Russian engines are built on a different design philosophy and maintenance philosophy too, different from their equivalent western counterparts.
Just quoting arbitrary figures and then trying to justify them is not going to cut any ice.
BTW, and not judging or trolling, it is exactly this attitude that pisses off customers no end and that's how the journey down the slippery slope usually begins in almost every customer funded project.
TBO etc would have been discussed with prospective customers and the figures to shoot for would already be written down in some specific requirement document, signed by all.
You are right he was throwing random figures. I just wanted to put the numbers he is implying to be a sorry figure, in real life perspective. Its not like Kaveri is designed to achieved 4000hrs MTBO anyway. And how many fighter engines have more than 2000hrs MTBO in real life...?? We have some idea on Kaveri's life numbers for various modules. Some time back some of those figures were posted on this thread. May not be exact but definitely gives the ballpark numbers.
WRT what you said, different philosophy cannot be rationale behind discriminating against Kaveri. If 1000hr MTBO is acceptable for everyone for Su-30MKI which are even more important than LCA as far as their place in overall scheme is concerned, I don't see why Kaveri should be put through more hardship for acceptance at least to start with. We have rather bad MTBO numbers of some western engines too. So design philosophy is not exactly the reason always. 1000-2000hr MTBO is an excellent number for any ab initio engine. Another factor to consider is that LCA itself has rather low design life as of today of 3000hr. With that in mind these numbers look very acceptable. The target MTBO number must be written somewhere of coarse. But not everything is achievable in one shot. A matured customer who is well versed with engineering challenges understands the intricacies and would make concessions when needed so the project stays on path and the designers get time to fix the issues while other things like certification and induction go on smoothly which need not stop for these issues. Even F404 have had very serious lifing issues which has reduced lives of some of its components to 30% of intended life numbers in early 1990s. USN kept using them with restrictions. I'm sure IAF is also one such matured customer, which evident from their attitude with other engines they have with them. In fact exactly the same argument can be made for LCA too. LCA also has "poor" design life as of today as compared to even Russian maal, let alone western counterparts. But IAF has taken them nonetheless. I have no doubts that LCA will see significant increase in its certified life in coming years. Same can happen with Kaveri. So yes, 1000-2000MTBO better be acceptable to start with. If we wait until it can have 3000-4000hr MTBO which hardly any engine in the world has then Kaveri is doomed for ever.
No body is comparing the kaveri with russki engines.
If anything the kaveri has a fairly robust western sort of design influence so far, mostly because our guys have been educated that way, and again especially in some of their choice of alloys for the engine parts. This has not been done with adequate risk analysis so as to preclude US sanctions. Some of their choices for the alloys can only be described as "rash" or to put it diplomatically "avoidable".
I suspect that Kaveri will have improved TBOs as time goes by and more data is gathered on its performance and replaced parts are deeply analyzed for wear and tear, as well as why some of them failed before the scheduled replacement, either on running hours basis or calendar basis.
The 1000hr for the SU is not "accepted" in the way that you mean. It is a planned and scheduled replacement with these TBO figures being FACTORED in, specifically in the logistics chain, warehousing and in the stocking pattern to support this TBO and a little float to cater for exigencies.
A new engine/airframe is built with the best TBO that can be safely achieved. It matters not a whit what the life of the airframe is. Kaveri may not fly only on this one aircraft, so the designers would not even consider airframe life.
It is the job of logistics to match the TBO of the engine or overhaul cycles of the airframes and plan the inventory of the spares package accordingly. They have to deliver the part to the engineer's hand, as needed, when needed and where needed.