Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4200
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby JayS » 23 Jul 2019 11:10

Difficult to know current state given MoD stopped publishing Annual Reports. No new Parliamentary Committee reports too. This AI 2019 didnt bring out much info too. GTRE guys were mostly tight lipped on JV with Snecma. Looks like France asked too much money. Felt like GTRE guys have almost given up. The GTRE Senior Sci there said, they are standing by for Flight testing, but it has to happen as G2G level. All they can do is wait till then. They have tweaked the design but it needs to be flight tested to see how well the problem is solved, of it its solved at all. Of coarse, anything said in AI needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Surprizingly he didnt know about the FTB that DRDO is mulling over as per Parliamentary Committee report, for good long 4-5yrs now.

If someone can get hold of right paanwalla, may be we can get some idea.

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 589
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby rajsunder » 25 Jul 2019 06:52

#JaiShriRam Ramana
Indranil and your article on MWF and comparison to Grippen being read in high places.
#JaiShriRam Ramana · 12:55 AM

Can any one point me towards the Link to the article discussed over here

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7595
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 25 Jul 2019 10:08

rajsunder wrote:
#JaiShriRam Ramana
Indranil and your article on MWF and comparison to Grippen being read in high places.
#JaiShriRam Ramana · 12:55 AM

Can any one point me towards the Link to the article discussed over here

Click on link below, scroll down and look for a two part article by Indranil Roy and Nilesh Rane on the Tejas.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7689

Very happy to read Ramana-ji’s tweet. Let us hope The article spurs the people (who are in high places) to go full steam ahead on the MWF.

Good job IR and Nilesh. BRF owes you both!

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 469
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby maitya » 27 Jul 2019 15:21

SaiK wrote:copying on ramana's request from BRF twitter dhaaga:
---

<snip>
No Jay, I meant the SCBs were almost ready from our labs and it was only a question of jigs. I don't recollect any news after that we made to make the prototype (k9?).

The failure was with the existing blade.. and we were working on the SCB (drdo pub i recollect). BTW, isn't DS the first step to single crystals? The process used by russkies for the AL fps is different? Or we never got this tech from them?

Anyway, I think we were close yp get the 90* bends with SCB (I need tp refer the pub) or something. I vaguely remember zirconium reference..hence the question.
2:43 AM

JayS
DMRL has 2nd Gen SCB. But they can make the stock material. From there to finished blade need two critical. Tech we didnt have, TBC and Laser driling for cooli g holes. Midhani was in process of dev those tech. This is way back in 2017.recently there was a tender for TBC machine setup.
JayS · 5:46 AM
<snip>

Wrt the above here are some musings (in 4 part series) wrt DS and SC casted Nickel-base Superalloys for blading applications in aircraft engines:

[Part 1]
If you are only going by the metal temperature handling capability alone, then pls note the following:
1) The DS casted blades provide ~14deg C advantage over equiaxed polycrystalline casted blades (e.g. MAR M247, with approx metal temp capability of 950-1050 deg C).
e.g. Kaveri/Kabini uses DS casted blades (and vanes) using Supercast 247A (a variant of CM247LC which is itself derived from equiaxed MAR M247)

2) The 1st Gen SC blades provide another ~20deg C advantage, over these DS casted blades.
e.g. RR2060/PW1480/CMSX3/ReneN4 - 1060 deg C

3) The 2nd Gen SC blades provide another ~30deg C advantage over these 1st Gen SC casted blades.
e.g. PWA1484/CMSX4/ReneN5 - 1120 deg C

4) After that, the 3-5th Gen SC blades are produced with an aim of adding further ~30deg C advantage, as follows:
CMSX10 - 1135 deg C
ReneN6 - 1110 deg C
TMS80/MC-NG/DMS4 - 1140 deg C
TMS196 - 1150 deg C

Pls further note DMS4 is the DMRL developed suddha-desi SC alloys for turbine blade application - and it's almost shoulder to shoulder to best available (i.e. published).
---------------------------------------------------------------
Note - GE uses Rene-6 in F414.
DMRL developed a DS cast version of DMS4 called DMD4 - it was specifically developed for complex turbine aerofoil parts that are difficult to cast in SC form - and also as an cost-effective alternative. Further research continued with DMD4 by adding Ru and it was actaully proved to significantly improve the rupture life etc etc.


So it's obvious simply graduating from Equiaxed -> DS -> SC casting, it's not possible to reach the 1400-1650 deg C TeT capabilities of many modern turbofans.
Also the question obviously arises, how is the 1455deg C TeT of Kaveri achieved given the metal temperature capability of 1050 deg C of DS casted CM247LC based blades?

Answer, of course, and is well known in BRF as well is, from following two aspects:
1) Implementing various Blade Cooling techniques (e.g. Film/Convection cooling) - with this, a decent DS casted blade would provide for 200-250 deg C advantage (eg DS GTD 111) over metal-temperature-handling capabilities.
However a SC casted blade, again with a decently designed blade cooling techniques, would allow this advantage to go upto ~400 deg C.

2) Thermal Barrier Coating (TBC) application - Generally, the 7-8 wt% Yttria Stabilized Zirconia (8YSZ) TBC provides 150 deg C advantage (not to be confused with "thick layer"-TBC-application-capable-surfaces like the combustor walls etc, which can allow as much as 250-300 deg C advantages).


So Kaveri's DS blades gets to 1455 deg C via 1050 deg C (DS Cast) + 250 deg C thru blade cooling + 150 deg C via 8YSZ based TBC.
Last edited by maitya on 27 Jul 2019 23:20, edited 1 time in total.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 469
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby maitya » 27 Jul 2019 15:45

[Part 2]
Thus one assertion can be - that higher TeT is desired of, DS to SC graduation is inevitable in any modern turbofan development program.

But that is not because of incremental metal temperature capability addition etc (at best 20-60 deg C advantage).
The actual advantage of moving from DS to SC is not simply via the raw blade metal temp enhancement - it's more to do with thin section property optimisation that is inherent to SC processing. This thin section property optimisation (for e.g. in the thinnest section of a blade, the wall thickness (metal portion) is as small as 0.5 mm) allows for further intricate cooling passage designing etc which in turn allows drastic increase in overall TeT etc (200-250deg C of DS casted to 400+ deg C levels of SC casted blades).
This of course is in addition to the fantastic improvement of creep-resistance, tensile strength etc properties that entails from Equiaxed -> DS -> SC graduations (details in the Kaveri Sticky thread).

Also another aspect is advances in TBC ... recently we have seen reports of Indian Rare Earths Limited developing bi-layer TBC of Lanthanum Zirconate (LZ) over Yttrium Stabilized Zirconia (YSZ).
A bilayer top-coat consisting of Lanthanum Zirconate (LZ) over 8YSZ applied over "traditional" bond coat of say NiCrAlY enhances the temperature capability of the coating by >100deg.
So basically this advanced TBC if successfully applied to Kaveri's DS casted HPT turbine blades will easily bring the TeT to mid-1500deg C regime.

And if (and when) DMRL graduates to SC casted blades (and vanes), of the already developed DMS4 material, the absolute cutting edge TeT regimes of 1600+ deg C, becomes well within reach.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 469
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby maitya » 27 Jul 2019 15:49

[Part 3]

A word about 8YSZ and LZ TBCs - note, Wiki has good level of general details wrt the TBC concept:

1) The "traditional" 8YSZ TBC (that has been ther for 4 decades now) allows for maximum surface temperature capability of about 1200 °C - beyond that degradation of the coating (in form of reduced strain tolerance and a decrease in thermal fatigue life of the coating) takes place due to changes in microstructure.

2) Lanthanum Zirconate (LZ), has much higher thermal and phase stability - close to 2000deg C.
It also has lower thermal conductivity and sintering tendency compared to YSZ.
(Thermal Conductivity - 2 W/m/K of YSZ vs 1.56 W/m/K of LZ)

3) LZ is also less oxygen transparent than YSZ, providing better bond coat oxidation resistance and minimises the growth of TGO (Thermaly Grown Oxide layer) - Wiki has good details about TGO and it's impact on TBC.

4) LZ has lower coefficient of thermal expansion compared to YSZ - so it can not be applied directly on the NiCrAlY bond coat. Therefore LZ is applied as a top coat material over YSZ forming a bilayer TBC. Furthermore LZ has good chemical compatibility with YSZ, making them a very good candidate for bilayer top coat applications.

5) Nano-structured TBCs often exhibit excellent performance compared with conventional TBCs such as adhesive strength, thermal shock resistance, thermal insulation, corrosion resistance and so on.
Furthermore nano-structured bi-layer is also expected to reflect certain amount of radiations (std phyzziks says wavelength of the reflected light is directly proportional to the particle diameter) thus providing a more effective TBC. So for reflecting heat in the near IR spectrum, TBC micro-particles needs to be of the order of 1-3 μm.

6) In India Nano-structured high purity grade YSZ and LZ are prepared from beach sand containing monazite and zircon following wet chemical route i.e. co-precipitation method.

7) DRDO has tested air-plasma sprayed TBC comprising of NiCrAlY bond coat (of 50 μm thickness), YSZ top coat (thickness 100 μm) and LZ top-most coat (thickness 50 μm) on to cast Ni-base super alloy substrates. The total maximum thickness was kept well below 250 μm.

8 ) DRDO has already assembled and validated the bi-layer YSZ-LZ coated flaps in an aero-engine for test cases involving rapid thermal transients, supersonic flow of combustion products, vibratory loads of about 4 ‘g’, sustained 1,000 h equivalent of engine operation and more than 30,000 nozzle actuations.

======================================================================================

All of these in Parts 1-3, still doesn't clarify following two questions:
1) why is DMRL not able to create SC casted blades for Kaveri?
2) and if it was not, able to what are these SC casted turbine blade images from various AI and other published literature that's doing round for many years now?

An attempt wrt these aspects in my next post (Part-4).

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 589
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby rajsunder » 28 Jul 2019 05:24

Rakesh wrote:
rajsunder wrote:Can any one point me towards the Link to the article discussed over here

Click on link below, scroll down and look for a two part article by Indranil Roy and Nilesh Rane on the Tejas.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7689

Very happy to read Ramana-ji’s tweet. Let us hope The article spurs the people (who are in high places) to go full steam ahead on the MWF.

Good job IR and Nilesh. BRF owes you both!

Thanks for the link

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7526
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 28 Jul 2019 07:05

Nobody owes us anything.

I have already got my rewards. Much better than monetary!

Nilesh is done with the NLCA article. I was very busy for the last two months. Will take it up shortly and try to finish that piece in couple of weeks.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2723
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 31 Jul 2019 15:56

i know it's idrw ..but still posting in the hope that there is hope..

http://idrw.org/smaller-turbo-fan-engin ... successor/

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 292
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby MeshaVishwas » 15 Aug 2019 10:21

DRDO, French company talks on Kaveri jet engine crash
https://m.economictimes.com/news/defenc ... 684809.cms

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7595
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 15 Aug 2019 10:45

Engine development:India in danger of being left behind
https://www.deccanherald.com/state/top- ... 49691.html

MohanMP
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 15:58

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby MohanMP » 15 Aug 2019 12:10

I think there is no effort to absorb whatever MFG tech we have in regards to the engine. Hence what we design we imagine the ways to manufacture without even going through the assets we already have. We are having all the tech (including the single crystal) for the last two decades including the core testing facility with us and these critical components are doing fine in service. I think HTSE SC blades are produced completely here within the country. Initially they did nor use the tech thinking better option would be available. But MFG implementation is a shop floor high time consuming research effort. One has to toil day and night to qualify a new component. Component by component a team has to integrate and test the assembly. HAL has the experience of last five decades and believe me it is world standard. We sit and do no go to the MFG section to see what we have and in what way we are producing supersonic engine for the last two decades almost every part of it barring few. The planners there should be having complete knowledge of what resources and skill we have. I think GTRE could have utilized the HAL facility and skill for engine development including the SCB. But they did not. You have to personally go and acquire the skill, set the processing route with proper planning and after many iterations these things fructify. We have all the infrastructure and skill to do it and we have been doing it for decades. However, we are not applying it for our own design. The extent of deep tech transfer which we have from Russia in mind boggling. Had it been other country, it would have had been a completed task. Only if we can visit with an access to the MFG route one can understand how under utilized our facilities have been. Many air force officers also agree with me. If a team is entrusted, given the facilities and skill we have, I assure you all, it will take hardly three years with round the clock activity. Unfortunately this is not happening!

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19732
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 15 Aug 2019 12:58

the engine deal between DRDO and French firm Safran for the development of combat engines for the indigenous Tejas fighters may have fallen through due to high costs.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4200
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby JayS » 15 Aug 2019 13:04

MohanMP wrote:I think there is no effort to absorb whatever MFG tech we have in regards to the engine. Hence what we design we imagine the ways to manufacture without even going through the assets we already have. We are having all the tech (including the single crystal) for the last two decades including the core testing facility with us and these critical components are doing fine in service. I think HTSE SC blades are produced completely here within the country. Initially they did nor use the tech thinking better option would be available. But MFG implementation is a shop floor high time consuming research effort. One has to toil day and night to qualify a new component. Component by component a team has to integrate and test the assembly. HAL has the experience of last five decades and believe me it is world standard. We sit and do no go to the MFG section to see what we have and in what way we are producing supersonic engine for the last two decades almost every part of it barring few. The planners there should be having complete knowledge of what resources and skill we have. I think GTRE could have utilized the HAL facility and skill for engine development including the SCB. But they did not. You have to personally go and acquire the skill, set the processing route with proper planning and after many iterations these things fructify. We have all the infrastructure and skill to do it and we have been doing it for decades. However, we are not applying it for our own design. The extent of deep tech transfer which we have from Russia in mind boggling. Had it been other country, it would have had been a completed task. Only if we can visit with an access to the MFG route one can understand how under utilized our facilities have been. Many air force officers also agree with me. If a team is entrusted, given the facilities and skill we have, I assure you all, it will take hardly three years with round the clock activity. Unfortunately this is not happening!


Good first post. I completely agree with the last statement. We never really tried.

Do you know for sure HTSE SCB are made in India..? If yes, is it HAL in house MFG using the Russian Tech from Al31..?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19732
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 15 Aug 2019 13:25

JayS wrote:Good first post. I completely agree with the last statement. We never really tried.

Do you know for sure HTSE SCB are made in India..? If yes, is it HAL in house MFG using the Russian Tech from Al31..?

As posted earlier, I have seen the SCBs being produced in GOI facilities. Only DRDO/GTRE can confirm for sure if this has progressed beyond the experimental stage.

Problem is that everyone involved will have to cede a bit of control for the viability of the project and the usual and bitter turf wars have scuttled many a viable project.

MohanMP
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 15:58

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby MohanMP » 15 Aug 2019 16:22

chetak wrote:as posted earlier, I have seen the SCBs beingklopp produced in GOI facilities. Only DRDO/GTRE can confirm for sure if this has progressed beyond the experimental stage.

Problem is that everyone involved will have to cede a bit of control for the viability of the project and the usual and bitter turf wars have scuttled many a viable project.

SC blades are made in the country.

We have infra to investment cast of SC blades. We have been doing it for last one and half decade. In early days rejection rates were high. That has been under control. However we never used the infra for our own design till now. Oviousely we also produce DS blades. All types of blades are produced. However we never utilized the skill and the infra for our own design. Our designers did not design taking into consideration our available MFG and testing facility of engine. Even HAL overlooked it.

Designer should know the available manufacturing resources for implementation of design.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2723
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 15 Aug 2019 17:32

Why don't we design a drone with existing Kaveri

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53004
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 15 Aug 2019 22:48

Folks there is some thing wrong with the picture of Kaveri engine if you look from earned value management (EVM) perspective.

Ok. Lets look.

Kaveri revised cost to complete is- 250M (SAFRAN Offset)+ 500 M= 750 M Euros

DRDO has already spent 240 M euros.
So total Kaveri project cost is 240+750M = 990M euros

So in money spent the revised progress is 240/990= 24%
However DRDO says Kaveri is only a few KN short of desired requirement and we have been blue in the face quoting that.
Besides only few months back SAFRAN had said Kaveri is good to fly and should be flight tested.
Agreed its a few KN short.

So obviously there is a huge gap in assessing the Kaveri progress.
Does the revised estimates include cost of fabrication facilities?

We are missing something. And the DRDO scientist whom Pubby talked to did not tell the whole picture.

If the progress is really only 24% it needs a fresh start and can spend the 500M Euros and get on with it.
Basically for 750M Euros one can design a new Kaveri engine and move on.
Someone needs to tell the truth and its not being told.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53004
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 15 Aug 2019 22:48

ArjunPandit wrote:Why don't we design a drone with existing Kaveri

I think MAD needs to get to bottom of Kaveri first.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7310
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Prasad » 16 Aug 2019 00:23

A quick list of what we assume to be true about the Kaveri
1. Dry thrust requirement - Met
2. Wet thrust requirement - Shortfall
3. Adequate to power Tejas Mk1/A - Nein.

We need something to power the MWF (200 should be ordered) and perhaps MLU the Tejas Mk1/A (another 123) too. That is a cool near 350 engines.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53004
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 16 Aug 2019 02:32

On digging further, SAFRAN was offering a new core based on M88 to fit the Kaveri Turbofan Casing and afterburner (TCA)

I recall saying this was most expensive option.*

GTRE/DRDO is right in rejecting the offer as they already have a working core in Kabini and know what it takes to design and build it.
For 500M euros they can redo the Kaveri completely and should go for it.

* Let me dig this old post.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53004
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 16 Aug 2019 02:56

Ok Here goes:

viewtopic.php?p=2254798#p2254798

ts the offset money.

They are supposed to channel it back.


If it happens will be happy.


The M88Core-Kaveri has turbo fan+ engine casing and afterburner section and M88 core.
We know the M88 core is smaller than the Kaveri casing from earlier reports.

I think there are two options here.

1) Increase the M88 core diameter to match the Kaveri system. This means keep the rest of the (TCA) T/F+ Casing+ AB same.
- This option is risky as changing core to match the TCA could be tricky.
- However GTRE will learn the most from this option as they learn to resize the core.


2) Keep the M 88 core as it works and redo the TCA as GTRE knows how.
- Could be long drawn out process as three systems have to be developed: T/F+ Casing + AB And more costly from Indian side. Kind of defeats the offsets as India gets to spend twice.
- GTRE wont learn anything new as they already had developed the TCA. Redoing the TCA is not new technology.


I would choose option 1 as from India learning point of view this is better option.

And this way India has its own Kabini + core that can be leveraged into other engines;
Mig 29 and Su 30 engine replacement programs eventually.



So DRDO/GTRE is finding that resizing the M-88 core to fit the Kaveri TCA (Turbo Fan, Casing and After Burner) will be priced at 750M Euros.

And SAFRAN instead of bringing 580M Euros is bringing 250M Euros.
Which means DRDO has to bring 500M Euros jus for this upsized core.
And they already spent 240 M Euros to get the current Kaveri engine (kabini Core+TCA)
So doubly whammy.
Higher price and lower contribution.
And for that 500M Euros money, DRDO can do the job themselves.
I concur.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3186
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby kit » 16 Aug 2019 04:02

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/drdo-french-company-talks-on-kaveri-jet-engine-crash/articleshow/70684809.cms


ET has learnt that DRDO did not find this price reasonable and is no longer considering the upgraded Kaveri engine for the next batch of 83 LCAs to be made in India or the Mark-2 version of the jet planned in the near future. The fighter jets are now likely to be powered by engines supplied by US’ General Electric. DRDO has spent more than €240 million on the Kaveri project so far without success.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53004
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 16 Aug 2019 04:07

Manu Pubby and the DRDO officials did not bother to explain why the price is unreasonable.
Read my post above.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3694
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 16 Aug 2019 08:25

So what happens to Kaveri now? Okay, we can cross it off for the Tejas. We already expect the 414 for the MWF. The truth is we didn't expect to use the Kaveri for Tejas before SAFRAN's involvement and this won't impact the Tejas' and its follow-ons' timelines.

The question is whether we would continue to develop it on our own for, say, a mark of the AMCA. Or does this decision mean we have given up on the Kaveri as a fighter engine? There are reports of it being pursued as a drone engine but that would signify an acceptance of a minor role for the project as well.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20011
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 16 Aug 2019 09:14

Kaveri has been plagued for decades.As I mentioned a few years ago, even the late APJAK was warned by a former VCoAS that the GTRE were taking us for a ride.He, the AM, had kept insisting that a working engine was the first decision required for the LCA's success, but the GTRE's tall talk prevailed.The LCA programme suffered and even the promised marine gas turbine variant to power our warships never appeared. 16 years ago they told APJAK that it would be ready in 3 months time. It still hasn't. What ails the outfit and its inability to deliver is a matter of priority for the GOI. Huge sums have been invested. Athorough inquiry must be made. We cannot aspire to become a major aerospace power unless we are able to design and build our own engines.We will be perpetually dependent upon a foreign engine and foreign aircraft as well. 20 years ago I said that we needed a new engine research institute to be able to deliver in time almost every type of fixed wing and rotary engine required for our requirements.The time is now ripe to plan for it asap.The crash of Kaveri will impact future ambitious programmes like the AMCA.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66595
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 16 Aug 2019 10:43

if the kaveri is to have a future and be the father of new engines, it must be
- put on Mig29S and IL76 testbeds - these can be used for testing future engines also
- used for Ghatak/aura atleast
- derated one used for the SPORT AJT in mid 2020s

else its not only a complete writeoff but all the engineers who developed the knowledge base will retire soon or have already done so.

all engine efforts needs to be merged into a common body under PMO control unlike HAL doing its own laghu shakti and manik type things with no gtre involvement

rrao
BRFite
Posts: 117
Joined: 13 Feb 2007 22:17

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby rrao » 16 Aug 2019 11:09

***POOF***
Last edited by Rakesh on 16 Aug 2019 17:51, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: No personal attacks, please.

nash
BRFite
Posts: 832
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby nash » 16 Aug 2019 12:00

kit wrote:https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/drdo-french-company-talks-on-kaveri-jet-engine-crash/articleshow/70684809.cms


ET has learnt that DRDO did not find this price reasonable and is no longer considering the upgraded Kaveri engine for the next batch of 83 LCAs to be made in India or the Mark-2 version of the jet planned in the near future. The fighter jets are now likely to be powered by engines supplied by US’ General Electric. DRDO has spent more than €240 million on the Kaveri project so far without success.


If kaveri is to power LCA-Mk1A and MWF which costs more than 25 billion euro over complete life cycle and they are throwing all these for extra 250 million euros, doesn't make sense to me.

Also, if safron unable to adhere to offset obligation ,and it is G2G deal, should it be discussed at government level rather than some officials in DRDO to cancel the project.

hgupta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 52
Joined: 20 Oct 2018 14:17

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby hgupta » 16 Aug 2019 13:09

Penny wise pound foolish.

The Americans, Soviets, and the French did not spend hundreds of millions to develop their engine technology. They spent billions of dollars in their R&D to develop basic versions of fighter jet engines and more billions to refine those engines into the engines we know today and DRDO is balking at ponying up $500M to learn billions of dollars worth of knowledge and save some years in the process when after learning all the knowledge they could use it to make $25 billion dollars worth of engines in the future?

I simply do not know what to say. Sometimes DRDO doesn't have a long term or strategic foresight and get bogged in the minutiae details. Essentially they are missing the forest for the trees.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 469
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby maitya » 16 Aug 2019 13:34

hgupta wrote:Penny wise pound foolish.

The Americans, Soviets, and the French did not spend hundreds of millions to develop their engine technology. They spent billions of dollars in their R&D to develop basic versions of fighter jet engines and more billions to refine those engines into the engines we know today and DRDO is balking at ponying up $500M to learn billions of dollars worth of knowledge and save some years in the process when after learning all the knowledge they could use it to make $25 billion dollars worth of engines in the future?

I simply do not know what to say. Sometimes DRDO doesn't have a long term or strategic foresight and get bogged in the minutiae details. Essentially they are missing the forest for the trees.


Wrt the highlighted part ... pls could you list out, what exactly DRDO GTRE learn from such a JV? Atleast some items, can be listed out, right?

And how exactly is the "... $25B worth of engines ..." arrived at?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19732
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 16 Aug 2019 13:34

nash wrote:
kit wrote:https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/drdo-french-company-talks-on-kaveri-jet-engine-crash/articleshow/70684809.cms


ET has learnt that DRDO did not find this price reasonable and is no longer considering the upgraded Kaveri engine for the next batch of 83 LCAs to be made in India or the Mark-2 version of the jet planned in the near future. The fighter jets are now likely to be powered by engines supplied by US’ General Electric. DRDO has spent more than €240 million on the Kaveri project so far without success.


If kaveri is to power LCA-Mk1A and MWF which costs more than 25 billion euro over complete life cycle and they are throwing all these for extra 250 million euros, doesn't make sense to me.

Also, if safron unable to adhere to offset obligation ,and it is G2G deal, should it be discussed at government level rather than some officials in DRDO to cancel the project.


offset "obligations" are not carved in stone.

In principle, it means that a certain percentage of the deal is spent in the purchasing country to help it to develop its own MIC but truly no country in the world will part with any meaningful technology as part of the offset deals and it would be foolish on our part to expect such critical technology offsets to be served up to us on a silver platter with watercress surrounding it.

If mere goodwill and G2G transactions dictated technology transfers, why then are we still groping around with the SU30 production and why has no core engine tech ever been served up to us by our good friends, the soviets.

why did we not think of doing what the hans very routinely do in all their "contracts".

is it that we didn't or we couldn't.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 469
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby maitya » 16 Aug 2019 13:55

MohanMP wrote:SC blades are made in the country.

We have infra to investment cast of SC blades. We have been doing it for last one and half decade. In early days rejection rates were high. That has been under control. However we never used the infra for our own design till now. Obviously we also produce DS blades. All types of blades are produced. However we never utilized the skill and the infra for our own design. Our designers did not design taking into consideration our available MFG and testing facility of engine. Even HAL overlooked it.

Designer should know the available manufacturing resources for implementation of design.

Interesting points MohanMP ... if possible, without going into classified details etc, pls could you elaborate the following:

1) If GTRE/MIDHANI/HAL Engine Div et all have been able to master High Hardness Ceramic Core Die (of 60 HRC levels) manufacturing? As you are aware we had mastered Medium Hardness Ceramic Die (of 40HRC levels) using P20 steel etc, around 2009-10 (IIRC), but that won't be enough to go into volume production as it would be good for approx 1500 injections (good enough for prototype dev etc).

2) There was another parallel initiative of trying to get High Hardness Ceramic Core Dies manufactured via HIP ... where are we on this?

3) Wrt film-cooling, where are we wrt laser hole drilling of shaped-hole-exits on TBC-applied-blades ? Or are we still reliant on getting the cooling passages created via Dies only? I ask this as we have seen various "grainy images" of HPT blades with blade-tip-cooling-holes etc.

4) When DMS4 based SC blade tech was already available in house, why didn't HAL engine division use it for the HPT stages for HTFE-25? Why did they constraint themselves to 1200deg K TeT levels via equiaxed casted ones?

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3186
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby kit » 16 Aug 2019 13:56

nash wrote:
kit wrote:https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/drdo-french-company-talks-on-kaveri-jet-engine-crash/articleshow/70684809.cms


ET has learnt that DRDO did not find this price reasonable and is no longer considering the upgraded Kaveri engine for the next batch of 83 LCAs to be made in India or the Mark-2 version of the jet planned in the near future. The fighter jets are now likely to be powered by engines supplied by US’ General Electric. DRDO has spent more than €240 million on the Kaveri project so far without success.


If kaveri is to power LCA-Mk1A and MWF which costs more than 25 billion euro over complete life cycle and they are throwing all these for extra 250 million euros, doesn't make sense to me.

Also, if safron unable to adhere to offset obligation ,and it is G2G deal, should it be discussed at government level rather than some officials in DRDO to cancel the project.


DRDO probably lacks the expertise to do an "ISRO" on aero engines i think, so unless it can spend near to a billion $$ .... its rather close to their annual budget i guess ... but haven't they got results for what they spend on it.. wonder how they ll retain the talent and expertise they built up till now

ashbhee
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 81
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:05

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ashbhee » 16 Aug 2019 15:45

GE is in big trouble.

http://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/15/ge-shares-drop-after-madoff-whistleblower-harry-markopolos-raises-red-flags-on-its-accounting.html

Stock at 8 $, 5 year low https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GE/

I wonder if this would be a good time to order 300 414s with technology transfer / Make in India

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1928
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Bart S » 16 Aug 2019 15:55

ashbhee wrote:GE is in big trouble.

http://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/15/ge-shares-drop-after-madoff-whistleblower-harry-markopolos-raises-red-flags-on-its-accounting.html

Stock at 8 $, 5 year low https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GE/

I wonder if this would be a good time to order 300 414s with technology transfer / Make in India


Not going to happen. It's not up to GE but US DOS/DOD.

That said, if GOI or Indian pvt sector had any foresight there were other nice bits of GE that could have been bought that would have been very useful, e.g their rail division.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby NRao » 16 Aug 2019 19:11

ashbhee wrote:GE is in big trouble.

http://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/15/ge-shares-drop-after-madoff-whistleblower-harry-markopolos-raises-red-flags-on-its-accounting.html

Stock at 8 $, 5 year low https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GE/

I wonder if this would be a good time to order 300 414s with technology transfer / Make in India


GE is made up of diff divisions. The aviation div is doing extremely well, keeping their nose out of the water, Cash cow. Even if something happens to the rest aviation could be spun off.

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby nvishal » 16 Aug 2019 22:19

Saffran engine deal fail is a big problem. I suspect the Americans had a talk with the French. I hope GoI has a way else it'll be GE powdered tejas - something no one in the power corridors of Delhi wants. It would be more rational to go with f16 and dump the tejas/kaveri program.

Buying an american jet will be akeen to a death kneal because our interests in the western theater do not converge - there is collision of interests. The american policy of maintaining Pakistan as a guard against Russia gaining access to the warm waters stands till this day.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7624
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 16 Aug 2019 22:29

ashbhee wrote:GE is in big trouble.

http://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/15/ge-shares-drop-after-madoff-whistleblower-harry-markopolos-raises-red-flags-on-its-accounting.html

Stock at 8 $, 5 year low https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GE/

I wonder if this would be a good time to order 300 414s with technology transfer / Make in India


The deal to assemble the GE engines for the Tejas is already on the table. I believe they’ve selected it for the MWF and possibly even the AMCA. There is no correlation between GE’s (as a whole) financial health at any given time and its ability to offer greater technology transfer as this is a GOTUS decision. Even if it weren’t, GE would essentially be opening up to others using the family to seek the same leverage and thereby dilute GE’s long term revenues. Keep in mind that an F414 based and other GE engines is what is powering South Korea’s KFX, and Turkey’s TFX (for now). Additionally, SAAB uses the F414 on the Gripen E. GE is currently locked in GEW III for adaptive engines with it in advanced manufacturing of its first few prototype full up adaptive NG engines. This is not the time for it to pursue a fresh round of negotiations with GOTUS on relaxing technology transfer restrictions, especially on an engine family that has virtually won every third-party use competition it has been entered in so far (India, South Korea (twice), Sweden)

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7526
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 16 Aug 2019 23:18

So how will the offset obligations be fulfilled now?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aditya_V, raghuk, Sid, suryag, VickyAvinash and 67 guests