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 » 31 Jan 2020 00:21

A used 747 can be bought for less than 30 million dollars from the market. Or GTRE can pay Air India 30 million dollars from budget. Accounting issues should be least of the problem.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby agupta » 31 Jan 2020 00:28

nachiket wrote:Question is has GTRE itself asked for a flying testbed? I....



FWIW, the issue of a missing FTB is highly over-rated here on BRF.... a red humpback whale if you will. An in-house FTB is only as much valuable in that it allows you to solve those problems that were ONLY found on the FTB faster.

With the info we have, I don't see much evidence that this is true e.g., did the FTB reveal the A/B issues or were they found in ground tests ? There are likely several/other significant issues that have come up. And I have not seen GTRE either admit or take steps to overcome the knowledge deficit organically other than these "turn=key" consulting/offset arrangements which IMO miss the point that no-one's going to hand over crown-jewels willingly and our ability to write ToT arrangements is also not so great. How do you ask to transfer details of something that you don't quite know yet ?

Also another matter that we're trivializing the effort it would take - measurement technology (just like production technology) is an often ignored "technology" in India; if it would be wisest use of an additional $100M if it were to be sanctioned. Perhaps hiring 50 multidisciplinary experts from the Big3/5 engine makers across the world to augment internal talent ?

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 31 Jan 2020 00:44

Rakesh wrote: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 saar,

I have seen you post for a long time now and there is no way that anyone can mistake you. Never you fear.

I know that each and every guy here means well and they all have the light of patriotic fervor shining in their eyes as well as the Tiranga fluttering strong in their hearts.

I wish that somebody in the early days of the kaveri project had stopped for a minute and stepped back to do a realistic stock taking of where they actually stood.

Maybe then, they would have taken a different path and got the success that their undoubted hard work entitled them to.

The delay in kaveri has actually cast a shadow over the DRDO itself leading to doubting thomases in the ministry as well as sceptical politicos in dilli gaining the upper hand.

All the entities, both inside and outside of the DRDO that did not play their allotted roles in supporting the kaveri are well known to all to bear rehashing now.

The goras will come when the price is right or the market for their other systems becomes large enough to ensure that we are not ignored once again and our writ will run.

Even though we are not yet their equals yet, they know that we are well enough along in metallurgy, technology as well as in other allied fields to learn very quickly.

The success of the DAE, ISRO, the Arihant, our home built aircraft carriers, our world class missile systems, and our achievements in space is seriously unnerving them and they fear that given fighter engine tech it will become the enabler that will significantly reduce our time to real superpower status. We have never stolen space, nuke and weapons tech like the pakis or the chinese and nor have we had powerful well wishers like the amerikis who helped out the EU nations in all these fields.

We have had some help from israel and the russkis both of whom have been very careful as to what they actually gave us. The Kfir taught the jews to hide their tech prowess and I am very sure that they have the engine tech that we need but they will not give it to us as indeed the japanese also will not risk helping us.

we have mostly done it all on our very own and that is not something that the goras are able to digest easily.

Despite all the foolishness of banditji and his "die nasty" descendants, we have made it quite far and today we are among the top five economies in the world after being raped by the muslims, the britshits, the french, the dutch, the portuguese and GOK who else we have somehow staggered and stumbled our way in to the top five.

Imagine where we would have been today, if we all had pulled as one, over these 70 odd years.

The DRDO bosses should leverage the success of the missile programs, show case it in dilli to drag GTRE out of the rut and make it a viable and going enterprise.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 31 Jan 2020 01:07

Cybaru wrote:A used 747 can be bought for less than 30 million dollars from the market. Or GTRE can pay Air India 30 million dollars from budget. Accounting issues should be least of the problem.


I hear that an airbus 320 makes roughly about Rs11-14 crores a month after expenses, give or take

A 747 can do much better on high density routes like the gulf where mostly carpenters and masons fly, meaning the passengers are not overly picky. Not too sure about the economics of the 747 because it was not part of the fleet where I was working.

$30 million may be an underestimate. Such a rustbucket may require lots of work, mods and updates to recertify again thus adding many tens of millions to the asking price before it becomes deployable.

BTW, why involve AI in the deal at all. Buy direct from the market, use AI as a consulting company to help pick the right aircraft, modify and enter into a contract with any suitable entity to manage the aircraft.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 31 Jan 2020 01:46

chetak wrote:
Cybaru wrote:A used 747 can be bought for less than 30 million dollars from the market. Or GTRE can pay Air India 30 million dollars from budget. Accounting issues should be least of the problem.




$30 million may be an underestimate. Such a rustbucket may require lots of work, mods and updates to recertify again thus adding many tens of millions to the asking price before it becomes deployable.

BTW, why involve AI in the deal at all. Buy direct from the market, use AI as a consulting company to help pick the right aircraft, modify and enter into a contract with any suitable entity to manage the aircraft.


Sure - It may require mods and rejigging for adding a engine
https://www.controller.com/listings/air ... -group/747

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2882
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 31 Jan 2020 02:43

chetak wrote:
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.


This is very acceptable argument, however our situation was between a rock and hard place.

People who made the decision to go for a ambitious target, would have known, there is frankly no point setting a lower target. They would have also known that, even if we achieved a lab prototype generating 80KN wet thrust, there was no chance in hell that such a engine will be rolling off production line by the time LCA achieved FOC.

They would also known that it is madness to use a newly designed un-proved Kaveri engine on a first time locally designed jet! I mean, IAF was looking for excuses to not induct LCA. LCA crashing due to issues with Kaveri would have been a God send gift.

On the other end if we had set a target of say 60-65KN wet thrust, what is the point of such a engine? We cannot use it on LCA.

The fact of the matter is Kaveri was never meant for LCA. LCA was always suppose to have F404 in operation. The boat has long sailed when we could use a "achievable target" of 60-65KN.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2882
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 31 Jan 2020 02:49

It is the same with our objective of 110KN engine. If we throw enough money, we have enough brains in our country and getting the required testing platforms, we might achieve a 110KN engine.

It is possible to build a 110KN engine, but it is not easy to serially produce a 110KN which does not fall off the sky.

That requires experience, an experience which only a experienced producer like US, UK, France can give. Just look at RD33/93. It has been around for ages, but still cannot match F404's consistency.

If we want to thank one element, which saved the Indian fighter jet MIC, it is the F404 engine. I cannot say enough, what a fabulous decision it was to choose F404 and NOT RD33.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby arvin » 31 Jan 2020 09:06

agupta wrote:
nachiket wrote:Question is has GTRE itself asked for a flying testbed? I....


FWIW, the issue of a missing FTB is highly over-rated here on BRF.... a red humpback whale if you will. An in-house FTB is only as much valuable in that it allows you to solve those problems that were ONLY found on the FTB faster.


We have around 4 to 5 aero engine programs running currently across all segments: Turbofan, turbojet, turboprop, etc. There would be more to come. These engines would require continuos tweaking to ensure they stay modern. Without a FTB all of them will have to be sent to Russia after every design change. Not a good idea. We need a gromov equivalent here.

sajaym
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 93
Joined: 04 Feb 2019 09:11

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby sajaym » 31 Jan 2020 10:31

The Kaveri project should be allowed to fumble along with the drone projects & not interfere with any of the current/ future manned fighter projects. What is needed is to take the learnings from the Kaveri project and design a new engine from scratch along with active private participation. This new engine should have dimension & performance commonality with all our future fighter programs - MWF, TEDBF, AMCA, MRCA 2.0. Infact, just like in the artillery program let there be different teams offering multiple offerings -- GTRE/DRDO+pvt parties offering one engine and HAL+partners+pvt parties offering another. Since there will be a huge market for such an engine across the multiple fighter projects, there will be a incentive for the private parties also.

Regarding FTB - why can't any of the LCA TDs be configured as a Drone FTB? It's definitely do-able. The only problem I can think of is that GTRE which owns the Kaveri engine is a different entity and HAL which owns the LCA TDs is a different entity. On the other hand HAL which is developing the HTSE and the HTFE has plenty of spare platforms which can be rigged up as drone FTBs to test it's engines. What could be the issues preventing this? Could someone here from HAL comment?

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1193
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby prasannasimha » 31 Jan 2020 10:50

Problem of using LCA as FTB is it is a single engine plane so failure would end in a crash and loss of data wrt direct engine analysis

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1193
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby prasannasimha » 31 Jan 2020 10:51

Problem of using LCA as FTB is it is a single engine plane so failure would end in a crash and loss of data wrt direct engine analysis

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7984
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 31 Jan 2020 10:53

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.

Sirjee,

What you are speaking of fine is with me except I would arrange it in the Lockheed Tristar fashion and place the engine in the tail cone.
Image

There are many advantages. The intake will have the least distortion and the exhaust will be in the free stream. The cabin will be almost free. The mismatch in thrust will not affect flight dynamics and it is easy to study effects of sideslip. One added advantage is the the significantly higher safety as well. A catastrophic failure in the test engine will not jeopardize the aicraft and crew.

But, this is not a good setup for an FTB. This setup will test the intake-engine combo and there is no way to separate the same for some parameters.

Agupta sahab, I don't understand your arguments on the lack of an FTB is not a serious impediment. That is akin to saying "Is not having a swimming pool seriously that big of an impediment in the development of a world class swimmer?" FTBs are EXTREMELY expensive one-off planes. Every design house would not have one if they were not that important?

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 31 Jan 2020 12:14

Does anybody have any idea of how much heat and noise is generated by a running engine.

Shroud this and put it inside an AN32 in any way you want. You would still need to run fuel lines to it. The noise alone would interfere unacceptably with the test pilots work in the cockpit.

Who would agree to certify and clear for flight such a technical complexity and more important, which pilot(s) and engineer(s) would agree to such a kamikaze venture.

Which brave designer(s) would ask them to undertake such a mission and what if, just what if, the test pilots "invited" such a "brave" designer(s) to accompany them on this mission.

This engine would sit fairly close to the wing fuel tanks, how would the pilots and test engineers save themselves in case of a mishap.

Where would they escape from and how or would they all be expected to do a saras in the name of furthering the frontiers of progress in India's fighter engine saga.

Has such a thing ever been attempted before.

just asking onlee.

agupta sahab is absolutely right.

The lack of an FTB at this stage is not a serious impediment.

the requirement of the FTB is quite a ways down the road and GTRE is certainly not clamoring for one right away, if at all

So why jump the gun by counting the FTB chickens even before the engine eggs have hatched.

there is an enormous amount of work to be done on the ground before the improved/reworked kaveri is even ready to be mated to a pylon on the FTB.

yeh to sirf trailer tha, picture abhi baki hai

If a proper FMEA had been done on the saras, one that identified all part failure modes, its primary benefit would have been the early identification of all critical and catastrophic subsystem or system failure modes so that they could have been eliminated or minimized through procedure modification after proper data dissemination and training at the earliest point in the development effort to undertake the test flight for the single engine tests.

Had the process been properly understood and used, the FMEA would have been rigorously performed at the system level as soon as changed preliminary operating information was available as regards the new propellers and the same would have extended to the lower levels as the revised and detailed operational processes involving the flight crew who were ultimately tasked to perform the flight test.

A lot of work in our own govt labs would benefit enormously from such a rigorous insight prior to the actual undertaking of work so as to enable the project leads to chart the optimally correct path and ensure the proper and economically efficient utilization of scarce resources to the ultimate benefit of the organization in terms of credibility as well as results.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 31 Jan 2020 13:18

nam wrote:It is the same with our objective of 110KN engine. If we throw enough money, we have enough brains in our country and getting the required testing platforms, we might achieve a 110KN engine.

It is possible to build a 110KN engine, but it is not easy to serially produce a 110KN which does not fall off the sky.

That requires experience, an experience which only a experienced producer like US, UK, France can give. Just look at RD33/93. It has been around for ages, but still cannot match F404's consistency.

If we want to thank one element, which saved the Indian fighter jet MIC, it is the F404 engine. I cannot say enough, what a fabulous decision it was to choose F404 and NOT RD33.


Sirji,

why would anyone be "throwing money" in development work.

Wouldn't judicious deployment of the required financial resources for project funding be more acceptable. Just saying onlee :)

One wonders how and why, unexpectedly and entirely out of the blue, at that critical stage of the LCA development work, the GE F404 "suddenly" became available to us when over the years the amerikis have been anything but helpful in their military support to India, especially in the LCA program.

If not the F404, I am very sure that a competing french or some other non ameriki engine would have equally miraculously made its dramatic appearance at around the same time, magnanimously hastening to the urgent aid of the unwashed natives.

Both would have the underlying motive of subtly controlling India's fighter development program and tie it down to one single source of engine supply and forcing us to commit to the development and purchase of higher powered versions of the same engine.

Has the F414 not already made its appearance and at appreciably higher unit prices.

yeh to sirf trailer tha, picture abhi baki hai

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4076
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 31 Jan 2020 14:07

Except maybe for Japan and Cheen, there is no real example for what we are doing here.

The US, UK, France and Russia have decades of experience and hundreds of billions in sunk investment in testing and manufacturing. And Russia trails the other three badly in commercial engines that depends on reliability and endurance which tells you how far behind even Russia is.

So no, we are not going to develop a 110kN medium engine by ourselves that even the US does not have now.

In order to gain the experience that the big four have we need to finish an engine that is within our tech level and then mass produce it. That is the Kaveri. We need to get it into production.

Only India, Japan and Cheen have attempted turbofans outside the big four. The difference is Japan had flown theirs in airplanes and Cheen has gone one better in mass producing theirs.

The PRC will crank out 350 WS-10s this year. And this is an engine that performed below that of the Kaveri when both were testing in Gromov. So what happened since? Unlike us, Cheen bought an Il-76 testbed from Russia (the same model used by the Kaveri) and it began production of the WS-10 with all its warts. Re-iteration on the production lines created variant after variant until they found something they like.

Finish up the Kaveri and use the ghatak to begin mass production of it. The 110kN is a goal but we need to finish up and productionize the Kaveri. If we leave Kaveri half-finish then it will be the same for the 110kN.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 31 Jan 2020 14:41

chola wrote:Except maybe for Japan and Cheen, there is no real example for what we are doing here.

The US, UK, France and Russia have decades of experience and hundreds of billions in sunk investment in testing and manufacturing. And Russia trails the other three badly in commercial engines that depends on reliability and endurance which tells you how far behind even Russia is.

So no, we are not going to develop a 110kN medium engine by ourselves that even the US does not have now.

In order to gain the experience that the big four have we need to finish an engine that is within our tech level and then mass produce it. That is the Kaveri. We need to get it into production.

Only India, Japan and Cheen have attempted turbofans outside the big four. The difference is Japan had flown theirs in airplanes and Cheen has gone one better in mass producing theirs.

The PRC will crank out 350 WS-10s this year. And this is an engine that performed below that of the Kaveri when both were testing in Gromov. So what happened since? Unlike us, Cheen bought an Il-76 testbed from Russia (the same model used by the Kaveri) and it began production of the WS-10 with all its warts. Re-iteration on the production lines created variant after variant until they found something they like.

Finish up the Kaveri and use the ghatak to begin mass production of it. The 110kN is a goal but we need to finish up and productionize the Kaveri. If we leave Kaveri half-finish then it will be the same for the 110kN.


All that you say is very true.

But the amerikis have almost successfully stymied the possibility of any serious funding for the kaveri with the strategically well timed entry of their F404/F414 series of fighter engines to power the LCA.

Their immediate intention in all likelihood was not just the sales of the F404/F414 engines per se but to try and kill the kaveri development so as to eliminate any threat and clear the field for themselves.

customer khush, supplier khush, aircraft designer and aircraft manufacturer also khush.

it's almost game, set and match, no

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby agupta » 31 Jan 2020 17:01

Indranil wrote:
Agupta sahab, I don't understand your arguments on the lack of an FTB is not a serious impediment. That is akin to saying "Is not having a swimming pool seriously that big of an impediment in the development of a world class swimmer?" FTBs are EXTREMELY expensive one-off planes. Every design house would not have one if they were not that important?



Indranil - I will humbly disagree with your pool analogy; if you want to go there, I will say the FTB is your modern swimsuit/wear , not the pool ( I realize this is extreme ;) but in the same league as your analogy) ... if you want to win championships, you can always borrow a modern swimsuit etc., but that does not make or break your ability to compete at that level.

There is this perception here on BRF that ALL or MANY "design changes are iterated on with the FTB" - this is not true. FTBs are meant for a) confirmation of full system integration b) testing of FEW/LIMITED conditions and combinations (or phenomena) not possible on the ground. So yes, e.g., you would need a FTB to sign off on stall-margin & operability at high AoAs, but you would find out in ground tests if your engine had an engine inlet distortion sensitivity problem much before you got there. OR if you didn't have adequate domain knowledge being starved of R&D for many decades, the FTB would be where you would first discover it...but again this does not mean you couldn't diagnose/design/solve on the ground.

This is why I found Maitya's post about other metrics being met so interesting. For DRDO to admit defeat directly, lots of other stuff would have gone wrong than just LCF on the FTB or A/B problems.

But we are like this only, why should the citizenry know about what's happening in our "modern temples" in Bangalore when there are so many holy cows to protect...
Last edited by agupta on 01 Feb 2020 00:22, 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 » 31 Jan 2020 20:54

agupta wrote:
Indranil wrote:Agupta sahab, I don't understand your arguments on the lack of an FTB is not a serious impediment.
<snip>

<snip>
This is why I found Maitya's post about other metrics being met so interesting. For DRDO to admit defeat directly, lots of other stuff would have gone wrong than just LCF on the FTB or A/B problems.
<snip>

aguptaji, Kaveri didn't only met it's design objectives, it actually surpassed them.

But what I said above is not true and indeed laughable for those for whom, a turbofan is all about a Thrust or an Overall-Weight figure - and that too Wet thrust figure.
I have seen many many in BRF who starts yelling "... yaar, issue with the Core yaar ..." etc because of Wet Thrust being not met (75KN achieved vs 81KN design-goal) - so "... naya foreign core lao Kaveri bachao ..." sloganeering.

Anyway sample this - just for one bit - the compressor:
Mass flow: 24.13 kg/s (24.3 - design goal)
Pressure Ratio: 6.42 (6.38 - design goal)
Efficiency: 85.4% (85% - design goal)
Surge Margin %: 21.6 (20% - design goal)


Now can I make it slightly interesting:
So since, F404-402 HPC Pressure Ratio - 6.0 - can I say Kaveri (with PR of 6.4) is better than F404?

BUT

F404-402 FAN Pressure Ratio - 4.1 - so can I say F404 is better than Kaveri (with PR of 3.4)

BUT WAIT

F404-402 has 7 stages in it's HPC - while Kaveri has 6.
(F414 has 6 - and that's one of primary design goal of 404-to-414 evolution actually).

BUT WAIT AGAIN

F404-402 weighs 1,035Kg while Kaveri 1,150Kg
Kaveri must be really bad to weigh more than F404 but with 1 lesser Compressor stage.

Hmmm ... but but
F404-402 SFC is 83/177 while that of Kaveri 80/207 kg/kN.h
(so is that Kaveri has better "core" than F404-402 but not-so-good afterburner system)

...
...

Completely confused whom to hand the trophy:
Let's settle this by comparing the TeT, a very popular parameter to judge a turbofan:
F404-402 has 1390deg C while Kaveri has 1455deg C - Kaveri wins finally!!!

but, wait a sec, what about the equally popular parameter - OPR
F404-402 OPR is 25 - while Kaveri's is 21.5

Tie again, is it????


... so on and so forth.

Answer of course, is much more nuanced - one-day I'll get some more b/w to write about these aspects.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4076
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 31 Jan 2020 22:06

chetak wrote:
chola wrote:Except maybe for Japan and Cheen, there is no real example for what we are doing here.

The US, UK, France and Russia have decades of experience and hundreds of billions in sunk investment in testing and manufacturing. And Russia trails the other three badly in commercial engines that depends on reliability and endurance which tells you how far behind even Russia is.

So no, we are not going to develop a 110kN medium engine by ourselves that even the US does not have now.

In order to gain the experience that the big four have we need to finish an engine that is within our tech level and then mass produce it. That is the Kaveri. We need to get it into production ...


All that you say is very true.

But the amerikis have almost successfully stymied the possibility of any serious funding for the kaveri with the strategically well timed entry of their F404/F414 series of fighter engines to power the LCA.

Their immediate intention in all likelihood was not just the sales of the F404/F414 engines per se but to try and kill the kaveri development so as to eliminate any threat and clear the field for themselves.

customer khush, supplier khush, aircraft designer and aircraft manufacturer also khush.

it's almost game, set and match, no


Chetak ji, I cannot agree. The amreeki F404 saved the LCA in my honest opinion. How we handled the Kaveri is all is on us not the amreekis.

Because it is not the Americans that kept us from developing a version of the LCA that can use the Kaveri. Even now, it is not too late imho.

Please read what the chinis had done with the J-10 and the WS-10 and its imported engine the AL-31. The scenario matches the LCA/Kaveri one exactly.

They did have the advantage of a twin-engine aircraft that used the same engine. But still if the chinis can put the WS-10 repeatedly on the J-10 and then switched back to AL-31 until they were satisfied then we could have done the same with the LCA and Kaveri.

https://mobile.twitter.com/stoa1984/status/1219306784042582016



Taepodong
@stoa1984
Without Su-27/AL-31 import, J-10 probably would end up dead becaue of WP-15. WS-10 development would also meet more hurdles without knowledge from AL-31.

...



Taepodong
@stoa1984
·
Jan 20
Replying to
@stoa1984
as a matter of fact, WS10 was put on J-10 prototypes some 10 years ago but WS-10 powered J-10 production batch was not accepted until very recently. It would be hard to image PLA aviation force without Su27 import.

...



Taepodong
@stoa1984
·
Jan 20
Finally, WS10 and J-10 survived thanks to Su-27 project. China used an entire heavy double engine fighter fleet to build-up WS10 reliability and progress. Would result in so many crashes if J10 is fitted with early batch WS10.

...



Taepodong
@stoa1984
New photos of J-11B with WS10 engines. China to produce 320 WS10 engines this year, according to http://alert5.com/2019/12/26/china-will ... till-2026/


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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby arvin » 31 Jan 2020 22:18

Was digging through MOD reports for future course of action on kaveri found the below links.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE (2015-2016)
http://164.100.60.131/lsscommittee/Defe ... nce_17.pdf

The Committee desire that infrastructure to test aero-engines should also be created within the country so that flying testing of engine be achieved and time be saved in carrying the engine to foreign country and finding availability of slot testing agency etc.

Reply of the Government

Necessary test facilities for component level, systems level and whole engine are proposed to be established at an estimated cost of Rs. 1500 Cr. 26 acres of land near Bangalore Airport is allotted for this purpose. Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) functioning under DRDO is studying the Flying Test Bed (FTB) requirement, thereafter a potential platforms will be concluded.


This link has the action aken for above recomendation.
http://164.100.47.193/lsscommittee/Defe ... nce_26.pdf

Boeing Inc. USA has offered to establish a High Altitude Engine Test Facility (HAETF) of 90kN capacity in India for testing Gas turbine engine as an offset obligation in C17 Globemaster Acquisition Programme of MoD. US Government is requested to issue necessary approval (licence), when M/s. Boeing submits Technical Assistance Agreement (TAA) for HAETF, as Boeing needs to complete the offset credits against the subject programme.
For this purpose, DRDO has acquired 100 acres of land at NagarjunaSagar, Telangana.
DRDO is studying the indigenous Flying Test Bed (FTB) requirements, for which a Joint Committee consisting of members from DRDO, IAF, HAL and
DGAQA will be constituted.'


Its been 4 years now, hoping the joint committee might have been constituted over endless cups of chai biskoot.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby kit » 31 Jan 2020 22:46

arvin wrote:Was digging through MOD reports for future course of action on kaveri found the below links.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE (2015-2016)
http://164.100.60.131/lsscommittee/Defe ... nce_17.pdf

The Committee desire that infrastructure to test aero-engines should also be created within the country so that flying testing of engine be achieved and time be saved in carrying the engine to foreign country and finding availability of slot testing agency etc.

Reply of the Government

Necessary test facilities for component level, systems level and whole engine are proposed to be established at an estimated cost of Rs. 1500 Cr. 26 acres of land near Bangalore Airport is allotted for this purpose. Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) functioning under DRDO is studying the Flying Test Bed (FTB) requirement, thereafter a potential platforms will be concluded.


This link has the action aken for above recomendation.
http://164.100.47.193/lsscommittee/Defe ... nce_26.pdf

Boeing Inc. USA has offered to establish a High Altitude Engine Test Facility (HAETF) of 90kN capacity in India for testing Gas turbine engine as an offset obligation in C17 Globemaster Acquisition Programme of MoD. US Government is requested to issue necessary approval (licence), when M/s. Boeing submits Technical Assistance Agreement (TAA) for HAETF, as Boeing needs to complete the offset credits against the subject programme.
For this purpose, DRDO has acquired 100 acres of land at NagarjunaSagar, Telangana.
DRDO is studying the indigenous Flying Test Bed (FTB) requirements, for which a Joint Committee consisting of members from DRDO, IAF, HAL and
DGAQA will be constituted.'


Its been 4 years now, hoping the joint committee might have been constituted over endless cups of chai biskoot.


Wasnt there a news that Boeing transferred some used HAETF material that was junk ? ..Where did things go from there ?

The best way for Kaveri to go forward is to get it to power some /any aircraft , once it gets flying everyone will have positive ideas and solutions , this is almost like a person procrastinating about learning to swim when he wont get into the swimming pool. Get that d@mn thing flying !

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby agupta » 01 Feb 2020 00:41

maitya wrote:But what I said above is not true and indeed laughable for those for whom, a turbofan is all about a Thrust or an Overall-Weight figure - and that too Wet thrust figure. I have seen many many in BRF who starts yelling "... yaar, issue with the Core yaar ..." etc because of Wet Thrust being not met (75KN achieved vs 81KN design-goal) - so "... naya foreign core lao Kaveri bachao ..." sloganeering.

Anyway sample this - just for one bit - the compressor:
Mass flow: 24.13 kg/s (24.3 - design goal)
Pressure Ratio: 6.42 (6.38 - design goal)
Efficiency: 85.4% (85% - design goal)
Surge Margin %: 21.6 (20% - design goal)


Now can I make it slightly interesting:
So since, F404-402 HPC Pressure Ratio - 6.0 - can I say Kaveri (with PR of 6.4) is better than F404?

BUT F404-402 FAN Pressure Ratio - 4.1 - so can I say F404 is better than Kaveri (with PR of 3.4)

BUT WAIT F404-402 has 7 stages in it's HPC - while Kaveri has 6.
(F414 has 6 - and that's one of primary design goal of 404-to-414 evolution actually).

BUT WAIT AGAIN F404-402 weighs 1,035Kg while Kaveri 1,150Kg
Kaveri must be really bad to weigh more than F404 but with 1 lesser Compressor stage.

Hmmm ... but but F404-402 SFC is 83/177 while that of Kaveri 80/207 kg/kN.h
(so is that Kaveri has better "core" than F404-402 but not-so-good afterburner system)
...
...

Completely confused whom to hand the trophy:
Let's settle this by comparing the TeT, a very popular parameter to judge a turbofan:
F404-402 has 1390deg C while Kaveri has 1455deg C - Kaveri wins finally!!!
but, wait a sec, what about the equally popular parameter - OPR
F404-402 OPR is 25 - while Kaveri's is 21.5

Tie again, is it????
... so on and so forth.

Answer of course, is much more nuanced - one-day I'll get some more b/w to write about these aspects.



Maitya: You are absolutely right to knock on the Forumites tendency of picking one or two metrics and doing a lot of arm-chair development or haiya-toba about it :) ... and the same folks will wrote paens about "brochuritis" from the Services while filling pages of prescriptions for everyone based on one or two brochure numbers! Its good sport but let it be... you (and JayS and Indranil) do us all a great service in making the discussion richer.

I could answer a few of your above questions - but that's perhaps a beer conversation. At the top level, there is no contest- the F404 is a better design/product in many ways (higher OPR, BPR for the same OML)... BUT THAT IS IMO, only relevant in that the LCA needs that level of performance. Its fully acceptable that GTRE's first engine development weighs more for a 6 stage HPC than GE does it for a 7 stage one... or in general is lower performance; that our LPC system was lower PR itself tells us we knew our weaknesses before we started. I'd encourage that we focus on the system level metrics alone...Thrust, Life, Operability, SFC, weight and leave component metrics out - because that will only muddle the issue of 2 design teams choosing 2 different conceptual designs (at component level). Whats most important is ACHIEVED vs. GOAL ( i realize goal might be close to F404 at the system level)

Thanks for the weight and SFC numbers. Are these published as "achieved" or still "goals" ? You're probably quoting peak efficiency for the HPC. Its the efficiency curve and stall margin both that's important. A less efficient, heavier engine could still serve as a tech development vehicle in a useful way - or marinized similarly. My suspicion is that its operability (or lack of it) is what cooked its goose... either parts were breaking or burning up much faster than expected or unexpectedly and hence the program was stopped to pivot to creating the technologies needed to solve these.

Similar line.. is that TET achieved or targeted (based on DMRL's lab successes - which should be discounted and only HAL-realizable numbers used) ?

Once again - thanks for engaging and driving levels of discussion

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2882
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 01 Feb 2020 01:41

One wonders how and why, unexpectedly and entirely out of the blue, at that critical stage of the LCA development work, the GE F404 "suddenly" became available to us when over the years the amerikis have been anything but helpful in their military support to India, especially in the LCA program.


As far i understand, to make a Mig21 sized, delta like M2K, the only engine that was available was F404. M88 first flew in 90.Rafale first flew with F404. IAF didn't want to touch RD33 even with a barge pole. Even if picked RD33, LCA would have been as big as JF17!

US may have sold the engine for their own motive, but from our point of view, there was no other option.

As i said earlier, Kaveri was probably never intended to fly in LCA. All it required was one LCA flying with Kaveri to crash and IAF would have asked for the entire LCA program to be closed.

DRDO must have used the LCA program as an excuse to ask for funds for the turbofan tech. ADA would have known an engine development starting almost at the same time as LCA would have never be ready before FOC. Nor will it risk using an unproven engine on a SINGLE ENGINE fighter!

So it was not wrong to aim high. What we didn't do is fund enough money to build the ladder to climb high.. i mean 500M for a turbofan!

If we achieved an engine with this amount of money, the rest of the world should jump in to the nearest sea..

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby agupta » 01 Feb 2020 02:13

nam wrote:
One wonders how and why, unexpectedly and entirely out of the blue, at that critical stage of the LCA development work, the GE F404 "suddenly" became available to us when over the years the amerikis have been anything but helpful in their military support to India, especially in the LCA program.


As far i understand, to make a Mig21 sized, delta like M2K, the only engine that was available was F404. M88 first flew in 90.Rafale first flew with F404. IAF didn't want to touch RD33 even with a barge pole. Even if picked RD33, LCA would have been as big as JF17!

US may have sold the engine for their own motive, but from our point of view, there was no other option.

As i said earlier, Kaveri was probably never intended to fly in LCA. All it required was one LCA flying with Kaveri to crash and IAF would have asked for the entire LCA program to be closed.

DRDO must have used the LCA program as an excuse to ask for funds for the turbofan tech. ADA would have known an engine development starting almost at the same time as LCA would have never be ready before FOC. Nor will it risk using an unproven engine on a SINGLE ENGINE fighter!

So it was not wrong to aim high. What we didn't do is fund enough money to build the ladder to climb high.. i mean 500M for a turbofan!

If we achieved an engine with this amount of money, the rest of the world should jump in to the nearest sea..




IIRC, it was the IAF that pushed hard for DRDO/ADA to decouple Kaveri and LCA (having learnt from the Marut experience) and build LCA around a known engine... to which DRDO essentially told them to "focus on driving, leave the development to us"; this was a source of a lot of the original bad blood. DRDO leadership at that time had a little too much sales in their bloodstream.


Namji - Hard to understand your statement that "Kaveri was probably never intended to fly in LCA".... unless you are quite young and didn't read the newspapers between 2006-09; I think it was ~ 2007 you have the chairman of HAL coming out publicly and saying Kaveri was going to fly on a LCA prototype in a "few months" ( while a lot of people knew no such thing was going to happen in reality).

Hindsight being 30-20, old wags could argue that had we NOT tried the Kaveri "experiment", the extra $100M+ in the 90s would've meant we would have gone faster on the LCA, finished the Controls work pre-embargo and sped up the LCA In IAF Service by > 5 (if not 10 or more) years. But this is a futile vector... in the end we all know this is short sighted and India has to either build up its R &D &M capability enough to partner effectively on a equal footing (ala MTU, Avio etc), or even more to be mostly independent (like China tries) or do it the Israeli way (by geo-strategic relationships)

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4076
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 01 Feb 2020 02:51

LCA was decoupled from Kaveri only around 2008. If you look in the LCA archive threads you'll see in around that time. The LCA was designed to fly with the Kaveri.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2882
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 01 Feb 2020 03:38

What HAL or DRDO chiefs say or claim in public would all be driven by their need to get funding from MoD. GoI will not fund your project if you say the truth that it will take 30-40 yrs to develop a turbofan and will cost 10B!

What I am not convinced is that LCA was designed around a engine which did not exist! I believe we designed LCA around F404 (mass flow, thrust, weight etc) and then design Kaveri to meet the spec of F404.

This is similar to what the French did with Rafale. It first flew with F404 and then M88 was designed with (almost)similar spec as F404. The difference is french were building a F404 spec for a twin engine fighter. So they could do with 75KN, we needed 80KN+ because of SE.

How did lack of Kaveri effect the LCA program? May be i have missed something, but it did not. Is LCA heavy becoz it had to keep a heavier than F404, Kaveri in mind? Did a new version of LCA come out after it was "decoupled" from kaveri?

Kaveri for all practical purpose has to be a Indian F404. Mass flow, weight, thrust, integration points etc. If we build a random engine, it would require a completely new fighter to fit in.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2882
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 01 Feb 2020 03:48

Hindsight being 30-20, old wags could argue that had we NOT tried the Kaveri "experiment", the extra $100M+ in the 90s would've meant we would have gone faster on the LCA, finished the Controls work pre-embargo and sped up the LCA In IAF Service by > 5 (if not 10 or more) years


I don't think DRDO did anything wrong with asking money for Kaveri. I would lie through my teeth, to get the required funds.

It is not only the control laws which was embargoed. There was the engine as well. We had to do the integration ourself. No amount of money saving would have helped us.

Something to consider that despite being under sanctions, LCA's first flight was with F404! I wonder if we considered another engine like M88.

Raghunathgb
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 93
Joined: 23 Apr 2019 18:16

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Raghunathgb » 01 Feb 2020 18:32

Breaking : HTFE-25 Core Engine Sea Level Trials Successful: The team of AERDC achieved a milestone with successful competition of Hindustan Turbo Fan Engine (HTFE)- 25 sea level trials at Tambaram Air Force Station, Chennai.....1/2

https://twitter.com/ReviewVayu/status/1 ... 11137?s=19

....2'2 Core engine of HTFE-25 was tested for various phases including starting trials with indigenously designed and developed Air Producer (AP) and Air Turbine Starter (ATS). Light-up trials with different fuel flow settings/air inlet temperature condition were carried out.

https://twitter.com/ReviewVayu/status/1 ... 92896?s=19

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby fanne » 01 Feb 2020 18:38

I have a simple question - If Kaveri non after burner has been successful, and it is good to go in Ghatak (the tender is out to procure 75 of them, must be reliable enough to go in a unmanned plane), why we keep on saying that core has failed and we need M-88 core. It looks like, non afterburner is working fine and the afterburner is where we have to focus (maybe more bypass?).
OR
Is that the screeching, oscillation problem etc was during the non afterburner part and that is not stable?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7984
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 01 Feb 2020 22:34

Agupta sahab. You still think Kaveri engine is not up to flight testing stage yet?

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby LakshmanPST » 01 Feb 2020 22:44

chola wrote:Taepodong
@stoa1984
·
Jan 20
Finally, WS10 and J-10 survived thanks to Su-27 project. China used an entire heavy double engine fighter fleet to build-up WS10 reliability and progress. Would result in so many crashes if J10 is fitted with early batch WS10.

...


I think we can try something similar with TEDBF/ORCA to test Kaveri in future once the jets are ready...

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7984
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 01 Feb 2020 22:49

Raghunathgb wrote:Breaking : HTFE-25 Core Engine Sea Level Trials Successful: The team of AERDC achieved a milestone with successful competition of Hindustan Turbo Fan Engine (HTFE)- 25 sea level trials at Tambaram Air Force Station, Chennai.....1/2

https://twitter.com/ReviewVayu/status/1 ... 11137?s=19

....2'2 Core engine of HTFE-25 was tested for various phases including starting trials with indigenously designed and developed Air Producer (AP) and Air Turbine Starter (ATS). Light-up trials with different fuel flow settings/air inlet temperature condition were carried out.

https://twitter.com/ReviewVayu/status/1 ... 92896?s=19

Excellent news. Another engine that needs to go into flight testing. I wonder what they would do. May be power a Hawk with this engine?

This engine has so much potential. It can be the engine for all our IJTs and AJTs. I really hope they fully develop it to its full potential of 35 kN dry thrust. My wet dream is an afterburning version with 50-55 kN of wet thrust. I believe we can design a great light fighter for airforces with lesser means. A modern day Mig-21 and F-5. The type trianer would be India's next generation AJT.

The high bypass version can be used for a 60-70 seater.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1856
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby srin » 01 Feb 2020 23:10

^^^
They could try it on the Jaguar first. Would be a good test-bed, because it is twin engine and similar class.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby agupta » 02 Feb 2020 04:39

Indranil wrote:Agupta sahab. You still think Kaveri engine is not up to flight testing stage yet?



Indranil: Are you asking w.r.t the item re. HTFE-25 ?

Its hard to link the two that way (for me). A more plausible (hopefull?) tack might be that the team learnt from the Kaveri experience and chose to avoid the problem areas (design envelopes, component design points) in their conceptual/preliminary design that came up... perhaps aeromechanical instabilities, HPT conditions that stressed thermal life etc - so HTFE 25 may be somewhat conservative (or) smarter and therefore has a better chance of success. And/or the development process will be better because we've learnt to test/re-design for phenomena we didn't know when we did Kaveri.

Its frustrating to be so in the dark about Kaveri. The only definitive thing we seem to have to go on is the DRDO chief explicitly shutting it down, saying we've learnt a lot, and have to work on some technologies. Thats pretty straight (after 2 decades of obfuscating) and blows away all this dry thrust/wet thrust khayali-biryani-making on BRF.

In some sense, its great that the teams have dual tracks --> (a) make HTFE-25 a success and (b) master the technologies that we can come back to Kaveri or Kaveri++ (for AMCA) with more confidence

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 02 Feb 2020 04:45

agupta wrote:
Indranil wrote:Agupta sahab. You still think Kaveri engine is not up to flight testing stage yet?



Indranil: Are you asking w.r.t the item re. HTFE-25 ?

Its hard to link the two that way (for me). A more plausible (hopefull?) tack might be that the team learnt from the Kaveri experience and chose to avoid the problem areas (design envelopes, component design points) in their conceptual/preliminary design that came up... perhaps aeromechanical instabilities, HPT conditions that stressed thermal life etc - so HTFE 25 may be somewhat conservative (or) smarter and therefore has a better chance of success. And/or the development process will be better because we've learnt to test/re-design for phenomena we didn't know when we did Kaveri.

Its frustrating to be so in the dark about Kaveri. The only definitive thing we seem to have to go on is the DRDO chief explicitly shutting it down, saying we've learnt a lot, and have to work on some technologies. Thats pretty straight (after 2 decades of obfuscating) and blows away all this dry thrust/wet thrust khayali-biryani-making on BRF.

In some sense, its great that the teams have dual tracks --> (a) make HTFE-25 a success and (b) master the technologies that we can come back to Kaveri or Kaveri++ (for AMCA) with more confidence


and the unsaid moral of the story is: there are other teams out there as well that can make jet engines.

another myth carefully nurtured over the decades now busted :mrgreen:

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7984
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 02 Feb 2020 12:43

No. No. I am not conflating HTFE25. I was very happy when HAL took up the HTFE. I don't know if they have met design targets. But if they have then it is better the F124! And they have come up to speed in good time. I don't know how they would flight test it, but let's keep our fingers crossed.

The truth about Kaveri is somewhere in between the uninformed bashing that it receives and the adulation in this forum. The truth is that Kaveri non-afterburning engine is entering production. EOI is out for a potential 80 engine production run. It cannot be without a modicum of success. On other hand Kaveri for LCA variants won't happen.

I think India should join hands with Japan for a common engine development for their next generation fighters.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 02 Feb 2020 13:01

Indranil wrote:No. No. I am not conflating HTFE25. I was very happy when HAL took up the HTFE. I don't know if they have met design targets. But if they have then it is better the F124! And they have come up to speed in good time. I don't know how they would flight test it, but let's keep our fingers crossed.

The truth about Kaveri is somewhere in between the uninformed bashing that it receives and the adulation in this forum. The truth is that Kaveri non-afterburning engine is entering production. EOI is out for a potential 80 engine production run. It cannot be without a modicum of success. On other hand Kaveri for LCA variants won't happen.

I think India should join hands with Japan for a common engine development for their next generation fighters.


HAL has begun some work on the HTFE afterburner too and they seem to have started testing a preliminary version of the afterburner already.

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby maitya » 02 Feb 2020 15:22

Indranil wrote:<snip>
The truth about Kaveri is somewhere in between the uninformed bashing that it receives and the adulation in this forum. The truth is that Kaveri non-afterburning engine is entering production. EOI is out for a potential 80 engine production run. It cannot be without a modicum of success.
<snip>
On other hand Kaveri for LCA variants won't happen.
<snip>
I think India should join hands with Japan for a common engine development for their next generation fighters.
<snip>

A couple of points wrt the above:

1) Kaveri Core is a unqualified/unbashed success
In fact would have been ahead of its time, if it had got flight qualified around 2010-2012 etc, but since it didn't no point in taking about it's "greatness" etc.
The "popular issues" that are normally pointed out everywhere (e.g. overweight, Wet Thrust shortfall etc) doesn't have anything to do with the Core - but then again basic understanding of the Core vs rest-of-the-system in a modern turbofan is required - that's been the endeavor for some of us in this forum (albeit with very limited success, so far :oops: ).


2) Kaveri, as a turbofan engine for Indian conditions, is better than F404
But, at the same time, it needed to somehow morph to a F414 level overnight, to get into a LCA (so not an Kaveri issue as such) - that's Djinn magic etc territory used extensively in our western neighborhood.
Not possible to go to 414 level without major rework on the Core itself - but nobody would want to go that route without certifying the current engine as a whole.
Hence is our clamor to spend a little more and get it certified on as-is state - benefits are huge!!!

More on this point, some other day - but just as a teaser, will delve into,
a) why certain (very very few) Kaveri perf/design parameters look inferior to that of F404
b) how even those can be changed to beat F404 and maybe declare a pyrrhic victory - but since those will still not take it F414 level, will be of no use


3) Turbofan development is not Turbofan-Core development only
GTRE/DRDO faltered with this mindset and, from what I'm seeing from whatever little has come from various interviews from the HTFE team, they have the exact same mindset.
i.e. Core is the by-all-and-end-all aspect, put 100% focus on it
So, most probably, they will also fail, exactly where Kaveri team failed.
Not very surprising there, as majority of the then GTRE team was basically the HAL's engine division folks, artificially carved out and renamed in 80s.


4) HTFE etc, though a very very good start, is nowhere near what Kaveri is, at a technological level.
Getting to those levels will be ultra steep and time (and budget) consuming - also it's current design philosophy is such that it can't be ported to F414 level turbofan dev.

So combining 2 and 4 above, it's almost a non-brainer:
If a F414 level turbofan had to be developed indigenously, which Turbofan-Core should be the starting point.
But I have 0-hope that such common sense logic will even reach funding-class (i.e. MoD Baboons and what ever chai-biskoot committees that will get setup for countless recommendations (which normally are not going to be heeded to, anyway - so except for wasting time, no harm done).


5) Decouple indigenous Turbofan development with Platform (e.g. AMCA) dev programmes
Instead go for Lic-Mfg of a wholly imported turbofan engine for that platform programmes.
"Joint dev" for a national-level-and-strategic-cutting-edge-technological-capability platforms like Turbofans, are a eye-wash, so not sure whom do we try to fool (except for ourselves).
Run indigenous parallel programmes with the platform usage in mind - with IAF onboard wrt allowing limited/partial sqn service of platforms with indigenous engines (aka let 22-platform LCA sqns have 3-Kaveri-equipped-LCAs, so that IAF's operational capability is not degraded at the sqn level).

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

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby arvin » 02 Feb 2020 16:12

Indranil wrote:
I think India should join hands with Japan for a common engine development for their next generation fighters.


Japan had to tap GE expertise for the core of its Hondajet which had a modest thrust of 9.2kn.
Jet engine design wise both us and them looks like are at same level. Best to develop IP based on own money and effort and then enter partnership like CFM or Eurojet consortium.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7984
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Kaveri & Aero-Engine: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 02 Feb 2020 17:24

chetak wrote:HAL has begun some work on the HTFE afterburner too and they seem to have started testing a preliminary version of the afterburner already.

This is just music to my ears. I had no clue. Dil khush kar diya aapne!


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cain Marko, srin and 44 guests