
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby habal » 12 Jul 2018 09:12

If the engine malfunctions or does not perform to parameters. It does need to be retrieved in a single piece to study and make necessary modifications. So that is where a twin-engine comes into picture. And that is the primary advantage a twin engine configuration holds over a single engine in testing a new engine.

But that being said, the PV1 if kaveri is ported to it will be flown very conservatively and no edge of performance envelop acrobatics is expected until atleast 400 hrs of tests. So the PV1 may just be able to pull off the kaveri as well until an year down the line the scientists and pilots get more cofidence to push the envelop. So kaveri has more possibility of a mid-life crisis on PV1 than initial teething troubles.

One big advantage with MiG29 is that it is a stable configuration platform, unlike majority of single engine birds that are FBW unstable configuration, which in layman's language means the bird will fall like brick out of the sky in case there is FBW error which is probable because porting a new engine means FBW has to be designed around parameters of new engine. This could be a risk factor in the PV1 experiment. The aerodynamically stable design MiG29 without any FBW offers a theoritical chance to glide on and land intact even if both engines malfunction which is a big advantage over a single engine unstable configuration platform like LCA/M2K/F16.

For same reason, although tempting, the safran offer to integrate kaveri with rafale also holds lot of promise but the flight control system on rafale will have to undergo modifications and tweaks to integrate FCS/FBW with new engine and that is going to take time.

Misha
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 08 Jan 2018 00:25

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Misha » 12 Jul 2018 10:30

Pratyush wrote:See my problem with the mig 29 demand is that the IAF will not provide it due to high demand for the 29 by the IAF itself. The alternative options is to establish a degree or reliability in a flying platform. Using a 4 engine transport plane. Then move it to Tejas.


Well we have one Mig 29K which was damaged a bit in Goa.... and Mig29K is FBW too.... ideally we should use this air frame to test Kaveri.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21532
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Austin » 12 Jul 2018 10:45

Does RD-33MK has the same dimension length , weight and dia as Kaveri ? Else you can just fit kaveri in a twin engine aircraft hoping to make it test platform , you need to first take care of CG issue and account it for it by tweaking FBW plus you need to figure out how Kaveri will fit in the airframe if the dimension are not similar. Not a trivial task.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6647
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Indranil » 12 Jul 2018 12:23

and most importantly, the inlet.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 948
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby RKumar » 12 Jul 2018 13:18

Rakesh wrote:1) First test flight should be with one M88 engine and the other being the Kaveri engine. Test, Diagnose, Resolve and Test Again.
2) Next series of test flights should be with twin Kaveri engines on the Rafale. Test, Diagnose, Resolve and Test Again.
3) Once #1 and #2 are met, engine meets all design parameters and engine is certified ---> port it over to the Tejas.
4) Drink Chai and Eat Biscoot.


The main question is, does IAF want local engine? If yes, they have to pitch in.

Otherwise, we will be on mercy of Snecma. We will not learn how to enhance and validate the next iteration of an engine. Snecma should provide the technical help but actions should be performed by local guys on the Indian control platforms. Otherwise, it is again stupid ToT screwdrivergiri.

At least involve 2 planes, would not mind 3 - just in case something goes terribly wrong.

Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 353
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Eric Leiderman » 12 Jul 2018 13:37

when will the unmanned Tejas become a reality. If the timeline is the foreseeable future. If the control laws are ironed out, It could be a test bed for the Kaveri (pie in the sky)

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3526
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Neela » 12 Jul 2018 14:17

Larger aircraft as test beds are chosen because of real estate . FADEC needs hooking up and sensors need to be placed for measuring and monitoring.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2276
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JTull » 12 Jul 2018 16:53

Could Jags be considered instead of Mig-29s? We've lot more local knowledge about the internals.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 948
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby RKumar » 12 Jul 2018 17:11

Eric Leiderman wrote:when will the unmanned Tejas become a reality. If the timeline is the foreseeable future. If the control laws are ironed out, It could be a test bed for the Kaveri (pie in the sky)


Sir ... we require platform yesterday and you are asking for 5 years of wait :rotfl:

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 948
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby RKumar » 12 Jul 2018 17:12

JTull wrote:Could Jags be considered instead of Mig-29s? We've lot more local knowledge about the internals.


If it can be fitted on Jags, it could be a better choice as compared to Mig-29. I expect IAF come with such suggestions as knowing the track record of the flying platform is critical especially the engines.
Last edited by RKumar on 12 Jul 2018 17:13, edited 1 time in total.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 457
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 12 Jul 2018 17:13

I am getting indigestion from all this khayali pulao. First let get the MK1 out as per schedule!!!

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 948
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby RKumar » 12 Jul 2018 17:16

ks_sachin wrote:I am getting indigestion from all this khayali pulao. First let get the MK1 out as per schedule!!!


LCA program is not coupled with engine anymore. It is a separate project.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests