Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

AMCA News and Discussions

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.
malushahi
BRFite
Posts: 282
Joined: 16 Jul 2008 03:08
Location: South of Berkshires

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby malushahi » 02 Sep 2016 07:37

misinterpreted your question. indeed the whitish one is not just more pinched, but has a more pronounced curve and shorter lead-in to the turbine face.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5073
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 02 Sep 2016 10:56

The whitish intake is actually the older version of IUSAV/Ghatak/Aura intake. A few months back, DRDO had issued a tender for CFD analysis of the modified intake. I had posted about it then. IIRC, it was for the study of ice formation on the bullet nose and struts of the fan inlet casing.
Image

Image

Image

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9422
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Gagan » 12 Sep 2016 17:52

So AMCA has two sidesticks a-la eff solah

The white intake is the back end of the UCAV where the engine itself will fit, the front curve will go over the nose
Maybe people have had a dekko at the US UCAV that landed intact in Iran

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 397
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Gyan » 12 Sep 2016 19:17

I think HAL project for HTSE, HTFE and Kaveri variant for UAV will provide us with lot of experience. I wonder when will budget for flying test bed and other laboratories be cleared to accelerate the development cycle.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31244
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 12 Sep 2016 21:42

I have never had anyone explain to me why Kaveri in its existing state cannot be used for AURA. Sorry wrong thread

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5073
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 12 Sep 2016 21:55

There is nothing to explain. It can, and is, without the AB. But Kaveri is not production ready yet.

enaiel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 70
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby enaiel » 19 Sep 2016 22:20

Any news on engine selection for AMCA? The longer we wait on choosing the engine, the further it is going to push back the first flight of the aircraft. I still remember the painful long wait for the LCA's first flight. I was hoping I wouldn't have to go through the same ordeal for AMCA...

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1734
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Cybaru » 20 Sep 2016 03:29

The F414 esp the EPE version with 120KN output will probably make the cut and keep things simple.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4747
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 20 Sep 2016 03:30

The problem is that there is no F-414 EPE engine. Its not funded*.

*Unless South Korea sheds more details on the technologies it chose in the F-414 for the KF-X.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15233
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 20 Sep 2016 05:17

enaiel wrote:Any news on engine selection for AMCA? The longer we wait on choosing the engine, the further it is going to push back the first flight of the aircraft. I still remember the painful long wait for the LCA's first flight. I was hoping I wouldn't have to go through the same ordeal for AMCA...



The expectation was that India proposed to fund the F414 EPE. We do have any idea if that is true, but the Jet Engine Joint Working Group has come to an understanding of some sorts (we do not know what). Since that understanding, the US has imposed - per a news report - a constraint on the next step: India needs to select between the F-16 and the F-18 for MII production. Supposedly the GoI is studying the proposal and is expected to come up with an answer by the end of this year.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3021
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Cosmo_R » 20 Sep 2016 05:26

NRao wrote:...

The expectation was that India proposed to fund the F414 EPE. We do have any idea if that is true, but the Jet Engine Joint Working Group has come to an understanding of some sorts (we do not know what). Since that understanding, the US has imposed - per a news report - a constraint on the next step: India needs to select between the F-16 and the F-18 for MII production. Supposedly the GoI is studying the proposal and is expected to come up with an answer by the end of this year.


That is absolutely correct. That is the QPQ. Ever the negotiators, India is pushing for " F-35" 'phasing' from F-16 Block "70", Boeing is advocating F-18 Silent Hornet morphing into convergence into AMCA.

Totally unreliable sources BTW so don't take it seriously not that anyone will.

ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 252
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby ragupta » 20 Sep 2016 06:35

Why bother with F-414 EPE, when you can use General Electric F110-GE-129 if F-16 is selected.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15233
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 20 Sep 2016 08:09

ragupta wrote:Why bother with F-414 EPE, when you can use General Electric F110-GE-129 if F-16 is selected.


Guessing. Size for one. For another the power would be an overkill - two 110s. The AMCA is already designed.

ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 252
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby ragupta » 20 Sep 2016 18:08

It is still in design, The design should be such to incorporate a class of engine, rather than just one engine.
For once lets design with access power, for all that we know every plane so far is always found to be short of power. This will help create a Mk-2 stretch version later. Better now that later for design modification.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31244
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 20 Sep 2016 19:32

ragupta wrote:It is still in design, The design should be such to incorporate a class of engine, rather than just one engine.
For once lets design with access power, for all that we know every plane so far is always found to be short of power. This will help create a Mk-2 stretch version later. Better now that later for design modification.

I suspect engines are not standardized by having controls, fuel lines, hydraulics, gear boxes etc in the same place - lengths vary as do diameters and intake geometry requirements - so I don't think this is practicable

enaiel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 70
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:13

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby enaiel » 20 Sep 2016 21:38

If the AMCA is already designed around the F-414, then we have no choice but to order F/A-18 SH in order to get access to the engine. It would not make economical sense unless we order at least 100 of them, so our MRCA becomes 36 Rafale + 100 SH. While these plus the flankers would make a formidable force today, are we going to have any budget left for AMCA, PAK-FA, and Aura/IUSAV so that we could have an even more formidable force in the future? Not to mention budget for scaling LCA numbers up, Rustom 2 and follow on orders for Rafale? And that is just for fighters/drones. We still need Tankers, AWACs, Radars, SAMs, missiles, bombs for the IAF. I don't think we can possibly have the budget for everything...

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15233
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 20 Sep 2016 21:55

ragupta wrote:It is still in design, The design should be such to incorporate a class of engine, rather than just one engine.
For once lets design with access power, for all that we know every plane so far is always found to be short of power. This will help create a Mk-2 stretch version later. Better now that later for design modification.


Again, from what I have googled over the years.

414 and 110 are two diff class of engines: size being one major diff and power being the other. I would expect the rest to be about the same: FADEC, etc.

On "design". Once the size changes (as we experienced in the LCA), then there are major changes for which IMHO India is not yet ready. Perhaps in the next major air craft, but I very much doubt in the AMCA.

On excess power, that is the idea in the 110 kn engines. The AMCA team has requested a setting more than the AMCA needs. Again this was based on the LCA experience.

IMVVHO, the AMCA may not compare well with a F-35/22, but I really think that it will pleasantly surprise a LOT of people. And, IMHO again, given the technologies at hand and more so the funding, I think the AMCA is coming along pretty good. Since it has been held under wraps we really do not know too much about the effort - and I think it is a really good move to keep it under wraps.

The engine is the key for the time being. And looks - to me at least - that India will get what she asked for for the "engine". So, from purely an AMCA PoV, it seems it will be a plane that is well designed.

If the AMCA is already designed around the F-414, then we have no choice but to order F/A-18 SH in order to get access to the engine.


I would not overlook the F-16. LM has - via the F-35 - built a narrative for supply chain, real-time testing, support, etc that is real leading edge. I cannot definitively say that all that would come across, but, it is worth bargaining for.

All that coupled with manufacturing techs. And, I have no clue what they mean by "radar": is it the latest-1 gen of an AESA, does it come with the source code, etc?

ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 252
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby ragupta » 20 Sep 2016 22:34

F404- LCA
F414 - LCA Mk2
F110 - If F16,

So GE is getting enough business to setup local manufacturing. I bet there will be lot of commonality among these engines.

one thing I would hate to hear once AMCA flies, is that it is short of power. With newer technology and miniaturization, the power requirement may be less for internal electronic processing component, but for Radars the higher power the better.

F-15 uses F-110, and in one scenario there was enough power that F-15 was able to fly and land with just one side of the wings.
why are we designing smaller all the time most of the products seems to carry light, medium in their name etc. for once,lets design something that is bigger, stronger and longer in teeth.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4747
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 20 Sep 2016 23:19

Its not as simple as that. This topic has come up a few times already vis-a-vis the AL-31, over the last year or so and there is a perfectly valid explanation as to why they are looking at a particular class of engines.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15233
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 20 Sep 2016 23:30

one thing I would hate to hear once AMCA flies, is that it is short of power. With newer technology and miniaturization, the power requirement may be less for internal electronic processing component, but for Radars the higher power the better.


I would assume it would happen only if the AMCA would put on too much weight.

"Power" as in thrust.

F-15 uses F-110, and in one scenario there was enough power that F-15 was able to fly and land with just one side of the wings. why are we designing smaller all the time most of the products seems to carry light, medium in their name etc. for once,lets design something that is bigger, stronger and longer in teeth.


Israeli one? That IIRC was filed under aerodynamics - that the fuselage was contributing to the lift too.


ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 252
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby ragupta » 21 Sep 2016 00:25

Agree, it is not simple adding 2 tons more weight.

Regarding, big and better, I take back that thought, last time DRDO tried with Arjun and IA wanted it light and small ;-)

Too much work has already gone into the design and it is time to work and roll out the prototype. Hope to see it in my lifetime.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35129
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 21 Sep 2016 02:27

^^what he says he would have ejected had he seen the wing. why was that his navigator could not see the wing?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4747
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 21 Sep 2016 03:39

ragupta wrote:Agree, it is not simple adding 2 tons more weight.

Regarding, big and better, I take back that thought, last time DRDO tried with Arjun and IA wanted it light and small ;-)

Too much work has already gone into the design and it is time to work and roll out the prototype. Hope to see it in my lifetime.


A larger engine comes with a penalty as we have discussed here if you go back a few pages on this or the LCA thread. One penalty is the added weight which requires added thrust. Added thrust comes at a higher fuel consumption which then adds to an increase in airframe weight to account for more fuel to get a pre-set mission radius as required of the program.

Additional weight comes from higher thrust requirements which impact inlet and other areas of the airframe. Net result is a larger aircraft to account for all these things. There is a reason why medium class fighters such as Mig-29, Rafale, Typhoon etc don't carry a pair of 30,000 - 32,000 pound class thrust engines.
Last edited by brar_w on 21 Sep 2016 04:10, edited 3 times in total.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 759
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 21 Sep 2016 03:54

SaiK wrote:^^what he says he would have ejected had he seen the wing. why was that his navigator could not see the wing?


I remember seeing this in a doco.

The reason was the fuel mist that had formed up ... so please if you will imagine a small cloud just like when planes break the sound barrier.

This misty cloud formed as the fuel dissipated due to wind sucking the fuel out .... all the cavities ruptured plumbing etc ,
for a very a short time but enough time for the Pilot and Navigator to not see the wing and lose confidence in his machine.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31244
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 21 Sep 2016 19:18

enaiel wrote:If the AMCA is already designed around the F-414, then we have no choice but to order F/A-18 SH in order to get access to the engine. It would not make economical sense unless we order at least 100 of them,

I keep on hearing people say this, and while I can't claim to be a big buyer of engines I doubt if this is true, Engines are like diamond jewellery - except they are more expensive. They don't necessarily get cheaper with numbers like bars of soap.Yeah there may be some savings by buying 100 rather than 20, but the savings are not likely to be "10% off". They will be in terms of primary and secondary maintenance facilities being set up in India rather than in Singapore or in Atlanta, Greenland.

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1595
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 21 Sep 2016 20:51

ragupta wrote:Why bother with F-414 EPE, when you can use General Electric F110-GE-129 if F-16 is selected.


- Bigger engine >> more drag, more weight >> bigger aircraft (as brar_w pointed out above)
- thrust class (100kN vs 130-140kN)
- T/W class (9:1 vs 8:1)

If we F110 could be used then why not Al-31FP, which we are already manufacturing ourselves??

IMO AMCA is designed with for 2x100kN, 9:1 T/W class for design point. From LCA experience, to accommodate weight creep, they have kept requirements of 110kN class engine. They must have kept F414 in mind while design which fits OK for requirements, but also has decent organic growth scope till 110kN (EDP I suppose has 110kN, EPE boosts it to 120kN but at the cost of life of components). Every engine will have particular growth scope identified at the preliminary design stage itself along with what all redesign efforts needed for various steps like +5%, +10% etc. Generally >10% demand some serious redesign effort, while up to 10% can be accommodated without redesign of flow path and hot section as design is done keeping in mind such growth prospectus. So with F414 upgrade not only slightly more thrust possible but also T/W ratio is improved to 9.5 or so making it future proof within required margin.

F110 or Al-31 for that matter are too big and too less efficient in terms of weight and do not have anymore scope left for improvements. Makes no sense to go for them. Plus F414 was logical choice given commonality with LCA that was on the cards at that time. Now when preliminary config is frozen, its impossible to change thrust and TW class of engine.

Note that RM12++ was proposed with 95kN or so thrust but was rejected by SAAB since it had left with no margin for future growth, whereas F414 has good 10% organic growth and 20% in EPE version from 98kN.

Kaveri next version is being designed for 110kN class AFAIK. If they can achieve good T/W ratio for that design point and decent growth margin till 120-125kN in future, it will be in a position to accommodate future weight growth of AMCA in its MLU etc etc.
Last edited by JayS on 21 Sep 2016 21:01, edited 1 time in total.

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1595
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 21 Sep 2016 20:59

shiv wrote:
enaiel wrote:If the AMCA is already designed around the F-414, then we have no choice but to order F/A-18 SH in order to get access to the engine. It would not make economical sense unless we order at least 100 of them,

I keep on hearing people say this, and while I can't claim to be a big buyer of engines I doubt if this is true, Engines are like diamond jewellery - except they are more expensive. They don't necessarily get cheaper with numbers like bars of soap.Yeah there may be some savings by buying 100 rather than 20, but the savings are not likely to be "10% off". They will be in terms of primary and secondary maintenance facilities being set up in India rather than in Singapore or in Atlanta, Greenland.


True. As such engines don't have significant margins (most big OEMs are operating at ~5% net margins) so not much cost cutting can be done even for 1000's of engines. But one can get sweeter deal on MRO/PBL package (as you said local facilities etc). Price also depends on what kind of deal on is looking for. PBL for example will invariably cost more for guaranteed high reliability/availability.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35129
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 21 Sep 2016 21:22

K-11 might well just blindly copy 414s

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15233
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 21 Sep 2016 22:03

..............................
They must have kept F414 in mind while design which fits OK for requirements
..............................


The Kaveri was the engine that they had in mind, for all Indian planes. The GE F414 happened to be close in many ways - especially in dimensions - give and take some (the EJ200, IIRC, was longer, but smaller in dia?). (The (A)MCA pre-dates the selection of the GE engine by about 10 years I want to say.)

What they are trying to do, with the "EPE", is to keep the dimensions the same and increase the thrust.

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1595
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 22 Sep 2016 03:28

SaiK wrote:K-11 might well just blindly copy 414s


If only it was so easy. GE itself have had severe issues with F414 in early 1990's. I am not expecting Kaveri to have same T/W as F414. 8-8.5 is more pragmatic target I suppose. GTRE does not have good 3D aerodynamics capabilities. That's itself takes away about 0.25-0.5 in T/W.

NRao wrote:
..............................
They must have kept F414 in mind while design which fits OK for requirements
..............................


The Kaveri was the engine that they had in mind, for all Indian planes. The GE F414 happened to be close in many ways - especially in dimensions - give and take some (the EJ200, IIRC, was longer, but smaller in dia?). (The (A)MCA pre-dates the selection of the GE engine by about 10 years I want to say.)

What they are trying to do, with the "EPE", is to keep the dimensions the same and increase the thrust.


In my opinion, may be AMCA started it considered Kaveri, but it was amply clear Kaveri wasnt gonna come long ago. I think while AMCA's preliminary design was started, f414 /EJ200 was very much in the picture. We know now that for quite some time the design thrust level was around 100kN and safeside quote given by AMCA designers was around 110kN. Kaveri-110 project came through this one and not the other way around, in my understanding (i may be wrong here). Proposed Kaveri-90 was already a ceiling for existing Kaveri 80kN config. I never seen/heard Kaveri in 100kN avatar. Remember work on AMCA has gone full throttle only very recently. Its quite plausible that they factored in F414/EJ200 while designing the preliminary configurations.

EPE is per se not needed for AMCA in current scenario. EDE itself is giving ~110kN thrust. Also keep in ming that EPE reduced the life of hot parts to a third.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4747
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 22 Sep 2016 03:50

EDE (D for durability) engine is the same thrust as the current GE F414's on board the Super Hornet, Gripen-E and LCA-MKII. They are offered with higher durability, lower M&S costs and longer component life. EPE (P for performance) is the enhanced thrust engine that promises up to 20% higher thrust.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15233
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 22 Sep 2016 05:57

JayS,

With my memory on the blink, I had to ask for help from google. So here goes:

1) "MCA" came into existence around 2002 (my recollection was 1999-2001). The had patterned the MCA on the LCA, with some body components, the Kaveri and systems/sub-systems common between the two
2) They had hoped to get it flying by 2010. :D. Well. Never hurts to try
3) 2008 they started design work, when they also declared the plane would be FbL (I thought the FbL and panaromic display were in 2005). I think thsi was when they moved from "MCA" to "AMCA", dropped the tailless configuration, etc. They actually got funds only in 2010, till then they were self-funded
4) ADA selected the GE F414 in 2010
5) Design of AMCA completed in 2014 (teh F404 was already selected around 2006-7?)
6) IIRC (to lazy to figure it out) around this time the ADA sent out requests to partner with the Kaveri and everyone and their grandfathers gave advise, including Boeing/LM/etc
7) 2015, via the DTTI framework, the Jet Engine JWG is conceived.

The MCA/AMCA went through some 10 configurations. But, I do not think they ever changed the dimensions too much - retaining the dependency on the Kaveri until they lost all hopes.

No matter. Let us move on. Have high hopes for the AMCA.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35129
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 22 Sep 2016 06:18

jumping on the gun on CMC could solve issues related to high temp/pressure. lot of research is needed

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1595
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 22 Sep 2016 10:51

brar_w wrote:EDE (D for durability) engine is the same thrust as the current GE F414's on board the Super Hornet, Gripen-E and LCA-MKII. They are offered with higher durability, lower M&S costs and longer component life. EPE (P for performance) is the enhanced thrust engine that promises up to 20% higher thrust.


I have seen references where it says EDE either gives slightly higher thrust that F414 or higher life at same thrust. Whereas EPE gives 20% boost with about life reduced to about a third to key hot components.

One from GE site: http://www.geaviation.com/press/military/military_20060717b.html Its slightly old though.
GE has continued testing growth versions of the F414, including an Enhanced Durability Engine (EDE) that includes an advanced core that can provide either a 15% increase in thrust or extended component life at current thrust levels. This configuration uses a six-stage, 3D aero high-pressure compressor and an advanced high-pressure turbine. The new compressor increases airflow and efficiency while the advanced turbine has higher temperature capability and improved efficiency.


Seen figure of 110kN thrust level somewhere, can't get the link now. This, in fact fits the typical growth plan for jet engines where about 10% is factored in while designing the flowpath and fan size. So with little improvement in compressors with expected improved design tools and some increase in TET due to expected material improvement could propel the 10% increase. Beyond that serious redesign is needed.

So I believe EDE could deliver easily 110kN with no life improvement. Could be the case than USN opted for life/DOC improvement. But GE can still churn out improved thrust/same DOC version for India. Please correct me if I am wrong.

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1595
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 22 Sep 2016 12:42

SaiK wrote:jumping on the gun on CMC could solve issues related to high temp/pressure. lot of research is needed

As far as I know, only GE is in a position where they can field some serious CMC stuff (i.e. HPT blades) in near future, perhaps a decade from now, in operational engine. Rest are far behind. While we need to start CMC research program, it will not trickle down to Kaveri any time soon. FIrst lets industrialise SCB tech from DMRL. But we should keep in mind that its just one way of improving engine tech, we can also look into variable cycle engine tech. You know there are many ways, but we need a working engine which can act as base test bed for all these science project. LCA was suppose to be kingpin for fighter tech and Kaveri for engine tech. Sadly we didn't invest enough in them and still not doing it.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4747
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 22 Sep 2016 13:22

So I believe EDE could deliver easily 110kN with no life improvement. Could be the case than USN opted for life/DOC improvement. But GE can still churn out improved thrust/same DOC version for India. Please correct me if I am wrong.


Could be the case, but my understanding has always been that GE has focused on increased component life in their EDE upgrades while essentially maintaining the same thrust. The EPE being the higher thrust variant with thrust promises ranging from 15% (Lower end) to 20-25% (Higher end) as per media sources.

The CMC stuff was outside of their analysis and funded R&D for the Navy that led them to EDE and EPE configurations/proposals. It was very much their IRAD in support of future propulsion technologies, so whatever efficiency that promises would be over and above what they have shown (in the lab) with their current proposals.

Regardless, unless South Korea has opted for some or all of the EDE/EPE changes, this remains an unfunded capability as things stand. USN could revive this but its currently not a part of their FYDP.

JayS
BRFite
Posts: 1595
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 22 Sep 2016 16:43

^^ I agree regarding CMC, its more internal efforts from GE that govt funding.

I will try to dig in more links to support my argument and keep adding here.

From 2009:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeings-super-hornet-seeks-export-sale-to-launch-20-thrust-326376/

While the USN seeks a new engine core to make the F414 more durable, some international customers are interested in a new engine fan that enables higher thrust, Gower said.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4747
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby brar_w » 22 Sep 2016 17:05

That new engine would be the 'Enhanced' which sees very little changes compared to the EDE but comes in with lower component life. I had a posted a summary of the EPE to EDE differences and the R&D portion was practically identical with very little in specific R&D that GE hasn't already done. What was earlier the EPE, had actual hardware differences compared to the USN funded work for the EDE, and those changes were never funded.

I don't think GE has any plans to actually begin offering yet another R&D program that looks at additional hardware changes to get higher thrust (compared to the EDE) without durability impact - that would naturally require additional spend at a time when they do not have $ commitment for the 4-5 years that it would take them to complete development testing of the enhanced engine changes they worked on for the USN. They are currently involved with 3 Next Generation propulsion programs that are likely to affect their military-engine business for at least the next 3-4 decades so I suspect that they would most likely wait and puruse the expected route if the USN funds it - i.e. deliver the changes the USN was interested in the last decade. That would get you the EDE.

What you are most likely to get is two thrust classes - 26,000 pounds with lower durability compared to the current baseline F414, or same thrust with much improved component life and therefore lower life-cycle cost and higher on times.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... de-398210/

As things stand, GE offers the Enhanced Engine (Linked to the EDE) with 26,000 pounds of thrust. This would be your higher rated EDE.

http://www.geaviation.com/engines/docs/ ... hanced.pdf

Its of course entirely possible that someone can come in and spend the substantial amount required to complete development and get into testing but I would be skeptical of that since the USN's main headache is not lack of performance but lack of availability given physical depot capacity that will be a bottleneck for the Rhino fleet starting 2025 when large waves of aircraft would require SLAP. They are more likely to pursue a path that lowers LCC, and improves reliability.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 759
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 23 Sep 2016 01:42

Yahoo ... brar_w is back.

Awesome to have you back brar.
I thought we had lost you amongst many others posters.....
That BR outage caused many to go into hibernation.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15233
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Postby NRao » 23 Sep 2016 06:45

I think we have somehow veered off course on the topic of this engine. The Indians request, via the DTTI, is to uprate the F414-GE-INS6 that was designed for the LCA-MKII. It is my understanding that India would fund the "co-design/co-development".

Also, I am not sure when and how "EPE" entered the convo, although I am as guilty of using the same. What was suggested was "Enhanced Engine". Possible that it was upgraded to the EPE standard, but I see no such request anywhere - does not mean much, considering they have been rather tight lipped about all this. Or I missed it - which is entirely possible.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Gyan, MSNbot Media, Rakesh, Shakthi and 37 guests