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.
habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6885
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby habal » 04 Jan 2020 16:49

cheen makes a lot of noise based on their NPT status access to western tool and die replicating mass production tech, but they tend to hurtle harmlessly when it comes to focussed research. Then they will want to copy the missing bits, but then again mere copying is insufficient in getting grip of turbine technology.

One good thing is they are putting immature tech into platforms and getting real time feedback as to how specific omissions and underperformance can hamper full scale integration. Now that in a way is also experience and they are gaining experience in whatever limited way they can.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4879
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 04 Jan 2020 17:13

RKumar wrote:They have major issues with all their engines as well as earlier copies of J-10 and J-11, it is one thing to have lot of money and spending it on immature products. I agree they have mastered the art of mass production but their basic r&d is limited to stealing the know-how. And by stealing you can learn only to an extent.


Unless you are from GE, Dassault, RR, PW, Saturn or Klimov, you will be creating immature products because no one else in the world has that kind of experience and maturity in developing jet engines. Full stop. We cannot create a mature engine in a GTRE lab.

That is the state not just for India but for any nation not the US, UK, France and Russia. And it includes a westernized industrial powerhouse like Japan.

What Cheen has done is to understand this and then create its own history of experience.

Stealing blueprints allowed Cheen to build something in the lab quicker but it cannot create experience and it cannot create production lines for them. They had to build those out themselves. But here is where they really learn by putting things into those production lines and re-iterating.

Take the original WS-10, it was a chitty engine that performed worse than the Kaveri when both were testing at Gromov. Now it powers hundreds of J-11Bs and J-16s as well as recent production J-10s and J-20s because it had systematically gone through many iterations and variants (check out the chini mil thread on those.) They are building over 300 a year today and by 2026, they will be building 450. It has become a success story no matter how you slice it -- 450 means hundreds of fighters a year. And there are many other engine types as well.

Their medium engines -- the class of the Kaveri -- are the WS-13 which has already taken off in a JF-17 testbed and the WS-19 which will be in LSP.

Are they poorer quality than those from the West and Russia? Of course. But they are good enough to power their own aircraft by the hundreds and they are getting better with each engine they build.

They are racing away from us by actually manufacturing engines and fixing things in a process that can never be perfected in a lab.

We will not take off with the Kaveri or any new subsequent project unless we get it into a production line. That sounds too simple and common sense and yet it is not something we do.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3983
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 04 Jan 2020 17:25

To get a engine in to production, you need a platform to which it can be applied. One of the publicly known issue with Kaveri is that it is overweight by 150kg.

You cannot put this on LCA, as the jet would require redesign to maintain the CoG. Fundamentally you need a new platform, which has been designed with this extra 150kg in mind.

We don't have any such manned platform and given the lower thrust it cannot go on MWF/TEDBF/AMCA. Hopefully the new platforms are designed keeping this weight penalty in mind, so that in future we can try to swap the engine.

The best way to use Kaveri is to use it on UCAV, which is the plan. A new platform, designed keeping the weight penalty in mind and not having to worry about high thrust to weight ratio. We need to create UCAV which can use afterburner as well.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3983
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 04 Jan 2020 17:29

One thing you cannot deny: GTRE created a 75KN engine(equal to M88) in F404 form factor for $500M. F404, which is the gold standard in engines.

Although overweight by 150kg!

Peanuts of what others have spend..

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4879
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 04 Jan 2020 17:55

nam wrote:To get a engine in to production, you need a platform to which it can be applied. One of the publicly known issue with Kaveri is that it is overweight by 150kg.

You cannot put this on LCA, as the jet would require redesign to maintain the CoG. Fundamentally you need a new platform, which has been designed with this extra 150kg in mind.

We don't have any such manned platform and given the lower thrust it cannot go on MWF/TEDBF/AMCA. Hopefully the new platforms are designed keeping this weight penalty in mind, so that in future we can try to swap the engine.

The best way to use Kaveri is to use it on UCAV, which is the plan. A new platform, designed keeping the weight penalty in mind and not having to worry about high thrust to weight ratio. We need to create UCAV which can use afterburner as well.


Nam ji, the LCA was designed for the Kaveri. And the Kaveri has dimensions which made it comparable to the RD-33.

If safety was a concern, we could have converted a series of MiG-29s to use as testbeds and then create a project to re-engine a number of them while we kept a Kaveri-engined LCA project alive.

But if we look at the J-10/WS-10 saga, the chinis tested the WS-10 repeatedly on the J-10 in the past decade even when the bulk of the production machines were built with AL-31s. They tested the WS-10 on limited production J-10As and J-10Bs until finally converting fully to the WS-10 with the latest J-10C variant.

I see no reason why we couldn't have done the same for the LCA/Kaveri. Especially since, again, the LCA was designed for the Kaveri.

Where the chinis had an advantage was the engine commonality with the J-11/Sino-flankers which allowed the WS-10 to be installed on a safer twin engine fighter while the kinks were worked out. That is why I suggested a program to re-engine some MiG-29s.

Yes, the way to get the Kaveri into production these days is getting it into ghatak.

But we have the 110kN engine for the TEDBF coming up. I hope we break out of the lab and into a production line as soon as possible for that one.

Being able to attain 75kN for $500M is a great achievement like building a 200hp race car engine in your garage. Your parents will love you and praise you but no one else will care unless you can re-produce it and bring it to the market.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3983
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 04 Jan 2020 18:12

the LCA was designed for the Kaveri. And the Kaveri has dimensions which made it comparable to the RD-33.


The dimensions are fine. It is similar to F404, but not the weight.Extra weight means redesign of LCA.

The Chinese used AL31 dimensions. Neither are Russian engine weight optimized, unlike Uncle's TFTA engines. This allowed the Chinese to come close to AL31 in weight, allowing them to swap the engines on J10/J11.

We held our-self against one of the best engines mankind have ever produced!

We again are planning to have a engine for AMCA, with close to thrust level of Al31 in F414 form factor!

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 491
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby maitya » 04 Jan 2020 20:37

nam wrote:
the LCA was designed for the Kaveri. And the Kaveri has dimensions which made it comparable to the RD-33.


The dimensions are fine. It is similar to F404, but not the weight.Extra weight means redesign of LCA.
<snip>

That's not correct ... accommodating some 100 odd Kg extra weight is easily within reach of the ADA et all.

For example Uttam is 40+ kgs "overweight" - compared to the current PD set being used - easily accommodated!!

The issue with Kaveri is 0-institutional support/risk-taking attitude for an ab-initio high-tech product.
After-all, nobody stopped MoD/IAF/GTRE to simply do what the Chinese did i.e. Accept it as is and force it to, atleast partial, squadron service. And 5-7 years of regular flying would throw-up issues which will then need to be patiently and systematically ironed-out.

Everybody does that - even US did (didn't they face afterburner screech (basically Low-frequency combustion oscillations etc) issue in F135 - they still put it up on the LSPs and of course later resolved it).

But I guess, these things are easier implemented in an authoritarian setup and a very-proud-civilizational-character which obviously we as a nation/society lack - the overwhelming urge to run for imports by all, stems from (and yes, the services very much included) that very fact.

So instead, we continue to tinker along trying to "achieve" the "design goals" to the dot while others like Chinese matures their indigenous product-lines.

Sorry for the digression, normally don't go into non-technical aspects like the above ... hope it doesn't trigger a flame-war etc.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2102
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 04 Jan 2020 21:20

maitya wrote:
The issue with Kaveri is 0-institutional support/risk-taking attitude for an ab-initio high-tech product.
After-all, nobody stopped MoD/IAF/GTRE to simply do what the Chinese did i.e. Accept it as is and force it to, atleast partial, squadron service. And 5-7 years of regular flying would throw-up issues which will then need to be patiently and systematically ironed-out.

Everybody does that - even US did (didn't they face afterburner screech (basically Low-frequency combustion oscillations etc) issue in F135 - they still put it up on the LSPs and of course later resolved it).

But I guess, these things are easier implemented in an authoritarian setup and a very-proud-civilizational-character which obviously we as a nation/society lack - the overwhelming urge to run for imports by all, stems from (and yes, the services very much included) that very fact.

So instead, we continue to tinker along trying to "achieve" the "design goals" to the dot while others like Chinese matures their indigenous product-lines.

Sorry for the digression, normally don't go into non-technical aspects like the above ... hope it doesn't trigger a flame-war etc.


This is what I am advocating in this forum for ages. Get the kaveri certified at current performance level. Order another sqadron of LCA MK1 during the switch over period of mk1 and mk1a when the line will be idle and fit the kaveri into it.

Flying that squadron will give operational data worth it's weight in gold. This is precisely how products are developed and matured. We seriously need matured Product Managers lateral entry into DPSUs (we don't lack much in program management in our MIC; our problem is we try to force-fit a program manager into product manager's shoe)

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 792
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby V_Raman » 04 Jan 2020 22:20

Why can’t we mount it on a twin engine plane and test? Maybe on a old F18 bought from USA? Surely Boeing would be open to doing that?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8221
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 05 Jan 2020 03:25

If govts. are not ready to loosen the purse strings for adequate military equipment, you can guess how stingy they must be to loosen the strings for military RnD.

The sticker price for building a flying test bed or an high altitude test range is a non starter for most politicians and babus. You have to spend at least a billion dollars a year for the next 10 years to get to a decent engine. That's the bullet to bite. Chinese have bit it and the Japanese have bit it to some measure.

Will we? I have given up hope.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9599
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 05 Jan 2020 05:44

There are a number of silent lobbies at work that will prevent India from ever seeing that goal.

MMRCA purchase is moving ahead, but yet the Govt finds investing money in the Kaveri program to be a waste of money! How myopic and ironic!

No €500 million is available for Kaveri, but got billions for phoren imports - 114 MRCA and 57 carrier based fighters.

May sign the deal for 83 Mk1As by Feb 2020, with the key word being MAY.... but got billions for phoren imports - 114 MRCA and 57 carrier based fighters.

We will never learn.

Raghunathgb
BRFite
Posts: 139
Joined: 23 Apr 2019 18:16

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Raghunathgb » 16 Jan 2020 13:26

CSIR, DRDO to join hands to develop Saras engine

https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/csir-dr ... gine-26803

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4879
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 16 Jan 2020 15:13

Raghunathgb wrote:CSIR, DRDO to join hands to develop Saras engine

https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/csir-dr ... gine-26803


It is something we should have done decades ago. But never too late. Take what we've learn and put them into an achievable goal that can be mass produced.

I've always believed if we had went for an actual MiG-21 replacement with turbojet we would have been building engines by now.

Skipping the pistons, turboprops and turbojets that other engine makers mastered first before going to the turbofan resulted in the Kaveri being a lab project instead of an industrial program. That was the big difference between the Kaveri and WS-10. While GTRE attempted to perfect the Kaveri in a lab, the chinis were re-iterating the WS-10 in industrial production lines.

We get this turboprop into production and it could power whole families of drones, commercial planes and mil transports and special aircraft like MPA, AEW and ASW not just the Saras. Looking forward to this.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2994
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Vips » 16 Jan 2020 18:15

Even if CSIR and DRDO takes forever to make a decent engine the Bharat Forge group is making one and will deliver soon. Only issue is will our import pasand babus accept and use it in our various programs?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8221
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 16 Jan 2020 20:22

Raghunathgb wrote:CSIR, DRDO to join hands to develop Saras engine

https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/csir-dr ... gine-26803

I don't think they should do this alone. They should join hands with HAL. HAL is halfway there with their HTSE1200 engine.

What HAL, CSIR and NAL could also do is design an extended version of Saras with a carrying capacity of 40 passengers using the low bypass version of the HTFE25 engine. I suspect they can build an engine with 35kN of power using higher bypass ratios.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 16 Jan 2020 21:36

Rakesh That was then, and its now.. The CCS is aware of all the games and is working to kill the games.
Have patience.
There will be hidden snakes/scorpions that will sting you if you move fast.

Defence is under eye of Sauron.
RNS was shifted to bring in the transformation without publicity.

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Kailash » 17 Jan 2020 10:55

Ex-DRDO chief VK Saraswat to suggest a path for advanced 110kN thrust class engine

https://idrw.org/ex-drdo-chief-vk-saras ... ss-engine/

chetonzz
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 99
Joined: 18 Mar 2019 11:11

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetonzz » 17 Jan 2020 11:10

Kailash wrote:Ex-DRDO chief VK Saraswat to suggest a path for advanced 110kN thrust class engine

https://idrw.org/ex-drdo-chief-vk-saras ... ss-engine/


sir, this image from IDRW, Kaveri test bed? photo looks old and scanned...
Image

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4550
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby JayS » 17 Jan 2020 12:53

Sjha tweeted about the committee. My reaction was - Great. Another committee. Great. Another 2yrs to be wasted in showing something is going on. What the hell we were doing for past 6yrs then...??

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby sivab » 17 Jan 2020 13:25

^^^
It is old news from Sept 2019. Saraswat committee is not looking at engine, but AMCA.

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/co ... 508757.ece

Midhani will be part of the multi-million dollar Advanced Multirole Combat Aircraft (AMCA) being firmed up by the Defence Ministry. The Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) is the developer, while the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE), Bengaluru will develop the engine and Midhani & Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL), Hyderabad will provide the material and components to make the body and engine, Likhi said.

A committee headed by VK Saraswat is submitting a report on the AMCA and it is expected to produce about 250 numbers of the advance aircraft in the next five years, he added.


Ignore the DDM saying 250 in 5 years, morons. See direct quote below.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hy ... 512380.ece

Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited or ‘MIDHANI’ is looking forward to participating in the proposed manufacture of new aircraft engine for Advanced Multi-role Combat Aircraft (AMCA) to be built jointly by Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) and Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) — both Defence Research and Development Organisation bodies based in Bengaluru.

A high-level committee headed by NITI-Aayog member V.K. Saraswat is looking into the multi-crore project details. MIDHANI and Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL) will be involved in supply of specialised metal alloys like steel, titanium and nickel for making the main body parts and engine.

The Government intends to start using GE machines to begin with and later on go for indigenously developed aircraft engines to the tune of 250. We expect work order of up to ₹500 crore,” disclosed MIDHANI chairman and managing director Dinesh Kumar Likhi to the media on Wednesday.

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6885
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby habal » 17 Jan 2020 14:59

what is this murmur going on about UK offering tempest engine to India ? Also 120 KN engine for AMCA that UK is rumored to be proposing is also the same tempest engine or is it EJ200 modified at Indian expense.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4550
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby JayS » 17 Jan 2020 15:17

sivab wrote:^^^
It is old news from Sept 2019. Saraswat committee is not looking at engine, but AMCA.


Not old news. There are two committees, apperently. IDRW obviously lifted the news from Sjha's TL and added some generic stuff to blow it to a half page write up. I already saw the original tweet day before yesterday.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1217156048231886848

Something is happening on GE side. I don't know much details but I see some signs, not online but in the industry.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7522
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Prasad » 17 Jan 2020 16:41

All engine makers have proposals for the 110KN engine. That is why you see even Reddygaru saying we're looking at JV in all his interviews.

The tempest engine with increased electrical power generation was tomtomed at AI this year too by RR. Unconventional methods where you dont have axial compressors and the likes.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4550
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby JayS » 17 Jan 2020 17:13

Prasad wrote:All engine makers have proposals for the 110KN engine. That is why you see even Reddygaru saying we're looking at JV in all his interviews.

The tempest engine with increased electrical power generation was tomtomed at AI this year too by RR. Unconventional methods where you dont have axial compressors and the likes.


We have such proposals for like 20yrs now. Almost every OEM has given JV proposal at some point of time. This is what I said when they were saying in AI-17 that LCA with Kaveri will fly in AI-2019.

JayS wrote:
NRao wrote:
Is that not the expectation set by the French? That the Kaveri will be mated with the LCA ............... by 2020?


IIRC they first claimed it will be done by 2018..!! Well, French can can anything. What can we do if they cannot finish it in said time line..??? A variant of matured civil engine family takes minimum 3yrs for certification even when done by GE/PW/RR (min 5-6 yrs total development time from concept to EIS). Certification for mil engine is even more rigorous. And you can add some factor for Kaveri since it will be flight tested for very first time. Do the math. I would not put my money on even 2020..!! If its done by then, I'll eat my hat.

And I am not considering additional time required for mating of M88 core with Kaveri LP modules and debugging of LP modules fully. I think Kaveri AB also was having below par performance. And to modify one LCA to mate it with Kaveri, integrate Kaveri and prepare it to fly.


Nothing is going to happen in next 2yrs too, whatever number of committees they form. Problem is indecision, not lack of options.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2994
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Vips » 17 Jan 2020 21:38

JayS wrote:Sjha tweeted about the committee. My reaction was - Great. Another committee. Great. Another 2yrs to be wasted in showing something is going on. What the hell we were doing for past 6yrs then...??


The next generation of babus need to be trained in the fine art of gulping free chai, biskoot, samosa's and passing a lot of hot air.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8221
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 17 Jan 2020 22:37

GTRE has issued EOI for component components manufacture and lead systems integrator for the dry version of Kaveri. GTRE would require about 20 engines. Thereafter, there MAY be a requirement of 80-odd engines.

Who would do this? Other than HAL. And then HAL will be chastised for wasting hard earned taxpayer money!

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4550
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby JayS » 18 Jan 2020 00:08

They want someone to invest money to build sum total of 20 engines and possibly 80 more in time frame of 10-12yrs. No one but HAL can even take a dig at it given the terrible business case. And these engines will turn out to be ultra costly at such low production rate and no other program to spread the cost around.

PS: Oh its even worse, 20 engines over 7-8yrs and then production run of 70-80 engines in the next 10-12yrs. But one positive is that GTRE is offering infra for system-level integration for the LSP batch of 20 engines and knowledge transfer on engine assembly in the initial 5 engines. This gives us some hints on Ghatak program timelines and fleet size planned. :D

PPS: Though I am very happy to see some movement on the Engine front. The testing on UCAV will have far less reservations and we can at least sort out the dry engine completely by extensively flight testing it. Finally we will productionise a desi engine in near future hopefully. Thats a whole new paradigm which has remained untouched by us so far.

Image

VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby VKumar » 18 Jan 2020 00:11

HAL is now public, a listed company.

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 819
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Raveen » 18 Jan 2020 00:39

VKumar wrote:HAL is now public, a listed company.


Who is the single largest shareholder?

nandakumar
BRFite
Posts: 1236
Joined: 10 May 2010 13:37

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby nandakumar » 18 Jan 2020 09:22

Raveen wrote:
VKumar wrote:HAL is now public, a listed company.


Who is the single largest shareholder?

The GoI is a overwhelming majority shareholder. I haven't checked the latest shareholding pattern. But when I last checked it was as high as 90%!

khan
BRFite
Posts: 830
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: Tx

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby khan » 18 Jan 2020 22:05

chola wrote:
Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1196796346432278529 ---> Hopefully, New Delhi has understood why India needs an indigenous fighter class low-bypass turbofan in the 110-120 kN category by *hook or by crook*. Any further equivocation on this matter will completely belie any claims to becoming a major power/great power yada yada yada.


Again 110kN is an extremely tall order for a medium class engine needed for the AMCA. Even a heavyweight engine like the AL-31 for our MKI is 123kN.

Right now neither the US nor Russia have a medium engine of that power. The closest is the F414 at 100kN. The F404 powering the Tejas is at 80kN. We can't even RE something. We need to leapfrog the Amreekis and the F414.


IMO this is actually the right approach. Why spend a decade developing the F414 which you can just buy? This is the same restarted “Not Invented here” mentality which saw the development of the INSAS rifle.

Instead they are spending 10 years going for the next generation which cannot be bought.

This also explains the JV offers - there is something in it (next gen engine) for the French & Americans too if they want to help out.

Once it’s done they can build AMCA MK2 & LCA MK3 around the new engine. But they will have to spend serious money on this, or it will remain just talk.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3983
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 18 Jan 2020 22:56

Would it be possible to create a supersonic UAV using the dry thrust of Kaveri(or using the 75KN wet thrust)? If M2000 can go supersonic on 75KN, why wouldn't a UCAV

That would be a good use case for 2030-35 timeframe to induct supersonic UCAV.

We need to use the UCAV as excuse to create lot of Kaveri production version. That is the only way to form the base for 110KN engine.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9110
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Jan 2020 23:28

The reason why not many do supersonic UAV/UCAV is because the speed eats into other important characteristics one would want in a UAV/UCAV such as the ability to travel and strike at extended ranges or loiter continuously for much longer than any manned aircraft could. From a UCAV perspective, a supersonic cruise missile off of a long loiter UCAV is a much more important capability..Although efficient supercruising designs have been looked at (ESAV) the return on investment from an operational construct is not really there unless one gets into the Mach 3+ speed range which opens up some vital ISR and EW roles. Even that is marginal when it comes utility with additional capability opened up in the Mach 5-6 range.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7522
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Prasad » 18 Jan 2020 23:40

Nobody has a combined cycle engine anyway to get to those speeds on a ucav platform (that we know of).

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9110
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Jan 2020 23:44

I think Nam's reference was into something that flew supersonic at much more modest speeds (sub Mach 2) which would be quite inefficient compared to a UCAV with a 0.8-0.9 top speed. It would compromise on range, and loiter while also severely impacting the IWB design and will likely be costly due to the choice of materials. TBCC is much more advanced than most would expect and I wouldn't be surprised if a prototype (TBCC+airframe) is being fabricated right now somewhere..

https://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet- ... mrj-engine

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3983
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 19 Jan 2020 00:59

I suppose there will come a requirement of fighter UAV or unmanned fighters. In those case, in all probability they would need similar speed characteristics of a regular fighter. Ability to carry and fire BVR's and fly supersonic.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9110
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 19 Jan 2020 01:04

I don't see such a requirement at all. If one is committed to taking the man out of a fighter, why would anyone want to constrain themselves with the requirements for an aircraft that are largely designed around the capabilities and physiological limits of the man inside? Or the need to accomplish the mission and end-objectives in a particular way, largely dictated by those parameters? An Air-Combat optimized/designed UAV/UCAV may look absolutely nothing like an standard fighter without a pilot (like a QF-16). In fact applying that mentality and design parameters to a future UAV/UCAV is likely a sure shot path to failure. It could very well be just a flying magazine with lots of high power data-links. Instead, one would have to envision designs and concept of operations that leverage the inherent advantages of unmanned systems while also figuring out how one is going to close the loop on an engagement with or without a human in control or acting as a decision authority. The CONOPS and the Fire Control loop is critical here and will likely require years, if not decades, of refinement, experimentation and prototyping. Its a very difficult thing to pull off even using the best technology the world has on offer at the moment. We are still shooting down air-liners with semi-modern air-defenses even with man-in-the-loop. Now imagine launching DCA missions with unmanned aircraft against a similar fleet of manned or unmanned aircraft. Low Observable aircraft proliferation will make this "fog of war" and CID/IFF challenges even worst.

ManuJ
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 361
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ManuJ » 19 Jan 2020 03:09

khan wrote:
chola wrote:
Again 110kN is an extremely tall order for a medium class engine needed for the AMCA. Even a heavyweight engine like the AL-31 for our MKI is 123kN.

Right now neither the US nor Russia have a medium engine of that power. The closest is the F414 at 100kN. The F404 powering the Tejas is at 80kN. We can't even RE something. We need to leapfrog the Amreekis and the F414.


IMO this is actually the right approach.


A big poster in my company says "Perfection is the Enemy of Progress."

khan
BRFite
Posts: 830
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: Tx

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby khan » 19 Jan 2020 08:17

ManuJ wrote:
khan wrote:
IMO this is actually the right approach.


A big poster in my company says "Perfection is the Enemy of Progress."

What’s the point in developing a 1970’s engine (GE-404) in 2030?

They should do what they did with LCA, try to build something cutting edge, throw some real money & effort at it (which they will have to do anyways - even for a 404 class engine) - maybe they get close enough or maybe they can just import.

Comparing with China & Russia is not valid because they cannot import GE-404 class engine, so have to make do with homegrown inferior substitutes.

Either way, trying to develop something contemporary is the smart way to go IMO.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 522
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby dinesh_kimar » 19 Jan 2020 15:45

khan wrote:What’s the point in developing a 1970’s engine (GE-404) in 2030?


Saar, I'm not an expert, i dunno how to express it properly.

I understand it's like the foundation of a building.

We are struggling to build an 80s era M-53 or F-404, once this base is available , we can make various iterations and obtain 90/100/110 KN from it.

That is the only way to do it. Unlike an IC engine, where leap frogging is possible, knowledge is available,etc.

(France can make Pielstick engines with 16 cylinders, so can MAN and MTU in Germany, and Kongsberg in Sweden and Kokkaburra in Australia. So can Xiansi in China and Kirloskar in India. But only France can make the M-53, MTU of Germany hasn't showcased any prototypes for 50 years.)

For eg. Some of the engine shafts in Kaveri use design rules obtained from Dassault, which could only have originated from the M-53 program.

The M-53 is a descendant of the ATAR program, with an all German team from WW-II.

GE's current engines use knowledge base of J-79 and F-404. They refrence these is papers, for example, " this engine has half the parts as the J-79".

Rolls Royce knowledge base is from the Tay, Adour and RB-199, which resulted in the EJ-200.

I had collected the above mentioned Kaveri paper sourced from the internet, but unable to locate it now.

We can't leapfrog as all information is not avbl in papers, thru consultants or in books.

Only solution is build and test ( not simulations !)

I want a 75 KN kaveri to fly in a test bed, for 500 h. Only when this is done, can we go on to the 90 KN and above versions.

LCA example used above has some points which stick out.

The FBW system was sanctioned by Lockheed/BAe, and resulted in delays of 3-4 years.
The radar and engines are not yet ready for FOC aircraft. (we hope radar will be soon !).

70% of LCA cost is towards imports.

I'm glad the LCA worked out so well, though!


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: D.Mahesh, mridulmm, Roop, Sagrawal and 54 guests