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.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10633
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 16 Dec 2020 22:43

SSridhar wrote:Rakesh....

Thank You SSridhar-ji. Greatly appreciated.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5065
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby chola » 16 Dec 2020 23:00

Vivek K wrote:There we go again - no one will part with their crown jewels for any amount of money. All that will be on offer will be assembly in India. We will need to figure out design details ourselved.


No they won't, Vivek ji, you are correct.

BUT we can bargain for something that is worth a crown jewel. UK is in a deep recession that is structural in nature (beyond the Covid crisis.) That is Brexit.

India can offer access to one of the two greatest markets coming onboard in the coming decades. Think preferential treatment for British goods -- say RR engines as the first choice for all India passenger jets going forward. For RR and the UK government that can be a prize big enough to trade for a crown jewel. You are talking about a market that would be worth in the hundreds of billions.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2611
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Vivek K » 17 Dec 2020 06:44

Chola ji,

GOI does not control all airlines and they lease aircraft, some used - so all passenger jets with RR engines - not feasible. And without a clue to solve the metallurgy problems, India needs these engines anyway.

Put Kaveri in a squadron and fly it and you may get what, at best, you're hoping for. There are several markets that are very lucrative and they make quick decisions. India dangles $10B and takes 20 years to decide. So not buying it. Engine tech is worth far more otherwise India would have it by now.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5065
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby chola » 17 Dec 2020 08:35

^^^ Vivek, fair point on the airlines. But there are many other parts to the India market. It would be quid pro quo between RR and the governments of the UK and India. The GOI can make it worthwhile for the airlines to order RR as the engines to their jets.

I think RR is for the 110kN engine. The Kaveri won't be able to be the base for this beast. We are angling at the most powerful medium class ever. It's ambitious to say the least. The Kaveri was ambitious at the time because it was spec'ed to match the F404 and RD-33. This 110kN engine is something not even the Amreekis nor Russians have.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55201
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby ramana » 17 Dec 2020 09:10

110KN engine will be made

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9621
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby brar_w » 17 Dec 2020 09:16

chola wrote: This 110kN engine is something not even the Amreekis nor Russians have.


To step back a bit, what is so special about 110kN from a technical stand point (with current or even mature technology)? The US and Russia don't have it because they don't need it. That is no reason to make it unobtanium. They have engines that sit below this, and engines that sit above it so don't need it. That said, the proposed GE's F414-Enhanced is a 116 kN engine so even the now decades old F-414 technology can be upgraded to provide that thrust class. And most of what GE planned for the F-414 enhancements is/was matured long ago so it isn't something cutting edge that bears tremendous risk. So why is it that, RR, which is in much need of an international military win, has world class expertise in jet engines, can't deliver on something like that in partnership? For all we know a 110-120kN engine may well be what they are looking for on the Tempest so there may be some technological alignment there. It sure will take some time to develop test and certify it across platforms but what's the alternative at this point (that is faster)?
Last edited by brar_w on 17 Dec 2020 09:18, edited 1 time in total.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2438
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby VinodTK » 17 Dec 2020 09:18

ramana wrote:110KN engine will be made


Ramana "from your lips to god's ears" may it come true.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5065
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby chola » 17 Dec 2020 09:35

brar_w wrote:
chola wrote: This 110kN engine is something not even the Amreekis nor Russians have.


To step back a bit, what is so special about 110kN from a technical stand point (with current or even mature technology)? The US and Russia don't have it because they don't need it. That is no reason to make it unobtanium. They have engines that sit below this, and engines that sit above it so don't need it. That said, the proposed GE's F414-Enhanced is a 116 kN engine so even the now decades old F-414 technology can be upgraded to provide that thrust class. And most of what GE planned for the F-414 enhancements is/was matured long ago so it isn't something cutting edge that bears tremendous risk. So why is it that, RR, which is in much need of an international military win, has world class expertise in jet engines, can't deliver on something like that in partnership? For all we know a 110-120kN engine may well be what they are looking for on the Tempest so there may be some technological alignment there. It sure will take some time to develop test and certify it across platforms but what's the alternative at this point (that is faster)?


Brar ji, I don't know. What sits above the F414 now are heavy class engines like the AL-41, F100 and F135 that won't fit into AMCA. It's might not be unobtainium but it can't be run of the mill project no?

After all, the Shornet had been considered underpowered for a long time now. If the F414 were easily uprated to 110kN, wouldn't they have done it? The USN must have weighed the risk of plowing funds into these programs not because there wasn't a need.

I don't think it will be a slamdunk. But maybe my impression is wrong.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9621
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby brar_w » 17 Dec 2020 09:43

chola wrote:Brar ji, I don't know. What sits above the F414 now are heavy class engines like the AL-41, F100 and F135 that won't fit into AMCA. It's might not be unobtainium but it can't be run of the mill project no?


Right, so if there was no room or a platform that needed a 110 kN why would anyone build it?

chola wrote:It's might not be unobtainium but it can't be run of the mill project no?


No one is saying that it will be. It is a medium term project and will take a while to get there and have it certified across a bunch of current and future platforms. But if RR does offer a partnership, then it is worth considering because it will be a lot faster with them as a partner then trying to do it without them. So it is in India's interest as long as the British government and RR offer the right terms.

chola wrote:After all, the Shornet had been considered underpowered for a long time now. If the F414 were easily uprated to 110kN, wouldn't they have done it? The USN must have weighed the risk of plowing funds into these programs not because there wasn't a need.


The underlying technologies (which GE is marketing now with the enhanced engine) which GE is leveraging were all developed under (for the most part) US Navy funding that dates back more than a decade. It is not cutting edge 5th or 6th gen engine tech but something that is far more mature. GE has since then (since the enhanced package was proposed to potential US and foreign customers) added additional goodies but those will likely yield additional gains in efficiency, performance and reliability. But, the USN was always interested in the efficiency factor i.e. getting better fuel burn and engine life at a similar thrust baseline.

The US Navy hasn't really toyed with the idea of the Super Hornet getting more thrust. Its upgrades have always focused on giving it more range and persistence which gels well with what the platform actually does in USNs use case. But if they wanted it, and it was high enough up on its priorities, it would have fielded this thrust bump already. GE has a mature path (with most individual changes themselves having been developed and lab tested under various USN contracts) to get 18-20% thrust increase on the baseline F-414. In fact they claim that they can do it with keeping SFC neutral or even a 2-3% reduction. So such an engine is in the realm of possibility and not science fiction. Why doesn't anyone else do the same? Because there is no business case. No private company can close the case on a military engine unless it is derived from commercial or some other application. They can't pump a few billion dollars into the GE-414 or EJ-200 engines and expect to recover that investment by charging a premium on a per engine basis (the margin simply isn't there). It requires a government source to fund its development and to buy it and to write off the R&D expenditure as a cost of getting that capability. That is what Britain, and India would have to agree to do.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5065
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby chola » 17 Dec 2020 10:14

^^^ Brar ji, yes, in the business world this is extractly what risk is:

They can't pump a few billion dollars into the GE-414 or EJ-200 engines and expect to recover that investment by charging a premium on a per engine basis (the margin simply isn't there)

It requires a government source to fund its development and to buy it and to write off the R&D expenditure as a cost of getting that capability. That is what Britain, and India would have to agree to do.


But the GOI/MoD does share some of the same risks as the commercial companies. Money is an object in India unlike say the US. And as you well know, cost overruns are endemic in mil programs. Even successful ones are more often than not more expensive than planned. This happens everywhere not just India.

The issue with the 110kN medium is that it is new and has no precedence so logically it is harder to plan costs. What if it were more than a few billions? Would the GOI be prepared to pump in more money? It wasn't with the Kaveri.

I think the risks would have been less had we went after an Indian equivalent of the F414 or an uprated RD-33 at around 95kN which like a 20% improvement of well-established engines that we known had been done before.
Last edited by chola on 17 Dec 2020 10:19, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9621
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby brar_w » 17 Dec 2020 10:17

chola wrote:But the GOI/MoD does share the same risk as the commercial companies.


The GOI will have to get involved to sign off on this partnership. If that occurs, that by virtue of its actions and contractual obligations, it would mean that it is committed to it. We have plenty of evidence in front of our eyes (Tejas, TEDBF, AMCA, Brahmos etc) to see that the GOI is willing to invest in high payoff technologies and military capabilities. Now the question is, how badly do the powers at be want a highly capable jet engine to power future Tejas and AMCA variants, and how much Indian designed and produced content do they want it to have? That will determine the eventual "Bill" and schedule, and how hard the negotiations with the British and RR are likely to be.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55201
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby ramana » 17 Dec 2020 11:39

brar_w, India wants that class of engine. US doesn't want to make it in India.
RR looks willing. Its GE engine thats unobtainable.

Its like market. Customer should be able to get what they want for price they are willing to pay.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7574
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Prasad » 17 Dec 2020 11:46

DTTI would've resulted in something concrete by now if there was any willingness on the part of the americans. Given that they've outright said they wont share anything, all talk on those lines is moot.
It would therefore be interesting to see what the details of any discussion with RR are, if any.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9621
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby brar_w » 17 Dec 2020 11:47

Yes exactly. If RR and the British government is willing to agree to terms that the MOD can also get behind then this is a win win.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55201
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby ramana » 17 Dec 2020 11:48

Thanks!!!

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7574
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Prasad » 17 Dec 2020 12:08

Also, AMCA is pencilled in for 6 squadrons for now. That is (2x18) x 6 = 216 engines minimum
while MWF + TEDBF alone will be 6x18+2x18x2 = 216 engines at the minimum.

schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1773
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby schinnas » 17 Dec 2020 13:02

India should look at strategic purchase (Ex: Embraer and RR) by private Indian defence industry that is bankrolled indirectly by Govt in terms of PSU bank loans and guaranteed orders. That is the sure shot way of doing ToT and get the required research, design and manufacturing infra and trained talent pool which would take decades to cultivate.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 499
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby maitya » 17 Dec 2020 13:46

brar_w wrote:
chola wrote: This 110kN engine is something not even the Amreekis nor Russians have.


To step back a bit, what is so special about 110kN from a technical stand point (with current or even mature technology)? The US and Russia don't have it because they don't need it. That is no reason to make it unobtanium. <snip>

That's correct ... technically 110kN is not unobtanium at all with the GE-414 EPE level of HPT and HPC tech.
Some tweaking (over-simplification by a mile - as changes would be required at all aspects from HPC to Combustor to HPT - and maybe even to LPT and Fan) of the mass-flow would have got it to those levels.

However, what makes that unobtanium, is even that level of changes (and the testing and certification) would have cost a bomb (easily a couple of billions) and maybe around 5-6 years minimum.
Without any real need (and thus assured funding) why would GE or anybody want to do that?

However, from Indian perspective there's definitely a need and most probably willingness of the funding as well.

But it would have required GE to part with the 2-decade old 414-level HPT and HPC techs etc - which obviously they were not ready to make (which, if press reports and Ramanaji is to be believed, RR is willing to).
This is where I think GE missed a trick or two ... they being consultants to the Kaveri program, would have 1st hand knowledge the tech levels GTRE et all are currently at, and should have decided in favor of it.

I mean - look at the tech-maturity levels of GTRE
1) 4th Gen SC casting (along-with convection cooling and also TBC tech)
2) Annular Combustor tech level (which recently GTRE showcased to be at F414 tech level)
3) The engine core CFD would be also comparable given the published SPR/OPR, RPM and TeT achieved etc details
All these checks out.

Yes, some amount of tech wrt CFC Fan or TiAl based LPT or all blisk HPCs (this may also have been achieved indigenously) etc would have been the proverbial icing on the cake for the program – and of course, the most crucial element, the know-how of just how to test (including building the testing-infra), certify and productionize an military turbofan.

And they would have secured 500+ engine orders etc.

There's no need of parting/sharing of an adaptive engine config or 1900+ K deg levels of HPTs/HPVs etc etc level tech, which are understandably the current core IPR (for any established engine house).

Having said that, being the world-leaders, GE has ring-side insights and measure of the tech maturity level of GTRE et all - so it's purely their IPR-vs-commercial benefit decision to make, which they did.

So, let's see where the RR JV leads to ...

Ofcourse, all IMVVHO onlee ...

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10633
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Rakesh » 17 Dec 2020 22:56

brar_w wrote:
chola wrote: This 110kN engine is something not even the Amreekis nor Russians have.


To step back a bit, what is so special about 110kN from a technical stand point (with current or even mature technology)? The US and Russia don't have it because they don't need it.

The turbofans on the F-22, F-35 and Su-57 are even more powerful than 110kN of wet thrust. Or did you mean that the US and Russia do not have any 110kN-specific turbofans?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9621
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby brar_w » 17 Dec 2020 22:58

Rakesh wrote:
brar_w wrote:
To step back a bit, what is so special about 110kN from a technical stand point (with current or even mature technology)? The US and Russia don't have it because they don't need it.

The turbofans on the F-22, F-35 and Su-57 are even more powerful than 110kN of wet thrust. Or did you mean that the US and Russia do not have any 110kN-specific turbofans?


No I meant that a unique 110kN engine in the size and class of the F-404/414 wasn't needed. Those other engines are larger. Had it been needed then they would have had that already and as GE was able to show to the USN via a string of USN funded S&T programs and testing, they have a clear and moderate risk path to get that Enhancement performance engine on the F-18. The roadblock is A) Demand (for them to commercially fund the venture) and B ) The justification to run that last mile test and certification program that will likely cost a couple of billion to bring all those "enhancements" into an engine and certify it. The USN won't fund that level of engine enhancement till such time that they at least stop buying new aircraft (if they fund it at all) and have more room in their SH program to dedicate to fleet upgrades.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55201
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby ramana » 18 Dec 2020 01:09

maitya it could be joint venture

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3420
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Tanaji » 18 Dec 2020 05:51

How will they test this given our spectacular lack of investment in a flying testbed?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8207
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby nachiket » 18 Dec 2020 05:56

Tanaji wrote:How will they test this given our spectacular lack of investment in a flying testbed?

Perhaps Air India can come to the rescue there as well. They still have one or two B747's left which are to be phased out in 2021. Even the one which was being used as AI One is not needed anymore. If they haven't been sold or scrapped, one can be acquired for the DRDO and they can work with Boeing to convert it into an engine testbed with all required instrumentation.

Of course the powers that be will probably decide this makes too much common sense and hence reject it outright or never consider it.

arvin
BRFite
Posts: 407
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby arvin » 18 Dec 2020 06:15

Rolls Royce purchased a scrapped 747 from Qantas and used AEROTEC's services to make it a flying test bed.
Air India's 747 are part of SPV along with other assets which are not meant for bidding sale.
All it takes is a babu to move a pen to transfer from SPV to DRDO.
Give AEROTEC some money and in 2 years you will have the flying test bed.
Much better use than Hajj or Covid transport.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5065
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby chola » 18 Dec 2020 07:34

^^^ That reminds me of the P&W 747 testbed.

Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5418
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Kartik » 21 Dec 2020 16:25

Nearly the end of the year and neither a contract for the Tejas Mk1A nor any forward movement on the first filght or delivery of FOC Tejas Mk1 fighters. Truly disappointing.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12605
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Aditya_V » 21 Dec 2020 16:30

Kartik wrote:Nearly the end of the year and neither a contract for the Tejas Mk1A nor any forward movement on the first filght or delivery of FOC Tejas Mk1 fighters. Truly disappointing.

+1

basant
BRFite
Posts: 384
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby basant » 21 Dec 2020 17:53

+1

hemant_sai
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 85
Joined: 13 Dec 2018 12:13

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby hemant_sai » 21 Dec 2020 18:45

:) Is it true that Nitin Gadkari and Piyush Goyal are top ministers in terms of delivering results? Does BJP has any option to replace Kadi Ninda - why DM post is attached to ego? Let it go to the one who is willing to go extra miles and has proven track record in being result oriented.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5065
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby chola » 21 Dec 2020 19:17

Kartik wrote:Nearly the end of the year and neither a contract for the Tejas Mk1A nor any forward movement on the first filght or delivery of FOC Tejas Mk1 fighters. Truly disappointing.


It will happen but with Covid and the stuff with Cheen and all the emergency spending that came from it (winter gear, expedited MiG-29s and SU-30 kits from Russia, etc.) things were always going to be pushed back this year. Look, even ISRO had only two launches this year.

Let's not be disappointed until things return to normal next year.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4700
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Cain Marko » 22 Dec 2020 00:29

So I'm just wondering. Why do they need 110kn engines? The world offers 8kn, 9kn, 12.5kn, 13.5kn ityadi ityadi but we need 110kn. Right in the middle. Sounds like another lightest, smallest boondoggle to me. Another 25 years and they'll be looking for engines from some other country and need to redesign the plane to boot.

Between import lobby, byzantine mod, brochuritis stricken armed forces, and scientific community that is in love with itself, I'm surprised India is still around.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5065
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby chola » 22 Dec 2020 00:56

Cain Marko wrote:So I'm just wondering. Why do they need 110kn engines? The world offers 8kn, 9kn, 12.5kn, 13.5kn ityadi ityadi but we need 110kn. Right in the middle. Sounds like another lightest, smallest boondoggle to me. Another 25 years and they'll be looking for engines from some other country and need to redesign the plane to boot.

Between import lobby, byzantine mod, brochuritis stricken armed forces, and scientific community that is in love with itself, I'm surprised India is still around.


I understand the need. The AMCA is based on a medium sized engine needed for a lighter aircraft which in theory should be less costly than a heavy fighter like the SU-30MKI.

Now we could have gone with a heavy stealth aircraft using the same class of engine as the MKI. I would argue that we SHOULD have since we would have had far more power than 110kN with Al-31 and F110 and variants. But those dimensions would not fit on the AMCA so here we are. The most powerful medium class engine today is the F414 as mentioned above at 98kN which we will undoubtedly use in the initial prototypes. We need something at 110kN in the same dimensions.

The one time we broke from the smallest/lightest narrative was the MKI and that turned out fairly well. So no real reason IMO to continue making thing light or even medium. I still like to see us build on the SU-30 post MKI at our Nasik plant (instead of closing it) and create a desi "flanker" using a heavyweight engine.

m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 451
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby m_saini » 22 Dec 2020 01:08

Cain Marko wrote:Another 25 years and they'll be looking for engines from some other country and need to redesign the plane to boot.

Between import lobby, byzantine mod, brochuritis stricken armed forces, and scientific community that is in love with itself, I'm surprised India is still around.


+1
We couldn't even get the Kaveri to fly despite seeking help from the french through Rafale offsets but we dream of getting a 110kN in the next 15 years through RR or indegenously. Didn't the Russians refuse to part with 5g tech of FGFA despite us committing billions in purchases? Why do we think RR will help us develop a 110kN engine when it's an even more elusive tech? Or do we seriously think we can develop it ourselves in the next 13-15 years?
Last edited by m_saini on 22 Dec 2020 01:36, edited 1 time in total.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8207
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby nachiket » 22 Dec 2020 01:29

Cain Marko wrote:So I'm just wondering. Why do they need 110kn engines? The world offers 8kn, 9kn, 12.5kn, 13.5kn ityadi ityadi but we need 110kn. Right in the middle. Sounds like another lightest, smallest boondoggle to me. Another 25 years and they'll be looking for engines from some other country and need to redesign the plane to boot.

Between import lobby, byzantine mod, brochuritis stricken armed forces, and scientific community that is in love with itself, I'm surprised India is still around.

The engine is needed for the AMCA, which based on the specs looks to be roughly in the size/weight class of the F-35 (a bit smaller/lighter perhaps). You cannot fit 2 large F100/AL-31 sized engines in such an aircraft and still have a good enough T:W ratio and enough internal space for fuel plus an internal weapons bay.

If it is to be a 2 engined aircraft the engines will need to be in the F414 size/weight category but provide more thrust. Such an engine does not exist yet but might be possible for us to develop with help from an external partner like RR.

The other option is what the Americans went with...a single monstrously powerful engine that is way beyond our capability to design and develop. The Americans won't sell us the F135 of course and continuing our dependency on 100% foreign engines is not a good idea anyway. Even if you somehow did get the F135, it would entail junking all the design work that has gone into the AMCA till now and starting from scratch.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2611
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby Vivek K » 22 Dec 2020 01:32

I think that India needs a flying test bed to test the Kaveri locally and once convinced it should get a fighter testbed to put it through its paces. Right now it faces all kinds of issue in testing. With a local test setup, the engine's true abilities can be known.
The flaw with the LCA program was mating a new airfrane with an untested engine. Need to not make the same mistake with AMCA or whatever. Get the kaveri going with local testing and then setup a kaveri powered LCA fleet. Once you get results from that then and only then you can think of putting the Kaveri on a fighter.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5065
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby chola » 22 Dec 2020 01:42

nachiket wrote:

The other option is what the Americans went with...a single monstrously powerful engine that is way beyond our capability to design and develop. The Americans won't sell us the F135 of course and continuing our dependency on 100% foreign engines is not a good idea anyway. Even if you somehow did get the F135, it would entail junking all the design work that has gone into the AMCA till now and starting from scratch.


Monstrously powerful AND incredibly reliable at the same time. F-35C flies off carriers with a single engine.

The 110kN if we are successful can power the TEDBF as well. But I think we would have had more leadway and cushion from risk if we had started with a heavyweight engine class like AL-31 which we have some experience with since we've made hundreds for the MKIs. But that's a moot point. We've started down on the road with an Advanced "Medium" and that led us to the 110kN medium engine.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5065
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby chola » 22 Dec 2020 01:47

Vivek K wrote:The flaw with the LCA program was mating a new airfrane with an untested engine. Need to not make the same mistake with AMCA or whatever.


Vivek ji, they won't. The AMCA is almost certain to start with the F414 in the prototype which it will share with the MWF.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8207
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby nachiket » 22 Dec 2020 01:51

chola wrote:The 110kN if we are successful can power the TEDBF as well. But I think we would have had more leadway and cushion from risk if we had started with a heavyweight engine class like AL-31 which we have some experience with since we've made hundreds for the MKIs. But that's a moot point. We've started down on the road with an Advanced "Medium" and that led us to the 110kN medium engine.

Every 5th gen fighter program in the world has needed a new, more technologically advanced engine. The reasons aren't hard to see. The requirements of stealth and internal weapons carriage result in design compromises that adversely affect aerodynamics. So if you want 4th gen like performance or better, with supercruising ability, greater range on internal fuel, plus internal weapons carriage in a stealth aircraft, you need engines which can produce higher thrust than their older counterparts of the same size/weight class along with improved efficiency. You can't design a 5th gen aircraft around 2 AL-31's or F110's. If that was possible, everyone would be doing that.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9621
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby brar_w » 22 Dec 2020 02:02

nachiket wrote:
chola wrote:The 110kN if we are successful can power the TEDBF as well. But I think we would have had more leadway and cushion from risk if we had started with a heavyweight engine class like AL-31 which we have some experience with since we've made hundreds for the MKIs. But that's a moot point. We've started down on the road with an Advanced "Medium" and that led us to the 110kN medium engine.

Every 5th gen fighter program in the world has needed a new, more technologically advanced engine. The reasons aren't hard to see. The requirements of stealth and internal weapons carriage result in design compromises that adversely affect aerodynamics. So if you want 4th gen like performance or better, with supercruising ability, greater range on internal fuel, plus internal weapons carriage in a stealth aircraft, you need engines which can produce higher thrust than their older counterparts of the same size/weight class along with improved efficiency. You can't design a 5th gen aircraft around 2 AL-31's or F110's. If that was possible, everyone would be doing that.



Very true. I keep pointing this in reference to the various current 5GFA programs out there. There was a reason the ATF, JSF and even to some extent the PAKFA prioritized engine development ahead of everyting else (even the Y planed of ATF flew with Y series next generation engines). The same is true for 6GFA, where engine development is running a good half a decade ahead of the rest of the program. The need for higher T2W, more power, supercruise, thermal signature management etc = a new generation engine. So, for the AMCA, eventually something at least a generation better than the F-414 will be needed to realize full potential of what is planned.
Last edited by brar_w on 22 Dec 2020 02:09, edited 1 time in total.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5065
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

Postby chola » 22 Dec 2020 02:04

^^^ Understood, Saar. I meant an engine in the heavy class which would give more leadway in upscaling power. I did not mean using the AL-31 specifically.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A Nandy, Ashok Sarraff, Manish_Sharma and 49 guests