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.
chetonzz
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 51
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: 4482
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: 957
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: 6825
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: 4482
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: 7444
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: 4482
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: 2470
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: 7984
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: 4482
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: 543
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: 636
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: 1066
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: 562
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: 2882
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: 8297
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: 7444
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: 8297
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: 2882
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: 8297
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: 308
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: 562
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: 385
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!

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1607
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 23 Jan 2020 09:52


Can you please give us an update on the status of the Kaveri gas turbine engine programme and its future?

Kaveri gas turbine engine programme gave enormous insight and experience in the development of materials, different sub systems, assembly and testing an aircraft engine. Now, we have the requisite knowhow for developing a fighter aircraft engine and the intricacies involved for next gen aircraft engine. In terms of power, technology and utility, we have moved beyond Kaveri engine.


Dr. G. Satheesh Reddy interview in geopolitics magazine November 2019 issue.

Neilz
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 83
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 21:09

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Neilz » 23 Jan 2020 14:22

https://idrw.org/we-can-do-it-chorus-grows-to-develop-a-new-engine-for-amca-locally/

Among many feedbacks from all sector, a majority of them are urging to build a consortium company with many key stakeholders who should be in charge of developing the new engine locally instead of an international collaboration with a foreign Aero-Engine maker if we aim to be import free and less dependent on foreign engine manufactures in the future.

idrw.org .Read more at India No 1 Defence News Website https://idrw.org/we-can-do-it-chorus-gr ... a-locally/ .


Kalyani Group headed by Baba Kalyani reportedly told the committee members that if countries decide we won’t import them, then we can build it and offered to be part of the consortium

idrw.org .Read more at India No 1 Defence News Website https://idrw.org/we-can-do-it-chorus-gr ... a-locally/ .


” We have spent nearly 2000 crores on Kaveri engine which might look huge but it is not even 30-40% of the developmental money spend by others on a similar class of engine elsewhere “, ” Kaveri is not a complete failure ! it has demonstrated 75kN of thrust and new 51kN Dry engine for UCAV is under development”.

idrw.org .Read more at India No 1 Defence News Website https://idrw.org/we-can-do-it-chorus-gr ... a-locally/ .

LakshmanPST
BRFite
Posts: 164
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby LakshmanPST » 24 Jan 2020 18:19

Security Scan discussion on RS TV about Kaveri Engines...
Nothing new in the discussion, but one small info from Arora ji is Dry Thrust requirement of final AMCA engine, which is 75kN...
I heard only Wet Thrust requirements (110kN) in all news articles, but couldn't find the dry thrust requirement anywhere before...
https://youtu.be/Jp1ONvOllLs

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3270
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby fanne » 24 Jan 2020 18:22

good data point

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1607
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 24 Jan 2020 18:28

LakshmanPST wrote:Security Scan discussion on RS TV about Kaveri Engines...
Nothing new in the discussion, but one small info from Arora ji is Dry Thrust requirement of final AMCA engine, which is 75kN...
I heard only Wet Thrust requirements (110kN) in all news articles, but couldn't find the dry thrust requirement anywhere before...
https://youtu.be/Jp1ONvOllLs


It's been known for 5-6 years now, nothing new about it.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21495
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 24 Jan 2020 18:40

not to mention that no one wears hats anymore. :mrgreen:

JayS wrote: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.

hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4522
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby hanumadu » 25 Jan 2020 16:58

The increase in dry thrust of current Kaveri to 110 KN Kaveri is a 44% increase or 23 KN (52 to 75) while for wet thrust it is a much smaller increase of 20% or 6 KN ((110-75)-(81-52)).

The by pass ratio of 0.16 for Kaveri is less than half of GE F404's 0.34 and still less than GEF414's 0.25. Is the (extremely) low bypass ratio reason that Kaveri could achieve the dry thrust easily while struggling to achieve wet thrust?

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9697
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Yagnasri » 27 Jan 2020 10:16

One mango man question: Suppose we use Kaveri as it stands today - Can it be used in LCA MK1 even if it will be under powered? Or do we need further tests and improvements as to test it for reliability etc. If further tests for reliability etc are needed then is it not make sense to conduct such tests and use Keveri for LCA for testing purpose so as to mitigate any any US Sanctions and non variability of GE eng or its spare parts in future?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20449
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 27 Jan 2020 11:27

There was on Security Scan a discussion on Kaveri and why it has failed.Tracing its failure back to that of the HF-24, meant to be a Mach 2 fighter withthe Helwan engine,but when that programme went kaput ( thanks to the Israelis), the HF got shafted using much inferior Orpheus engines.We never took up the offer of developing improved Orpheus engines for just $3 M too.

Learning nothing from that experience in the '80s we began the LCA project and Kaveri engine from scratch without any history of engine tech.,on a small budget of $50M and 7 years in which to perfect it going it solo without any JV from a proven engine OEM! I've mentioned over the years how babudom prevented a DG rank officer to be in charge too,with hire and fire powers.Thus even APJAK was taken for a ride by the GTRE who told him that only a 3 month period was reqd. for its arrival .The IAF AM on the panel warned him that it was a fib,but Kalam believed them..That was in 2003.APJAK then publicly stated that by 2013 200 LCAs would be fying!

The SS discussion also mentioned that in the 80s and 90s,the thrust of the envisaged engine was adequate,but by the time changes were made to the bird to catch up on the latest tech.,it got heavier and we had to find the GE plant instead.All the panellists mentioned our next programme the AMCA and that we
should not repeat the mistake for the third time.It is clear by now that on our own we cannot deliver the goods for an engine for AMCA despite our vastly improved mil- tech base when compared to that of 4 decades ago. A JV is therefore reqd.,say the dxperts, plus to mj mind an alternative engine also tested with the prototypes to insure us against sanctions,especially if a US engine is selected.The LCA suffered delays due to US sanctions after P-2 and is yet again threatening sanctions because we're buying Russian weaponry, Iranian oil,etc.We must never be faced with another similar situ.Whether Kaveri can be salvaged with a SNECMA core or a new engine needs to be developed is another matter, but AMCA's engine should be the first major decision,building the aircraft around the engine not shoehorning the engine into a fighter and failing yet again.
Last edited by Philip on 27 Jan 2020 16:40, edited 1 time in total.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 482
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby maitya » 27 Jan 2020 13:12

We continue to re-hash the same old points that has got discussed umpteen number of times in the past - so maybe, one more time wouldn't hurt:

1) Developing a Turbofan for 110/xx/yy/zz KN with an imported core - this is like asking to develop LCA with an imported FCS.
Might as well go for lic-mfg of the entire engine instead of wasting money etc - as investing in it would mean,

a) essentially reimbursing the OEM for it's own R&D spent, and worse, what is their "claimed" spent
b) there'll be no follow-up incremental adhoc/on-demand changes by IAF etc, as any change anywhere will require some change in the core, for which additional permission/fees would need to be spent.
Now pls contrast this point (b) with what we are witnessing/hearing from the user-feedback (IAF) vis-a-vis LCA product itself.


2) DRDO/IAF/MoD joint panel of 1983 which analysed the requirement and its feasibility of an indigenous Turbofan engine didn't really ask for an unobtanium in form of Kaveri (or GTX-35 VS) - yes it was very ambitious ask, given the indigenous technical capability etc of that era etc, but not an unobtanium.
It was in the same lines of what was being asked for, in the technology-devt aspect of the platform (LCA) itself - plus a proper due-diligence was done before proceeding with the go-ahead of Kaveri devt.
If based on Marut experience and decades of Lic Mfg experience, the platform (LCA) devt was given go ahead, so was in the case of Kaveri.

Pls read thru the Kaveri Saga thread to understand this following aspect in detail:
DRDO already had a turbojet developed, with similar thrust levels (similar, not same) of what got specified for Kaveri - and in fact had already failed (and then succeeded) in adding a FAN to it, in order to develop a Turbofan.
In fact, in a very crude way, it can be said the Kaveri ask was to remove an HPC stage and derive a "light-weight" turbofan etc.

And the specs being asked for, were to match the "upcoming" (and in fact almost contemporary) F404. And even there, the approach was to copy what GE did with F404 development (based on TF30 on F-111s, whose production ended in mid 1980s).

The twin risks that the then, committee took were:
a) No "flying" turbojet or turbofan experience - max experience was with bench tested turbojets/turbofan prototypes
b) No Technical/R&D bare-minm R&D infra (plus industrial infra) available to undertake a program of such a magnitude
c) and the biggest of all - budget (or investment) guarantee

Yes, with no money to spend, it was almost designed to fail from start - and so, quite unsurprisingly, it did.

What is surprising however is, it failed AFTER successfully delivering the specified dry thrust (of 51-52KN) and marginally falling short of the Wet Thrust (75KN achieved vs 81KN specified).
But more importantly, AFTER meeting all other key aspects of the requirements (SFC, OPR/TeT combo, Surge Margin etc etc etc).


3) Performance criteria and growth potential: A leaky turbojet (like Kaveri) is already disadvantaged vis-a-vis a military turbofan (like F404) when it comes to delivering thrust figures.
The clue is in the BPR and core-massflow figures (of both) and how dry thrust values are so directly influenced by them - it is quite well illustrated in the excel-based-injin-comparative-models, linked many times earlier as recently as in the last 1/2 posts.
A point to ponder maybe, if Kaveri is able to deliver xyz KN dry thrust alongwith comparable SFC figures, with such low BPR regime, what would be possible if the BPR is tweaked upwards, say, to match that of a F404.
(ofcourse it's not a linear relationship etc, but one can think and deduce atleast subjectively).


4) Imported Core means no follow-up engine development program - period.
Not sure how many realise a very simple fact - mighty GE developed F414 by going what is essentially "cold section" upgrade.
(pls refer to my earlier posts to understand the diff between thrust upgrade via "cold section" or via "hot section" upgrades).
Which essentially means, in lay-man terms, the so-called "core" has remained same between F404 and the earlier models of F414. Of course, the current versions of F414 sports considerably "changed core" etc - but the initiation was with ultra low-risk path of tweaking the Fans/LPC etc.
Good luck, dreaming of such stunts with an imported core.

... and so on and so forth ...

:(( And there goes my quota of b/w for BRF posting, so back to lurk mode now ... :((

Barath
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 96
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Barath » 27 Jan 2020 17:41

khan wrote: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.


Contemporary engines could be like this RR engine for Tempest or the GE & PWadaptive cycle options for the 2025+ F35 re-engining. Or the Safran-MTU partnership for FCAS. Without the similar technology, experience or design base as any of these companies, and without even that of China or Russia. It'snot as if China is starving its engine development teams, or that foreign firms and countries will fall over themselves to give invaluable critical gas turbine technologies to India (which they really haven't at any time)

Even with multiple times the infrastructure, budget, and some foreign input, one may need to be realistic in aspirations.

after all, in the 2030s, the GE 414 engine will also be powering contemporary planes

khan wrote: or maybe they can just import.


That would be a waste of an opportunity. You won't be likely to get a business case/volume like this easily...You could proactively always up the budget, infra etc ...but that doesn't seem to hve happened at any point in the past..

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2910
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 27 Jan 2020 18:16

Good to read your posts, Maitya, keep them coming.

With Missile Development and Fighter Development becoming Business as Usual with multiple simultaneous projects, I wish GoI takes up fighter engine development as the next frontier to conquer.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8343
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 28 Jan 2020 06:00

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/122 ... 99072?s=20 ---> So, here's DDR's explainer video on some technical aspects related to the development of a non after burning turbofan engine (jet engine) for India's Ghatak Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV) program. It has been put together by Sriram.


Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8343
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 28 Jan 2020 06:06

Security Scan - Kaveri Jet Engine
23 January 2020


Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 28 Jan 2020 06:17

Maitya, It doesn't make sense to do this alone; a lot of things can be learned in the process of getting an engine certified. Even if we get a 110KN engine developed with foreign core, then replacing the core at a later time and redoing the certification process is a lot easier. Plus we can build our own 100 KN engine with our core and get that to market after that experience. We have yet to take an engine and certify it in air. That process can be made easier if we allow someone else to hold our hand through it.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 482
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby maitya » 28 Jan 2020 19:08

Cybaruji, I never said that we should do this alone - certifications etc aside, I'm saying yes, by all means, we should go ahead and ask for the hand-me-down cores from GE/Snecma/whosoever.
If we are desperate to reimburse R&D budgets of these orgs, so be it ... but we should atleast maximise the return for these reimbursements, right?
And the way to do that is Lic Mfg of the entire engine (like we do for AL-31FPs).

These “joint development” etc really means that, we the Kallurams, shouldn’t even venture close to manufacturing of typical core-components like HPT/LPT discs and blades, vanes, compressor blades, combustor, main spool etc etc etc – these are after all for the gora-sahibs super-special technical skills and ultra-rich experience.
If the sahibs are in a generous mood they may allow us with slightly better terms like end-to-end manufacturing of some of the core components like compressor discs and case, compressor spool, hubs, seals etc just like what the Swedes do for their RM12 (plus of course the end-to-end mfg of non-core components like the fan, afterburner etc).

And ofcourse the entire final assembly, again just like in AL-31FPs.
And, the most important thing - we can always ask HAL et all to mfg a shiny sticker of "Make of India" and attach it to, to complete the conundrum and be done with it.
That should make everybody happy.

What I'm saying however, if we are going to go that route, we shouldn't have any such grandeur hopes (sometimes bordering insanity) of,
i) continuous tweaking of it to tailor it IAFs ever-changing requirements
ii) any iterative version development etc, on our own (like 404-IN20, 404-402 etc)
iii) any follow-up turbofan engine program for any other future platform (including civilian applications)

And, not sure why we need to have a gazillion of chai-biskoot committees to somehow “market” this lic mfg initiative as “joint development” etc – what exactly is there to jointly develop in a Turbofan, except for the Fan and the A/B maybe, if the core itself will be a hand-me-down one.
Earlier after many such chai-biskoot sessions and along with a really tough tongue-twisters like “DTTI” we got told – “Nyah!! Nyah!! These stuffs are not for you children”.

It seems we never learn, do we?

Ever wondered, why we haven't heard any follow-up program from the Swedes despite them doing so these from mid 1990s? They have much stronger and developed industrial manufacturing base than us, right?


Either way, bottom line is we have a working core – that develops exactly the same thrust (52KN) what it was supposed to have. Furthermore, it also achieves almost all crucial parameters of low-bypass military turbofan, indicating the maturity level of the thermodynamic and aerodynamic technologies incorporated into it.

A Turbofan core is exactly is supposed to do the above – and it already does.

So, this engine needs to be flown and the technology levels baselined and the empirical parameters recorded out of it, so that any future program can be worked on/derived from it etc.

But that core hasn’t yet flown – so basically, we are back to 1983 then, where-in we have had bench-tested turbojet (and a turbofan) and we struggled for 20+ years thereafter, to build a contemporary turbofan based on it.
All these “joint development” etc would mean we remain exactly in the same state 20 years hence.

Regarding this "... replacing core ..." etc I have no clue what it really means – I mean, how does one replace a core without building and certifying a brand new engine etc etc etc.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54023
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 28 Jan 2020 23:14

Maitya, How much do you think the current Kabini core cost out of the total Kaveri program?

to me looks like the turbo fan, casing the after burner are per requirement.

So what will it take to come up with a new engine that will poser the MWF and the Naval Tejas Mk2.
Nice if it can power AMCA but not needed.


Ref: viewtopic.php?p=2372872#p2372872

The price, not cost, for new M88 core for Kaveri is
€250M (Safran)+ €500M (DRDO) = €750M.
DRDO spent € 240M total for the Kaveri so far.
So €750M.for new core is definitely high.
The biggest problem is the shoe string budget for the Kaveri.
Despite so many higher ups saying it's a national project of importance.
I would ask DRDO how much to redo the core with M88 type technology?
And fund them.
SAFRAN quoting 3x cost of Kaveri is either a rip off or don't know the job.
Can't be latter as they were consulting DRDO in some form or the other since inception.



So build a new core for a new engine.

And don't do the smallest Swiss mechanical watch type of design.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Atmavik, Bing [Bot], Cain Marko, dhyana, Kakarat and 38 guests