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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 29 Jan 2020 00:49

maitya wrote: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).

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.


Yeah - I agree with you on many of these points. Plus I know nothing about aero engines - with that caveat, I continue to share my opinion.

My argument is

a. that a portion of certification of engine
b. figuring out engine infrastructure/air-test-beds for flight testing new engines
c. getting Kaveri 52/75 KN engine first 500 hours in air remain

and that needs to happen.

This should close the loop on
a. Engine testbed choices
b. certification process
c. learning to ground/air test any engine in the future

Funny enough Kaveri has the same power parameters as the current Rafale M-88 engine. It could theoretically power that if needed..

The engine collaboration should ensure, we get two engines out of it and has us secure for next 20-30 years,
1. We test and certify Kaveri on LCA TD demonstrator, ghatak or retrofit it on Rafale in future
2. Create a new 75-80/110-115 KN engine for AMCA

Ideally that should allow us to do the following in future as all the pieces will now be there
3. Create a 65 KN / 105 KN to power later tranches of MWF if possible -
4. Create 80-85 /130-140 KN engine to power last built MKIs when engine replacement comes up another 10/15 years down the road or if we start a Advanced Heavyweight project.

A collaboration could quite easily cut many years if we structure it right.

Like you say, no change will be possible and all once a engine is made and any change will "lead to lots of cost" - I agree with that statement, and I still think, getting there has immense value for us as a country as it will fill many blanks for us and push us forward quite a bit if we are willing to start and fund other engine programs simultaneously and invest in a testing platform like the Il-76.

So if we get one of our engines (Kaveri) fully functional and another one that we do not have for AMCA (Safran-GTRE) jointly owned engine developed, a lot of things are secure for the future.
Last edited by Cybaru on 29 Jan 2020 10:38, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 29 Jan 2020 02:01

Cybaru, No one will help develop jet engine technology.

VenkataS
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 03:38

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby VenkataS » 29 Jan 2020 03:20

Why not develop a new fighter (with dual engines) design based on the existing Kaveri engine or use the Rafale as suggested above.
We need a few fighters flying with a domestically produced engine as soon as possible so that a feedback loop can be setup so that continuous incremental improvements can be made to the engine.
Estimate how much this would need over the next five years and fund it starting now.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3698
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby kit » 29 Jan 2020 04:44

ramana wrote:Cybaru, No one will help develop jet engine technology.

Well that may not be exactly true, its better said no one is going to hand hold to develop that, an old story about the Russians developing their Mig engines (VK 1 for the Mig 15) from the engines supplied by England (RR Nene) during WW2. Poilitical will, lots of funds and effort. Is anyone/anything stopping india from developing an engine derivative of the Sukhoi s AL 31 or for that matter Mig 29s RD 33 ? Sometimes availability and access kills innovation. I believe with private enterprise and funding on a national mission will help india achieve its goal., the hard way being better in this sense. The rewards are huge.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8297
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 29 Jan 2020 05:24

kit wrote:
ramana wrote:Cybaru, No one will help develop jet engine technology.

Well that may not be exactly true, its better said no one is going to hand hold to develop that, an old story about the Russians developing their Mig engines (VK 1 for the Mig 15) from the engines supplied by England (RR Nene) during WW2. Poilitical will, lots of funds and effort. Is anyone/anything stopping india from developing an engine derivative of the Sukhoi s AL 31 or for that matter Mig 29s RD 33 ? Sometimes availability and access kills innovation. I believe with private enterprise and funding on a national mission will help india achieve its goal., the hard way being better in this sense. The rewards are huge.


Read the Chinese report posted on the China thread. Post WW2 engines were much simpler. Having access to western engines is a good thing as it allows more realistic dev and ops performance metrics etc. However, there is no substitute to research and development and developing both the design competency and the production and supplier base to support a program at industrial scale (something like say 60-100 engines a year). It is a high cost investment and the investment needs to be sustained and an eco-system designed and subsidized around the thing. China is doing that at scale but despite of that is still going through significant challenges. If it were just as easy as having an talent pool and access to cutting edge engines which you can them quickly break apart and use the knowledge to develop top class engines, the Chinese and many other nations would be producing commercial engines on par with the quality of the big 3 or 4.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 29 Jan 2020 05:29

I think if India had copied the Russian engine that would have ended all cooperation and India would be friendless in an unfriendly world.
However that does not mean they should not have funded the Kaveri generously knowing that jet engines are the Achilles heel of India aviation industry.
Something is wrong there and no wants to talk about why it was so.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 29 Jan 2020 10:51

Ramana,

I really do think the two pronged approach of getting the Kaveri off the ground-tested-certified along with a new engine for AMCA is the only way forward.

Even if the AMCA engine has core from Safran and we only make the cold parts, that is fine for now. There will be immense learning in the process of getting both Kaveri and this 110KN engine off the ground and available for our programs.

I understand no one will give us the hot core - let them not. It is still a very valuable exercise.

This will be the best hybrid Build-buy program there can be.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3820
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby hnair » 29 Jan 2020 11:23

maitya, love reading your posts! From one of your posts,Got a question:

maitya wrote: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


For an emerging aerospace industry with some experience in rigging up something as complex as the Netra and figuring out the CLAW of Tejas, it should be a low risk project to get a four-engined plane rigged up with all sorts of test gear and a fat engine test-pod, for a flying test bed.

If hours and hours of testing can be done up in the air, why is this infra being deferred? Is there any technical or financial reason why we dont have a flying-testbed yet?

This particular infrastructure seem to be the only remaining missing infra.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 30 Jan 2020 01:40

kit wrote:
ramana wrote:Cybaru, No one will help develop jet engine technology.

Well that may not be exactly true, its better said no one is going to hand hold to develop that, an old story about the Russians developing their Mig engines (VK 1 for the Mig 15) from the engines supplied by England (RR Nene) during WW2. Poilitical will, lots of funds and effort. Is anyone/anything stopping india from developing an engine derivative of the Sukhoi s AL 31 or for that matter Mig 29s RD 33 ? Sometimes availability and access kills innovation. I believe with private enterprise and funding on a national mission will help india achieve its goal., the hard way being better in this sense. The rewards are huge.


The sale of those Rolls Royce Nene engines to the soviets by the then labor govt of britain is acknowledged as the single biggest blunder in the history of aviation and one that will never ever again be repeated. They purchased a total of 25 Nenes

Thereafter, the soviets, unauthorisedly built copies of the Nene engine and also developed it further as the VK-1, all in direct contravention of the sale agreements.

However, the real pity of selling the engines to the Russians was that so many young britshit engineers lost the chance to trade the designs for sex. Imagine all those eager and willing natashas just pining away.

The bitter irony was that this same engine was in the Korean War, both on the Soviet Mig-15 as well as the US Navy Grumman F9F-2 Panther in the same time frame.

Production Grumman F9F-2 Panthers had a Rolls Royce Nene, built under license by Pratt & Whitney as the J42.

“The MiG-15 surprised the hell out of us,” says National Air and Space Museum curator Robert van der Linden. Compared to the North American F-86 Sabre, hastily introduced in combat after the MiGs showed up, “the MiG was faster, could outclimb it, and had more firepower,” he says. And Sabre pilots knew it.


Lieutenant General Charles “Chick” Cleveland today, he’s president of the American Fighter Aces Association and still has respect for his adversary of 60 years ago. “Oh, it was a wonderful airplane,” he says from his home in Alabama. “You have to remember that the little MiG-15 in Korea was successful doing what all the Focke-Wulfs and Messerschmitts of World War II were never able to do: Drive the United States bomber force right out the sky.” From November 1951, B-29s stayed on the ground during the day; bombing missions were flown only at night.


The west, as well as the russians, have all learned their bitter lessons very well indeed.

No one will ever sell you their crown jewels now.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3698
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby kit » 30 Jan 2020 04:29

chetak wrote:
kit wrote:Well that may not be exactly true, its better said no one is going to hand hold to develop that, an old story about the Russians developing their Mig engines (VK 1 for the Mig 15) from the engines supplied by England (RR Nene) during WW2. Poilitical will, lots of funds and effort. Is anyone/anything stopping india from developing an engine derivative of the Sukhoi s AL 31 or for that matter Mig 29s RD 33 ? Sometimes availability and access kills innovation. I believe with private enterprise and funding on a national mission will help india achieve its goal., the hard way being better in this sense. The rewards are huge.


The sale of those Rolls Royce Nene engines to the soviets by the then labor govt of britain is acknowledged as the single biggest blunder in the history of aviation and one that will never ever again be repeated. They purchased a total of 25 Nenes

Thereafter, the soviets, unauthorisedly built copies of the Nene engine and also developed it further as the VK-1, all in direct contravention of the sale agreements.

However, the real pity of selling the engines to the Russians was that so many young britshit engineers lost the chance to trade the designs for sex. Imagine all those eager and willing natashas just pining away.

The bitter irony was that this same engine was in the Korean War, both on the Soviet Mig-15 as well as the US Navy Grumman F9F-2 Panther in the same time frame.

Production Grumman F9F-2 Panthers had a Rolls Royce Nene, built under license by Pratt & Whitney as the J42.

“The MiG-15 surprised the hell out of us,” says National Air and Space Museum curator Robert van der Linden. Compared to the North American F-86 Sabre, hastily introduced in combat after the MiGs showed up, “the MiG was faster, could outclimb it, and had more firepower,” he says. And Sabre pilots knew it.


Lieutenant General Charles “Chick” Cleveland today, he’s president of the American Fighter Aces Association and still has respect for his adversary of 60 years ago. “Oh, it was a wonderful airplane,” he says from his home in Alabama. “You have to remember that the little MiG-15 in Korea was successful doing what all the Focke-Wulfs and Messerschmitts of World War II were never able to do: Drive the United States bomber force right out the sky.” From November 1951, B-29s stayed on the ground during the day; bombing missions were flown only at night.


The west, as well as the russians, have all learned their bitter lessons very well indeed.

No one will ever sell you their crown jewels now.



Just nitpicking, the Brits only sold the engines but not the blueprints. But i guess then at that point metallurgy did not have that big a role in engine tech ? So by extrapolation India needs to adhere to some "invisible" laws ? If we could make the Vikas engine ( a derivative with indian jugaad neverthless) , no one can object to making a variant of any of the engines india makes under license, but i guess the clear and present issue is the lack of expertise and metalurgical knowhow., and these are the real crown jewels so to speak.Even the big 4 's factories seem to have areas with restricted access, snecma for eg.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7321
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 30 Jan 2020 04:47

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...

Just to put that in perspective, 75kN is the max dry thrust produced by the Su-30's Saturn AL-31F. We need the same on an engine of roughly the size and weight of the GE F-414. No such engine exists today anywhere.

That's not to necessarily say that the technology to make such an engine does not exist. PW or GE can probably build one based off of the technological developments made for the F135 and F136 respectively. But building one in house in India without outside help is out of the question.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 30 Jan 2020 06:21

kit wrote:
chetak wrote:
The sale of those Rolls Royce Nene engines to the soviets by the then labor govt of britain is acknowledged as the single biggest blunder in the history of aviation and one that will never ever again be repeated. They purchased a total of 25 Nenes

Thereafter, the soviets, unauthorisedly built copies of the Nene engine and also developed it further as the VK-1, all in direct contravention of the sale agreements.

However, the real pity of selling the engines to the Russians was that so many young britshit engineers lost the chance to trade the designs for sex. Imagine all those eager and willing natashas just pining away.

The bitter irony was that this same engine was in the Korean War, both on the Soviet Mig-15 as well as the US Navy Grumman F9F-2 Panther in the same time frame.

Production Grumman F9F-2 Panthers had a Rolls Royce Nene, built under license by Pratt & Whitney as the J42.





The west, as well as the russians, have all learned their bitter lessons very well indeed.

No one will ever sell you their crown jewels now.



Just nitpicking, the Brits only sold the engines but not the blueprints. But i guess then at that point metallurgy did not have that big a role in engine tech ? So by extrapolation India needs to adhere to some "invisible" laws ? If we could make the Vikas engine ( a derivative with indian jugaad neverthless) , no one can object to making a variant of any of the engines india makes under license, but i guess the clear and present issue is the lack of expertise and metalurgical knowhow., and these are the real crown jewels so to speak.Even the big 4 's factories seem to have areas with restricted access, snecma for eg.


you have got it right, saar.

Metallurgical knowhow is the key.

The struggle to make a success of the vikas engine is another story altogether, full of red herrings and dirty work at the crossroads and not for an open forum.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 30 Jan 2020 06:32

chetak, Even the Dassault Ouragan had the Nene engines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Ouragan

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 30 Jan 2020 06:37

ramana wrote:chetak, Even the Dassault Ouragan had the Nene engines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Ouragan


Sirji,

They did not have the original RR Nene but the license produced version of the RR Nene made by Hispano suiza.

Incidentally, the IN had all RR Nene engines while the IAF only had the Hispano suiza license produced Nene.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 30 Jan 2020 07:34

For Vampires?

arvin
BRFite
Posts: 278
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby arvin » 30 Jan 2020 07:44

In 2017 I had posted this..
arvin wrote:Borrow 1 747 from Air India and convert into flying test bed. This single act will wipe off all bad karma of Air India and help it attain moksh.


In the new round of AirIndia sale which begun this week, GOI has kept the 4 B747 out of the sale. We can still hope atleast one of them can be converted to flying test bed. Hope realization dawns on the powers that this is a critical need for aero engine development. Even for ghatak program, if engine needs to be tested the test bed design will take atleast 5 years. This is most shameful that we have send it to Russia, when we can easily design such stuff here.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3311
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 30 Jan 2020 09:01

Shouldn't this be made as suggestion to mod, not that they wouldn't know bout what's easy to see is ready to miss

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 30 Jan 2020 09:27

arvin wrote:In 2017 I had posted this..
arvin wrote:Borrow 1 747 from Air India and convert into flying test bed. This single act will wipe off all bad karma of Air India and help it attain moksh.


In the new round of AirIndia sale which begun this week, GOI has kept the 4 B747 out of the sale. We can still hope atleast one of them can be converted to flying test bed. Hope realization dawns on the powers that this is a critical need for aero engine development. Even for ghatak program, if engine needs to be tested the test bed design will take atleast 5 years. This is most shameful that we have send it to Russia, when we can easily design such stuff here.


probably for conversion as vip transport or cargo version for the IAF

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 30 Jan 2020 09:39

ramana wrote:For Vampires?


The IN had them on the seahawks, one lot of seahawks came from the UK and the other lot of seahawks were german produced, known locally by some as "black hawks" and both these shipborne fighters had the RR Nene engines.

The Ouragan was powered by a single Rolls-Royce Nene turbojet engine, produced under license by Hispano-Suiza. The IAF renamed the Ouragan as the Toofani and we bought about 104 of them.

The Ouragan was a deliberate decision to initiate diversification of supply sources.

Possibly by then, someone had wisened up to the inherent unreliability as well as the duplicity of the britshits. :mrgreen:

The vampires were powered by the de havilland Goblin engines.

per wiki

Certain marks of the Vampire were also operated as flying test-beds for the Rolls-Royce Nene engine, leading to the FB30 and 31 variants that were built in, and operated by, Australia.

arvin
BRFite
Posts: 278
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby arvin » 30 Jan 2020 12:21

chetak wrote:
probably for conversion as vip transport or cargo version for the IAF
[/quote]

For VVIP we have 2 B777 that has come via FMS and equipped with self protection suites. For Cargo they have globemaster.
Currently these 747 assets are transferred with alliance air and not intended to be sold off. If transferred to DRDO the vacant pylon can be used to test many things apart from turbofan. i.e airborne lasers, scramjets, pegasus air launch rockets etc.

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby Yagnasri » 30 Jan 2020 12:48

arvin wrote:In 2017 I had posted this..
arvin wrote:Borrow 1 747 from Air India and convert into flying test bed. This single act will wipe off all bad karma of Air India and help it attain moksh.


In the new round of AirIndia sale which begun this week, GOI has kept the 4 B747 out of the sale.
The GoI has kept all tangible assets aside in a SPV and selling AI as a running business. The existing debt is also taken over by the said new SPV of GoI. So we can try. But it will not be free thing.

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 30 Jan 2020 13:37

arvin wrote:
chetak wrote:
probably for conversion as vip transport or cargo version for the IAF


For VVIP we have 2 B777 that has come via FMS and equipped with self protection suites. For Cargo they have globemaster.
Currently these 747 assets are transferred with alliance air and not intended to be sold off. If transferred to DRDO the vacant pylon can be used to test many things apart from turbofan. i.e airborne lasers, scramjets, pegasus air launch rockets etc.[/quote]






your original post said

GOI has kept the 4 B747 out of the sale


You should have been more clear about the transfer of these assets to alliance air.

If transferred to alliance air, then they may intend to operate the 747s for revenue service. They would have probably transferred the aircraft to them at some nominal and written down book value.

The govt is very unlikely to transfer any 747 to DRDO.

There is not enough utility for a DRDO owned testbed and it will take many millions more to instrument and configure the aircraft as a testbed not to mention grounding it for up to a year or even a year and a half. It will most probably have to be sent abroad for all the modifications as there is no way that such work can be done in India

While I appreciate where you are coming from, it may not necessarily be the view of the govt to do this primarily because of the low confidence levels which have been the unfortunate fall out of the very lengthy gestation period of the kaveri engine and yet the program continues to be in the doldrums having plateaued out quite some time ago.

I have attended many meetings where finance advisors of the govt were present. Most of the times our very smart and very sharp senior "engineers" were simply floored by the technical questions asked by these much reviled "bean counters".

At the same time, we need to understand that there is money available for ISRO, DAE and our own ongoing missile programs among many other successful projects.
Last edited by chetak on 30 Jan 2020 15:05, edited 1 time in total.

arvin
BRFite
Posts: 278
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby arvin » 30 Jan 2020 15:05

chetak wrote:
There is not enough utility for a DRDO owned testbed and it will take many millions more to instrument and configure the aircraft as a testbed not to mention grounding it for up to a year or even a year and a half.

While I appreciate where you are coming from, it may not necessarily be the view of the govt to do this primarily because of the low confidence levels which have been the unfortunate fall out of the very lengthy gestation period of the kaveri engine and yet the program continues to be in the doldrums having plateaued out quite some time ago.

.


The approximate cost to rig up a used 747 to make a test bed is $70 million. This figure is from rolls royce who bought a 747 from qantas recently.
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/roll ... index.html

That is around 500 crore rupes which can easily be obtained by say GOI selling a small land parcel in
So Bo. Or compare that amount with 69000 cr bail out package for bsnl & mtnl.
I cant see how they are going to test kaveri turbofan without a test bed. And what about testing the NAL - Drdo turboprop for replacing the PT6A on saras and HAL HTFE 25 and Resurrected Kaveri with afterburners and so on. Dont know how much Russia charges per test, but this 500 cr sure looks cheaper in the long run when we have many more aero engines program.

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

Re: Kaveri & aero-engine discussion

Postby chetak » 30 Jan 2020 15:18

arvin wrote:
chetak wrote:
There is not enough utility for a DRDO owned testbed and it will take many millions more to instrument and configure the aircraft as a testbed not to mention grounding it for up to a year or even a year and a half.

While I appreciate where you are coming from, it may not necessarily be the view of the govt to do this primarily because of the low confidence levels which have been the unfortunate fall out of the very lengthy gestation period of the kaveri engine and yet the program continues to be in the doldrums having plateaued out quite some time ago.

.


The approximate cost to rig up a used 747 to make a test bed is $70 million. This figure is from rolls royce who bought a 747 from qantas recently.
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/roll ... index.html

That is around 500 crore rupes which can easily be obtained by say GOI selling a small land parcel in
So Bo. Or compare that amount with 69000 cr bail out package for bsnl & mtnl.
I cant see how they are going to test kaveri turbofan without a test bed. And what about testing the NAL - Drdo turboprop for replacing the PT6A on saras and HAL HTFE 25 and Resurrected Kaveri with afterburners and so on. Dont know how much Russia charges per test, but this 500 cr sure looks cheaper in the long run when we have many more aero engines program.


This is what they look like and RR being an engine designer and manufacturer probably did their own instrumentation work and saved a pile of money there so it is likely that the $70 million spent may have been for the structural modifications and also for certification.

The instrumentation alone would have cost them a bomb.

Image

Image

better a bird in hand rather than a pie in the sky.

If at all we go for a testbed, why the 747 which is costly as well as humongously expensive to operate.

We only have the smaller engines, if at all, to test so a smaller aircraft should do us well enough.

Rest assured that our guys are not in the GE9X/RR Trent league and nor are they likely to be any time soon.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=995i8v28QEU


GE Aviation Flying Test Bed Tour | Flight Test Operations



kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3698
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby kit » 30 Jan 2020 16:24

Composite fan blade manufacture., note the amount of manual work needed


kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3698
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby kit » 30 Jan 2020 16:27

And the Rolls Royce Trent

Stupendous complexity., see the QC teams at work ..every step


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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby maitya » 30 Jan 2020 18:11

ramana wrote: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.


Ramanaji, reg your above poser: "How much do you think the current Kabini core cost out of the total Kaveri program?"
Never been good (or comfortable) with revenue/costs/budgets etc :( - so no clue really!!
But from the struggle/effort basis of what is normally seen elsewhere, I wouldn't be surprise the breakup is something like 60%-15%-25% for Core-Fan/AB-Certification respectively etc.
The figures would be very diff for a civilian application of course, as nobody develops a dedicated Core for such applications (the core are all from previous and well-used military applications) - plus the testing/certification would be of very high proportionality (plus Fan and LPT effort being quite significant etc).
Not for nothing denovo core developments, anywhere in military or civilian applications, are normally categorized once-in-a-3-or-4-decade phenomenon.

These % for established engine dev houses would also be quite different, as all core development is strictly incremental and unlike denovo effort for Kaveri etc.


Wrt SAFRAN quoting 3x is neither a rip-off - and, given the long history (right from day 1 actually) of providing consultative support to the Kaveri program, they are probably the ones who knows the best of what needs to be done.
It's not a rip-off, as my hunch is, like any good business house, they sense that this is probably the last chance of milking us - their assessment probably is Kabini/Kaveri design is probably mature enough that if they don't go for the kill now, we may not need any of their (or anybody's) support too much in near future.

But being well entrenched in our "system" they also very well know the MoD baboons thought processes (that are devoid of any technical or program mgmt maturity level and mostly centered around arithmetic and schedule Calisthenics etc) and how to game the system - i.e. with no "proven RoI" (aka no platform to power) this program will not be funded for the last mile certification etc, however indigenous etc that effort may be.
So quote some figure, get the moolah, and few years later say, "sorry, nothing possible - the core needs to be changed to attain this 90-95KN figure" etc etc - and here's the bill and here's the M88-2 core for it.

That fund of-course will be spent in developing the now-in-cold-storage-for-lack-of-funds M88-3 program. :shock:

We are, after all, masters of reimbursing foreign R&D spends ... :roll:


Cybaruji, hnairji and others, apologies for not being able to respond meaningfully to you guys - honestly, in my head I have a lot more to say regarding this developing-or-redeveloping-core etc etc, all from a layman pov - but simply don't have that b/w to actually write them up.
I still owe Prasadji a response wrt LZ vs YSZ TBC applications in a PS-vs-non-EBPVD-situations etc (form a couple of pages back).

So I should just shut up and concentrate on completing those ... one at a time, I guess. :(

Abhibhushan
BRFite
Posts: 201
Joined: 28 Sep 2005 20:56
Location: Chennai

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Abhibhushan » 30 Jan 2020 18:24

In a silly mood this evening and I want to toss in a very silly idea for a heated discussion.

We have no airborne test bed as of now. Getting a large aircraft and modifying it as a test bed for subsonic testing of the engine is expensive. (‘So what !’ I would want to scream) . But for the moment can we look for some Jugaad ?

How about fitting a Kaveri inside an AN 32? Just put in the Tejas intake duct pair behind the cockpit bulkhead and feed them into the engine intake trying to copy the Tejas intake. Better still, if the space is available, shove in a Tejas intake module as is. Shove the exhaust through the rear. Remove the ramp if need be. Test it flying upto M.5 or so. Main aim would be to become assured of its reliability in actual prolonged flight.

Once we are comfortable about Kaveri’s reliability, we can put it into a Tejas and go through the rest of the tests.

Come on all ye engineers. Pull out your pocket calculators and carry out a feasibility study and show the world how far Indian Jugaad can take you. All the best. :). And of course I have not thought of resonance and vibration problems at all. O baad mey Dekha jayega.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby fanne » 30 Jan 2020 18:50

kit wrote:Composite fan blade manufacture., note the amount of manual work needed



Kit ji, this is a great video and something that we can do too.

Our composite effort (see link -https://www.nal.res.in/en/articledivision?ar_id=369) from aircraft body (wings, fins, tails) have been a huge success. This effort (and this is all from memory) started around when everybody in the world was starting around 1970s-1980s. Modest budget, modest group of people, and in 1995-1996 when first LCA rolled out, at that time it had the highest % by surface area of composite use in any fighter plane in the world!! We have only advanced, and now new planes are moving composite way. We have been a world leader in that narrow field. It took us same amount of time (in fact less, we were the first), as it took other 'advanced' countries to master and use this technology.

In my very humble opinion, NAL should be mandated to develop composite blades (if you see their website, they do everything else but blades). Single crystal blades (SCB), thermal barrier coating are all black science, where we may or may not succeed (it looks like we are almost there, operative word is almost). Now producing them in numbers is altogether a different issue (that we have to overcome after we figure out the R&D part). Jumping directly to composites (where everyone else is going, even companies that mastered SCB some 20 years ago and manufactured 1000s of engines using that tech), we can leap frog this stage. Just like in telecom, we did not had to put copper wire to every house (AT&T of USA holds 50% of the copper of the world), but using mobile technology we are one of the best telecom country in the world. If we were to lay copper, we would not have achieved 5% of where we are.

This effort (composite blade) should have been started some 5-10 years ago, still it is not too late. That is the future anyways. If we figure out to make composite blades before mastering SCB tech, we may not need to kill ourselves for that.

Rest of engine design and testing/certification, that infra has to be set up regardless. If we cannot get jumbo jets as test beds, we can use our twin engine planes (Jags, Mig 29, SU30MKI, even retired bombers like Canberra (if we can manage spare situation)). We are anyway retiring some of the early Jags, why not use it for this, or better still make one/few for this purpose only.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby fanne » 30 Jan 2020 18:56

Abhibhushan wrote:In a silly mood this evening and I want to toss in a very silly idea for a heated discussion.

We have no airborne test bed as of now. Getting a large aircraft and modifying it as a test bed for subsonic testing of the engine is expensive. (‘So what !’ I would want to scream) . But for the moment can we look for some Jugaad ?

How about fitting a Kaveri inside an AN 32? Just put in the Tejas intake duct pair behind the cockpit bulkhead and feed them into the engine intake trying to copy the Tejas intake. Better still, if the space is available, shove in a Tejas intake module as is. Shove the exhaust through the rear. Remove the ramp if need be. Test it flying upto M.5 or so. Main aim would be to become assured of its reliability in actual prolonged flight.

Once we are comfortable about Kaveri’s reliability, we can put it into a Tejas and go through the rest of the tests.

Come on all ye engineers. Pull out your pocket calculators and carry out a feasibility study and show the world how far Indian Jugaad can take you. All the best. :). And of course I have not thought of resonance and vibration problems at all. O baad mey Dekha jayega.


Exactly what should be done, we have enough fighters, bombers, transport planes that can be modified. It just need the will to do it and one person/agency responsible to do all of this. Transport planes perhaps can test it till M.5, and fighters/bombers for a higher Mach.

We have to stop aping US or Russia, their test bed is Boeing or IL and so we need the same. You work with what you have and what you can have. And what we have is adequate.

arvin
BRFite
Posts: 278
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby arvin » 30 Jan 2020 19:10

Abhibhushan wrote:In a silly mood this evening and I want to toss in a very silly idea for a heated discussion.

We have no airborne test bed as of now. Getting a large aircraft and modifying it as a test bed for subsonic testing of the engine is expensive. (‘So what !’ I would want to scream) . But for the moment can we look for some Jugaad ?


Sir please take a look at the above videos and amount of instrumentation that went into the 747 of RR and GE.
There wont be any space for people or instrumentation if its placed in the cargo hold.
The perception of 747 test bed being expensive is also not correct. The aircraft is free while we only need to do instrumentation and structural modification. Netra and soon A330 are examples we can do this complex task.

Abhibhushan
BRFite
Posts: 201
Joined: 28 Sep 2005 20:56
Location: Chennai

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Abhibhushan » 30 Jan 2020 19:41

^^ I thought our software boys are pretty good with data links. Aren’t they?

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby fanne » 30 Jan 2020 19:52

:) plus that data is mostly analyzed on ground (after the flight); except for emergency situation, where you need the data on board to stop the engine (or jettison it if that is an option). We need not have to instrument it for a flying lab. Uncle can do, but why we?

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 30 Jan 2020 22:52

arvin wrote:
Abhibhushan wrote:In a silly mood this evening and I want to toss in a very silly idea for a heated discussion.

We have no airborne test bed as of now. Getting a large aircraft and modifying it as a test bed for subsonic testing of the engine is expensive. (‘So what !’ I would want to scream) . But for the moment can we look for some Jugaad ?


Sir please take a look at the above videos and amount of instrumentation that went into the 747 of RR and GE.
There wont be any space for people or instrumentation if its placed in the cargo hold.
The perception of 747 test bed being expensive is also not correct. The aircraft is free while we only need to do instrumentation and structural modification. Netra and soon A330 are examples we can do this complex task.



free.

Really.

Why would AI part with it for free when DRDO can pay. Alliance air is their own subsidiary and equations there are very different. Are they going to forgo the opportunity costs of a flying and revenue producing 747 and take the hit just because of some sweet talking scientists. I think not. They will make you pay and pay through the nose until you bleed.

These PSU guys well know how to work their labor unions to bring pressure exactly where needed. There is no known counter to this so far.


Aircraft modifications: structural + instrumentation will be done abroad as no facilities or design capability or expertise available incountry

Insurance aircraft +crew (After idly disaster, everyone is going to be very very wary)

certification by DGCA

crew, maint+Flight +crew training and certification

recurrent and mandatory sim training generally abroad once in every 3-6 months

Maint checks, some major ones to be done abroad

spares, LRUs

fuel + consumables

infrastructure on ground, tools, rigs, jacks, servicing equipment, ground equipment like power carts, hydraulic power, airconditioning carts, hangarage for the 747 will cost in multiple tens of crores

spare engines: at least two to start with

crew training and confirmed long term availability of the crews, both flight and maintenance. diferent crews for different engines and crews have to be certified on the engines they are going to handle.

housing and transportation for key personnel like at least two complete sets of test pilots and flight test engineers.

medical facilities including a set of aviation medical specialists and staff available for preflight medicals.

and this is just off the top of my head.

All this and more for a very expensive asset that is going to be spending about 75-80% of its time on the ground waiting for other people to get their acts together, if at all.
Last edited by chetak on 30 Jan 2020 23:09, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 30 Jan 2020 23:08

Chetak Sir, I agree that Air India will charge DRDO a bleeding fee for the use of their 747.

Too bad though...because from one pocket (Air India), the money is moving to another pocket (DRDO). Same pant, different pockets.

As long as the stakeholders (DRDO, Air India and the GoI) understand that, all izz well :)

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 30 Jan 2020 23:13

Rakesh wrote:Chetak Sir, I agree that Air India will charge DRDO a bleeding fee for the use of their 747.

Too bad though...because from one pocket (Air India), the money is moving to another pocket (DRDO). Same pant, different pockets.


Rakesh saar,

I really get where all these guys are coming from but at the same time there has to be some semblance of logic in the discussions.

I often think that the kaveri fiasco was entirely due to lack of appreciation of the enormity and magnitude of the problem as well as a misplaced sense of overhyped jingoism with a huge helping of gigantic egos running amuck.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 30 Jan 2020 23:41

Maaf karo Sir, Maaf karo. The suggestions being put forward are by folks who mean well. Sometimes one has to sift through various proposals - no matter how crazy or unobtainable it may seem - for one to validate. And even then, that one proposal will not work at the validation stage. And the process starts anew. To an informed gurus like yourself, it will likely seem illogical. Disprove the idea, but do not kill the messenger. That messenger may just have another idea that might work. Disclaimer - That was not directed at you.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 31 Jan 2020 00:05

nachiket wrote:
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...

Just to put that in perspective, 75kN is the max dry thrust produced by the Su-30's Saturn AL-31F. We need the same on an engine of roughly the size and weight of the GE F-414. No such engine exists today anywhere.

That's not to necessarily say that the technology to make such an engine does not exist. PW or GE can probably build one based off of the technological developments made for the F135 and F136 respectively. But building one in house in India without outside help is out of the question.

Thank you for highlighting the bolded part. Very true. Many pranams to you.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7321
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 31 Jan 2020 00:13

Question is has GTRE itself asked for a flying testbed? If they make enough noise then transferring one 747 (which should be close to retirement now anyway) from AI to them should not be impossible. Both GTRE and AI are essentially govt. departments. Yes the bean counters will raise hell, but let them. If there is enough will and vision they can be overruled by the political bosses. Modifying it to work as a testbed will require both downtime and money of course, but the payoffs in the long run will be huge.

Of course this is India we are talking about. So pigs will fly supersonic before any of this happens.

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby agupta » 31 Jan 2020 00:19

maitya wrote: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:

...
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.
....

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.

...

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).



Great post, Maitya. But I think its important to quibble a little...

Re #1. I would argue that the task for Kaveri was significantly harder than LCA given organic design/manufacturing/core capabilities... even in the 80s the "aero" flight vehicle R&D infrastructure/foundation was significantly better than our turbomachinery side. GTRE paper designs, HAL and BHEL screwdrivergiri and DMRL "lab successes designed to win R&D awards but no more" didn't really do much for us

Also re #1... I doubt any of previous GTRE work went beyond minimal/nominal test rigs; Kaveri was the first time that they went all the way to do the full monty.

The most critical aspect, can you point me to any substantiation of the part in Red ? I have always seen casual thrusts achieved thrown about, but never confirmation that targets of
(a) mission SFC and weight
(b) OPR/TeT (sustained or per mission not one design point
(c) Thermal durability (hours of life for the hot gas paths)
(d) stall and surge margins
(e) Aeromechanical Operability (LCF, HCF targets)
have been met. Or just what numbers were achieved vs. targeted ?

Like everyone points out - just like the NLCA Tech demo - a shortfall in wet thrust ALONE would still imply an effective Tech development platform (with perhaps R&D partnership for the A/B systems).... that its dead-in-the-water leads me to believe much more likely that the engine ran into a lot of operability and durability issues as well that became show-stoppers; these issues almost always need the secret sauces to resolve and being able to run CFD on HPC does diddly -squat for them (even in 201X). Certainly reporting from the FTBs talked about a few.

We may be hitting the dry thrust target, but perhaps 15% more weight OR 10% lower SFC/fuel burn OR that the HPT blades burn up in 100 hrs of service is enough to "mission kill" the program ?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Prithwiraj and 55 guests